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

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... >

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,17:22    and of course as usual, Wd40 makes no relevant point with the posting of this email exchange. His inability to make relevant points seems to be rapidly diminishing with "age". at this rate, nobody will remember who he was or what he represented in about a years time. some might get a chuckle remembering how he let his personal blog literally "go to the dogs", but that's about it.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:05    Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 20 2006,22:58) Dembski has posted what is purported to be an email exchange between Dennett and Ruse. It's surreal. Read. Can anyone translate that thread?  Who are they and what are they talking about? -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:17    I understand that blood type variability had to have evolved before humans. But if all humans never had a single blood type then all humans could never have been just one human, correct? Whatever event transpired to make H.sapiens distinct from its non-human ancestor (erectus, perhaps?) must have transpired at least twice. And those first humans, with different blood types, then mated to have human offspring with different blood types. Do you think that different individuals of a prehuman hominid population gave birth to humans? Or would one such prehuman individual have had more than one human offspring that subsequently mated? Or, would there perhaps be no such distinction between humans and their predecessors that marked the emergence of the first human because evolution is so gradual?

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:32    Quote Or, would there perhaps be no such distinction between humans and their predecessors that marked the emergence of the first human because evolution is so gradual? this is closer to being a correct interpretation.   your first deduction would have to envision the emergence of H. sapiens from a single point mutation.  hardly likely, when you think about it, is it?  not supported by the fossil evidence garnered so far either. note that your initial argument begins to sound like the "cats from dogs" argument often made by creationists. while the fossil record for homid evolution is decent, it certainly isn't as complete as some of the transitional fossil records we have that provide clear evidence showing how species diverge from one another. currently, all the evidence points to hominids evolving in similar fashion to everything else studied. since the characteristics that distinguish this species from its predecessors didn't all appear at once, it's also likely that blood types were carried along as well as the species diverged. check the talk origins site if you want to see some cool sets of transitional fossils, or grab some references regarding hominid evolution.

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:35    Hi Mr. Christopher. I think I can help. If the emails are real, they appear to start with one to Daniel Dennett from Michael Ruse (you have to read them from bottom up). He appears to be anticipating the publication in NYT of a previously-discussed less than flattering letter by Dennett and Pinker about him. Dennett says the letter is not being published, but does mention the less than flattering review of his own book in NYT. He also tells Ruse that his prestige is slipping among evolutionists. Ruse then adds his own criticism of Dennett's book as well as of Dennett's public personna and the damage that he (along with Dawkins ... both of whom Ruse professes to like) is doing to the science side in the war with creationists. Along the way he stresses that he is not religious and is a hard-line Darwinian - even more so than Dennett and Dawkins. Dennett decides not to reply as he seems to think that Ruse is just blowing off steam and might later want to retract some of his comments.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:44    Michael Ruse often goes on the "debate trail" with Dembski, where he presents the "evolution" side of the debate. In fact, their first televised debate last year (which i still have, if anyone wants it) is the first time I saw Dembski admit the overwhelming evidence in favor of common descent. basically, Ruse just called him a rube being used by the political right. I'm getting the impression that this has become mostly a dog and pony show these days, as both participants have learned they can make money "debating" the issue. hence, Denton's critique of Ruse's behavior, and the distancing of Ruse from the rest of the scientific community. Dembski has on occasion claimed that he and Ruse are bossom buddies.  Haven't really got a clue about the truth (or relevance, for that matter) of his statements regarding that, but I do notice that he and Ruse are most often paired up on the debate circuit lately.

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:46    That makes sense to me, STJ. So it's not really relevant to discuss, as Davesott attempted to do, whether or not all humans ever had a single blood-type as there is no way of identifying what all humans are (historically speaking ...not today necessarily) or when they emerged. It would also appear then that you do not believe that all humans share any single common ancestor. Would that be correct? ps. How did you edit your post after it was published? Can we all do that?

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:49    Quote ps. How did you edit your post after it was published? Can we all do that? there should be an "edit" button on the top banner of your post, towards the right edge. Quote It would also appear then that you do not believe that all humans share any single common ancestor. Would that be correct? hmm, i think you are mistaking the definition of "ancestor" when we speak of it here, we mean a population of related, but distinct (and extinct) species that H. sapiens evolved from. Not ancestor like your grandma. is that clearer for you?

