RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (661) < ... 341 342 343 344 345 [346] 347 348 349 350 351 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,16:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 04 2009,15:46)
I'd think the scientific explanation would be more detailed than the non-scientific one - don't you?

Why would that follow? People can and do make up all sorts of ornate and complex bullshit when unconstrained by evidence, testability and rationality. Ever read the Urantia Book? Should be right up your alley.

Science, OTOH, may be left with "we don't know" and not much else. So detail doesn't necessarily indicate accuracy.  

That said, your assertion was that Trichoplax's complexity is inconsistent with evolutionary theory - insurmountably so. But exaptation/cooption has been discussed throughout the evolutionary literature ever since On the Origin of Species, and acknowledged as crucial to the evolution of complex structures at all levels. In a general sense, it is absolutely the case the evolutionary theory predicts that, where we find complex structures, we are likely to observe/infer precursors from which some of that complexity was exapted (when observation and inference are possible at all), particularly when a significant functional shift is indicated. And, as I indicated above, further empirical predictions follow from this position including hypothesized functions for Trichoplax's complex genome. Thus the accrual of our scientific knowledge of origins continues.

You, however, may be happier with complex, ornate bullshit unconstrained by evidence, testability and rationality. More - well something - to you.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4951
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,20:53   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 04 2009,15:27)
Daniel, I believe (if you are able to post there) this thread is for you and yours.

Topic: Uninformed Dissent, When ignorance is valued over knowledge

Still working on the programming to go with that thread.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 5535
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,13:03   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 04 2009,19:53)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 04 2009,15:27)
Daniel, I believe (if you are able to post there) this thread is for you and yours.

Topic: Uninformed Dissent, When ignorance is valued over knowledge

Still working on the programming to go with that thread.

Why would that thread need special programming?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4951
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,13:25   

The Bathroom Wall is our place for putting off-topic comments. It would be nice if we also had a place for ignorant comments and commenters. There have been complaints about restricting certain posters to the Bathroom Wall thread, mostly along the line that it reduces the tone of the thread. So I'm working on making the restriction programming more generic, such that posters with a track record of off-topic comments may have a specific thread that their posts will appear in, whether it is the Bathroom Wall, the specific ignorance thread, or a thread for an individual commenter and correspondents.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,13:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 04 2009,14:17)
Daniel Smith:

         
Quote

We're not just talking about similarities here Wesley.


Your original claim is easily proven false given just that information, though.

         
Quote

 Also, in some areas at least, there are actually more differences between sponges and Trichoplax than there are between humans and Trichoplax.      


Your claim was that nobody within evolutionary science had an expectation that Trichoplax might have genetics with particular features: transcription factors and signalling pathways. The fact that zoologists have long considered placazoans to have affinity with the Porifera is directly counter to your claim. Your further disputation based on divergence from Porifera is not responsive. Your claim was false, and you seem to have quite some difficulty in admitting it. No matter; anyone with a reasonable level of discernment is quite capable of taking that point from the exchange.

And even if one skips over the falsity of the original claim, the mutated claim, that genomic similarities to the human genome was an unexpected surprise, is also false. From the white paper arguing for sequencing the Trichoplax genome:

       
Quote

Functional studies of human genes of anonymous function: Genes of unknown function comprise a considerable fraction of the human genome. Any such gene that is specific to metazoans (i.e., absent in yeast), but lost in the ecdysozoan lineage (absent in Caenorhabditis and Drosophila) must now be investigated in a higher, typically vertebrate, animal model. As the simplest animal, the Trichoplax genome is expected to share a large fraction of genes common to humans but lacking in non-animal genomes. While the genome sequence of yeast and other lower eukaryotes will continue to provide key insights into the function of many human proteins and processes, these systems will have limited value as compared to Trichoplax for animal-specific gene investigations.  


Emphasis added.

Thanks Wesley,

I stand corrected on both claims.

I stand by my claim however as to the predictions of front-loading hypotheses (specifically those of the Universal Genome hypothesis and its application to the Trichoplax genome).  No one has disputed that here yet.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4951
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,15:00   

What branch of logic is it that holds that when all your premises are the exact opposite of reality that your conclusions must therefore be true?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,16:17   

and the corollary - what evidence would be acceptable as disproof?

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,16:38   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 05 2009,14:58)
I stand by my claim however as to the predictions of front-loading hypotheses (specifically those of the Universal Genome hypothesis and its application to the Trichoplax genome).  No one has disputed that here yet.

Let's see.

- Vis front loading I pointed to the problem of foreknowledge and/or control of non-biological events.  

- I've also pointed out that because "god theory" is inherently non-scientific (as you now concede), front-loading cannot be scientific, because God is the explanation for front loading of the kind you envision (please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that you are arguing otherwise).  

