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... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... >

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,20:16    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 22 2008,18:18) OK, I see what you're saying there.  NS also includes reproductive rates.  I knew that, but just did not express that in my example - mainly because I was talking about things that would keep an organism from reproducing and passing on its advantageous mutation.  But, yes, you're right, I should have also said that as well. If that is indeed your point, then it would perhaps be helpful to all of us if you explicitly stated it. If you read my sig, you might understand where I'm coming from. You can't just say stuff, particularly if you are using terms that have very specific meanings, and expect all of us to track your thoughts accurately. And I see that others have already taken the time to correct you re your assumptions about what selection can do, the odds of a favorable mutation making it into a population, etc. So I'll let that sink in. But I do caution you about statements that might make us think that you are ignoring facts that have been known for many decades. Frankly, you do that quite a lot. It doesn't help your case, y'know. -------------- 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,00:13    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 22 2008,19:00)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2008,16:28) Daniel Smith:       Quote My point though, (which I feel you've avoided) is that NS is no guarantee that something beneficial will be passed on.   I think it was Fisher sometime around 1930 who calculated that a beneficial mutation stood about an 85% chance of being lost in the first 15 generations or so following its introduction in a single member of a population. Or maybe it was Haldane not too long thereafter, I'm not sure. So, thanks, but those of us who had  bothered to read up on evolutionary science already knew that. So Wesley, which selection algorithm most closely models that percentage? That doesn't seem to have any clear relation to Daniel's "point". Once Daniel figures out what Daniel's "point" really, truly is, maybe there will be some point to discussion. So far as I can tell, though, Daniel is simply stringing people along and posing scattershot questions to give the false impression that he is actually a participant in an exchange of ideas. I think I'll spend my time working up some papers. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,03:07    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 22 2008,18:52)   Quote (blipey @ Jan. 22 2008,16:48) On a somewhat more serious (though I'd be truly interested if any part of my above description sounds like science to you, Daniel) note, could you answer the following question?  I think it will start us down the road of whether or not you truly understand NS: 1.  Do you personally believe that NS is a mechanism that can ever bring about an increase in beneficial traits? Yes or no, to begin with please.  I want to keep this very simple.  We'll leave the explanations for after "yes" or "no". Yes. So, what is your point Danny boy? If NS is a mechanism that can being about an increase in beneficial traits then small changes (micro) can add up (macro) and we get goo to you! Whatever your terrible misunderstandings about GA's are you've just said that NS can bring about and spread useful traits. Game over man, game over. I guess your only "out" is to claim that as the world is only 6000 years old that's not enougth time for "darwinism" to do it's thing? Right? Daniel, do what I suggested earlier. Learn to program. Write some GA's. Do something, anything, rather then leech off other peoples work and claim it supports your case when you don't even understand it in the first place. -------------- 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

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:07    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 23 2008,03:07) Daniel, do what I suggested earlier. Learn to program. Write some GA's. Do something, anything, rather then leech off other peoples work and claim it supports your case when you don't even understand it in the first place. Or, look directly at (according to you) God's designs for yourself. If you had any real faith, you wouldn't need to resort to decades-old hearsay from people who lacked the courage/faith to put their own hypotheses to the test. Dontcha just love the irony?

