Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: forastero's thread started by Wesley R. Elsberry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 21 2011,05:55
People who can't manage topicality elsewhere can always be topical in a thread devoted to them.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 21 2011,06:06
Does "forastero" want to talk about < punctuated equilibria >?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 21 2011,06:20
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 21 2011,12:06) | Does "forastero" want to talk about < punctuated equilibria >? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only as part of a pantheist communist mode of belief designed to destroy free markets and oppress designers, you Freemason.
Or something.
Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2011,07:47
Quote (forastero @ sometime) |
Ha..so you feel my busting rhymes about divine designs was nice but plagiarized? Nice try but that lie dont fly. So recheck your cite big guy
You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.
We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here, let's get the party started.
That last quote is very interesting. So, what you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that everything is designed. Everything from the stars to the planets, to the tiny bacteria and viruses that infect our designed bodies and render them useless.
If that is the case, then we are at an impass and no science can be done. The reason is that if everything is directly designed, then there should be no patterns in anything in the universe to observe. Every solar system could have their own unique set of Kepler's Laws. Every organism could have a radically different macromolecular system.
The FACT that we don't see this and instead observe distinct patterns that come from physical laws that are constant throughout the known universe tends to lead us to the conclusion that these natural laws are the designer.
If you are willing to accept that 'The Designer' ™ is actually the natural laws of the universe, then I'm willing to accept that.
If you are not willing to accept that, then the only logical conclusion is that 'The Designer'™ is trying to hide its existence from us.
Fortunately, the ID people are willing to help the designer hide by expressly refusing to even consider the designer, much less look for evidence that supports him.
I am afraid, that you don't have a clue about how the world works. You appear to be stuck in the late 1400s, when a statement to the church would be taken as absolute truth, up to and including the torture and death by torture of the subject of the statement.
Since then, however, there was this movement we call The Enlightenment. During this movement, some members of the species to which you may or may not belong, began to use these powerful computing organs called brains. They worked out a series of steps that could only be true. They called this 'logic'.
Then they worked out a system for determining the answers to questions where logic didn't work so good. They called this process the scientific method. Now, given that everything that has been invented in the modern world is a product of the scientific method, I would venture to say that it works, as a system for knowing, pretty well.
You however, (hypocritically) say that the scientific method doesn't work. I say 'hypocritically' because you are using tools and processes developed by the scientific method to deny that the scientific method works.
I know that you are attempting to only talk about biology, but what is biology founded on? Chemistry. What is chemistry founded on? Physics. What is physics founded on? The fundamental laws of the universe that were discovered using the scientific method.
So basically, what you are attempting to not say is that you believe that all the knowledge, tools, and processes developed by man in the last 200 years don't actually work.
The reason you say this is because you don't like the implications for your pet deity. However, one of the hallmarks of the scientific method, which you seem to know as you have made demands of us, is that of evidence.
Yet you (again, hypocritically) demand a level of evidence from us, that you cannot provide about your own, competing notions. In fact, you refuse to even talk about your own notions, just that ours (backed up by mountains of evidence) are wrong.
Let me explain in the simplest terms I can.
Even if you prove evolution, chemistry, and physics wrong. It still doesn't mean your designer exists.
Yet you and your ilk refuse to even speculate*, much less seek evidence. Why is that?
Given the above, I am at your service to discuss with you the topic of your choice.
If you have evidence for the designer, then, I'm sure, we would all be thrilled to hear it.
__
* Everyone knows of course, that the designer is God. It is expressly stated by every single one of the main ID proponents. It is in their writings and speeches. Yet, when confronted by science or courts, they try to refute that. Unfortunately for them, there is as much evidence for God as there is for Intelligent Design of living things.
Posted by: Kristine on Oct. 21 2011,10:37
Most of the world's greatest scientists were creationists. So what? They were also sexist, moneyed, white males pursuing what was then a hobby.
Darwin was a creationist bound for the seminary at one time. Something (actually a series of things) changed his mind.
If everything is designed, then Behe's "we can distinguish design from non-design, Mount Rushmore versus mountains" argument collapses.
(shug)
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,10:40
Ogre,
We didnt say that "everything is designed"
Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.
Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.
Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far. The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.
No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:
ID--superior designer made order from disorder
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation
ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,10:44
Hmm..Keeping me confined like a caged King Kong
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2011,10:52
more like a retard on a leash, it looks to me.
werner von braun, heard of him? he invented your precious rocket.
Posted by: rossum on Oct. 21 2011,11:01
So, lets have a closer look. Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40) | For instance:
ID--superior designer made order from disorder
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was your "superior designer" disordered? If so then you are making order from disorder, which is what you are claiming cannot be done by evolution.
Was your "superior designer" ordered? If so then where did that order come from, how did it originate? Was there an even more superior "superior designer" designer to create that order?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution does not rely on miracles, that is the province of creationists. Do some calculations on the size of populations and the number of mutations an individual carries. The appearance of a specific mutation is not that unlikely over a few generations.
rossum
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 21 2011,11:09
forastero:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- ID--superior designer made order from disorder ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thermodynamics was discovered by designers (humans) and found that there were some laws (the second in particular) that say this is not possible.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 21 2011,11:25
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40) | Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip> Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?
How can genes make mistakes?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,11:34
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order
See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,11:37
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40) | Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip> Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?
How can genes make mistakes? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 21 2011,11:44
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:40) | The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Moron >.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2011,11:47
---------------------QUOTE------------------- See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
D00D HAVE YOU LIKE I MEAN YOU KNOW LIKE REALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT YOUR HAND, MAN
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2011,11:49
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ahh yes the ideal free genetic state. how you doing, Joe?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 21 2011,11:56
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34) | Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order
See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?
Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.
Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 21 2011,12:02
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37) | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40) | Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip> Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?
How can genes make mistakes? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go back up and read the questions again.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2011,12:14
one stupid meeting and I miss all the fun.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Oct. 21 2011,12:21
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,05:28) | The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,04:02) | We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did they use ID - or is ID useless for doing science? I won't ague about the 99.9% or who was/wasn't an IDer - I'll just note that they weren't expelled, and that their work is taught in public school. You claim the vast majority of the greatest scientists, yet ID is a threadbare set of vague notions and your martyr complex is a sad little fiction used to sell movies and books to the gullible.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2011,12:36
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Ogre,
We didnt say that "everything is designed"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excellent. So some things are designed and some things are not.
Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.
Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence. They are cop-outs.
I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed. I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.
If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here. What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.
Here's an analogy that actually works. A Dachshund is a dog right? Canis familaris right? A Great Dane is a dog, right? Same species right... and yet radically different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kepler, in spite of being a creationist, still used the scientific method and evidence to observe the laws that govern planetary motion. He used math to codify those laws.
ID proponents have done none of this type of work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far. The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can I just say "WTF"?
I think I understand the problem though. You are conflating modern creationists with historical creationists who actually understood how to do science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting.
Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here. But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.
Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.
Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.
Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct. But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results). Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement. If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring. If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.
Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature. Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.
So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument. Shame, you didn't realize it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID--superior designer made order from disorder
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
evidence please...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More evidence you don't really understand what's going on. Once a living thing is created, then it begins to evolve. Some definitions of life even have a requirement for life evolving.
Let's talk about chance a second. Let's say there's a trillion to one chance of something happening. That's a lot right? Until you realize that there are something like 5 billion bacteria in a GRAM of soil. In a metric ton of soil, there can be something like 500 trillion bacteria. So, in a metric ton of soil, your trillion to one chance... happens 500 times every generation. oops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
again I say 'huh'? You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes? Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.
Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).
Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait. Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant. Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two). repeat 3 or four times. How many homozygous dominants do you have? How many heterzygotes do you have?
__ * Because scientists know exactly when it occurred, where it occurred, and how.
Posted by: Kristine on Oct. 21 2011,17:34
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34) | Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order
[snip image]
See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wait a minute. You actually think that the deliberate misnomer "Big Bang" (Hoyle) refers to an actual explosion?
I get that a lot.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 21 2011,21:03
I second Ogre's remarks above: If you're not claiming that everything is Designed, you must be claiming that some things are Designed and other things are not Designed... so how do you tell the difference? Given some arbitrarily-chosen whatzit, how can you tell whether said whatzit is, or is not, Designed?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,22:14
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 21 2011,11:56) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34) | Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order
See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?
Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.
Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now you believe gravity created all that order presented in that image ?
Rumsfeld, first of all Guth and most others claim that the Big Bang went through initial hyperinflation and super symmetry but has slowed drastically partly do to gravity and entropy. However, a mysterious dark energy "seems" to be making the galaxy accelerate. Some scientist are bringing up relativity in that it only appears to accelerate from our vantage point but in my layman's view its kinda like a bullet picking up velocity as it leaves the barrel but finally slowing due to not only gravity but also entropy in that the energy behind the bullet becomes unorganized somewhat like accuracy; but then at a certain threshold, not only is gravity diminished but that energy that became unorganized earlier, is now concentrated once again as if the bullet suddenly went through a separate explosion. Some hypothesize that multiple supernovas are behind this dark energy but I am inclined to credit it to supernatural events.
Now concerning your insistence that the Big Bang explosion was a metaphor, it seems few scientists agree with you. For instance:
The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. < http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html >
Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. < http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth >
The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. < http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth >
An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. < http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm >
Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure. < http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp >
Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. < http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm >
According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris. < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html >
About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. < http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang >
Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since. < http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/in...sm....undance >
The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape. < http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball >
About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. < http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html >
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,22:23
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,12:02) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37) | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40) | Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip> Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?
How can genes make mistakes? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go back up and read the questions again. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wayne, the sins of mankind are known to mess with our genes big time via pollution, drugs, outbreaks, STDs, atmospheric degradation, etc etc..
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,22:32
Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well
---------------------QUOTE------------------- again I say 'huh'? You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes? Really? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Excellent. So some things are designed and some things are not.
Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.
Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence. They are cop-outs.
I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed. I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.
If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here. What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Here's an analogy that actually works. A Dachshund is a dog right? Canis familaris right? A Great Dane is a dog, right? Same species right... and yet radically different. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes
---------------------QUOTE------------------- evidence please... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist
Einstein: "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
Einstein: “God always takes the simplest way”.
Einstein: “That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
Einstein: Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)
Einstein: What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)
Einstein: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”
Einstein:"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Interesting.
Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here. But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.
Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.
Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.
Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct. But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results). Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement. If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring. If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.
Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature. Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.
So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument. Shame, you didn't realize it.
Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.
Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).
Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait. Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant. Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two). repeat 3 or four times. How many homozygous dominants do you have? How many heterzygotes do you have? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience. For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 21 2011,22:49
Shit.
Why are you still here?
Disappear by crawling up your asshole. You are half-way there already.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2011,23:20
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
that about sums this horseshit up in a nutshell
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 22 2011,01:06
(shrug) So, Bozo Joe thought up a new nym. (shrug)
SSDD.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 22 2011,03:26
The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID--superior designer made order from disorder
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 22 2011,06:55
So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?
Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?
Oh wait...
...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.
Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,08:38
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14) | explosions ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude,
Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.
If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.
I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them. Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.
For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders. After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.
If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language. If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.
To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe. Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.
Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,09:07
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32) | Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assertion. Evidence Please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- again I say 'huh'? You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes? Really? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assertion. Evidence Please.
And really. Please explain exactly what the ENDOCRINE system is and how it SELECTS phenotypes.
For extra points, please explain what a phenotype is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Excellent. So some things are designed and some things are not.
Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.
Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence. They are cop-outs.
I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed. I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.
If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, you have got to be a Poe.
Assertion, evidence please.
BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it. Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation. Oops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here. What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might think that, but that only shows how clueless you are about what mutation is and what a genome is.
Consider the human genome. 3 billion pairs of nucleotides, approximately 1.5% of which codes for proteins. The chimpanzee genome differs by about 1.23%. So, when you do some math...
The human genome differs from our nearest relative by 33 million changes. So, as an estimate, you need about 33 million changes from one organism to another. This varies among organisms of course.
You, and other creationists, are the only people who actually think something like this should be possible in evolutionary theory.
It's called a straw-man attack and, as a rhetorical device, it can be effective. In a forum like this, not so much.
I would encourage you to learn about what scientists actually say about evolution... not what creationists have quoted them saying, but their actual peer-reviewed papers.