- Vis phenotypic capacitors I pointed out that the article you cite refers to "previously silenced genotypes," not "previously silent genotypes." Previously silenced genotypes once gave rise to ordinary phenotypic expression, have since been suppressed ("silenced"), and may again be expressed under certain circumstances. This is no problem for evolutionary theory.

- Vis Trichoplax there have been several responses, including mine above, indicating that it presents no insurmountable challenge. Your response is handwaving ("sounds like apologetics to me")

- Vis "It could work something like the immune system" I noted that you are describing selectionist causation. Why not become a theistic evolutionist and get it over with?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,18:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 05 2009,14:38)
Let's see.

- Vis front loading I pointed to the problem of foreknowledge and/or control of non-biological events.
 
Quote
- Vis "It could work something like the immune system" I noted that you are describing selectionist causation. Why not become a theistic evolutionist and get it over with?

I've pointed out that - while it certainly would take the knowledge of God to make front-loading successful, that doesn't mean that all of that information must be present within a front-loaded genome.  All that is necessary is for the genome to have some kind of switches and mechanisms to deal with various environmental challenges.  I used the example of the immune system in response to this.  The difference between this and selectionist evolution is in the mechanism for evolutionary change (prior to selection).  This proposes a designed evolutionary mechanism while selectionist theory proposes a chance-based mechanism.
   
Quote
- I've also pointed out that because "god theory" is inherently non-scientific (as you now concede), front-loading cannot be scientific, because God is the explanation for front loading of the kind you envision (please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that you are arguing otherwise).
 
I've also already pointed out to you that - no matter the beginning - the evidence for a front-loaded evolution still must leave an evidence trail as it works it's way through history.  Many on your side argue that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why is it that you can't accept the same break point for a front-loaded theory?
 
Quote
- Vis phenotypic capacitors I pointed out that the article you cite refers to "previously silenced genotypes," not "previously silent genotypes." Previously silenced genotypes once gave rise to ordinary phenotypic expression, have since been suppressed ("silenced"), and may again be expressed under certain circumstances. This is no problem for evolutionary theory.
 
Quote
- Vis Trichoplax there have been several responses, including mine above, indicating that it presents no insurmountable challenge. Your response is handwaving ("sounds like apologetics to me")


I don't really care whether it is or isn't a "problem for evolutionary theory".  What I'm trying to impress upon you is that it is consistent with another explanation.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,18:25   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 04 2009,13:18)
There are lots of evolutionary pathways, complete with substantial detail, that others have shown you.

Name one.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Henry J



Posts: 5535
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,20:26   

Quote
Many on your side argue that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why is it that you can't accept the same break point for a front-loaded theory?


I think it's because the "front-loaded theory" has to actually explain something - some observed but otherwise unexplained pattern has to be a logical consequence of the proposed hypothesis.

Quote
What I'm trying to impress upon you is that it is consistent with another explanation.


In order for that to mean something, there first has to be another explanation. (See previous paragraph.)

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,20:59   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 05 2009,19:22)
I've pointed out that - while it certainly would take the knowledge of God to make front-loading successful...

Your causal mechanism is supernatural, as you indicate. This renders your front-loading hypothesis an inherently non-scientific proposition.
         
Quote
...that doesn't mean that all of that information must be present within a front-loaded genome. All that is necessary is for the genome to have some kind of switches and mechanisms to deal with various environmental challenges.  

This is incoherent. If "switches and mechanisms" are what are pre-stored, then the "mechanisms" to be activiated by "switches" must be sufficient to account for the preadaptation of all species that exist or ever have existed to countless, entirely contingent events over billions of years. Moreover, EvoDevo makes clear that current developmental plans both embody and are constructed atop earlier developmental plans, which constrains the activation of your switches and mechanisms to a particular order as history unfolded. Which (to the extent that you are claiming that current living forms were front loaded) leaves you exactly where we started: with the need for either complete foreknowledge of or control over inherently contingent events.

But what am I saying? Your "switches and mechanisms" are entirely imaginary, e.g., total bullshit.
       
Quote
I've also already pointed out to you that - no matter the beginning - the evidence for a front-loaded evolution still must leave an evidence trail as it works it's way through history.

You're "reasoning" backassward again, working backward from your conclusion. (And what evidence? Are you making predictions regarding future empirical findings? Please do.)
       
Quote
Many on your side argue that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why is it that you can't accept the same break point for a front-loaded theory?

No one in biology believes that there is a fundamental ontological discontinuity between OOL and subsequent evolution - all mechanisms within the scope of the scientific method are assumed to be natural, and the scientific framework seen as appropriate for investigating both OOL and subsequent evolution is methodological naturalism. The explanatory discontinuity arises from the fact that we have an good working account of many key mechanisms of evolution operating upon replicating organisms, but lack an account of the emergence of those first replicating organisms. The argument to which you refer correctly indicates that the absence of a good theory of OOL has no bearing upon the adequacy of evolutionary mechanisms once replicating mechanisms have been established. (Not to mention that you have nothing but wet dreams to offer on either side of your "break point.")

