Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 ... >

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,03:00    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2008,18:17)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2008,01:00)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2008,19:37) I think that maybe Neoteny could apply to the coral example Calling all passengers. Your gap just got that bit smaller. Please note, all gods must now be re-sized to fit into the new, smaller gap. Mind the gap. If you'd spent more time paying attention and less time jumping to conclusions, you'd know that I don't advocate a "god of the gaps".  I've been clear on a number of occasions that I believe God planned it all - even the stuff that's already been explained. You might believe it, but can you prove it? You appear to have no evidence whatsoever to support your position. For example, you quote   Quote We found that the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. The characters that account for the distinctions among species are completely different from those that distinguish one type from another. So, Daniel, did this "refashioning" take place because a) god directly did it b) god planned it that way Daniel, is there really a difference between a and b? And the thing about "god planned it" is that nothing can prove or disprove it. Unicorns don't exist. god planned it that way HIV kills innocent children. god planned it that way We found that the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. god planned it that way. So, Daniel, what makes you think that almost everything that's ever lived going extinct is planned? What's the point of that then? Oh, you can tell god planned it that way but you don't know why? Seems to me you can't have it both ways. You can't see a "plan" and not know why. Otherwise it's not really a plan is it? For example, if you were attempting to escape from prison. Would a "plan" be to walk in a random direction and hope you escaped? Would somebody watching this behaviour think "oh, his plan to escape is good". If it's "planned" Daniel can you use the same powers of observation that led you to believe that in the first place to make a prediction that might provide some support for your position? Use your understanding of the "plan" to predict something that has not yet happened? Or use the "plan" to predict something that has already happened, and where we can dig to see the fossils? No? Then what use is this insight into gods plan? Something that explains everything is no use for anything. It's just in your brain. Stop trying to find evidence in the fossil record to support it. It's not there. and if you are right then god planned me jumping to conclusions. Seems to me that your god wants you to lose these debates? I wonder why....Whatever the "why" it's planned you lose. And badly. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,07:40    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2008,18:11) I think you should read the paper then, especially since they seem to be proposing this as a mechanism to explain the origin of higher categories ala Schindewolf: So?  The Loennig paper is a speculative review.  If it stimulates research, it will have made a contribution to our understanding. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,09:47    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 20 2008,07:40) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2008,18:11) I think you should read the paper then, especially since they seem to be proposing this as a mechanism to explain the origin of higher categories ala Schindewolf: So?  The Loennig paper is a speculative review.  If it stimulates research, it will have made a contribution to our understanding. And such reviews are rarely peer-reviewed.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,11:02    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,01:00) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2008,18:17)     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2008,01:00)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2008,19:37) I think that maybe Neoteny could apply to the coral example Calling all passengers. Your gap just got that bit smaller. Please note, all gods must now be re-sized to fit into the new, smaller gap. Mind the gap. If you'd spent more time paying attention and less time jumping to conclusions, you'd know that I don't advocate a "god of the gaps".  I've been clear on a number of occasions that I believe God planned it all - even the stuff that's already been explained. You might believe it, but can you prove it? You appear to have no evidence whatsoever to support your position. For example, you quote     Quote We found that the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. The characters that account for the distinctions among species are completely different from those that distinguish one type from another. So, Daniel, did this "refashioning" take place because a) god directly did it b) god planned it that way Daniel, is there really a difference between a and b? And the thing about "god planned it" is that nothing can prove or disprove it. Unicorns don't exist. god planned it that way HIV kills innocent children. god planned it that way We found that the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. god planned it that way. So, Daniel, what makes you think that almost everything that's ever lived going extinct is planned? What's the point of that then? Oh, you can tell god planned it that way but you don't know why? Seems to me you can't have it both ways. You can't see a "plan" and not know why. Otherwise it's not really a plan is it? For example, if you were attempting to escape from prison. Would a "plan" be to walk in a random direction and hope you escaped? Would somebody watching this behaviour think "oh, his plan to escape is good". If it's "planned" Daniel can you use the same powers of observation that led you to believe that in the first place to make a prediction that might provide some support for your position? Use your understanding of the "plan" to predict something that has not yet happened? Or use the "plan" to predict something that has already happened, and where we can dig to see the fossils? No? Then what use is this insight into gods plan? Something that explains everything is no use for anything. It's just in your brain. Stop trying to find evidence in the fossil record to support it. It's not there. and if you are right then god planned me jumping to conclusions. Seems to me that your god wants you to lose these debates? I wonder why....Whatever the "why" it's planned you lose. And badly. My belief in God is not based on science.  