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... > forastero's thread

Pages: (51) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:18    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 04 2011,10:10) Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 04 2011,04:31) Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 04 2011,10:10)     Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2011,05:02) which one of you guys is fourasstero again? (Stands up) I am Tardacus! No! I am Tardacus! No!  I am...oh, shit, no; he's Tardacus! -------------- "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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:18    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:44) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:01) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24) 1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying. Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution. I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it. Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine. Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.) BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right? What pages did you discuss any mutation or natural selection mechanism? Where did you discuss in your own words any bear and cat evolution? It seems to me that you only offered a few links. You incorrectly touched upon domestic selextion, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity,  the Big Bang, and so called uniformitarianism.  You also admitted to only just now "learning" about about epigenetic plasticity but any real or sane biologist would know that epigenetic plasticity is common knowledge I have provided this thread both a good example and a good definition of the Endocrine system's selection of polyphenisms but you simply kicked against the goad Dude, listen closely.  You said "The endocrine system selects phenotypes." You didn't say anything about polyphentic systems, which I think we all agree with. You didn't say anything about hormonal control of metamorphasis... again which no one disagrees with. There is a big difference between the endocrine system selecting any/all phenotypes, which is what you said and what your final claim that hormones can sometimes affect the development in polyphenic genes.  YOU didn't mention epigenetic plasticity until being hounded on it for several pages. Do you understand now?  I am being difficult, because you aren't being precise.  You made a claim and still have not backed it up. Either drop the claim and use one of the changed claims you used between then and now or provide evidence of (for example) some hormone changing someone's phenotype to give them a widow's peak. THIS is why I wanted you to define your words.  We could have avoided all this idiot crap and cleared this up 5 pages ago if you had just defined "Phenotype" and noted that you include polyphenic genes in this definition.   See how easy this is?   Now, what's really very interesting, is that at no point have I disagreed with anything you have said.  Although I'm disagreeing now because I'd like you to quote my reference to The Big Bang and uniformitarianism.  Because I don't think you can do it in the context we have here. Do you want the mechanisms for mutation... ok here you go: hydrolysis modification of bases cross-link DNA dimerization frameshift caused by insertion of non-base chemicals transposon and viral insertions uncorrected replication error UV radiation chemical induced (bisulfite for example) etc. etc. Those are the mechanisms for mutation (well, some of them). Do you want the actual mutations that resulted in the diversity of bears?  Well, again, there is a paper that discusses some of it.  But as I said here there is no way that we will ever know the exact mutational and genetic history of anything.  The past is past, we can compare and see how different things are and, from that, infer the distance (in time) of the last common ancestor.  We can compare morphology and determine relationships that way. By demanding this level of detail, you have just shown that you are not interested in the science of what's going on here. Tell us, forastero, what is your position? BTW: You are still not discussing in good faith.  I have repeatedly answered your questions.  In two cases, I have answered your questions and you did not read them.  It is now your turn. BTW2: Just out of curiosity... what was your entire point with the "endocrine system selects phenotypes" thing?  If you think that somehow discredits evolution, then I think you are sadly mistaken. BTW3: Learning.  Yes, I do that.  It's cool to learn.  However, I will learn from sources that I consider trustworthy.  If you said the sky was blue, I'd go check.  And I'm not a biologist.  But that's OK. You still owe me that list of questions and a quote from me in this thread where I used the Big Bang and uniformitarianism as discussion points. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:22    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,11:09) If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself. Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail. Where is your evidence? The fact that it works the same way in all Eukaryotes indicates that it first appeared in its complete state simultaneously in all those critters and hasnt mutated.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:27    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 04 2011,10:06) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35) Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) Forastero, I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term? We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters. The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones. Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc.. I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice. Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time? a) yes b) no I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.). So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no? I clearly indicated that it was not a specific era but rather a eco zone

