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... > AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2

Pages: (167) < ... 158 159 160 161 162 [163] 164 165 166 167 >

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,17:04    Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:03) 1) Question #1: Don't blame the teachers.  Well I wasn't blaming the teachers, they aren't the ones writing the textbooks.  I was making a statement that so many of you are upset with having ID taught in schools because of the lousy science behind it, yet the evolution that you hold dear is being slopply taught because of the poor curriculum.  A lot of the curriculum contradicts itself, teachers aren't trained enough to understand and teach it, and the evolutionary hypothesis' are updated so frequently that often times the information in the textbooks is out of date.  So I am not sure either stance is good.  Don't teach ID because of lousy science, but please continue to teach lousy evolution because of the curriculum. Massive lack of knowledge of education noted. My wife is a middle school science teacher. I am intimately familiar with curriculum, standards and teaching science. I have developed dozens of lesson plans with her. (just background info) . You are teaching students how the scientific method works. None of the problems with evolution that you claim are in the curriculum because they are not relevant. Are you saying that Random Mutation does not occur? Are you saying that Natural Selection does not occur? The textbooks are not covering the subject in the kind of detail that outdates itself easily. Also, most science teachers stress that science is a process of discovery and thus is never the final word. Outdatedness is built into the curriculum. And most science teachers are competent.   Quote 2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics . {snip} whatever.   Quote 3) Comment #3: I don’t know if you realize this but there is NOT ONE person who has ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER  that supports creationism. To answer your question.  Isaac Newton supported creationism.  I would hope that the father of calculus and obviously Newtonian Physics is credible.  ... So did Nostradamus. And lots of people before they figured out that the gods' personal intervention in our lives gets relegated to smaller and smaller gaps as science discovers naturalistic explanations that refute the ever growing list of things that turn out to be wrong with literal biblical interpretation. Because of this, the scientists who do support creationist claims are forced to use more and more ludicrous arguments to support their claims. They start to lose their credibility. Not because they are creationists but because they deny evidence. That is not something your average scientist ought to do.   Quote 4) Question #4 from PuckSR: How did the light from the stars reach Earth? That is the one of the points of perceived age.  My contention as well as YEC, is that God created the stars with their light shining on the earth already.  Even if the sun was shining on the earth the second He created it, it had a perceived age of at least 8 minutes.  Did God violate scientific laws?  Yes, but of course a creationists belief is that the laws were established by God and that God is omnipotent, and therefore can subvert His laws for His glory.  His laws for this physical realm (and yes I believe it is a finite closed system and not an open system) were fully established on the 6th day of creation.  Can I prove this scientifically.  No.  Is God a Liar as you state.  No.  Where did God state otherwise? You missed the point on this one. Light is radiated. If the gods put light out there that wasn't radiated, they were creating a fake. The light wasn't projected from the object.   Quote Now I asked the question, why don't we see any evolutionary jumps between species right now?  A few of the responses I have heard are: 1)There is no selective advantage.  Do all evolutionary changes require with absolute certainty a selective advantage?  Does sexual enjoyment among humans relate to a selective advantage?  Animals do not share this enjoyment, yet produce just as many if not more young than humans.  Was sexual enjoyment an evolved trait.  On the flipside is homosexuality a practice that will disappear since it has no selective advantage.  Two partners who cannot produce offspring naturally should not be a selective advantage.   