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:05    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 23 2008,03:07) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 22 2008,18:52)   Quote (blipey @ Jan. 22 2008,16:48) On a somewhat more serious (though I'd be truly interested if any part of my above description sounds like science to you, Daniel) note, could you answer the following question?  I think it will start us down the road of whether or not you truly understand NS: 1.  Do you personally believe that NS is a mechanism that can ever bring about an increase in beneficial traits? Yes or no, to begin with please.  I want to keep this very simple.  We'll leave the explanations for after "yes" or "no". Yes. So, what is your point Danny boy? If NS is a mechanism that can being about an increase in beneficial traits then small changes (micro) can add up (macro) and we get goo to you! Whatever your terrible misunderstandings about GA's are you've just said that NS can bring about and spread useful traits. Game over man, game over. I guess your only "out" is to claim that as the world is only 6000 years old that's not enougth time for "darwinism" to do it's thing? Right? Daniel, do what I suggested earlier. Learn to program. Write some GA's. Do something, anything, rather then leech off other peoples work and claim it supports your case when you don't even understand it in the first place. The seminal case study of why creationists don't answer questions.  This very short exchange finishes the argument.  It's neat.  It's concise.  It doesn't work out too well for creationists. Daniel, do you have any explanation for how you can believe that NS is an effective mechanism for advancing beneficial traits while simultaneously believing that NS cannot be a mechanism for change in the ToE? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:32    Quote (blipey @ Jan. 23 2008,13:05) The seminal case study of why creationists don't answer questions.  This very short exchange finishes the argument.  It's neat.  It's concise.  It doesn't work out too well for creationists. Daniel, do you have any explanation for how you can believe that NS is an effective mechanism for advancing beneficial traits while simultaneously believing that NS cannot be a mechanism for change in the ToE? Sure.  It's the same as the explanation given by Leo S. Berg, Otto H. Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, John A. Davison, Michael J. Denton and a whole host of evolutionists -- which all these men are (or were) you know.   That explanation is this: Natural selection can refine and benefit species and sub-species by producing varieties and adaptations within a limited range.  IOW, given a good, working platform to start with, NS can build upon it with limited variations - useful for adaptation to environmental changes. When environmental changes become too great however, NS simply results in extinction.  This is evidenced by the vast number of extinctions chronicled in the fossil record. All the men I mentioned expressed serious reservations about the power of NS.  They all felt basically the same.  Berg wrote a book in which he chronicles example after example, from his own observations and the observations of others, which gave him tremendous pause in his assessment of NS.  Schindewolf chronicled obvious patterns in the fossil record in support of his view for the limited power of selection.  Goldschmidt came to the same conclusion from his study of genetics.  These men were not creationists, they were evolutionists.  They all held to common descent.  They just rejected NS as a viable mechanism for macro-evolutionary change. I get the distinct impression that no one here has read anything these men have published.  I also get the impression no one here wants 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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:45    Quote When environmental changes become too great however, NS simply results in extinction. Wow.  Tell me you're being deliberately stupid.  Please.  As has been explained to you several times now, NS does not cause extinction.  In fact, NS does not cause anything per se.  Extinction is caused by things like asteroids, acid rain, bullets.... NS can only be talked about in light of SURVIVING.  You said above that you understood and agreed with this.  So, do you retract that? Do you agree with the following? (Yes or No) Natural Selection is a mechanism that can conserve beneficial traits. That's ALL it is.  NS is not something that kills, it is not something that breathes life into anything, it is not something that lowers your mortgage, it is ONLY that little sentence above. Do you get it? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,19:03    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2008,22:13)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 22 2008,19:00)             Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2008,16:28) Daniel Smith:                 Quote My point though, (which I feel you've avoided) is that NS is no guarantee that something beneficial will be passed on.   I think it was Fisher sometime around 1930 who calculated that a beneficial mutation stood about an 85% chance of being lost in the first 15 generations or so following its introduction in a single member of a population. Or maybe it was Haldane not too long thereafter, I'm not sure. So, thanks, but those of us who had  bothered to read up on evolutionary science already knew that. So Wesley, which selection algorithm most closely models that percentage? That doesn't seem to have any clear relation to Daniel's "point". Once Daniel figures out what Daniel's "point" really, truly is, maybe there will be some point to discussion. So far as I can tell, though, Daniel is simply stringing people along and posing scattershot questions to give the false impression that he is actually a participant in an exchange of ideas. I think I'll spend my time working up some papers. I'll try to explain myself better Wesley (if you're still there): I said:         Quote My only question is how well genetic algorithms actually simulate real-life biological evolution via natural selection. My focus has been on selection algorithms - and whether or not they accurately simulate real-life selection. You replied:         Quote Genetic algorithms don't "simulate real-life biological evolution". If that's really Daniel's only question, then we can shorten things up nicely. Genetic algorithms, though, do serve as models of natural selection.     (My emphasis) Making it clear we are talking about models not simulations. So when you stated that; "a beneficial mutation stood about an 85% chance of being lost in the first 15 generations or so following its introduction in a single member of a population", I simply asked; "which selection algorithm most closely models that percentage?". Does that make my point any clearer Wesley? -------------- "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. 23 2008,19:19    Quote (blipey @ Jan. 23 2008,16:45)             Quote When environmental changes become too great however, NS simply results in extinction. Wow.  Tell me you're being deliberately stupid.  Please.  As has been explained to you several times now, NS does not cause extinction.  In fact, NS does not cause anything per se.  Extinction is caused by things like asteroids, acid rain, bullets.... NS can only be talked about in light of SURVIVING.  You said above that you understood and agreed with this.  So, do you retract that? Do you agree with the following? (Yes or No) Natural Selection is a mechanism that can conserve beneficial traits. Yes, I agree with that.  NS can conserve beneficial traits.  It may also fail to. It is after all...  SELECTION! Are you saying natural selection can never choose "None of the above"? Perhaps you'd be happier if I worded my statement this way: "When environmental changes become too great however, NS fails - resulting in extinction." Is that better?       Quote That's ALL it is.  NS is not something that kills, it is not something that breathes life into anything, it is not something that lowers your mortgage, it is ONLY that little sentence above. Do you get it? Natural Selection lowered my monthly payments and it can lower yours too!  Just call 1-800-NS-MONEY right now to start benefiting from this terrific offer!  Operators are standing by. -------------- "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