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:39    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,11:18) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:44) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:01)   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24) 1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying. Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution. I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it. Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine. Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.) BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right? What pages did you discuss any mutation or natural selection mechanism? Where did you discuss in your own words any bear and cat evolution? It seems to me that you only offered a few links. You incorrectly touched upon domestic selextion, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity,  the Big Bang, and so called uniformitarianism.  You also admitted to only just now "learning" about about epigenetic plasticity but any real or sane biologist would know that epigenetic plasticity is common knowledge I have provided this thread both a good example and a good definition of the Endocrine system's selection of polyphenisms but you simply kicked against the goad Dude, listen closely.  You said "The endocrine system selects phenotypes." You didn't say anything about polyphentic systems, which I think we all agree with. You didn't say anything about hormonal control of metamorphasis... again which no one disagrees with. There is a big difference between the endocrine system selecting any/all phenotypes, which is what you said and what your final claim that hormones can sometimes affect the development in polyphenic genes.  YOU didn't mention epigenetic plasticity until being hounded on it for several pages. Do you understand now?  I am being difficult, because you aren't being precise.  You made a claim and still have not backed it up. Either drop the claim and use one of the changed claims you used between then and now or provide evidence of (for example) some hormone changing someone's phenotype to give them a widow's peak. THIS is why I wanted you to define your words.  We could have avoided all this idiot crap and cleared this up 5 pages ago if you had just defined "Phenotype" and noted that you include polyphenic genes in this definition.   See how easy this is?   Now, what's really very interesting, is that at no point have I disagreed with anything you have said.  Although I'm disagreeing now because I'd like you to quote my reference to The Big Bang and uniformitarianism.  Because I don't think you can do it in the context we have here. Do you want the mechanisms for mutation... ok here you go: hydrolysis modification of bases cross-link DNA dimerization frameshift caused by insertion of non-base chemicals transposon and viral insertions uncorrected replication error UV radiation chemical induced (bisulfite for example) etc. etc. Those are the mechanisms for mutation (well, some of them). Do you want the actual mutations that resulted in the diversity of bears?  Well, again, there is a paper that discusses some of it.  But as I said here there is no way that we will ever know the exact mutational and genetic history of anything.  The past is past, we can compare and see how different things are and, from that, infer the distance (in time) of the last common ancestor.  We can compare morphology and determine relationships that way. By demanding this level of detail, you have just shown that you are not interested in the science of what's going on here. Tell us, forastero, what is your position? BTW: You are still not discussing in good faith.  I have repeatedly answered your questions.  In two cases, I have answered your questions and you did not read them.  It is now your turn. BTW2: Just out of curiosity... what was your entire point with the "endocrine system selects phenotypes" thing?  If you think that somehow discredits evolution, then I think you are sadly mistaken. BTW3: Learning.  Yes, I do that.  It's cool to learn.  However, I will learn from sources that I consider trustworthy.  If you said the sky was blue, I'd go check.  And I'm not a biologist.  But that's OK. You still owe me that list of questions and a quote from me in this thread where I used the Big Bang and uniformitarianism as discussion points. First of all, I have been teaching you all along that polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a a single genome but you just kick against the goad. Secondly, you are confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms. Development is a lifelong process and hormones are constantly involved I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better I have been very clear on my position

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:41    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:47)   Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them. I am not surprised that he would write it though because he wrote in his origins a great deal on the “sudden appearances” in the Cambrian and the so called “primordial” layer beneath the Cambrian. I am thinking the word Vendian was emphasized in brackets but I will soon find out precisely where this quote is originally coming from.   Wesley has already told you where it comes from - twice! Please see a doctor about what is causing your cognition difficulties. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:44    Oh and again,development not only a life long process but generational process since we acquire so much that are parents experience

