Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::FTK Research Thread

Posted: June 25 2007,00:55

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,21:16)

FtK:

Quote

You know what, Wesley? This doesn't explain much to me. You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm ignorant....so, I'll give you that point. I don't know squat about this particular topic, so briefly explain. You don't need to start a whole new thread...just tell me what you're trying to get at and how it is evidence for common descent. Try to talk in laymen's terms if possible.

Also, you didn't provide any pictures of orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.

I haven't noticed that explaining things in terms FtK understands actually makes any difference in FtK's behavior. So it seems to me that the point to be made is that FtK is an unreliable source of information.

Nor is the point something about the broad topic of common descent. What is at issue in this exchange is FtK's flat assertion that macroevolutionary change doesn't happen and that humans cannot even induce such changes. As it turns out, humans have multiple ways of inducing precisely the sort of changes that FtK asserted cannot happen and cannot be approached by humans. Confronted with that news, FtK further questioned whether polyploidy happened outside of flowering plants, a clear digression, but one with a clear empirical counterexample.

Even some cursory web browsing starting with "hyla versicolor" as a search phrase reveals quite a number of sources that explains what tetraploidy is and how H. versicolor is related to its parent species. That work has been done, and is readily available. Many of those pages offer the bibliographic data for the peer-reviewed articles that examine this example of vertebrate tetraploidy. So unless FtK wants to come to some sort of arrangement for her tutelage (I accept PayPal), I will give the demanded free tutorial (which will be ignored) a pass.

Yes, I provided no picture book showing differences in orchid morphology when comparing tetraploid daughter species to diploid parents. Of course, this information is so commonplace among orchid fanciers and geneticists (Dr. Henry Wallbrunn, my genetics professor, was both) that finding explicit information of a tutorial nature online is a bit challenging. That still doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

Yes, FtK, you do know squat about this topic, and anyone listening to your claims that macroevolutionary changes don't happen and humans can't even induce such was ill-served by you. Yet I have heard nothing concerning retraction of the false claims, nor anything that would indicate that you will not be offering the very same falsehoods tonight, next week, or whenever you might find it convenient to do so. Instead, we have what appears to be an example of intellectual extortion, 'Tutor me; take up a bunch of your time, or I'll feel justified in continuing just as I have, and may do so anyway.'

Yeah, okay Wes...whatever. I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

How many years did you say you worked for NCSE? The attitude must be a prerequisite.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

argystokes

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,00:59

Beautiful avatar, Tom!

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

creeky belly

Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,01:26

Quote

I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

Refer to the first part. This is a forum, not Bio 101. Get off your lazy ass and RTFM. Wes has spent years studying creationist claims and their evidence, the least you could do is become familiar with basic biology.

I don't know why you're so angry; you were talking out of your ass and Wes called you out. Yeah, you're absolutely right, we've never seen this type of dishonesty from a creationist before. We should show you extra patience since you clearly refuse to read and attempt to comprehend basic biological tenets. Where can I sign up for that? Give us a break or you'll receive the same treatment as Afdave.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,01:30

Quote

Yeah, okay Wes...whatever. I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.

If you've ever taken college classes, did you talk to your prof like that? Is that what seems to have soured you on learning?

Quote

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

But how would you even know?

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

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: June 25 2007,02:50

FtK:

Quote

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

Your claim was that humans cannot induce macroevolutionary change. The first two links I provided, and which you self-admittedly did not follow, showed that there are at least two mechanisms by which humans can, with predictable results, induce polyploid changes in karyotype, which is usually sufficient to produce reduced fertility or complete infertility between parent and daughter species. How exactly are those supposed to "suck"? Be specific, this is *your* claim after all, and it looks like rather than retracting false claims, you are heading toward simple abandonment.

If you want respect, it is best to start out with giving some yourself. That's been notably absent in your interactions, so why exactly you feel at this late date that you deserve far more respect than you've ever shown escapes me. Hurling insults hardly makes that outcome more likely.

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,02:58

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:55)

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

hahahaha

It's funny but you went on and on and on about speculation being taught as fact to college kids, and when pushed you fail to bring an example (apart from the "blob 2 man" picture) worthy of dicussion.

You "blob" example is pure argument from incredulity and rightly should be ignored.

Now, as you have insisted that speculation is being taught as fact to college kids, please give us an example or never repeat that claim again.