Some scientist claim that "Pleasure is nature's way of rewarding good behavior". (Dr. Jonathan Balcombe, "Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good", MacMillan 2006).  If the belief is that evolution is a random act with external influences that prefer selective advantages, than how does it reward good behavior?  How is good behavior a selective advantage unless it relies on some intelligence to guide the behavior. Wrong. google "homosexual animals ". And this one's likely to ruffle a few of your feathers:   Quote 2)the ancestor is no longer around For most hominid species it is unclear why they went extinct.  There are a lot of hypothesis, but very little conclusive evidences.  Such certainty is derived for why certain hominids were replaced by other hominids.  In total there are only about 1,400 hominid skulls that have been found, of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa.  Not a very good sampling for 6-7 million years of evolution.  That isn't even a good sampling for a national election, let alone a 7 million year evolution span.  Some species such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis is based on a cranium a few fragments of a lower jaw bone and a few teeth.  Yet the species is created, fitted into the evolutionary chain and then used to support other arguments such as the new dating for when humans diverged from chimpanzees, which is used to base other hypothesis and on and on goes the building blocks.  Most early hominid species come from very few bone fragments and most features are developed as a result of indirect evidence. Most of all of the early and mid hominids and many of the late hominids are based on just a few bones.  Forget full skeletons.  Yet with great certainty of a jaw bone and 3 teeth we can determine that they were a hominid and they went extinct due to X,Y,Z.....  The chimpanzees still exist so why don't we see any homo sapiens neanderthalensis around.  They were only around 30,000 years ago.  Neanderthalensis and sapien sapien exists together for at least 150,000 years.  In fact every single hominid overlapped others by as much as 100,000 years in many cases.  Why is there no overlap in this generation, or even close to any kind of overlap. I encourage you to truly examine the pictures of the entire bone collections of some of these hominid species and just logically think about whether they were even hominid or if there was enough there to even make a determination.  Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.  Most of the hominid species have only been developed based off a few fragments of bones discovered in the last 10-20 years.  Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity.  Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.  I guess I miss how we can develop a whole species based on a few bones, when modern asians and modern Europeans share different characteristics in their facial and skull features.  If I found 5 asian skulls it would be unfair to characterize the entire modern human race based on those features.  It isn't representative of the human race.  So how can we take two partial skulls and 5 teeth and develop a species of hominids from it? where to start? Ask Deadman maybe? He seems to be an expert. DM, How do they determine whether they have a new species? I imagine the florensis episode could illuminate that process. My guess? My guess is that there is a methodology that is consistent. Taxonomy certainly has an arbitrary element (Just think of the poor genus, Sebastes. So many species, so little difference) but determining the evolutionary path an organism has taken is a little easier than telling two species apart. For one thing, there aren't any more of them. We only find the fossils. The reason for that is one of the things that we scientist keep secret when we meet at conferences that include non-scientists. (It's part of the Darwinist conspiracy) -------------- 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

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,17:21    If SteveStory is really going to let this run to a nice round 5000 comments, then we've got a few to go. Plenty of time to apply the finishing nails to the davey-coffin (speaking metaphorically, dave, not to worry...) and wring a few more laughs out of his osteopatedness. Every additional key he tickles on the topic of bottlenecks, kinds, variability, TIME (fer gosh sake), and biodiversity just piles up the mirth.