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,19:39    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,19:19) Perhaps you'd be happier if I worded my statement this way: "When environmental changes become too great however, NS fails - resulting in extinction." Is that better? Yes, but only in the sense that it provides more confirmation--as if it were needed--that you can't grasp the most simple evolution principles even after they've been plainly explained to you. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,22:41    Okay, let's start out as if we were in Kindergarten. NS does not DO anything.  Nothing at all.  NS is not a force.  There is no active verb tense to NS.  NS does not DO or FAIL TO DO anything at all. Quote Are you saying natural selection can never choose "None of the above"? Yes I am saying that.  Because NS never choose anything.  NS is merely something that happens.  Rocks fall toward the Earth not away from it.  This is merely something that happens.  Gravity does not choose to throw rocks at the Earth, it is merely the mechanism that explains why rocks fall to the Earth. Do you get it? Along the same lines, NS does not FAIL AT ANYTHING.  To fail at something implies that there was a goal.  There is no goal to being.  Being just is.  NS explains how that being behaves. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,03:09    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,19:03) So when you stated that; "a beneficial mutation stood about an 85% chance of being lost in the first 15 generations or so following its introduction in a single member of a population", I simply asked; "which selection algorithm most closely models that percentage?". Does that make my point any clearer Wesley? IF MUTATION = BENEFICIAL then { CHANCE_OF_DELETION = 85%; FOR_GENERATIONS = 15} IF FOR_GENERATIONS > 15 then {CHANCE_OF_DELETION=NORMAL_CHANCE_OF_DELETION} Or something like that. It's too early to even write pseudocode.   Quote I simply asked; "which selection algorithm most closely models that percentage?". So the answer to that question is "the one that you write that models that percentage" -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,03:11    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,18:32) That explanation is this: Natural selection can refine and benefit species and sub-species by producing varieties and adaptations within a limited range. What is this limited range? Give us an example. What's stopping micro adding up to macro? Did all species fit on the ARK? Is that what you are getting at? -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,03:14    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,19:19) Perhaps you'd be happier if I worded my statement this way: "When environmental changes become too great however, NS fails - resulting in extinction." Prove it! Or no trousers too? Just all mouth? It's easy to say such things. Fact is you've no proof at all. PROVE YOUR POINT DANIEL WITH *EVIDENCE*. Or quotes from 50 year old books. I guess I already know what you'll pick. Here, look I can play too Quote "When environmental changes become too great however, NS fails - resulting in extinction via the mechanism of invisible unicorns" Quote "When invisible unicorns cry the changes become too great however, NS fails - resulting in unicorn extinction." -------------- 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

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,04:46    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,18:32) All the men I mentioned expressed serious reservations about the power of NS.  They all felt basically the same.  Berg wrote a book in which he chronicles example after example, from his own observations and the observations of others, which gave him tremendous pause in his assessment of NS.  Schindewolf chronicled obvious patterns in the fossil record in support of his view for the limited power of selection.  Goldschmidt came to the same conclusion from his study of genetics.  These men were not creationists, they were evolutionists.  They all held to common descent.  They just rejected NS as a viable mechanism for macro-evolutionary change. I get the distinct impression that no one here has read anything these men have published.  I also get the impression no one here wants to. Those mutants did not confer reproductive advantages and left no progeny.  They are fossils in the boneyard of intellectual history. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,04:53    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,18:32) I get the distinct impression that no one here has read anything these men have published.  I also get the impression no one here wants to. Please give citations to PEER-REVIEWED papers. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,10:59    Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 24 2008,04:53) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,18:32) I get the distinct impression that no one here has read anything these men have published.  I also get the impression no one here wants to. Please give citations to PEER-REVIEWED papers. Not just "peer-reviewed," but PRIMARY literature--that is, papers that contain new data from testing the hypotheses you have decided must be true, Dan. For example, Denton actually publishes in the primary literature, albeit descriptive, relatively minor clinical genetics papers. Ask yourself why he lacks the faith to: 1) Make an unequivocal prediction about future data 2) Go looking for such data himself. Don't you see the irony in your obvious lack of faith? Why do you have more faith in unsupported musings than you do in the actual evidence (according to you, the very stuff designed by God Himself)? Why do you need filtration?