BTW: We all note that this is STILL an attack on evolution and NOT evidence for design. Evidence for design please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Here's an analogy that actually works. A Dachshund is a dog right? Canis familaris right? A Great Dane is a dog, right? Same species right... and yet radically different. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assertion. Evidence please.
BTW: I can, in cats, point to a mutation, that results in a different phenotype. We know where it happened, when it happened, and which organism had the specific mutation. That mutation has carried through to a completely new breed of cat.
BTW2: I note that you didn't mention the use of the endocrine system in the selection of phenotypes here. Tell us... please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- evidence please... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not sure the forum software will let me express my disdain properly, but I will try.
QUOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
snip
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Interesting.
Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here. But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.
Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.
Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.
Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct. But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results). Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement. If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring. If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.
Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature. Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.
So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument. Shame, you didn't realize it.
Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.
Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).
Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait. Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant. Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two). repeat 3 or four times. How many homozygous dominants do you have? How many heterzygotes do you have? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience. For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet, I can provide mathematical evidence, experimental evidence, observational evidence for everything I say...
and you can't.
Tell you what. Define species for me and I'll provide the evidence of the change you describe. How about that?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assertion. Evidence please.
I'll point out here that you are using another rhetorical device. It's called 'goalpost shifting'. You make a claim, when that claim is defeated you say something like, "No, that doesn't deal with this claim."
Here we were talking about the massive evidence supporting adaptation and how mutation does not automatically lead to death, but improved fitness. Then you claim that this does not explain speciation.
Of course it doesn't explain speciation. It wasn't intended to, but you have to shift the goalposts to make it look like your argument hasn't been totally devastated.
Tell you what. If you so choose, pick an argument and stick to it, then we can to.
BTW: I can provide dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing single generation speciation and at least on showing a single generation genus change. But that paper is only from 30+ years ago, I don't know why I should expect anyone to know it.
So let me be very clear here. You don't understand cosmology. You don't understand genetics. You use strawman attacks against positions no actual scientists hold. You think quotes are evidence.
Yeah, about what I thought.
I'll make the same offer to you that I do to all creationists. I will voluntarily teach you using actual science. My only requirement is that you want to learn how the world actually works.
At the least, it will give you a better understanding of what you have to do to make valid arguments both for ID and against evolution.
I predict that you won't do it. No creationist I have dealt with in over 20 years has accepted. I know why... do you?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,12:52
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2011,03:26) | The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID--superior designer made order from disorder
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the big bang (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.
Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene explosion, Miocene explosion, Pleistocene explosions.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,13:01
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2011,06:55) | So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?
Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?
Oh wait...
...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Said nothing of the sort. I simply asserted that he believed in ID
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2011,13:01
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Here's an analogy that actually works. A Dachshund is a dog right? Canis familaris right? A Great Dane is a dog, right? Same species right... and yet radically different. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The dog's genome says you are wrong.
Would you be more specific about your hypothesis of "domestic manipulation"? How would it occur, physiologically? EDIT. This is relevant: < http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract > Full text: < http://www27.brinkster.com/taisets....ent.pdf > Read this and tell us your conclusion, please.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,13:04
Oh and Spinoza seems to have believed Divine design and inspiration as well
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2011,13:06
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,13:04) | Oh and Spinoza seems to have believed Divine design and inspiration as well ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So...?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,13:11
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,08:38) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14) | explosions ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude,
Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.
If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.
I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them. Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.
For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders. After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.
If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language. If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.
To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe. Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.
Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.
...but funny how you only provide opinion
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 22 2011,13:12
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the big bang (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You've left out exactly the bit that comprises what you assert, but have failed to demonstrate.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,13:49
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,13:01) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Here's an analogy that actually works. A Dachshund is a dog right? Canis familaris right? A Great Dane is a dog, right? Same species right... and yet radically different. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The dog's genome says you are wrong.
