RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 276 277 278 279 280 [281] 282 283 284 285 286 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,10:09   

When business is slow, D*mbski either

* Takes 'the brites' down, or
* Puts 'the brites' back up.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1812

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,10:17   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 28 2006,08:09)
When business is slow, D*mbski either

* Takes 'the brites' down, or
* Puts 'the brites' back up.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1812

Hehehe...
Quote
1. zapatero  // Nov 28th 2006 at 1:23 am

Will it be funny this time?

Comment by zapatero — November 28, 2006 @ 1:23 am


--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,10:25   

Hahah.

They killed that comment, which is the funniest thing I've seen associated with 'the brites'. Fundies, stick to what you do best - unintentional comedy!

got any more funnies in your cache stash?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,11:12   

On the Pinker thread:
Quote
It is interesting that when the topic on this blog involves an issue related to the details of some biological process or structure, the materialists are typically right in the fray, arguing for their point of view. But when the topic turns to broader issues like the one in this thread, they fall conspicuously silent. Of the 29 comments so far, why hasn’t even one person taken a shot at defending or supporting Pinker?

Comment by SteveB — November 28, 2006 @ 8:56 am

You think anyone at UD will give him an honest answer?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,11:28   

Quote
They killed that comment, which is the funniest thing I've seen associated with 'the brites'.


Yeah, same old shenanigans. And Dembski hasn't answered dacook's question.

You know, the guy really is frustrating. Sometimes I wish I could really ask him an honest question myself sans snark, but he's too interested in being clever and wriggling around his position and covering his ass to give an honest reply. And people wonder why I had a tizzy at my blog? Honest religious belief I can accept, but not magic tricks and (apparently) deliberate deception.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,12:07   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 28 2006,07:22)
Joe G:              
Quote
More thoughts on human chromosome 2:
...
However that does not mean said ancestor(s) shared a common ancestor with chimps.


In a way, Joseph is correct. A nested hierarchy cannot be established with just two nodes. So, Joseph,

* What is the minimal number of nodes necessary to establish a nested hierarchy?
* Do the twigs of a tree represent a nested hierarchy?
* Do extant vertebrates form a nested hierarchy? Do extinct vertebrates fit this nested hierarchy?
* Please point to specific independently derived traits to support your assertions (per the definition you yourself provided).

(Xposted to Joseph's blog.)

Joseph replied  
Quote
Do twigs on a tree contain the SAME DNA as all other twigs, branches and trunk?

If the branches of a tree disappear do the twigs it had remain attached to the tree?


I don't think answers come with questionmarks. Anyway ...

1. The DNA of the twigs, branches and trunk have nearly identical DNA; however, any occasional mutations during cell-replication will form a nested hierarchy matching the pattern-of-growth.
2. If a branch is cut, then the twigs on that particular line-of-growth will no longer be attached and will wither. That's the nature of a nested hierarchy. Each twig is attached to the root through only a single line-of-growth.

Now, please answer the questions that I have posed to you several times over several weeks.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,12:50   

(from JoeG's blog, linked above)
Quote
inunison said...

   hi Joe G,

   I've noticed two things in this debate coming from evolutionists.

   First is, automatic "no" to every argument coming from ID side usually but not always followed by ad hominem attack.

   Second, their own arguments are for the most part loaded with metaphysics (they always deny it) and sometimes totally irrelevant or at worst illogical.

   This Allen McNeil's post at UD is point in case regarding this second feature of the debate.
Reading that last sentence, this evolutionist certainly feels some ad hominem coming on.

Quote
Joe G said...

   I am always open to data that contradicts what I post.

   And until someone starts to explain the differences observed in the populations (chimps and humans), I have no choice but to say that I am correct.

   Do twigs on a tree contain the SAME DNA as all other twigs, branches and trunk?

   If the branches of a tree disappear do the twigs it had remain attached to the tree?
I don't think I've ever seen anyone misunderstand something that badly. When AFDave could tutor you in science, you should go hide in shame.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,13:39   

From the "Brites" Thread, after DT expresses his fondness for certain SF authors:

Quote
I have in mind a project (after I finish the one I’m working on) for a story in a universe where a mysterious advanced race of “Builders” organizes planets via directed panspermia, and the two main characters, a man and woman of different epochs and worlds, find each other through one of the Builder’s left-over spacetime “transits.” The background is going to include a thorough discrediting of Darwinism.

Comment by dacook — November 28, 2006 @ 12:29 pm


Man, this dacook fella sems good. Almost as good as Paley.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,13:47   

PffHHHh...!

Sidenote - I was drinking regular coffee, but its cappucino that's come back up through my nose...