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:53    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 04 2011,11:41) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:47)   Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them. I am not surprised that he would write it though because he wrote in his origins a great deal on the “sudden appearances” in the Cambrian and the so called “primordial” layer beneath the Cambrian. I am thinking the word Vendian was emphasized in brackets but I will soon find out precisely where this quote is originally coming from.   Wesley has already told you where it comes from - twice! Please see a doctor about what is causing your cognition difficulties. I see that you left out the following from my quote--the part that makes argument mute The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 315–316 "the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the entire absence , as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature.” P 349 Origin 6th edition Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy." On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata. In The Origin of a species Darwin writes: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character. Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…” http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:59    Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now. But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,12:04    Quote ...the part that makes argument mute We can only hope. -------------- "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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,12:09    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:53) The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology Please define "sudden". Please define "rapid". A day? A year? What? -------------- 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

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,12:18    Ogre polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a single genoTYPE to be more precise

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,12:24    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,09:59) Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now. But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face Jesus once said; "Forastero?  What a lying sack of shit.  He's going to hell for sure." -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,12:27    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2011,12:24) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,09:59) Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now. But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face Jesus once said; "Forastero?  What a lying sack of shit.  He's going to hell for sure." Wrong again.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,12:35    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:27) Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2011,12:24) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,09:59) Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now. But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face Jesus once said; "Forastero?  What a lying sack of shit.  He's going to hell for sure." Wrong again. Why?  I'm only doing what you did with Darwin - making up a quote about something long after his death. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,12:40    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:39) First of all, I have been teaching you all along that polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a a single genome but you just kick against the goad. Secondly, you are confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms. Development is a lifelong process and hormones are constantly involved I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better I have been very clear on my position You have not been teaching all along about polyphenisms.  If you think you have, then you are a very poor teacher.  Let me explain: Teaching is not just lecturing, it also involves checking for understanding.  Since, it seemed to you that I did not understand you (not to mention that I asked for clarification no less than five times), you should have explained better.  You did not. You did not talk about epigentics until late into the conversation.  You did not talk about polyphenisms EVER until I brought it up.   So, you are expecting me to read your mind maybe? Fine I'm confusing polymorphism and polyphenism.  maybe if YOU HAD ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS a week ago, we could have avoided all this. I see now that you are taking a slightly different view of phenotype than I do.  Again, if you had answered my question a week ago, then we wouldn't be at this point. BTW: What was the entire point about this discussion again? Quote I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better Do you really not understand how natural selection works?  Do you really not understand how mutation works? I want to understand something here, so I'm asking a question.  You said Quote name all the so called mythological mutation Are you saying that the mutational effects I listed don't exist? OK, here goes.  A random event occurs in a gamete in a female lion.  That gamete is fertilized, with several others and develops into a cub.  That cub is born in a litter with several other cubs. The random event is that a particular base in the DNA of the cub has been replaced with a different base.  This was not caught by the zygotes repair mechanisms.  Unfortunately, this change will now be reflected in every single cell of the cub, including the sex cells. Even more unfortunately, the protein that no longer functions correctly was directly responsible for the elongation of limbs in the cub.  The cub was born with very short limbs... almost non-existant. Since the cub can barely move and certainly cannot fight it's littermates to get at milk, it starves to death in short order. It was selected against.  In the wild world, having short limbs is deadly.  The cub could not fight, run, chase, or keep up with the pride.  That mutation appeared and then exited the gene pool of the population quite rapidly.  This is called evolution. Interestingly, a similar mutation has appeared in domestic cats and has thrived, probably in no small reason that humans find the short legged cats 'cute'.  So, in a different environment, the mutation has been selected FOR and now there is a large community of Munchkin breeders.  BTW: the mutation appears to have occurred several times throughout history, lending credence to the suggestion that it is a simple mutation somewhere with a particular gene.  The first documented case was in 1964 and it was rediscovered and began being bred for in 1983. Now, over time, this mutation and other like it could result in a huge diversity of domestic felines... much like the massive diversity seen in domestic dogs, much of the diversity of which can be traced through human history. For example, rotties were first known in ancient Rome.  