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,11:05    Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 24 2008,02:53)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,18:32) I get the distinct impression that no one here has read anything these men have published.  I also get the impression no one here wants to. Please give citations to PEER-REVIEWED papers. Like Darwin's? Please.... -------------- "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

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,11:10    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 24 2008,11:05) Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 24 2008,02:53)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,18:32) I get the distinct impression that no one here has read anything these men have published.  I also get the impression no one here wants to. Please give citations to PEER-REVIEWED papers. Like Darwin's? Please.... Darwin's books are primary literature, because they contained new data, unlike the musings you desperately want to believe. Science is about predicting, not spinning the existing data. Schindewolf's gaps have been filled, falsifying his hypothesis, even for his speciality, ammonites.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,11:29    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 24 2008,11:05) Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 24 2008,02:53)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,18:32) I get the distinct impression that no one here has read anything these men have published.  I also get the impression no one here wants to. Please give citations to PEER-REVIEWED papers. Like Darwin's? Please.... So, that'll be a no then? Then why not just say that? -------------- 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

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,13:43    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 24 2008,11:05)   Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 24 2008,02:53)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,18:32) I get the distinct impression that no one here has read anything these men have published.  I also get the impression no one here wants to. Please give citations to PEER-REVIEWED papers. Like Darwin's? Please.... If Darwin's ideas had not been useful, they would have been discarded. The ideas of your icons have not been useful, apparently. Your job is to correct that impression and establish the utility of those ideas by citing relevant empirical data - as published in the PEER-REVIEWED literature. Can you do it? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,14:21    Daniel, I certainly hope there are lurkers reading this thread who are interested in getting at the truth with regard to what the mechanisms of evolution can actually accomplish, because you are doing a marvelous job of asking the right questions and pointing out the Darwinian fallacies.  Keep up the good work. BTW, I envy your gift of patience.  It won't pay off with these folks, but like I said, hopefully there are open minded lurkers following this discussion. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Mister DNA Posts: 466 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,14:29    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 24 2008,14:21) Daniel, I certainly hope there are lurkers reading this thread who are interested in getting at the truth with regard to what the mechanisms of evolution can actually accomplish, because you are doing a marvelous job of asking the right questions and pointing out the Darwinian fallacies.  Keep up the good work. BTW, I envy your gift of patience.  It won't pay off with these folks, but like I said, hopefully there are open minded lurkers following this discussion. This is what is known in the mafia as "The Kiss of Death". -------------- CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,14:33    -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,15:17    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 24 2008,14:21) Daniel, I certainly hope there are lurkers reading this thread who are interested in getting at the truth with regard to what the mechanisms of evolution can actually accomplish, because you are doing a marvelous job of asking the right questions and pointing out the Darwinian fallacies.  Keep up the good work. BTW, I envy your gift of patience.  It won't pay off with these folks, but like I said, hopefully there are open minded lurkers following this discussion. Because since evolution either never happened anyway or it like totally did and God did it and also cause the earth is like 10,000 - 4,500,000,000 years old and no one knows for sure, and because the flood was like at least global or maybe even local and Walt Brown once imagined how like all the water could have come from inside the earth or maybe from outside the earth and it could have taken miracles but maybe not because how can you tell God what to do and stuff, Daniel, you are doing a good job pointing out the holes and stuff or at least the places where the holes could be if you wanted to interpret it that way, and definitely the places where we would see holes if weren't predisposed to see things that are really there and could instead just trust God and use the eyes that our faith gives and whatnot. And I've already discussed all this on my blog anyway. /FTK yawn.  don't you have some clothes to wash or some floors to scrub my helpmeet friend? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,15:41    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 24 2008,15:17) Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 24 2008,14:21) Daniel, I certainly hope there are lurkers reading this thread who are interested in getting at the truth with regard to what the mechanisms of evolution can actually accomplish, because you are doing a marvelous job of asking the right questions and pointing out the Darwinian fallacies.  Keep up the good work. BTW, I envy your gift of patience.  It won't pay off with these folks, but like I said, hopefully there are open minded lurkers following this discussion. Because since evolution either never happened anyway or it like totally did and God did it and also cause the earth is like 10,000 - 4,500,000,000 years old and no one knows for sure, and because the flood was like at least global or maybe even local and Walt Brown once imagined how like all the water could have come from inside the earth or maybe from outside the earth and it could have taken miracles but maybe not because how can you tell God what to do and stuff, Daniel, you are doing a good job pointing out the holes and stuff or at least the places where the holes could be if you wanted to interpret it that way, and definitely the places where we would see holes if weren't predisposed to see things that are really there and could instead just trust God and use the eyes that our faith gives and whatnot. And I've already discussed all this on my blog anyway. /FTK yawn.  don't you have some clothes to wash or some floors to scrub my helpmeet friend? Erasamus - Ha!  Good on You! But... Don't let Kristine and ERV see you posting like that!  Abbie is 7 feet tall and studies kick boxing, and Kristine will shimmy you to death.   Although they might make an exception for you since your post IS about FTK. The judges will have to make a ruling. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,15:42    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 24 2008,14:21) Daniel, I certainly hope there are lurkers reading this thread who are interested in getting at the truth with regard to what the mechanisms of evolution can actually accomplish, because you are doing a marvelous job of asking the right questions and pointing out the Darwinian fallacies... What "Darwinian fallacies" has he pointed out, FTK?