BUT WHO BUILT THE BUILDERS???

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,13:52   

Dacook also seems blissfully unaware that Vinge is one of the main singularity proponents and has written many papers on it. Techno-rapture, creobots?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,13:58   

Joseph    
Quote
Your alleged "tree of life" is missing its roots. It is missing its trunk. All it really has are branches floating in mid-air. With its "single-line of growth" existing only in some imaginations.

There is one and only one way to trace from any given twig to the trunk. Just like your paternal ancestry. Just like all nested hierarchies.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, but Joseph still failed to answer the questions.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,14:13   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 28 2006,13:58)
Joseph      
Quote
Your alleged "tree of life" is missing its roots. It is missing its trunk. All it really has are branches floating in mid-air. With its "single-line of growth" existing only in some imaginations.

There is one and only one way to trace from any given twig to the trunk. Just like your paternal ancestry. Just like all nested hierarchies.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, but Joseph still failed to answer the questions.

Yes. And it has no leaves, no bark, isn't brown and wont burn on my fire.

BAD, BAD CREOTARD

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,14:27   

Zach:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/incongruent.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,14:29   

Oh my Goodness!! Joseph just quoted Darwin as an authority, called him no less than a "scientific giant".
   
Quote
I will take two scientific giants of their time, even though that time was over 100 years ago, over Zachriel, any and every day.


     
Quote
IOW keep the transitionals and nested hierarchy becomes anarchy.

Not anarchy, or random. It would still constitute a nested hierarchy, only bushier.

Alas! But still no answer to my questions. I'm beginning to think that maybe Joseph doesn't understand what constitutes a nested hierarchy, much less why it is considered strong evidence for common descent among the vast majority of scientists working in the relevant fields of study.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,14:43   

Quote (Faid @ Nov. 28 2006,13:39)
From the "Brites" Thread, after DT expresses his fondness for certain SF authors:

Quote
I have in mind a project (after I finish the one I’m working on) for a story in a universe where a mysterious advanced race of “Builders” organizes planets via directed panspermia, and the two main characters, a man and woman of different epochs and worlds, find each other through one of the Builder’s left-over spacetime “transits.” The background is going to include a thorough discrediting of Darwinism.

Comment by dacook — November 28, 2006 @ 12:29 pm


Man, this dacook fella sems good. Almost as good as Paley.

On that same thread it's pointed out that Dembski wrote an endorsement for a book by James Hogan. Here's how one Amazon reviewer begins his review of that book:

"It's hard to know what to make of James P. Hogan, science fiction writer, and now the author of a book that in six densely argued chapters presumes to (1) supplant biological evolution with so-called Intelligent Design; (2) refute Big Bang cosmology; (3) unconfirm Einstein's relativity; (4) argue that Emmanuel Velikovsky (his childhood hero) is more likely right than the scientific and history establishments that labeled him a crackpot; (5) dispute the orthodox on global warming, ozone depletion, and the dangers of DDT while championing the use of nuclear power and the right type of asbestos; and (6) question the medical opinion that AIDS is caused by HIV."

  
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,14:53   

Dembski's latest is a list of URLs to ID goings on over here in the UK. The first link to a piece at The Register contains this great opening paragraph:

"More from that lovely bunch of people who we like to think of as creationists-with-a-website. Yes, the Intelligent Designers are back. Having had their bottoms soundly birched in the US, they are now determined to "educate" England's schoolkids about their utterly unscientific counter "theory" to evolution."

The piece mentions the Truth in Science idiots currently trying to pollute our schools with their dross. What gets me is that it's always a dead giveaway that a group is religious when they use the word Truth, with the capital T, in their name.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,14:56   

Joseph  
Quote
An imaginary tree can do anything one wants it to, including form a nested hiearchy.

A tree cannot do anything one wants it to. Trees regularly form nested hierarchies.

Joseph  
Quote
And reality say that one would not expect a nested hierarchy of living organisms in a Common Descent scenario for the many reasons already provided.

Your paternal descent forms a tree. This is true whether your grandfather is alive and well and still fathering children, or whether he died long ago.

Joseph  
Quote
It also demonstrates that Zachriel does not understand what makes a nested hierarchy- that being DISTINCT and SEPARATE groups.

What makes it a hierarchy is that taxonomic groups are wholely contained within other taxonomic groups. It can be shown that metazoans can be arranged by independently derived traits into a singular nested hierarchy, while artifacts such as motorized vehicles cannot.

Joseph  
Quote
I also understand why Zachriel feels he needs to play "tag" on separate forums. Insecurity.