The Rhodesian Ridgeback can be traced to the 17th century in South Africa.   I'm willing to submit that the species we know of as dogs (Canis familaris) are instead a cline of very closely related species.  This depends on how you define species of course, but a dachshund and a Great Dane cannot mate naturally and/or could not carry hybrid offspring to birth.  In this way, they are, in terms of mating, physically separated. If all of the medium sized dogs were to disappear, there could be a very valid argument made for the separation of toy dogs and large working dogs into two different species. You have not been clear on your position... as obviously I am still asking about it. Are you, as seems to be implied, a Young Earth Creationist? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,13:13    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:59) Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now. But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Wit is actually comprehensible. In any case, the proffered quotes from Darwin don't contain what was represented as a quote before, which is not surprising since Darwin did not say what Forastero claimed he said. Yes, you are on the hook for actually getting quotes correct, not just finding vaguely similar content. It's a matter of scholarship, something that goes toward intellectual honesty if fulfilled and the other direction if not. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,13:19    Maybe it's the lack of morning tea but I'm finding this induhvidual hilarious. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,13:34    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:22) Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,11:09) If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself. Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail. Where is your evidence? The fact that it works the same way in all Eukaryotes indicates that it first appeared in its complete state simultaneously in all those critters and hasnt mutated. Evidence for WHAT? I didn't make a claim there; I pointed out that your argument doesn't do what I presume you're wanting it to.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,13:35    As for the Cambrian: It IS an era. It is NOT an eco zone.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,14:23    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,12:53) I see that you left out the following from my quote--the part that makes argument mute I just love it when some genius starts to talk about points being "mute." They're often naturally voicetrous people who become flustrated when no one will listen to them. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,14:26            Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) Forastero, I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term? {Blah, blah blah by forastero snipped}   Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice. Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time? a) yes b) no I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.). So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no?   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35) I clearly indicated that it was not a specific era but rather a eco zone What kind of "eco zone"?  Is it one that exists today?  If so, I can go to the Cambrian without a time machine - cool! -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,14:43    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42) blah blah blah... so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words? Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have). Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist. Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur. Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it. Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn. Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade. Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry. Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame. Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Espańola de Paleontología: 115–22. Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it. The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils. (Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.) The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils. Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years. Is that sufficiently precise? I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.   I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons. Oh yes, I did talk about the Big Bang... in terms of an explosion.  Had nothing to do with genetics, the endocrine system, or phenotypes.  BTW: Do you want to state it correctly or shall we just call that one a draw?  You learned something (hopefully) and I learned something. How about forastero?  You still think something exploded (either a chemical, nuclear, or sub-nuclear high speed exothermic reaction) to cause the Big Bang? Oh yeah, the rest of my quote describes the Cambrian.  Curiously, there several references to peer-reviewed work in there.  And I think, IIRC, that those are my words, explaining the definition of the Cambrian Era.  When I type "Cambrian" into google, I get lots of geologic era links, several fossil links, a school district in West Jose, a granite countertop company, but no biomes... I wonder why that is? BTW: As I recall, you brought up uniformitarianism and made the claim that radiometric dating is invalid because of... what?  and your evidence is...? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,16:36    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2011,14:23) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,12:53) I see that you left out the following from my quote--the part that makes argument mute I just love it when some genius starts to talk about points being "mute." They're often naturally voicetrous people who become flustrated when no one will listen to them. Maybe he means a "moo point"? -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,16:45    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 04 2011,14:26)           Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) Forastero, I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term? {Blah, blah blah by forastero snipped}     Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice. Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time? a) yes b) no I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.). So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no?     Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35) I clearly indicated that it was not a specific era but rather a eco zone What kind of "eco zone"?  Is it one that exists today?  If so, I can go to the Cambrian without a time machine - cool! The way it reads to me, forastero thinks all the different geological eras happened at the same time and just represent different parts of the Earth with different ecologies.  He seems to think there was only one batch of diversification, one ice age, (one Ye Olde Flud?), etc.   I'm not sure how he plans to get around the fact that some of those "eco zones" are stacked on top of each other despite being contemporary. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,16:50    oh he "gets around that" by saying really hilarious stupid shit about occams razor -------------- 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

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,17:06    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,02:17) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:10) Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer. Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position. You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design? Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science? If 'no' to any of the above, why? So you admit no scientist can't even explain the notorious   prokaryote to eukaryote and ape to man dichotomies? I debate theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, alien seed mongers, creationists, and IDers and learn from them too.  Some are much more right than others and it often comes down to the individual. Things like DNA and soft tissue in fossils, thermodynamics etc indicate a young earth to me. I believe the Bible. I believe life was created but adapts slightly by epigentics and not random mutations. Well the Bible has over 100 references to a flat earth. Also it is pretty clear that the sky is solid and heaven sits above. Why can this be ignored but everything else must be taken literally? The truth is that YECs are cafeteria christians just like everybody else and that the anti science and the rest are just cultural badges to use against perceived enemies. People are seeing through this and are leaving christianity in droves. You give the game away when you say debate. In a debate you ignore 90% of what the opposition says and hit on the 10%. For people who seek the truth will worry about the other 90%, Ask any of the ex-YECs on this board. A young earth can't explain: limestone caves nearby that are caused by a number of very slow processes. Why the grand canyon meanders. Fossils are laid out in the order that supports common descent, not in body size or how fast they can out run the flood. Sediments are obviously laid down by many different processes. No dinosaurs with modern mammals. Different habitats doesn't wash as Fossils of dinosaurs are found all over the world in many different habitats. etc. etc. If I was a YEC and after the truth, these kind of things would keep me up at night. If I was a cultural warrior full of bluster, I'd just ignore it and search for my next debating point.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,18:22    Young Earth Creationists cannot explain this. The Tarim Basin in Western China is a river canyon (not a flood canyon, but a river canyon.  Yes there is a difference.  If you can't tell them apart, then you have no business even attempting this discussion.) that is carved in limestone. http://home.entouch.net/dmd....ons.htm Interestingly, the rock the river carved is Ordivician (that's an era, not a type of rock). Now, what's really interesting is this canyon, carved in limestone (which is really hard and takes water a long time to dissolve (especially if you think that there was no rain before the flood) is buried under 17,000 feet of additional sediment. Now, let's consider something here.  Since, according to the YECs I've read, all sediment is from the Flood.  Then the Flood waters would have to have been a minimum of 17,000 feet deep.  That's assuming that the Flood waters contained so much sediment that the flood was effectively the consistency of a chocolate malt.  Considering that coral reefs older than 6000 years exist and all the fish had to survive (believe I know Noah didn't have a multi-million gallon saltwater aquarium on the ark), then the flood couldn't have been that thick with sediment (of course it couldn't have been more than about 50 feet deep or the corals still would have died, but we'll leave that aside for now.) So we're looking at flood waters at least 100,000 feet deep just to get the minimum amount of sediment in this canyon. Where did the water come from, where did it go, and where did the sediment come from.  I expect peer-reviewed research that supports your contentions. Go ahead, ask me for references to support anything of the above I've said. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