Bing Posts: 144 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,18:29    Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:03) Isaac Newton supported creationism.  I would hope that the father of calculus and obviously Newtonian Physics is credible. Newton died in 1727.  Darwin published OOS in 1859.  1859-1727=132.  Do you think the fact that he was dead for 132 years might have compromised his ability to do research? Offering Newton as an authority and creationist is just as useful as saying he didn't support man's ability to build machines capable of heavier-than-air flight because he died before Wilber and Orville did their thing 176 years later.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,18:30    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,09:36) Lenny Flank ... You can actually find your name at the Answers in Genesis web site. I know. What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions. And I notice I didn't get any from you, either . . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,18:49    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30) I know. What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions. And I notice I didn't get any from you, either . . . . . . Don't hold your breath, Lenny. I've been asking Dave essentially the same questions for months now, and I haven't gotten any more out of him than you are. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:42    Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,18:49) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30) I know. What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions. And I notice I didn't get any from you, either . . . . . . Don't hold your breath, Lenny. I've been asking Dave essentially the same questions for months now, and I haven't gotten any more out of him than you are. For some odd reason, AiG ran in terror from my simple questions, too. But then, I've always known that creationuts are lethally allergic to answering direct questions.  (shrug) But since we're all picking on Davey, I'd like to see just how nutty he REALLY is . . . Davey, do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist? Do you think women should be allowed to speak in church? Do you think there are people who are possessed by demons? Think carefully before you answer. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:55    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,20:42) Think carefully before you answer. After 11,000+ (let's not forget the original "Creator God Hypothesis") comments, what on this green earth makes you think he'd start now? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,21:04    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,18:55) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,20:42) Think carefully before you answer. After 11,000+ (let's not forget the original "Creator God Hypothesis") comments, what on this green earth makes you think he'd start now? Hey, don't forget the Chimpanzee thread AND the original Dave has questions about evolution thread! I think those add another 40 pages or so. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,21:04    Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,13:41) I are?  I am would be more proper English, no? Dave Hawkins, when your kids one day Google your name, examples of your hypocrisy will probably sadden them.  Unless it simply confirms what they see in you day to day, which should sadden you.  SOOO Dave Hawkins, What does your above quote say about your character? Just a few pages after writing:   Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,18:33) Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind. When someone took you to task for your spelling?  It's ok for Dave to correct spelling and grammar,  But if anyone else does it, its a character flaw? And uhhh, Tyre. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,21:57    And beetles? And beetles. Howdy, afdave, I wonder if you would have the courtesy to answer one question from this here lurker afore this thread is closed for good and proper: Have you been granted, for many months now, potentially limitless time and internet space here in which to defend your "Creator God Hypothesis"? That's it, yes or no. Please let me thank you now, though, for the opportunity to see a real live biblical-literalist creationist in action. I understand that perspective much more clearly now.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,22:21    Lenny ...     Quote What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions. ... "cuz I was too cheap to buy the book."  Send me your address, Lenny.  I'll buy the book and mail it to you.  Running from questions!  What a funny guy.        Oh ... and do you know what that "ALL" option does?  It downloads ALL of the thread.  Wesley added that for cheap people like you and me who want free answers.  Just do a CTRL-F search for HLA-B and you'll find it.  Now ... let's see who the runner is.   -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,22:42    Quote DM, How do they determine whether they have a new species? I imagine the florensis episode could illuminate that process. My guess? My guess is that there is a methodology that is consistent. Taxonomy certainly has an arbitrary element BWE: I addressed most of dgszweda's claims on his thread. The short answer to this one is cladistics and context. Arbitrariness comes in weighting characters and then lumping and splitting. Me lumper. Me like PAUP 4 parsimony. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,22:53    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,20:21) Lenny ...             Quote What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions. ... "cuz I was too cheap to buy the book."  Send me your address, Lenny.  I'll buy the book and mail it to you.  Running from questions!  What a funny guy.        Oh ... and do you know what that "ALL" option does?  It downloads ALL of the thread.  Wesley added that for cheap people like you and me who want free answers.  Just do a CTRL-F search for HLA-B and you'll find it.  Now ... let's see who the runner is.   