I have to do it this way because you have indicated that you will not always publish replies. We could move this discussion to an open forum, such as Languedoc Diary A neutral venue. I'm sure Alan would be happy to set up a thread for the discussion of the nested hierarchy.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,14:56   

Quote (Bebbo @ Nov. 28 2006,15:43)
Quote (Faid @ Nov. 28 2006,13:39)
From the "Brites" Thread, after DT expresses his fondness for certain SF authors:

 
Quote
I have in mind a project (after I finish the one I’m working on) for a story in a universe where a mysterious advanced race of “Builders” organizes planets via directed panspermia, and the two main characters, a man and woman of different epochs and worlds, find each other through one of the Builder’s left-over spacetime “transits.” The background is going to include a thorough discrediting of Darwinism.

Comment by dacook — November 28, 2006 @ 12:29 pm


Man, this dacook fella sems good. Almost as good as Paley.

On that same thread it's pointed out that Dembski wrote an endorsement for a book by James Hogan. Here's how one Amazon reviewer begins his review of that book:

"It's hard to know what to make of James P. Hogan, science fiction writer, and now the author of a book that in six densely argued chapters presumes to (1) supplant biological evolution with so-called Intelligent Design; (2) refute Big Bang cosmology; (3) unconfirm Einstein's relativity; (4) argue that Emmanuel Velikovsky (his childhood hero) is more likely right than the scientific and history establishments that labeled him a crackpot; (5) dispute the orthodox on global warming, ozone depletion, and the dangers of DDT while championing the use of nuclear power and the right type of asbestos; and (6) question the medical opinion that AIDS is caused by HIV."

james hogan's website:

Quote
"Ideology increasingly drives science, so that dogmas become entrenched and dissent, even informed dissent, gets quashed. Many areas of science in which the public is told there exists scientific consensus are in fact riven with controversy and poorly supported by evidence. In Kicking the Sacred Cow, James Hogan unmasks such pretentious. Hogan is a master iconoclast."
   -- William A. Dembski, Professor of Research into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Baylor University, author of The Design Revolution


wikipedia

Quote
In recent years, however, Hogan's preferred theories have tended towards those widely considered "fringe" or pseudoscientific. He is a serious proponent of Immanuel Velikovsky's version of catastrophism,[1] of Intelligent Design over Darwinism,[2] and of the theory that AIDS is caused by pharmaceutical use rather than HIV (see AIDS reappraisal).[3] While such theories may seem to contradict his views on scientific rationality, they are consistent with the view that scientific theories should not be accepted simply because they are widely held (see, for instance, argument from authority). Hogan has also espoused the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen, writing that he finds the work of Arthur Butz and Mark Weber to be "more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says."

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,15:12   

Joseph  
Quote
However I do find it ironic that Zachriel would ignore Darwin just because Darwin and I agree. That is just another momma's boy approach.


This is just getting to be hilarious. *I'm* the one ignoring Darwin.

(Nor did I ignore the specific point about the necessity of extinction to preserve the nested hierarchy, but answered in at least two different ways. 1. Not anarchy, or random. It would still constitute a nested hierarchy, only bushier. 2. This is true whether your grandfather is alive and well and still fathering children, or whether he died long ago.)

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,15:13   

DaveTard goes Ready, FIRE!, aim

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1816

*waves*

Hiya Dave, you odious bellend. You lept to a conclusion that isn't, you bad creobot.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,15:44   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 28 2006,15:13)
DaveTard goes Ready, FIRE!, aim

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1816

*waves*

Hiya Dave, you odious bellend. You lept to a conclusion that isn't, you bad creobot.

DMRT1 is highly conserved throughout vertebrata.

Jenny Graves, Australian National University in Canberra. For some reason, the author of the study keeps talking about evolution.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,15:52   

Quote (Faid @ Nov. 28 2006,13:39)
From the "Brites" Thread, after DT expresses his fondness for certain SF authors:

   
Quote
I have in mind a project (after I finish the one I’m working on) for a story in a universe where a mysterious advanced race of “Builders” organizes planets via directed panspermia, and the two main characters, a man and woman of different epochs and worlds, find each other through one of the Builder’s left-over spacetime “transits.” The background is going to include a thorough discrediting of Darwinism.

Comment by dacook — November 28, 2006 @ 12:29 pm


Man, this dacook fella sems good. Almost as good as Paley.

Ya gotta love anyone espousing panspermia as a reasonable explanation.  :p

 
Quote

"It's hard to know what to make of James P. Hogan, science fiction writer, and now the author of a book that in six densely argued chapters presumes to (1) supplant biological evolution with so-called Intelligent Design; (2) refute Big Bang cosmology; (3) unconfirm Einstein's relativity; (4) argue that Emmanuel Velikovsky (his childhood hero) is more likely right than the scientific and history establishments that labeled him a crackpot; (5) dispute the orthodox on global warming, ozone depletion, and the dangers of DDT while championing the use of nuclear power and the right type of asbestos; and (6) question the medical opinion that AIDS is caused by HIV."