David Holland Posts: 17 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,20:27    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35) We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters. Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong? Quote The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones. I would like more information on why you think every geological era had an ice age. Where can I find the evidence for the Mesozoic ice age? Quote Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc.. I would be interested in learning how different ecological zones came to be stacked vertically. When you say mammals and dinosaur fossils are found in the same vicinity do you mean the same strata? Because if they are not found in the same layer it doesn't support your postion at all.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,00:47    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,12:40) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:39) First of all, I have been teaching you all along that polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a a single genome but you just kick against the goad. Secondly, you are confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms. Development is a lifelong process and hormones are constantly involved I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better I have been very clear on my position You have not been teaching all along about polyphenisms.  If you think you have, then you are a very poor teacher.  Let me explain: Teaching is not just lecturing, it also involves checking for understanding.  Since, it seemed to you that I did not understand you (not to mention that I asked for clarification no less than five times), you should have explained better.  You did not. You did not talk about epigentics until late into the conversation.  You did not talk about polyphenisms EVER until I brought it up.   So, you are expecting me to read your mind maybe? Fine I'm confusing polymorphism and polyphenism.  maybe if YOU HAD ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS a week ago, we could have avoided all this. I see now that you are taking a slightly different view of phenotype than I do.  Again, if you had answered my question a week ago, then we wouldn't be at this point. BTW: What was the entire point about this discussion again? Quote I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better Do you really not understand how natural selection works?  Do you really not understand how mutation works? I want to understand something here, so I'm asking a question.  You said   Quote name all the so called mythological mutation Are you saying that the mutational effects I listed don't exist? OK, here goes.  A random event occurs in a gamete in a female lion.  That gamete is fertilized, with several others and develops into a cub.  That cub is born in a litter with several other cubs. The random event is that a particular base in the DNA of the cub has been replaced with a different base.  This was not caught by the zygotes repair mechanisms.  Unfortunately, this change will now be reflected in every single cell of the cub, including the sex cells. Even more unfortunately, the protein that no longer functions correctly was directly responsible for the elongation of limbs in the cub.  The cub was born with very short limbs... almost non-existant. Since the cub can barely move and certainly cannot fight it's littermates to get at milk, it starves to death in short order. It was selected against.  In the wild world, having short limbs is deadly.  The cub could not fight, run, chase, or keep up with the pride.  That mutation appeared and then exited the gene pool of the population quite rapidly.  This is called evolution. Interestingly, a similar mutation has appeared in domestic cats and has thrived, probably in no small reason that humans find the short legged cats 'cute'.  So, in a different environment, the mutation has been selected FOR and now there is a large community of Munchkin breeders.  BTW: the mutation appears to have occurred several times throughout history, lending credence to the suggestion that it is a simple mutation somewhere with a particular gene.  The first documented case was in 1964 and it was rediscovered and began being bred for in 1983. Now, over time, this mutation and other like it could result in a huge diversity of domestic felines... much like the massive diversity seen in domestic dogs, much of the diversity of which can be traced through human history. For example, rotties were first known in ancient Rome.  The Rhodesian Ridgeback can be traced to the 17th century in South Africa.   I'm willing to submit that the species we know of as dogs (Canis familaris) are instead a cline of very closely related species.  This depends on how you define species of course, but a dachshund and a Great Dane cannot mate naturally and/or could not carry hybrid offspring to birth.  In this way, they are, in terms of mating, physically separated. If all of the medium sized dogs were to disappear, there could be a very valid argument made for the separation of toy dogs and large working dogs into two different species. You have not been clear on your position... as obviously I am still asking about it. Are you, as seems to be implied, a Young Earth Creationist? Well your last two posts simply reveal you reduced to Hitleresque Big Lie propaganda(The bigger the lie and the more its repeated, the more its believed). Actually I have mentioned the term polyphenisms a few times and several pages back. On the other hand, how can you not understand that the selection of ancestral phenotypes is the same as selecting polyphenisms and where did you ever mention them? How were you hounding me about epigenetics when it was you who tried to ridicule me after my informing you how its controlled mostly by the endocrine system? My view hasnt changed at all. The major polyphenisms are selected directly and non-directly by the interaction of hormones and neurons. Again, the entire point of the discussion is that yo have everything backwards. That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place. I never said that mutations didnt exist. Just go back to the hairless dogs that we covered at the very beginning of our discussion. Like your short legged cats, its a mutation that is non-viable when homozygous. Likewise not all ridgebacks have ridges and there is a  connection to crippling dermiods and homozygoes ridges. I will inform you though that short legs isnt always a negative with cats. It could actually help them clime or scurry through burrows. Likewise not all DNA sequence changes are random. Some are Bauplan by design and a few are directional. Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another. More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes. Btw, I have witnessed tiny dogs eagerly mounting much bigger dogs that were were lying down; and yes, a great dane can produce tiny puppies.

Pages: (51) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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