Would you be more specific about your hypothesis of "domestic manipulation"? How would it occur, physiologically? EDIT. This is relevant: < http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract > Full text: < http://www27.brinkster.com/taisets....ent.pdf > Read this and tell us your conclusion, please. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Very interesting article but the dogs that Ogre and I were discussing are not hairless. The fossil record reveals a very wide diversity of wild and domestic dogs and these dogs were purposely bred for desired traits for many millennium
These so called hairless breeds are actually often fully haired as seen above. The mutation is somewhat deleterious in that the hairless forms have missing and/or deformed teeth and are to be kept mostly indoors from the sun. The coated forms do not have these problems.
These hairless dogs were once bred for ritualistic purposes but mostly for consumption. Hairlessness in fact, facilitates for food preparation
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2011,14:03
The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations. I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,14:53
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,13:11) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,08:38) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14) | explosions ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude,
Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.
If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.
I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them. Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.
For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders. After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.
If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language. If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.
To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe. Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.
Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.
...but funny how you only provide opinion ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry, you failed to actually answer the questions.
Again, explain the following IN YOUR OWN words.
hyper-inflation explosion symmetry breaking (in terms of the 3 minute universe)
I'll also note that you completely FAIL to understand the concept of 'explosion' as metaphor.
The Cambrian 'explosion' lasted for some 50 million odd years. That's a heck of an explosion. Why don't YOU show that you understand this by posting the lengths of those 'explosions' you mentioned.
Funny how EVERYTHING I say can be cited and nothing you claim (except for metaphor) is. You haven't asked for citations. Further, if you did, then I predict you would use the classic creationist tactic of demanding evidence for something that no biologist thinks happened anyway... for example, your erroneous thinking that fruit flies should mutate into dogs eventually.
Look, it's very simple. You are trying to argue some seriously advanced concepts without even a freshman high school student's understanding of the basics.
Why don't we get the basics down first?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 22 2011,15:32
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,19:01) | Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2011,06:55) | So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?
Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?
Oh wait...
...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Said nothing of the sort. I simply asserted that he believed in ID ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fuck me, you're too stupid to recognise your own schtick when repeated to you.
Well, this is going to be worth my time, I can see the point went wooshing above you.
Louis
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 22 2011,19:38
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32) | Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< AnalogyFAIL. >
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,19:41
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,14:53) | Dude,
Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.
If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.
I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them. Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.
For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders. After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.
If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language. If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.
To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe. Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.
Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.[/quote] Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.
...but funny how you only provide opinion[/quote] I'm sorry, you failed to actually answer the questions.
Again, explain the following IN YOUR OWN words.
hyper-inflation explosion symmetry breaking (in terms of the 3 minute universe)
I'll also note that you completely FAIL to understand the concept of 'explosion' as metaphor.
The Cambrian 'explosion' lasted for some 50 million odd years. That's a heck of an explosion. Why don't YOU show that you understand this by posting the lengths of those 'explosions' you mentioned.
Funny how EVERYTHING I say can be cited and nothing you claim (except for metaphor) is. You haven't asked for citations. Further, if you did, then I predict you would use the classic creationist tactic of demanding evidence for something that no biologist thinks happened anyway... for example, your erroneous thinking that fruit flies should mutate into dogs eventually.
Look, it's very simple. You are trying to argue some seriously advanced concepts without even a freshman high school student's understanding of the basics.
Why don't we get the basics down first? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
50 million years? Thats not at empirical and you sound like the fellow who believes gravity created all all that order in that image I provided in the last page
Anyway, most top cosmologists disagree with you in that they describe two process--a titanic explosion or thermonuclear explosion or primordial fireball leading to expansion and they are not calling it a metaphor
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....MHH378Q >
The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. < http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html >
Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. < http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth >
The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. < http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth >
An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. < http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm >
Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure. < http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp >
Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. < http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm >
According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris. < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html >
About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. < http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang >
Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since. < http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.p....undance >
The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape. < http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball >
About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. < http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html >
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,20:14
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32) | Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< AnalogyFAIL. > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.
Graphic hernia medical procedure < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y >
Posted by: Woodbine on Oct. 22 2011,20:20
Is this Batsh^t77?
That cut 'n' paste link-fest above seems awfully familiar.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 22 2011,20:52
I get the impression this is a load of bollocks.
Louis
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 22 2011,20:59
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 22 2011,21:20) | Is this Batsh^t77?