That said, your "break point" is more similar to that apparent between "proofs of the existence of God" versus "proof of events and actions in the world attributed to God (such as in the Bible)." While the existence (or nonexistence) of God is not amenable to scientific investigation, many assertions regarding his actions in the world as described in the Bible (e.g. his initiation of a worldwide flood) are subject to discomfirmation by means of the tools of science. But the fact that the putative occurance of a worldwide flood can be investigated by scientific means does not render the proposed occurrence of the Genesis flood a scientific hypothesis. "Front-loading" is similarly an asserted "act of God," as you just stated above. You're probably right that specific predictions (guesses) arising out of that general notion are investigable by scientific means, in the same sense that the Genesis flood can be investigated. That doesn't make "front loading by God" a scientific hypothesis, because such guesses can take any form you may prefer. This is because, once again, God is a "mechanism" that is utterly unconstrained (including by natural laws) and therefore can be manipulated to assert anything you please - including the workings of imaginary "switches and mechanisms." Therefore, even though many such assertions may be subject to discomfirmation, "front-loaded by God" is never subject to test because there are no constraints, including the constraint of consistency with natural law, upon dreaming up other hypotheses.

Prestored "switches and mechanisms" don't work? Then howabout the operation of little invisible hands (called "Behes") manipulating DNA with little tweezers under prestored divine guidance?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,21:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 05 2009,18:25)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 04 2009,13:18)
There are lots of evolutionary pathways, complete with substantial detail, that others have shown you.

Name one.

One

and

two

and

three

and

four.

But you've ignored these before, so I have no real expectations that you will pay attention again.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Henry J



Posts: 5535
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,21:39   

Are imaginary numbers irreducibly complex?

Henry

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5427
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,21:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 05 2009,14:58)
Thanks Wesley,

I stand corrected on both claims.

I stand by my claim however as to the predictions of front-loading hypotheses (specifically those of the Universal Genome hypothesis and its application to the Trichoplax genome).  No one has disputed that here yet.

wow.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,22:29   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 05 2009,22:51)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 05 2009,14:58)
Thanks Wesley,

I stand corrected on both claims.

I stand by my claim however as to the predictions of front-loading hypotheses (specifically those of the Universal Genome hypothesis and its application to the Trichoplax genome).  No one has disputed that here yet.

wow.

Reality, ur doin it rong.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,02:10   

Quote
I've pointed out that - while it certainly would take the knowledge of God to make front-loading successful, that doesn't mean that all of that information must be present within a front-loaded genome.  All that is necessary is for the genome to have some kind of switches and mechanisms to deal with various environmental challenges.  I used the example of the immune system in response to this.  The difference between this and selectionist evolution is in the mechanism for evolutionary change (prior to selection).  This proposes a designed evolutionary mechanism while selectionist theory proposes a chance-based mechanism.


I presume that in order to conceive of front loading as successful that it has to have a goal. What would that goal be, and how would the front loaded hardware be able to handle the problems of extinction, say , with the path to homo sapiens being terminated at any of the many bottlenecks in its evolution?

What is wrong with  
Quote
a chance-based mechanism
- considering that apparently random mutations have been observed without any sightings of God's hand?

Where do you think this massive attempt of yours at replacing 150 years of solid science with what essentially is creationism repackaged leads? What's your goal?

Even as a non-scientist I have no problem seeing that you are leading us down a blind alley. IMHO; a better place for your ideas would be Telic Thougths where you can join forces with Salvador Cordova; together you might reach the critical mass required for your hypothesis to weigh enough to make an impression.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5535
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:48   

Oh, his hypothesis makes an impression. Just not the one he wants.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12596
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,12:05   

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 06 2009,03:10)
Quote
I've pointed out that - while it certainly would take the knowledge of God to make front-loading successful, that doesn't mean that all of that information must be present within a front-loaded genome.  All that is necessary is for the genome to have some kind of switches and mechanisms to deal with various environmental challenges.  I used the example of the immune system in response to this.  The difference between this and selectionist evolution is in the mechanism for evolutionary change (prior to selection).  This proposes a designed evolutionary mechanism while selectionist theory proposes a chance-based mechanism.


I presume that in order to conceive of front loading as successful that it has to have a goal. What would that goal be, and how would the front loaded hardware be able to handle the problems of extinction, say , with the path to homo sapiens being terminated at any of the many bottlenecks in its evolution?

What is wrong with  
Quote
a chance-based mechanism
- considering that apparently random mutations have been observed without any sightings of God's hand?