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:51    STJ, I think you might be right about the Dembski-Ruse relationship. I think there is a bit of a Cola war dynamic shaping up in this running debate. Miller and Behe have developed what seems to me to be a bit of a symbiosis as well.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,18:53    the difference is that Miller and Behe don't go on tours together, or share private emails with Dembski. I think comparison along these lines will likely end up being unproductive.

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,19:04    Quote when we speak of it here, we mean a population of related, but distinct (and extinct) species that H. sapiens evolved from. Do you believe that there would have been at any point in history a time where that population would have been a distinct species from a contemporaneous descended H. sapiens population? ps. thanks for the tip on the edit function. Don't know how I missed it.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,19:10    actually, i don't quite understand your question. if you can rephrase it, suggest you start a new thread to discuss it as this thread ain't mine and is supposed to be for discussion of matters pertaining to the cometragedy that is UD. cheers

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,19:13    STJ, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Have a good night.

tacitus Posts: 118 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,20:56    Funny how DaveScot excoriates the "Steve List" as being an argument ad populum (or whatever it is) and less than 48 hours later old Sal pops up trumpeting the 500 Evolution Denier List for his side. Yet not a whimper from DaveScot. Afraid to attack his own side for using the same (supposed) tactics of the opposition? Of course he his. I would not have expected anything less more.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2006,21:14    Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 20 2006,23:15) Right. I meant that humans didn't necessarily have the same blood type at some point. Some prehuman ancestor may have. ... or may not have. Sanctum, species like Homo sapiens originate from populations, not from a couple of individuals.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,00:11    Quote The pages herein are a courtesy for my good friend Professor Emeritus of Biology John A. Davison. Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge of biology with me, John. Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:31 am No Comments No comments yet. RSS feed for comments on this post. Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time. This seems sadly ironic, now.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,03:00    Quote Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge of biology with me, John. Awww. It's so touching, in a comic sort of way. So, while there may be no more long walks, hand in hand, along the beach at sunset, at least Dave will always treasure valuable insights, like oxygen-bearing ABO antigens and bacterial genomes that dwarf humans', bursting at the seams with prescribed evolutionary information for yet to be unfolded body plans. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,03:35    yeah, I mean, it's essentially this: creationists: We've got a list! evolutionists: We've got a Much bigger list! creationist: Lists are flawed! I mean how stupid do you have to be?

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,04:31    Quote (Sanctum @ Feb. 21 2006,00:35) Hi Mr. Christopher. I think I can help. If the emails are real, they appear to start with one to Daniel Dennett from Michael Ruse (you have to read them from bottom up). He appears to be anticipating the publication in NYT of a previously-discussed less than flattering letter by Dennett and Pinker about him. Dennett says the letter is not being published, but does mention the less than flattering review of his own book in NYT. He also tells Ruse that his prestige is slipping among evolutionists. Ruse then adds his own criticism of Dennett's book as well as of Dennett's public personna and the damage that he (along with Dawkins ... both of whom Ruse professes to like) is doing to the science side in the war with creationists. Along the way he stresses that he is not religious and is a hard-line Darwinian - even more so than Dennett and Dawkins. Dennett decides not to reply as he seems to think that Ruse is just blowing off steam and might later want to retract some of his comments. Thank you for the insight. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,05:01    Quote Funny how DaveScot excoriates the "Steve List" as being an argument ad populum (or whatever it is) Dave needs to get his fallacies straight; it's an argumentum ad stevium. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,05:50    Re "Miller and Behe have developed what seems to me to be a bit of a symbiosis as well." But did it evolve, or was it intelligently designed that way?

tacitus Posts: 118 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,10:53    Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 21 2006,09:35) yeah, I mean, it's essentially this: creationists: We've got a list! evolutionists: We've got a Much bigger list! creationist: Lists are flawed! I mean how stupid do you have to be? Actually it's more like: creationists: We've got a list! evolutionists: Lists are dumb. To prove it here's a much bigger list! creationists: Your list is dumb. Ours is great. the rest of the world: Whatever.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,11:46    Quote the rest of the world: Whatever. hmm, I'm sure you didn't intend to, but you bring up an important point here. it's the general apathy of the american people that is letting these fundies attempt to rewrite the very definition of science itself. Maybe now that it has grabbed a bit of media attention, mostly because of the Dover trial, at least some of america seems to be waking up to how serious this issue really is.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,12:13    i think you seriously misjudge the agnosticism of the rest of the world. Think of a religious agnostic.  Most of the religious agnostics I know distance themselves from atheism.  They want to ignore the whole issue of God....but they dont want anyone to dislike them and associate them with evil "Atheists". Even if their views are most closely related to Atheism. Same thing with those who are agnostic about evolution.  Their views are more closely associated with Evolutionists, however they dont want to seem "evil" and so when pressed they will lean towards the creationists.  It is the "evil" connotation that should really concern pro-science people. If your agnostic, but you  notice that one side villifies the fu** out of the other side.....you are probably going to want to remain popular, and will side with the "good guys".