That cut 'n' paste link-fest above seems awfully familiar. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Needz moar utoobz.
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 22 2011,21:38
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,18:14) | Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32) | Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< AnalogyFAIL. > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.
Graphic hernia medical procedure < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, you were not clear. Castration doesn't make someone immune to hernias. Since hernias in general involve a weakness in the abdominal wall, eunuchs would still be susceptible. With about < 750,000 hernia repairs > in people occurring every year, castration is NOT a common treatment for them. And you might want to read here (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....h >) about the kinds of eunuchs and the roles they played in various societies.
Why do I bother addressing this failed analogy? Because ID supporters such as yourself always get it wrong on the details, consistently re-affirming the statement made by Dr. Dr. Dembski himself, that ID does not concern itself with a "pathetic level of detail." You rely on ambiguity and the "popular" understanding of terms to make your arguments sound more informed than they really are. The mis-application of analogy only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,21:42
blah blah blah...
so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?
Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion. Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).
Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe. Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.
Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began. Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion. Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.
Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts. Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. < http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html >
Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.
Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.
Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools. One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.
Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'. I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist? really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.
Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame. Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.
Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician. Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.
The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence. The first is called the carbon anomaly. It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers. Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age. Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils. (Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)
The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event. Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.
Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years. I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.
Is that sufficiently precise?
I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.
I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know. I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,21:54
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,14:03) | The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations. I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That article is actually quite interesting. It points to something that creationists absolutely loathe to hear... that is, simple changes can result in huge morphological variation.
And they, like forastero here, cannot understand that it doesn't matter what we THINK the mutation is (helpful or harmful), what really matters is what actually happens in the environment.
Since dogs have been completely linked with humans for the last few thousand years, it is easy to show how that hairless mutation resulted in a positive advantage for the dog. They became sacred animals. In other words, they got all their food and shelter provided to them and no human would harm or allow harm to come them... thus spreading the mutation.
It doesn't matter if the mutation made it impossible for the dogs to go outside or they had bad teeth. The mutation made the dogs into objects of worship by humans, which massively increased their chances of survival and reproduction.
Same thing happens in nature. forastero complains about the sickle cell anemia gene. Of course it's detrimental, but the heterozygous condition is a LOT LESS detrimental than either of the homozygous conditions in an environment with malaria.
This isn't rocket science. BTW: You still haven't defined, in your own words, what heterozygous and homozygous mean, so I can't be sure that you even understand me.
Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes. I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim? Do you even know what a phenotype is? It really doesn't sound like it.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,02:12
Other relevant reads for our guest: < adaptive allele in deer mice > < alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies > < gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks > < opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes >
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,02:21
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:54) | Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes. I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim? Do you even know what a phenotype is? It really doesn't sound like it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm quitei interested in hearing this theory too. If the endocrine system selects phenotypes, it means that it is confronted to different phenotypes. Is the same endocrine system shared by several individuals, somehow?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,02:55
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:12) | Other relevant reads for our guest: < adaptive allele in deer mice > < alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies > < gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks > < opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "
The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with
Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks
What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies
Thanks
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,03:40
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42) | blah blah blah...
so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?
Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion. Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).
Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe. Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.
Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began. Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion. Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.
Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts. Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. < http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html >
Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.
Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.
Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools. One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.
Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'. I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist? really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.
Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame. Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.
Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician. Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.
The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence. The first is called the carbon anomaly. It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers. Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age. Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils. (Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)
The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event. Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.
Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years. I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.
Is that sufficiently precise?
I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.
I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know. I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.
And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene explosion, Miocene explosion, Pleistocene explosions.
..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,03:51
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,21:38) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,18:14) | Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32) | Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< AnalogyFAIL. > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.
Graphic hernia medical procedure < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, you were not clear. Castration doesn't make someone immune to hernias. Since hernias in general involve a weakness in the abdominal wall, eunuchs would still be susceptible. With about < 750,000 hernia repairs > in people occurring every year, castration is NOT a common treatment for them. And you might want to read here (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ki....h >) about the kinds of eunuchs and the roles they played in various societies.