He is also, predictably, a holocaust denier. (Calling Larry Fafarman! ) I think I'm noticing a certain familiar pattern here. He seems to be cobbling together a career out of being a kneejerk contrarian, especially if he perceives it's going against 'liberal' belief in so doing. (Yawn.) He's perfect for Dembski.

Quote
BUT WHO BUILT THE BUILDERS???


Please. We're simply positing a sort of disembodied construction entity. Nothing religious at all.  :p

--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,16:18   

D*mbski:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1815#comments

Quote
ID Media Blitz in the UK
by William Dembski on November 28th, 2006 · No Comments
Here are articles that came out just since last night on the challenge to Darwinian orthodoxy in the UK. It looks as though Truth in Science is causing a media storm.


Uh-huh, woohoo, go IDers.

before you pat your backs, imagine if you'd posted this:

Quote
ID Science Blitz in the UK
by William Dembski on November 28th, 2006 · No Comments
Here are peer reviewed publications that came out just since last night on the challenge to Darwinian orthodoxy in the UK. It looks as though Truth in Science is causing a research storm.


This is why you are twats.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,16:33   

Quote
In recent years, however, Hogan's preferred theories have tended towards those widely considered "fringe" or pseudoscientific. He is a serious proponent of Immanuel Velikovsky's version of catastrophism,[1] of Intelligent Design over Darwinism,[2] and of the theory that AIDS is caused by pharmaceutical use rather than HIV (see AIDS reappraisal).[3]


 
Quote
Ideology increasingly drives science....Many areas of science in which the public is told there exists scientific consensus are in fact riven with controversy and poorly supported by evidence. In Kicking the Sacred Cow, James Hogan unmasks such pretentious. (Dembski)


Oh, come on. This is the kind of thing that makes me mad. I don't believe for one second that Dembski denies the HIV-AIDS link (I think I read somewhere that his wife is a nurse?), but he's willing to praise this nutjob while simultaneously giving himself back-off room ("But I never explicitly said that I endorsed this or that" etc.) a la Jonathan Wells.

This level of cleverness just isn't displayed by everybody, and it angers me to see some well meaning people buy into pseudoscience that--okay, let me get this straight--isn't not unendorsed by an ID theorist who doesn't deny evolution but also isn't convinced that random mutation and natural selection completely describe the mechanisms of evolution in a different way than Eugenie Scott isn't convinced of same. (Got all that?)

Not everybody is this clever, okay? (My own head is swimming.) And some of us, who have contact with people who aren't necessarily abstract thinkers and who draw conclusions that these smart people who used big words are proving God and maybe also showing that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, get really frustrated trying to point out the intricacies of this shell game.

ID is the perpetual drawing of a frame, not a picture--a frame around a void! In the same way that rich people want socialism for themselves but capitalism for everyone else, IDers seem to think that they can always have sound science for themselves (even if they have to go to Singapore for medical treatments in the future after science education is gutted in this country) but magic spells and prayer for the rest of us. Is that what they're after? And why?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,17:02   

Hi y'all!

Been lurking for a while. I decided to comment, based on DaveScot's "Shattered Nested Heirarchy" thread at UD. I wanted to point out that it was DaveScot who berated everyone else on UD for not accepting the concept of common descent. Now, he's posting a thread about how the concept of common descent is now "shattered."

What a moron. (Sorry, what a tard.)

One (only one?) of the comments is funny too.

   
Quote
4. Jehu  // Nov 28th 2006 at 5:18 pm

Talk.Origins is looking stupid:

       
Quote
Anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals.


Oops.


Well, Jehu, they still wouldn't.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,17:20   

Jehu points to a pretty good article summarizing the state of phylogenetics.
 
Quote
While you are trying to resolve the montreme, bird, reptile, mammal tree. Check out this review which explains that the tree of life will likely never be resolveable no matter how much data is collected.


The article actually states,    
Quote
Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.


The main problem they point to is phylogenetic resolution of rapid divergence, e.g. the coelacanth/lungfish/tetrapod which probably represents a very short stem 370-390 million years ago. However, determining that they belong in the fish clade is not the difficulty, but only the resolution at the node.

It always tickles me when Intelligent Design advocates point to articles that strongly support evolutionary theory.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,17:54   

Quote
It always tickles me when Intelligent Design advocates point to articles that strongly support evolutionary theory.