How sad would that be anyway?  You'd have to change your beliefs every time a new discovery was made!  No, my belief in God is purely subjective.  I do find however that the findings of science reinforce my beliefs. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,11:38    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2008,11:02) No, my belief in God is purely subjective.  I do find however that the findings of science reinforce my beliefs. Give us an example then. EDIT: Yay. I made it into a signature. Do you ever get drunk Daniel, or is that forbidden by your god? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,12:48    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2008,11:02) I do find however that the findings of science reinforce my beliefs. That's a lucky coincidence eh? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,13:00    Interesting how you ignore the majority of my post Daniel to make a different point. Why did you quote it if you were only going to ignore it? Was I indicating your belief in god arises from discontinuities in the fossil record? I don't believe I was. Here, let me refresh your memory of what you approvingly quoted earlier   Quote the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. and again   Quote the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. Now, why did you pick that particular quote? Just a coincidence that it mentions direct refashioning? Was this "direct refashioning" because a) natural but as yet unexplained events caused it b) god did it directly there and then. c) god planned it that way from the beginning. or other? Daniel, the point is here either you are trying to make a very  specific point about some mechanism of change that you are poorly qualified to argue, or you are saying there is direct evidence of gods intervention (or "plan") in the fossil record. Which is it Daniel? -------------- 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

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,17:46    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 20 2008,05:40)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2008,18:11) I think you should read the paper then, especially since they seem to be proposing this as a mechanism to explain the origin of higher categories ala Schindewolf: So?  The Loennig paper is a speculative review.  If it stimulates research, it will have made a contribution to our understanding. Well, I didn't want you to read it so much for the opinions expressed but for the research they point to.  Particularly promising (IMO) is the research of A. Lima-de-Faria, B. McClintock, and J.A Shapiro. If you don't want to read it, then don't. I was just trying to answer your question:     Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,05:08) So, I now see the parallel in Schindewolf's claims for corals and ammonoids: an ontogenetic switch. Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis?  It looks testable.  Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,18:10    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,11:38) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2008,11:02) No, my belief in God is purely subjective.  I do find however that the findings of science reinforce my beliefs. Give us an example then. EDIT: Yay. I made it into a signature. Do you ever get drunk Daniel, or is that forbidden by your god? I want to know if he's of the true faith, you know, sheep, etc...? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,18:11    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,11:00) Interesting how you ignore the majority of my post Daniel to make a different point. Why did you quote it if you were only going to ignore it? OK, I admit it, I didn't read most of your post. Frankly, you lost me at:         Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,01:00) You might believe it, but can you prove it? I'm not interested in "proving" anything about God.  What kind of question is that anyway?  Can you "prove" 100% of what you believe?  Can you prove God doesn't exist? Gimme a break! Now, having gone back and actually read your post, I find it completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. My belief in God (to repeat) is not based on the findings of man.  I already know God exists - for reasons science can't explain.  My belief is not based on objective reality - it is based on subjective, spiritual experiences. So, when I look at science, I see the findings through believing eyes.  DNA is the coded language of life - written by God.  Proteins are his building blocks.  Evolution is his adaptive mechanism.  Etc.  No matter what man finds out, I'll still believe in God and I'll still believe that this world exists because of his plan.  Do you understand that? I don't pretend to know the "Why?" for any of this either (which is what you're really asking).  I'll find that out soon enough. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,18:13    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,09:38) Yay. I made it into a signature. Do you ever get drunk Daniel, or is that forbidden by your god? I just thought it was funny that's all.  