Why do I bother addressing this failed analogy? Because ID supporters such as yourself always get it wrong on the details, consistently re-affirming the statement made by Dr. Dr. Dembski himself, that ID does not concern itself with a "pathetic level of detail." You rely on ambiguity and the "popular" understanding of terms to make your arguments sound more informed than they really are. The mis-application of analogy only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated
which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,04:04
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:54) | Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,14:03) | The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations. I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That article is actually quite interesting. It points to something that creationists absolutely loathe to hear... that is, simple changes can result in huge morphological variation.
And they, like forastero here, cannot understand that it doesn't matter what we THINK the mutation is (helpful or harmful), what really matters is what actually happens in the environment.
Since dogs have been completely linked with humans for the last few thousand years, it is easy to show how that hairless mutation resulted in a positive advantage for the dog. They became sacred animals. In other words, they got all their food and shelter provided to them and no human would harm or allow harm to come them... thus spreading the mutation.
It doesn't matter if the mutation made it impossible for the dogs to go outside or they had bad teeth. The mutation made the dogs into objects of worship by humans, which massively increased their chances of survival and reproduction.
Same thing happens in nature. forastero complains about the sickle cell anemia gene. Of course it's detrimental, but the heterozygous condition is a LOT LESS detrimental than either of the homozygous conditions in an environment with malaria.
This isn't rocket science. BTW: You still haven't defined, in your own words, what heterozygous and homozygous mean, so I can't be sure that you even understand me.
Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes. I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim? Do you even know what a phenotype is? It really doesn't sound like it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogre, The consumption of hairless dogs nearly drove them to extinction and they are still fairly rare even after lots of efforts to revive them
btw, I am still working on some of your other answers above
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,04:18
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55) | Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "
The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with
Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks
What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies
Thanks ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.
On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.
You are intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 23 2011,04:31
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51) | Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated
which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evidently, you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,04:35
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40) | It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene explosion, Miocene explosion, Pleistocene explosions. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list. There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans. So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,04:51
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:18) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55) | Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "
The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with
Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks
What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies
Thanks ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.
On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.
You are intellectually dishonest. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm well your abstracts actually dont tell us anything about mutations do they; but how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 23 2011,04:52
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:35) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40) | It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene explosion, Miocene explosion, Pleistocene explosions. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list. There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans. So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
forastero must be a big fan of director/producer Michael Bay (Transformers, Armegeddon, Bad Boys, Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell 2)
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,04:53
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51) | Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated
which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evidently, you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are welcome to add your own examples
Again, lots of Eunuchs are immune to scrotal hernias
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,04:55
Mutations cannot be easily described in an abstract, no. An abstract is not suited for nucleotide sequence alignments.
And there is a difference between a single mutation and billions of mutations (and between evolution and abiogenesis as well).
---------------------QUOTE------------------- how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds like ID to me. :)
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,04:56
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:35) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40) | It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene explosion, Miocene explosion, Pleistocene explosions. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list. There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans. So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh yeah they're all described but your high priest dont really like to think about them all that much
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,04:57
Link to each one, please. And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists. I bet that whenever such "explosion" was described, it wasn't described first by a creationist.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:03
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:55) | Mutations cannot be easily described in an abstract, no. An abstract is not suited for nucleotide sequence alignments.
And there is a difference between a single mutation and billions of mutations (and between evolution and abiogenesis as well).
---------------------QUOTE------------------- how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds like ID to me. :) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:04
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:57) | Link to each one, please. And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Try google with these things " "
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:07
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:57) | Link to each one, please. And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists. I bet that whenever such "explosion" was described, it wasn't described first by a creationist. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evidence is that you havnt heard of them cant seem to find them
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,05:07
So you have nothing? I thought so.