Well, they can't point to ID ones, can they?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,18:45   

Ah yes, Jehu. The one who couldn't understand why I got so ticked off that Wells would yank together two different statements separated by paragraphs in a scholarly article and portray them as one quote. The clown who told me, "This [UD] blog is not a journal" when I said that I could never get away with that kind of quote-mining in a white paper or scholarly journal.

Uncommon Descent is not a scholarly journal! Well, d'oh.

 
Quote
Well, they can't point to ID ones, can they?
Welp, obviously not. They don't need to match our pathetic level of detail.

BTW, that "Take it elsewhere" post about people no longer being able to deny common descent at Uncommon Descent (bwa-ha!;) is gone. Here's what I get:

"Easy, tiger. This is a 404 page.
You are totally in the wrong place. Do not pass GO; do not collect $200."

So cute. I could just eat them up! Roooaaaar! Easy, tiger.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,18:53   

Quote
The main problem they point to is phylogenetic resolution of rapid divergence, e.g. the coelacanth/lungfish/tetrapod which probably represents a very short stem 370-390 million years ago. However, determining that they belong in the fish clade is not the difficulty, but only the resolution at the node.

It always tickles me when Intelligent Design advocates point to articles that strongly support evolutionary theory.


But don't you see, it's a piece of ignorance, and they claim all ignorance as part and parcel of their own "model".  True, it's a genetic fallacy (like sympathetic magic), since ignorance has many causes, and the IDiots aren't responsible for every bit of ignorance.

It's touching, though, how eagerly they embrace every lapse in knowledge, every unanswered question, as belonging to their species of ignorance.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,19:15   

That's ok, Kristine. Here are some freshly googled tidbits.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/782#comment-22946
 
Quote
Obviously you believe a designer is responsible. So do I. The difference is I don’t place limitations on the designer. Why do you exclude a designer using a pre-determined path of descent with modification to bring about humans from primates? Could you explain why you limit the methods a designer can choose and the evidence of these limitations?-ds

It looks like he's asking ID researchers to do some ID research.

 
Quote
This is dead wrong. The empirical data shows that in 100% of the observed cases of life coming into existence it was via descent. If you deny this fact of life there’s really no point in me continuing this conversation.


 
Quote
You seem to be imposing limitations on how a designer can turn abstract designs into reality. Keep in mind ID is design detection, not designer characterization. -ds


 
Quote
“Apart from Dr. Davison, which other commenters have any formal training in biology or any other scientific discipline?”

I’m curious why you ask, Xavier, since intelligent people from all backgrounds can objectively look at the data and form a reasonable opinion.

Comment by Scott — February 7, 2006 @ 7:19 am

:D

 
Quote
So when it comes to recognizing design an engineer seems to be the expert with the most “weight”, right? As an engineer and patent maven in the computer and factory automation fields it is my professional opinion that the molecular machinery resident in every living cell is the product of intelligent agency. It’s inconceivable the source could be anything else. -ds



 
Quote
Agreed. ID however doesn’t speak to the issue of common descent. The Darwinian apologist tactic is to use guilt by association to discredit ID. The claim is that most ID proponents reject common descent so by way of association ID must also reject common descent. Rejection of common descent will never, ever be accommodated by science. Anyone that thinks it will be is in denial. If the guilt by association tactic remains successful ID will continue to be excluded. ID basically has become a cause célčbre for common descent deniers and it’s dragging the scientific argument for ID down a hole from which it cannot climb out whilst carrying that special creation burden on its back. -ds

He had to bust out both the accent ague and accent grave for that one.
 
Quote
We have much evidence arguing for common ancestry. Each individual bit of evidence may be questionable at the margins but the bits are cumulative and taken together become virtually undeniable. What evidences argue against common ancestry that would make it plausibly deniable? -ds

Evidences?
 
Quote
Now, DaveWatt, since we are in agreement that descent with modification happened and common ancestry is true, I would ask that you study this carefully and critically, as I have done over the last year, and point out what you think might be wrong with it. I can’t find a thing wrong with it and it isn’t for lack of trying. I’ve been bickering with its author incessantly for many months and the bottom line appears to be - it is the best fitting evolutionary hypothesis out there.


 
Quote
What evidences argue against common ancestry that would make it plausibly deniable? -ds

What would make it shatter?

Sorry for all that. They are all from the same comment thread.

Last one.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/747#comment-22620
 
Quote


But Dave, at some point, there had to have been a parentless organism. There is simply no way around it.

Comment by jacktone — February 2, 2006 @ 12:18 pm


--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 276 277 278 279 280 [281] 282 283 284 285 286 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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