Oh, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious?

hahahahahahahahaha.

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

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: June 25 2007,03:17

FtK's original claim.

My initial response.

Quote

So, where exactly are the peer-reviewed articles that show that colchicine and overpressure fail to induce polyploidy, and always have failed to do so? I seem to have missed those.

Note that there is nothing remotely objectionable there.

FtK's reply:

Quote

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants? I don't think it would be the cause for new morphological characteristics.

The reply demonstrated that not even the original web-based materials provided were explored. Is that indicative of respect?

Then, there is the context of the contemporaneous discussion FtK is having concerning Walter Brown's book, especially this comment:

Quote

Tear them apart like paper, huh? Okay... good for you. But, you've only barely skimmed the surface. You're the one who didn't believe creation scientists have anything to offer whatsoever. You can read the entire book, or close it and move on (Icky would prefer that). But, I assure you it gets much, much more interesting, and regardless as to whether you think it's a bunch of bunk or not, it will get you thinking. If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.

Couple that with FtK's behavior in our latest exchange, and I think that the rest becomes quite explicable.

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

IanBrown_101

Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

Posted: June 25 2007,04:25

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:45)

I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.

Yes, because all that evidence over 150 years in practically all fields of science can easily be dismissed by the cunning argument about how a boat that couldn't even come close to holding all the animals and would have sank right away into flood waters that would have had a tricky time getting there managed to do it all because of one man and his family.

Remember though FtK, I'm being polite, I may take slight jabs at you, but this is the same kind of barbed remark I get from you, and you did it first, so no calling foul. I would like to propose a deal, I will read whatever stuff you send me IF and only if you can give me an explanation, or at least send me to somewhere that can (and I don't just mean "read this book, it's in there somewhere) explain how the Egyptians, Assyrians and all the other civilisations apparently contemporary with the flood were not drowned, and also managed to avoid being noticed by the all seeing god.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,05:27

Quote

I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.

Go on then.

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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,06:53

Well, although this discussion has gone where it was doomed to go, it has served a purpose. FTK got pissed and blew her cover:

Before:

"Oh my goodness! TOE is very intersting and I love reading all about science, but I just don't think they have all the friggin' answers. Mercy me! We need to gather more evidence, and I suspect the answer lies in the middle. I don't know why you think this has necessarily to do with religion! Golly! Oops, got to drop these pot holders and go to my son's baseball game! See ya!"

After:

"No way I'm going to accept that a goddamn BLOB crawled around and became MAN, regardless of what evidence you present. Not in a million fucking years. Just remember that God was capable of arranging things any way he wanted and that Christ died on the Cross for your sins."

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

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,07:12

Here's a couple for you then FTK.

a) Do you think aliens exist?
b) If so, did they potentially evolve from a blob?
c) If not, did gawd make them whole too? Like what he did for us, according to you.
d) If so, did jesus also die for their sins or did they get their own version of jesus, as it were, locally? Alien jesus?
e) If they did not get their own version of jesus then how fast does jesus's sin forgiving ray's travel? Does it even forgive aliens? Lets say it travels at teh speed of light. If an alien race is 2500 light years away are they as yet unforgiven? And in 500 years they'll be forgiven because jesus died for their sins here? Is that how it works?
f) When these aliens, 2000 years after getting jesus' forgivin rays start to get our TV and RADIO, do you think they'll be happy or sad about what humanity has become in those 2000 years.

And FTK,

Quote

I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist

Try reading the links you are given before more outbursts like that. It's not a very Christian response now is it? :) The information is out there, all you have to do is look.

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

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: June 25 2007,07:20

FtK:

Quote

The attitude must be a prerequisite.

An earlier influence would have been at Texas A&M, where the Aggie Code of Honor is:

Quote

An Aggie does not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do.

That's short enough for an Aggie to memorize.

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

Rev. BigDumbChimp

Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,07:50

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:55)

Yeah, okay Wes...whatever. I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

How many years did you say you worked for NCSE? The attitude must be a prerequisite.

Translation.

Boo Hoo. I don't feel like doing the actual research myself because 1) theres no way i would understand it 2) doing so would cause me to have to explain why I think the evidence isn't viable 3) I'd much rather play the victim card

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,07:55

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 25 2007,07:50)

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:55)

Yeah, okay Wes...whatever. I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

How many years did you say you worked for NCSE? The attitude must be a prerequisite.