I think the ball is in your camp. What's your theory of evolution/creation? You were quite specific about the endocrine system. Tell us more about it.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,05:11
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I am really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good. You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:12
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,05:15
I don't think you are granted editing rights as a new member, but you can still ask the forum admin/moderator.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:15
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:11) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I am really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good. You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but on the bottom of page 2, you alluded to the fact that mutations dont make bacteria evolve into anything beyond bacteria
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:20
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:15) | I don't think you are granted editing rights as a new member, but you can still ask the forum admin/moderator. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh darn
but thanks
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:22
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:11) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I am really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good. You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and I will check that book out
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:29
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:52) | Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:35) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40) | It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene explosion, Miocene explosion, Pleistocene explosions. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list. There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans. So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
forastero must be a big fan of director/producer Michael Bay (Transformers, Armegeddon, Bad Boys, Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell 2) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually not really
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,06:28
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:15) | on the bottom of page 2, you alluded to the fact that mutations dont make bacteria evolve into anything beyond bacteria ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I said
---------------------QUOTE------------------- would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
in response to:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it wasn't clear whether you expected a single mutation to turn an organism into a completely different one. Regarding the mutationS that turned non-fruit flies into fruit flies, they are the many mutationS that differentiate the genome of the common ancestor of fruit flies (Drosophila) from the genome of the common ancestor of [Drosophila and another non-fruit fly genus], assuming such ancestor would not be called "fruit fly". Needless to say, these mutation have accumulated in millions of years in the natural environment and are not expected to be reproduced in the lab during a scientist's lifetime. But researchers have found mutations governing specific phenotypes, wing patterns in particular.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,07:36
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55) | Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:12) | Other relevant reads for our guest: < adaptive allele in deer mice > < alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies > < gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks > < opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "
The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with
Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks
What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies
Thanks ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mutations, of course, which don't exist, nor are they expected to exist.
It's really quite offensive to have to say something several times.
No one expects fruit flies to turn into dogs, except creationists.
You may now stop using this strawman fallacy.
However, as I said, you have but to ask and anyone of us can provide dozens of papers, probably hundreds, of speciation events and I know of at least one genus change in a single generation.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,07:52
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40) | Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.
And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene explosion, Miocene explosion, Pleistocene explosions.
..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are making claims, then you need to support them. Please provide evidence for you assertion that any of the fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time. The mere fact that you are using a computer shows that this is wrong.
Further, astronomers can see backwards in time and observe that the fundamental forces of our universe are the same 13 billion years ago as the are now.
You can just ignore the evidence, but it just makes you look like a dummy. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Now, as to the book... here's what it says in regards to an explosion:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The term 'Big Bang' implies some sort of explosion, which is a not wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what exploded? It couldn't have been a thermonuclear explosion as you think since matter didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. It couldn't have been matter/anti-matter, etc.
Do you see that word 'analogy'? A not wholly appropriate analogy.
You are making an argument about AN ANALOGY. This is just another strawman argument and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
Tell you what, I know that you won't, but why don't you tell me what the Cambrian explosion is. In your own words, describe what exploded and when and how. Go ahead, describe in detail.
Then you bring up an entirely new argument (typical of creationists) without satisfactorily completing any of the prior arguments. Intermediates?
There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles showing intermediates. Heck, you are an intermediate between your parents and your children. Duh.
Now, let's see what do we need from you:
define homozygous define heterozygous describe the Cambrian explosion define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe) hyper-inflation describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well) explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs) define species show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it) evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
And now you want to talk about intermediates?
Gish Gallop on!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,07:54
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51) | Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated
which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evidently, you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So removing the testicles means you are immune to testicular hernias... that makes sense (forastero still doesn't though).
What about any of the other types of hernias? Would removal of the testicles prevent those as well?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,07:57
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,04:51) | Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:18) | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55) | Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "
The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with
Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks
What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies
Thanks ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.
On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.
You are intellectually dishonest. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm well your abstracts actually dont tell us anything about mutations do they; but how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet, another new topic of discussion.
You really do not want to argue origins of life chemistry with me, child.
Why don't we stick to the list of things we have and finish those up, hmmm?
Tell you what though, I'll add OOL to our list for discussion later.
BUT
We have forgotten a major component of our discussion. Let's play a little game, shall we.
OK, evolution is no more. What replaces it? What evidence do you have for what replaces it? What tools, processes, and knowledge come from what replaces it?
I know the answer, do you?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 23 2011,08:34
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37) | Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is great that you accept mutations as a fact. It doesn't matter whether you like mutations; they are essential for life as we know it.
Do you have any idea about what life on this planet might have been without mutations? We wouldn't be here, that's for sure!
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 23 2011,08:45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|