tacitus Posts: 118 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,12:31    I think many of those who are agnostic about religion (a) regard themselves as "spiritual" and (b) don't like the idea of fundamentalism or atheism, and may actually fear both of them. Being spiritual allows them the comforts of religious beliefs without the commitment, and avoids awkward questions about the meaning of life that thoughts of atheism tends to bring up. With evolution agnosticism tends to allow people to fall into the trap of the "teach both sides" strategy. This is particularly effective with liberals who like to see people "play fair" in politics and religion. (Conservatives like it too, but only because in this case it gives them what they want).

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,13:08    from the loony bin: Quote Apologies to DS for posting under what he considered to be an offensive name (holy_chimp) on another thread. I did not intend to cause offense. I was stating an opinion that we are so genetically and cladistically similar to chimpanzees that one of the few things that separates us is the fact that we have appear to have a soul. However, I realise that this may have been offensive and I am sorry. What exactly is the appearance of a soul and what makes you think a chimp is lacking in that department? Not that I disagree I just want to know how you arrive at these conclusions. As far as I’m concerned there are a lot of humans that have no soul. None whatsoever. Zilch. As cruel and heartless as any animal. Worse, because the human ostensibly has the capacity to know right from wrong. What other animals besides humans get any joy out of causing pain to other creatures? As far as animals resembling people in the soul category elephants might have us beat which I blogged about here. -ds Comment by Chris_UK — February 21, 2006 @ 5:31 pm Looks like Dave Scott has never observed a cat playing with a mouse or a killer whale playing with a sea lion prior to eating him. Humans are not the only ones who get a kick out of torturing another animal.   Does this mean my kitty doesn't have a soul? :-(  Is torture the litmus test for soul detection? Speaking of souls, remember when Richard Thompson asked Barbara Forrest if she believed in the "everlasting soul" or somesuch nonsense while she was on the stand?  I wish she would have replied with something like "I did not see an "everlasting soul" on the evidence list, did you submit one to the court as evidence?  Could you show me one right now?" . -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,16:00    Message from John Davison: Quote Now I see someone named jeannot claims that evolution involves populations not individuals. I ask jeannot, whoever that really is, to provide a single example of any kind of evolutionary (genetic) change that can be demonstrated not to have originated in a germinal cell of an individual. Any example will do and he may present that evidence here if he feels up to it. The substitution of populations for the individual was the brainstorm of Mernst Ayr and was proposed because it was impossible to show that any contemporary individual organism was capable of progressive evolutionary change. The proper conclusion was that contemporay species are immutable, something that both Linnaeus and Cuvier knew by instinct. I think his blog is called Prescribed Evolution.

Paul Flocken Posts: 290 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,16:42    Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 20 2006,22:54) no, he's saying that blood type variability arose before H. sapiens evolved. Wouldn't that argue against there being a single adam (I've seen the y chromosome proves adam spiel) and/or a single eve (the seven daughters of eve) since there could only have been a max of two blood types in an original adam/eve pairing?  That question is only half serious as I know it is seriously oversimplified. -------------- "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

Paul Flocken Posts: 290 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,16:59    Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 21 2006,00:32) Quote Or, would there perhaps be no such distinction between humans and their predecessors that marked the emergence of the first human because evolution is so gradual? this is closer to being a correct interpretation.   your first deduction would have to envision the emergence of H. sapiens from a single point mutation.  hardly likely, when you think about it, is it?  not supported by the fossil evidence garnered so far either. currently, all the evidence points to hominids evolving in similar fashion to everything else studied. since the characteristics that distinguish this species from its predecessors didn't all appear at once, it's also likely that blood types were carried along as well as the species diverged. Quote Sir ToeJam--when we speak of it here, we mean a population of related, but distinct (and extinct) species that H. sapiens evolved from. OK, nevermind. -------------- "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2006,17:26    I think though, even if you just had two people, if one had alleles for A and O, and the other B and O, you could get kids with A, B, AB, or O.

Pages: (1000) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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