Translation.

Boo Hoo. I don't feel like doing the actual research myself because 1) theres no way i would understand it 2) doing so would cause me to have to explain why I think the evidence isn't viable 3) I'd much rather play the victim card

yeah, and not doing it is the easy option.

Still waiting for those examples of speculation being taught as fact to college students FTK.....

You are never too old to learn FTK.

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

Mike PSS

Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,08:10

Ftk,

I've asked a simple question that doesn't involve technical scientific knowledge, only author intent.

"Why do you feel the need to challange the present scientific understanding about the Oort cloud?"

What is it about the present explanation that you disagree with?

Lenny gave an answer from his old playbook but I would like to hear it from you.

The reason I ask is simple. For you, or me, or anyone to challange an established principle (like the existence of the Oort cloud) there must be some overwhelming reason to put this challange forward. In scientific investigation (read research) the reason to challange established, published, principles is usually because of evidence or scholorship that shows the past principles lacking in explanatory power w.r.t. the most recent discoveries.

Now, WHY do YOU feel the need to challange the existence of the Oort cloud?

You could even C&P from the sources that you use, but I think it's reasonable for me to ask this.

Ftk

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: June 25 2007,08:24

I read the links Wes provided...I didn't comprehend how those examples can produce changes in morphology...simple as that. I asked for an explanation in laymen's terms, but I guess that was too much to ask.

So, then I lost my temper because I do not appreciate Wes's attitude. He seems to believe that it is okay to belittle anything or anyone who questions the ToE, yet when someone does the same to him, he cries foul.

It is irritating as well that he seems to condone behavior like that displayed by Lenny Flank. As a major contributor to a science forum, it would seem that he would try to keep guys like Flank at bay.

So, I apologize for the excessive use of the work "fuck" in my posts last night. It was late and I was irritated with the attitude. I was trying my best to explain that I don't see how these examples explain how macroevolution is responsible for the immense changes that had to take place in order for a microbe to produce the design we see in nature today. I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: June 25 2007,08:28

Re mooses on the Ark

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:45)

I don’t think it’s as miraculous an event as one might think, but hell will freeze over before I discuss that one further. I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.

Yeah, I'd like to hear that too. Don't forget to include saltwater critters like blue whales, etc.

Quote

What is the difference between what you say in this comment, and what a theistic evolutionist would say?

Quote

You must have linked to the wrong comment...I don’t see anything in that post that has anything to do with what a TE might say.

Then you need to read your own writings more carefully. As I pointed out here, icefish must have evolved from an ancestor with good globin genes (as well as lots of other genes that are different from the current genes in the icefish). That is what you call "macroevolution" (aka speciation in this instance). As I recall, you are on record as saying that you can accept "microevolution" but not macroevolution. TEs have no problem with macroevolution. Please explain this confusion. Thanks.

Quote

And if you get time, please let us know some examples of unwarranted "speculation" that you found in that college-level intro biology book.

Quote

I wouldn’t even know where to begin. On second thought, I’ve mentioned one of them on this thread already. The picture series of a little microbe evolving on it’s own...get real.

Sorry I missed that post; can you provide a link? And I'm also sorry to point out that even if it is true, one example is not really enough, based on statements like "a lot of it is speculation", and "I wouldn't even know where to begin". There must be lots more than just one...

Quote

Contrast that to your attitude about science. You refuse to accept the positions of authority figures, despite the reality that their positions are backed by both logic and factual, verifiable evidence.

Quote

Dave, there is no “logical, factual, and verifiable evidence” for the blob story.

And nobody said that there is. If you haven't learned by now, biogenensis is not part of evolutionary theory. Nobody is trying to tell you that science understands biogenesis. Let's stick to science like macroevolution and common descent. These are backed up by evidence, supported by almost all authorities in the field, and denied by you.

Quote

Is this double standard evidence for "open-mindedness"? How can you apply two entirely different approaches to these areas, and retain any credibility when you claim to be open-minded???

Quote

I guess I could ask you the same thing.