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,15:54    Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 24 2008,14:21) Daniel, I certainly hope there are lurkers reading this thread who are interested in getting at the truth with regard to what the mechanisms of evolution can actually accomplish, because you are doing a marvelous job of asking the right questions and pointing out the Darwinian fallacies.  Keep up the good work. BTW, I envy your gift of patience.  It won't pay off with these folks, but like I said, hopefully there are open minded lurkers following this discussion. Hey, FTK, what's your take on Davison, Schindewolf, Berg, and Goldschmidt? Have YOU read those books that Daniel is touting? What's your position on Stammengeschichte, Stammesentwicklung and Gesetzmäßigkeiten? Have you checked your Baupläne lately? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,17:00    Good on you, Daniel!  You've got the support of Ftk!  There's no one on interwebbies that has answered more questions than Ftk.  She's ALL ABOUT THE ANSWERS. Why, just look at all of the things she's answered: Quote 1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet? 2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it? 3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet? 4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC? 5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books? 6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion? 7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop? 8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it? 9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science? 10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example? 11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE? 11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is? 12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks? 12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"? 13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID? 14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years? 15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published? 16. How? 17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction? 18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere. 19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita? 20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008? Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to? 21. What are IDers doing to garner respect? 22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference? 23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book? 24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down? 25. What year was the Flood over? 2300 BC 26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire? 2030 BC 27. What was the population of the world in that year? 30,000,000 28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people? 29. Is Dembski a creationist? 30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage? 31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia? 32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea? 33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police? 34. Are those same people Baptist? 35. What does this mean? 36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV? Well, actually she sort of half answered the first 5, but we let her go on it.  And I answered 25 through 28 for her, but you can see how well she's doing!  I mean, it's only been 2 months or so since she said she'd try to answer some of them. Maybe you should participate at her blog, where she never answer questions, and fails to ask any as well. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,17:50    Quote (JAM @ Jan. 24 2008,09:10) Darwin's books are primary literature, because they contained new data, unlike the musings you desperately want to believe. Science is about predicting, not spinning the existing data. Schindewolf's gaps have been filled, falsifying his hypothesis, even for his speciality, ammonites. I'm breaking my silence towards you this one time because this cannot go ignored.   You know nothing of Schindewolf, you've never read his books - so how can you possibly know if his book contains new data or existing data?  Are you just guessing?  (I think you are.) As for his "gaps" being filled, I'm calling you on that.  Show me from the primary literature where the specific gaps he pointed to (of which you're blissfully unaware) have been filled. -------------- "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

Pages: (58) < ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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