No moral judgments here. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,18:42    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,09:38)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2008,11:02) No, my belief in God is purely subjective.  I do find however that the findings of science reinforce my beliefs. Give us an example then. How's this?     Quote Cells are capable of sophisticated information processing. Cellular signal transduction networks serve to compute data from multiple inputs and make decisions about cellular behavior. Genomes are organized like integrated computer programs as systems of routines and subroutines, not as a collection of independent genetic 'units'. DNA sequences which do not code for protein structure determine the system architecture of the genome. Repetitive DNA elements serve as tags to mark and integrate different protein coding sequences into coordinately functioning groups, to build up systems for genome replication and distribution to daughter cells, and to organize chromatin. Genomes can be reorganized through the action of cellular systems for cutting, splicing and rearranging DNA molecules. Abstract: Transposable elements as the key to a 21st century view of evolution, Shapiro JA., Genetica. 1999;107(1-3):171-9. That reinforces my belief that God programmed life.  What does it reinforce for you? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,19:03    Daniel, why do you value analogies like that to make certain things more clear so much? Those things aren't the real world, programming and IT isn't the same as the inner-workings of a cell, not even clóse.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2008,23:18    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 21 2008,00:11) I'm not interested in "proving" anything about God.  What kind of question is that anyway?  Can you "prove" 100% of what you believe?  Can you prove God doesn't exist? Gimme a break! Logical fallacy. You cannot prove (to the limits of the actual ability of people to prove anything) a negative. Good grief man, that's basic stuff. -------------- 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.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,02:58    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,13:00) Now, why did you pick that particular quote? Just a coincidence that it mentions direct refashioning? Was this "direct refashioning" because a) natural but as yet unexplained events caused it b) god did it directly there and then. c) god planned it that way from the beginning. or other? Daniel, the point is here either you are trying to make a very  specific point about some mechanism of change that you are poorly qualified to argue, or you are saying there is direct evidence of gods intervention (or "plan") in the fossil record. Which is it Daniel? I ask again. You are pointing to the fossil record here. The "subject at hand" if you will. I'll keep asking. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,03:05    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2008,18:42) That reinforces my belief that God programmed life.  What does it reinforce for you? It reinforces my belief that if your god exists he is a petulant moronic child who gives not a whit for the sufferings of it's creation and as such deserves only contempt. Daniels god programmed HIV. Daniels god programmed cancer. Daniels god programmed the nerve that loops around a giraffe's neck and back when it could just have been a fraction of the length. Daniels god programmed parasites that blind people, and worse. Daniels god programmed malaria. The fact you worship such a deity says lots about you. And Daniel, I can't prove invisible unicorns don't exist either. I don't see that as a valid reason to worship them just in case. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,03:17    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2008,18:11) I'm not interested in "proving" anything about God. Quote I'm not interested in "proving" anything about God.  What kind of question is that anyway? I think you are having a crisis of faith and are using this forum to convince yourself that evidence exists for your god. Quote Can you "prove" 100% of what you believe?  Can you prove God doesn't exist? Gimme a break! Silly question, shows how little you've thought about it, to my mind. I can't prove X does not exist so X exists? I don't think so. Quote Now, having gone back and actually read your post, I find it completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Which is what exactly? Some technical detail about how a particular detail of evolution recorded in the fossil record was achieved? Or how god intervened and made it so? Quote My belief in God (to repeat) is not based on the findings of man. That's lucky then as the findings of man = no evidence so far! Quote I already know God exists - for reasons science can't explain.  My belief is not based on objective reality - it is based on subjective, spiritual experiences. Yep, proof positive for all. Only thing is, not everybody believes so have you been chosen specially for this privilege? Quote So, when I look at science, I see the findings through believing eyes. As has already been proven you see what you want to see, that's if you can even understand what it is you are seeing. Quote DNA is the coded language of life - written by God. And quite a bad job it did eh? HIV etc? Quote Proteins are his building blocks. And the parasites that burrow under your skin? Are they his "wikkle little worker parasites seeking out the guilty"? Quote Evolution is his adaptive mechanism. And this was all revealed to you in a spiritual event yeah? Quote Etc. See, ID'ers say that no evidence can falsify "darwinism" because it would adjust to fit it, but you are the case in point Daniel. No matter what is found, it'll reinforce your belief. Quote No matter what man finds out, I'll still