Unlike you, I can (and will) answer it. I approach everything the same way. If there is evidence and logic behind it, I can accept it. If there is no evidence or if it defies logic, I can't. If new evidence comes up, I can change my mind. So now it's your turn to answer the question. How can you claim to be open-minded when you acccept one viewpoint blindly and profess deep (but ignorant) skepticism about another viewpoint?

Quote

All we are asking for is consistency. If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical in all arenas.

Quote

Back atcha again. You’re certainly skeptical about religious beliefs while admitting you don’t have much background on the topic. Yet, you unquestioningly accept that all aspects of the ToE are supported by logical, factual, and verifiable evidence.

Baloney on both counts. I have plenty of "religious background". I did say once that I don't know a lot about other religions; that is a very different thing. Words have meanings, and I use them carefully. I do contend that my religious background is irrelevant in my work as a scientist. Irrelevant is not the same as non-existent. Words matter. Secondly (unlike you), I don't accept anything "unquestioningly". I could give you lots of examples of things that I thought were true when I was a graduate student and which are now known to be wrong based on new evidence. I don't still believe things that I know are wrong. And I include aspects of evolutionary theory in that one. The problem (for you) is that basic evolutionary theory has only been strengthened by new evidence, not weakened. If you have new evidence that weakens it, please share that with us here.

Then go find that mirror.

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

deejay

Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,08:36

from Ftk:

Quote

I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.

Ftk, it's a real shame that after several years of obsessing over the topic of evolution, you still have no idea how science works.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,08:37

Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,08:24)

I was trying my best to explain that I don't see how these examples explain how macroevolution is responsible for the immense changes that had to take place in order for a microbe to produce the design we see in nature today. I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.

I'm confused. Are you saying that there was or was not design in the "original" microbe?

The "design" we see in nature today is the same "design" present in nature before humans existed.

I.E none at all.

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

Tom

Posts: 15
Joined: April 2007

Posted: June 25 2007,09:12

Sorry for digressing, but

Quote

Beautiful avatar, Tom!

Thanks argystokes! It's always nice to meet another C&H fan. By the way, nice signature line. ;)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Ftk debate.

Paul Flocken

Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

Posted: June 25 2007,09:27

Quote

Remember though FtK, I'm being polite, I may take slight jabs at you, but this is the same kind of barbed remark I get from you, and you did it first, so no calling foul. I would like to propose a deal, I will read whatever stuff you send me IF and only if you can give me an explanation, or at least send me to somewhere that can (and I don't just mean "read this book, it's in there somewhere) explain how the Egyptians, Assyrians and all the other civilisations apparently contemporary with the flood were not drowned, and also managed to avoid being noticed by the all seeing god.

Over at PT I asked a variation of this of Mark Hausam. But the comment had five links and was caught by the spam filter. I was also extremely snide, sarcastic, and rude and so I think Nick was disinclined to remove it from the filter. I would like to ask FtK this question too.

What was the name of the Pharoah whose reign and life ended when he drowned in and his realm was destroyed by the flood. If you feel you need a better question I will type out the long version complete with links and pic's and clarifying information and clarifying questions. But this is the essential question. It just requires a single one word answer. Can you answer it?

Sincerely,
Paul

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,09:37

Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 25 2007,09:27)

Quote

Remember though FtK, I'm being polite, I may take slight jabs at you, but this is the same kind of barbed remark I get from you, and you did it first, so no calling foul. I would like to propose a deal, I will read whatever stuff you send me IF and only if you can give me an explanation, or at least send me to somewhere that can (and I don't just mean "read this book, it's in there somewhere) explain how the Egyptians, Assyrians and all the other civilisations apparently contemporary with the flood were not drowned, and also managed to avoid being noticed by the all seeing god.

Over at PT I asked a variation of this of Mark Hausam. But the comment had five links and was caught by the spam filter. I was also extremely snide, sarcastic, and rude and so I think Nick was disinclined to remove it from the filter. I would like to ask FtK this question to.

What was the name of the Pharoah whose reign and life ended when he drowned in and his realm was destroyed by the flood. If you feel you need a better question I will type out the long version complete with links and pic's and clarifying information and clarifying questions. But this is the essential question. It just requires a single one word answer. Can you answer it?