Where do you think this massive attempt of yours at replacing 150 years of solid science with what essentially is creationism repackaged leads? What's your goal?

Even as a non-scientist I have no problem seeing that you are leading us down a blind alley. IMHO; a better place for your ideas would be Telic Thougths where you can join forces with Salvador Cordova; together you might reach the critical mass required for your hypothesis to weigh enough to make an impression.

I don't think Sal is at TT anymore. He mostly hangs out at his own really lame blog where he calls Barney Frank a fag and dreams of Mel Gibson making a movie based on Walt Brown's babblings.

   
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,12:15   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 05 2009,15:00)
What branch of logic is it that holds that when all your premises are the exact opposite of reality that your conclusions must therefore be true?

Theology

  
stevestory



Posts: 12596
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,12:46   

Quote (tsig @ Jan. 06 2009,13:15)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 05 2009,15:00)
What branch of logic is it that holds that when all your premises are the exact opposite of reality that your conclusions must therefore be true?

Theology


   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:02   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 06 2009,10:05)
I don't think Sal is at TT anymore. He mostly hangs out at his own really lame blog where he calls Barney Frank a fag and dreams of Mel Gibson making a movie based on Walt Brown's babblings.


I see well over a dozen references to 'Barney Fag'. Seems to be quite the obsession for our Sal.

Sal really needs to just come out of the closet once and for all and quit embarrassing himself. It'll be easier than him getting snagged in some gay hookers and meth sting ten years from now.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:10   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 06 2009,13:02)
Sal really needs to just come out of the closet once and for all and quit embarrassing himself. It'll be easier than him getting snagged in some gay hookers and meth sting ten years from now.

But not as much fun for the rest of us...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
stevestory



Posts: 12596
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:23   

Salvador's been pretty quiet lately. Has the demise of the IDEA clubs stolen his motivation?

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:38   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 05 2009,19:19)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 05 2009,18:25)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 04 2009,13:18)
There are lots of evolutionary pathways, complete with substantial detail, that others have shown you.

Name one.

One

and

two

and

three

and

four.

But you've ignored these before, so I have no real expectations that you will pay attention again.

Either your links don't work or I'm missing something.  
I found no detailed evolutionary pathways mentioned in any of the messages (or subsequent links) you referred to.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:38   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 06 2009,11:23)
Salvador's been pretty quiet lately. Has the demise of the IDEA clubs stolen his motivation?

Motivation. I dunno, my take is that no matter how much Sal calls Barney Frank 'Barney Fag' or babbles about Darwin beating puppies, it's not going to make the slightest dent in his obvious self-loathing.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:41   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 06 2009,12:05)

I don't think Sal is at TT anymore. He mostly hangs out at his own really lame blog where he calls Barney Frank a fag and dreams of Mel Gibson making a movie based on Walt Brown's babblings.

So, I took a look over at Sal's blog and found him salivating over the prospect of a Noah's Flood movie.
Quote
Well, a Holywood screenwriter turned Christian is spearheading production:
   
Quote
An epic re-telling of the greatest disaster the world has ever seen, The Flood will be a movie that could change the way people around the world see the Bible. For many years, creationists have been shut out of schools and condemned by popular media, yet in this movie, IJNP is working diligently to ensure our scientific accuracy as we prepare to bring this film to a global audience. This means that at the foundation of our development process, we are committed to hosting a Scientific Peer Review of the flood theories and pre-flood world models so that we will accurately represent the events that occurred.  

The reign of the puppy-beater will end!


Wasn't it about a year ago where we heard lots of crowing about how the imminent release of a movie was going to be the downfall of Darwinism?  How did that turn out for you, Sal?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:48   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 05 2009,18:26)
   
Quote
Many on your side argue that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why is it that you can't accept the same break point for a front-loaded theory?


I think it's because the "front-loaded theory" has to actually explain something - some observed but otherwise unexplained pattern has to be a logical consequence of the proposed hypothesis.

Why "unexplained"?  Why not "inadequately explained"?
Take the fossil record for instance:  It shows long periods of stasis interupted by short "speciation events".  This is all "explained" within the current theory, but many feel the explanation is inadequate.  A saltational evolutionary theory better explains the fossil record.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 06 2009,19:38)
Either your links don't work or I'm missing something.  
I found no detailed evolutionary pathways mentioned in any of the messages (or subsequent links) you referred to.

Let the movement of goalposts begin!

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,13:53   

Quote
A saltational evolutionary theory better explains the fossil record.

Give us an example of a single item in the fossil record and detail

a) How your theory explains it
b) How the current theory explains it

And then explain exactly why your theory is better then the current theory. Can you show your working?

I'm betting you cannot do this and know it and will simply ignore this request.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  19805 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (661) < ... 341 342 343 344 345 [346] 347 348 349 350 351 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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