believe in God and I'll still believe that this world exists because of his plan. You keep going on about this plan. As I asked you already, what aspect of it makes you think it was a plan? Was it the parasites, badly designed spines or what? Quote  Do you understand that? I understand that no amount of evidence that evolution without supernatural intervention will convince you that your god is not playing with the world behind the scenes. Quote I don't pretend to know the "Why?" for any of this either (which is what you're really asking). And no doubt you have no interest in knowing as you are wrapped in the comfort blanket of "god knows best" and "it's all gods plan" and so you personally don't have to worry or try. It must be nice to know that your entire life is planned out Daniel? Takes some of the worry away right? Quote I'll find that out soon enough. Why not go now? If it's so great in heaven what are all the god-botherers waiting for? If this earth is so corrupt then why hang around? I guess you subscribe to "the fall" and all that lark. Just seems odd to me why people who are 100% certain that a better life awaits don't just go to it. -------------- 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

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,03:41    [JAD] I love it so! [/JAD] After all the dancing around biology (which we all know isn't Danny's point anyway) we get back to "atheists believe there is no god, prove god doesn't exist" and badly done attempts at Pascal's Wager. Wonderful! Tip for Danny: Atheism is strictly defined (in philosophical terms at least) as a lack of belief in a theistic deity, cast from your mind any and all confusions regarding morphed/popular versions of that word's meaning. Lack of belief does not equate to belief of lack. Period. If you want to refer to beief in a lack of a deity (as opposed to lack of belief in a deity) use a different word, it's less confusing for everyone concerned. I suggest one of the following: strong atheism, antitheism, anterotheism. Others may have their preferred term, personally I favour anterotheism simply because the Greek etymology is more apropos. Second, proving a negative is, inductively at least, impossible. It is also a lovely little game called "shifting the burden of proof". The burden of proof rests on the positive claimant. I, and atheist, do not claim god does not exist, I wouldn't be so stupid, I also do not claim that unicorns don't exist, I wouldn't be that stupid either. What I do claim, and do so on the basis of a staggering amount of data, is that there is no clear cut, reliable, reproducible evidence, as free from bias and fallacious drivel as can be acheived, that either gods or unicorns exist. Therefore, and this is the personal bit, I act as if they did not. When there is evidence for their existence, then I shall act as though they do exist, which in this hypothetical case 'twould appear they do. Thirdly and finally, if evolutionary biology needs to be modified or altered in some fashion which, as it is a scientific entity and thus only ever provisionally true, it undoubtedly will do, that alteration will be made on the available evidence. Reliable, reproducible evidence. There is no dogma to hold to, Darwin got lots of things wrong and lots of things right by the looks of it, science has moved forward in the last 150 years. Arguing against your own ignorant caricatures of the subject will only serve to make you look like a fool. Even if evolutionary biology is altered (on the basis of the evidence) beyond anything we recognise today it does not follow that your charmingly mysterious little deity is the default explanation. Deal with it. Louis -------------- Bye.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,06:24    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2008,09:41) your charmingly mysterious little deity Now now Louis, lying is a sin. There is nothing charming about the Abrahamic 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.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,07:06    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2008,17:46)     Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 20 2008,05:40)             Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2008,18:11) I think you should read the paper then, especially since they seem to be proposing this as a mechanism to explain the origin of higher categories ala Schindewolf: So?  The Loennig paper is a speculative review.  If it stimulates research, it will have made a contribution to our understanding. Well, I didn't want you to read it so much for the opinions expressed but for the research they point to.  Particularly promising (IMO) is the research of A. Lima-de-Faria, B. McClintock, and J.A Shapiro. If you don't want to read it, then don't. I was just trying to answer your question:           Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,05:08) So, I now see the parallel in Schindewolf's claims for corals and ammonoids: an ontogenetic switch. Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis?  It looks testable.  Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature? Sorry for the misunderstanding.   Kudos for finding the paper, which is relevant, as far as it goes, to my question.  And I have read it. The point remains, however, that the paper's thesis is hypothetical.  Are there any subsequent confirming data?  For example, now that we have the complete genome sequences of chimps and humans, can we account for a saltational leap between them based on transposable element-mediated chromosomal rearrangements? Anything else pertaining thereto in other fully or partially sequenced genomes? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,18:26    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Feb. 20 2008,21:18)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 21 2008,00:11) I'm not interested in "proving" anything about God.  