Sincerely,
Paul

That's a great question, and one that should be asked of AFDave over at IIDB.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=202259&page=15

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

Paul Flocken

Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

Posted: June 25 2007,09:45

Well then I might just have to register at IIDB to ask it, but that can't happen 'til this evening. However, for AirFarceDave I will have to make it the long version. It has lots of assumptions and he likes assumptions.

added in edit: You got a deal OldMan. I just glanced at that thread and would love to ask afd that question.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,09:51

Quote (deejay @ June 25 2007,08:36)

from Ftk:

Quote

I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.

Ftk, it's a real shame that after several years of obsessing over the topic of evolution, you still have no idea how science works.

I'm sure she questions the bible on a daily basis. Why doesn't Genesis talk about bacterial life?

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

deejay

Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,10:09

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 25 2007,09:51)

Quote (deejay @ June 25 2007,08:36)

from Ftk:

Quote

I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.

Ftk, it's a real shame that after several years of obsessing over the topic of evolution, you still have no idea how science works.

I'm sure she questions the bible on a daily basis. Why doesn't Genesis talk about bacterial life?

I'm sure Walt Brown has an answer for that one. But that darned atheist conspiracy is keeping him from publishing it in the journals.

IanBrown_101

Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

Posted: June 25 2007,10:56

Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 25 2007,09:27)

What was the name of the Pharoah whose reign and life ended when he drowned in and his realm was destroyed by the flood.

Mentuhotep IV. I presume it must be since he seems to fit what I believe are the generally agreed dates of the flood (roughly at least)

Died 1991 BCE. His death even signalled the end of the 11th dynasty. Unfortunately he was immediately replaced by Amenemhat I, who began the 12th dynasty.

Whoops.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: June 25 2007,11:02

FtK:

Quote

I didn't comprehend how those examples can produce changes in morphology

So what? That doesn't have the slightest thing to do with the status of your (still unretracted) claim that humans cannot induce macroevolutionary change.

But I'll toss something in for the lurkers...

Horizontal evolution, or macroevolutionary change if you like, involves changes in diversity. The essential characteristic here is the evolution of reproductive isolation. This may, or may not, involve morphological change. Morphological change as a component of reproductive isolation is at the basis of the "lock-and-key" hypothesis concerning insect speciation, but there is research that goes some way to disputing the significance of morphological change to reproductive isolation even within those groups where this has been accepted as a good explanation of the evidence. And then we come to one of my very favorite examples, cryptic speciation in pseudoscorpions. Zeh and Zeh discovered this complex of sibling species that have complete postzygotic infertility (they cannot produce offspring in crosses between sibling species) while retaining shared morphological traits across the sibling species. Genetically, too, the species are very similar, with the study finding differences between the populations at two alleles. Zeh and Zeh noted the high reliability of assignment of individuals to their correct population using genetic fingerprinting (~1% error rate), and the relative unreliability of using morphological characters (~26% error rate for male external morphology, and ~13% error rate for male genitalia morphology). The take-home message: don't assume that similar morphology implies reproductive compatibility between allopatric populations. The pseudoscorpions examined illustrate that morphology is not a necessary factor in establishing reproductive isolation, that major genetic rearrangements don't appear to be necessary to driving reproductive isolation, and that speciation may be far more common than has been assumed on grounds of morphological similarity of disparate populations.

(I took a look, and I think my first use of this example was on 1995/06/04. And, Lenny, I think that was my own find.)

David W. Zeh and Jeanne A. Zeh. 1994. When Morphology Misleads: Interpopulation Uniformity in Sexual Selection Masks Genetic Divergence in Harlequin Beetle-Riding Pseudoscorpion Populations.
Evolution Vol. 48, No. 4 (Aug., 1994):1168-1182.

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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,11:09

Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)

Gosh, I keep looking in this textbook Dave gave me and staring at that little microbe and the series of pictures that supposedly respresents how that little sucker looked when it started on its evolutionary journey.

I'm wondering if someone threw some pixie dust on it to get it to be able to do something that resulted in everything we observe in the world today. I mean, color me impressed...

A pretty good description of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. And as ridiculous as you intend it to sound.

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

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

blipey

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: June 25 2007,12:48

Now that Wes has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ftk lied outright in a previous post, can we start a pool on her retraction?

I'll take the Tuesday after the Second Coming.

Also, I know you'll never do it, but can we ban all comments that use quotation marks around anything that isn't actually a quote?

I realize this will significantly reduce the amount of humor we see from Ftk, but it will streamline the thread.

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

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002