What kind of question is that anyway?  Can you "prove" 100% of what you believe?  Can you prove God doesn't exist? Gimme a break! Logical fallacy. You cannot prove (to the limits of the actual ability of people to prove anything) a negative. Good grief man, that's basic stuff. I'm pretty sure you all collectively missed my point--which was that "beliefs" have nothing to do with "proof".  I was not arguing against atheism because it lacks proof, nor was I challenging you to prove a negative, I was simply saying that nobody holds their own beliefs to the standard of "proof".   IOW, do you only believe what has been "proven"?  No, you don't.  Nobody does.  So I was actually making the opposite point: I don't ask you to prove what you believe, so don't ask me to prove my beliefs. All this came about because oldmaninthesky asked me:     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,01:00) You might believe it, but can you prove it? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,18:33    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,13:00) Was this "direct refashioning" because a) natural but as yet unexplained events caused it b) god did it directly there and then. c) god planned it that way from the beginning. or other? I don't know - maybe all of the above.       Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,13:00) Daniel, the point is here either you are trying to make a very  specific point about some mechanism of change that you are poorly qualified to argue, or you are saying there is direct evidence of gods intervention (or "plan") in the fossil record. Which is it Daniel? Maybe none of the above.     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 21 2008,00:58) I ask again. You are pointing to the fossil record here. The "subject at hand" if you will. I'll keep asking. I know you will. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2008,19:26    Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 21 2008,05:06) Sorry for the misunderstanding.  :( Kudos for finding the paper, which is relevant, as far as it goes, to my question.  And I have read it. The point remains, however, that the paper's thesis is hypothetical.  Are there any subsequent confirming data?  For example, now that we have the complete genome sequences of chimps and humans, can we account for a saltational leap between them based on transposable element-mediated chromosomal rearrangements? Anything else pertaining thereto in other fully or partially sequenced genomes? I'm finding that the in-depth study of chromosomal evolution appears to be relatively new and most papers seem to reflect this. I found this paper.  I haven't read it yet, but the abstract mentions evidence of "regions of extraordinarily rapid, localized genome evolution":       Quote Large-scale genome sequencing is providing a comprehensive view of the complex evolutionary forces that have shaped the structure of eukaryotic chromosomes. Comparative sequence analyses reveal patterns of apparently random rearrangement interspersed with regions of extraordinarily rapid, localized genome evolution. Numerous subtle rearrangements near centromeres, telomeres, duplications, and interspersed repeats suggest hotspots for eukaryotic chromosome evolution. This localized chromosomal instability may play a role in rapidly evolving lineage-specific gene families and in fostering large-scale changes in gene order. Computational algorithms that take into account these dynamic forces along with traditional models of chromosomal rearrangement show promise for reconstructing the natural history of eukaryotic chromosomes. Structural Dynamics of Eukaryotic Chromosome Evolution, Evan E. Eichler and David Sankoff If you're interested in more papers, just go to Google Scholar, search for "chromosome evolution", (or something more specific), and scroll through the results until you find a pdf file - the rest are usually just abstracts.  Although sometimes, if you click on the "All_ versions" link, there'll be a pdf there as well. Good hunting! -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2008,03:04    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 21 2008,19:26) I'm finding that the in-depth study of chromosomal evolution appears to be relatively new and most papers seem to reflect this. So you are here simply to discuss cutting edge science? And not to try and point out where your gods fingerprints can be seen? Fine, whatever. Go for it. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2008,06:06    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 21 2008,19:26) I'm finding that the in-depth study of chromosomal evolution appears to be relatively new and most papers seem to reflect this. I found this paper.  I haven't read it yet, but the abstract mentions evidence of "regions of extraordinarily rapid, localized genome evolution":               Quote Large-scale genome sequencing is providing a comprehensive view of the complex evolutionary forces that have shaped the structure of eukaryotic chromosomes. Comparative sequence analyses reveal patterns of apparently random rearrangement interspersed with regions of extraordinarily rapid, localized genome evolution. Numerous subtle rearrangements near centromeres, telomeres, duplications, and interspersed repeats suggest hotspots for eukaryotic chromosome evolution. This localized chromosomal instability may play a role in rapidly evolving lineage-specific gene families and in fostering large-scale changes in gene order. Computational algorithms that take into account these dynamic forces along with traditional models of chromosomal rearrangement show promise for reconstructing the natural history of eukaryotic chromosomes. Structural Dynamics of Eukaryotic Chromosome Evolution, Evan E. Eichler and David Sankoff If you're interested in more papers, just go to Google Scholar, search for "chromosome evolution", (or something more specific), and scroll through the results until you find a pdf file - the rest are usually just abstracts.  Although sometimes, if you click on the "All_ versions" link, there'll be a pdf there as well. Good hunting! Dear boy, we really must focus. Your job, as I understand it, is to justify and rehabilitate Schindewolf and your other authorities in defiance of the modern evolutionary synthesis. My job, as I understand it, is to point out to you the futility of your job. So when I ask you to come up with evidence to support your thesis, it does not advance the discussion for you to ask me to hunt for that evidence.     -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2008,10:19    Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 20 2008,17:03) Daniel, why do you value analogies like that to make certain things more clear so much? Those things aren't the real world, programming and IT isn't the same as the inner-workings of a cell, not even clóse. The question is not "why do I value these analogies?", but rather "why do these analogies work?". Also, how is it that these analogies (in your words) "make certain things more clear" if they're (also in your words) "not even clóse"? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2008,10:37    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2008,10:19) Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 20 2008,17:03) Daniel, why do you value analogies like that to make certain things more clear so much? Those things aren't the real world, programming and IT isn't the same as the inner-workings of a cell, not even clóse. The question is not "why do I value these analogies?", but rather "why do these analogies work?". Also, how is it that these analogies (in your words) "make certain things more clear" if they're (also in your words) "not even clóse"? They make things easier to understand for people outside the ivory tower of biology. Sure, there are analogies, but they're A supperficial (yea, wrong spelling) and B even analogy's don't mean they're the same, because they simply aren't. Can't you see those things for yourself?

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2008,11:09    Ah, analogies!   Sources of so many good ideas, but also of so many fundamental fallacies.  As stated in my ancient college textbook of logic:     Quote An analogy doesn't prove anything; it merely calls to mind a possibility that might not have been thought of without the analogy. It's the experiment that counts in the end. Bohr's classic model of the atom is only a picture. It has clarified some points about the atom, it has hinted at some good hypotheses; but if you take it as proving anything about the atom, you are misusing the analogy. You can be fooled just as much by it as were those early inventors who tried to construct airplanes that flapped their wings, on the analogy with birds. Analogies illustrate, and they lead to hypotheses, but thinking in terms of analogy becomes fallacious when the analogy is used as a reason for a principle. This fallacy is called the argument from analogy. Nota bene, Daniel:  "It's the experiment that counts in the end." -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2008,11:12    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2008,10:19) Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 20 2008,17:03) Daniel, why do you value analogies like that to make certain things more clear so much? Those things aren't the real world, programming and IT isn't the same as the inner-workings of a cell, not even clóse. The question is not "why do I value these analogies?", but rather "why do these analogies work?". But their utility is strictly limited. If you had been paying attention to your own shifting positions, they've failed you every time you've made a prediction here, both explicit and implicit. Quote Also, how is it that these analogies (in your words) "make certain things more clear" if they're (also in your words) "not even clóse"? They are explanatory devices. When they are used to make predictions, they always fall short.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2008,11:18    Hard to believe that we've been at this so long.  Remember this post?   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:48) There are many things I have yet to make up my mind about.  For instance; I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it. My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence; not evidence that is made-to-fit the observers viewpoint.  I'm finding that hard to do - since both sides of this issue tend to color the evidence with their own interpretive brush. The first book I read on the subject (other than my high school science books) was "Scientific Creationism" by Dr. Henry Morris, and, although he makes some good points, I found some of his views to be a bit of a stretch and recognized his attempts to fit science to the bible. I then spent quite some time on talk.origins and did much research on the internet looking at the case for the currently held theory of evolution.  I found that much of the evidence for the theory was being interpreted under the assumption of the theory. I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself. This is the reason I have sought out authors such as Berg, Schindewolf, Denton, Davison and others.  First, they are true scientists - there are no religious views expressed in their books.  Second, they hold to no preconceived paradigm and they have (or had) nothing to gain by publishing their views.  Most were either ridiculed or shunned, or just put on a shelf and forgotten, but their works stand the test of time (at least so far).  These are the type of people I want to get my information from. Have you made up your mind about the age of the earth yet? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Pages: (58) < ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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