How about you just answer the questions, Dave? Since they're the same questions I've been asking you for months now. Or do I have to buy the book, too? What, do you get a cut from the profits or something? Why didn't you just say "AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis," and then put a bunch of links to Amazon where we can get the books? And by the way, looking at the entire thread isn't going to answer Lenny's questions. I've read every single post of yours on this and the other thread, Dave, and I know for a fact you've never answered any of his questions. Here's just a few of mine you haven't answered:     Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,11:48) Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do?     Quote Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity.  But remember, it's not ME saying genetic diversity can be preserved and even increased after a bottleneck.  It's Carson ... a non-YEC scientist who you should trust.  Why do you not? I think I see where you are having difficulty understanding my point, though.  I will address this in more detail tomorrow. Dave, you're just not getting it. When Carson is talking about genetic diversity recovering after a genetic bottleneck, he simply is not talking about the kind of genetic diversity you are. I don't distrust Carson, Dave; I distrust your totally wrong misinterpretation of what he's saying. You're talking about the amount of genetic diversity of—at minimum—the family level, if not the class or order level, not the species level, in order for you to get from your several thousand species to the several million species in existence today (I can see you didn't even touch my landfilling of your claim of 23,000 species today). You not talking about "preserving" diversity, Dave. You're talking about a staggering, explosive increase in diversity that makes the Cambrian explosion (which lasted two thousand times longer) look like a wet firecracker in comparison. And this statement:           Quote Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity. is verging on incomprehensibility. First, according to you, there should have been no mutant alleles before the flood, correct? Which makes one wonder why there would be any heterozygosity at all, but no matter. My question is, How does Noah tell by looking at it whether a particular critter (ant, beetle, flower, lobster) has high heterozygosity? Did he have a knowledge of genetics unknown until Gregor Mendel's time? And second, as I've pointed out to you to the point of exhaustion, the difference between minimal heterozygosity and maximal heterozygosity is too small to matter when you have a founding population of two individuals. As Lenny pointed out to you most recently, with two individuals you have at most four alleles for any locus. Without additional mutations in the future, how do you ever get more than four total alleles in the entire population of descendants? This is why the HLA-B gene presents such a crushing blow to your "hypothesis" with respect to genetic diversity. You started out, 4,500 years ago, with a maximum of 10 alleles (and it would probably have been significantly less). Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from? Out of your butt? And you still haven't explained (or even addressed, or acknowledged) the problem your "genetic degeneration" argument, which predicts the mass extinction of all complex eukaryotes in less than a thousand years, presents for your "explosive increase in diversity" argument, which predicts the exact opposite. So which is it, Dave? Is biodiversity increasing? Or is it decreasing? Or is it doing both at the same time? And what evidence do you have that biodiversity has headed in either direction over the past 4,500 years? and:     Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20) So Dave, just to make this simple for you, and before you waste a lot of your time trying to educate a dunce like me on how a genetic bottleneck won't prevent one "kind" from radiating into a thousand species in a few thousand years, let's try this: You accept that a diploid organism cannot have more than two alleles at a given locus, correct? [ ]Y [ ]N You accept, therefore, that a mating pair of diploid organisms cannot have more than four alleles for a given locus, correct? [ ]Y [ ]N Therefore, you accept that, without additional mutations, there cannot ever be any more than four, total, alleles for any given gene in any population that is descended from that initial breeding pair, correct? [ ]Y [ ]N I must warn you that failure to answer these three questions will be taken as an admission that you have absolutely no freaking idea what I'm talking about, and therefore don't have the knowledge of straightforward Medelian genetics that any seventh grader should have. I'm assuming I don't need to supply references for my first two assertions, correct? [ ]Y [ ]N Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four? [ ]Y [ ]N and:     Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,13:12)       Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20) Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four? [ ]Y [ ]N Before you answer this particular question, Dave, I should point out to you that if you do think a reference is needed here, it's pretty late in the game to be demanding support for what should have been a foundational issue at the very beginning of your "genetic richness" debate several months ago. Also, I never got an answer from you: do you now accept that the human HLA-B gene has at least 600 alleles, or don't you? And that's just from today. It's looking like you're a liar and a coward, Dave. If there's anyone here who has consistently run away and hidden from hard questions, it's YOU You've got 133 posts left, Dave. Are you going to fritter them all away on contentless posts like this one? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,23:06    Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,17:48) Quote (k.e @ Jan. 02 2007,10:28) SteveS I would like to nominate AFD for the AtBC "Larry Farfaman Biology Award" I'll second k.e's suggestion, Dave is a verifiable dolt. AFDave is much better than Larry Falafelman. Much better. AFDave is like Gomer Pyle, happy and confused, "I shure don't figure how it is y'all scientists with all yer fancy degrees can't understand that I'm right. Shure as shootin', that's a head-scratcher!" whereas Larry F is like a Soviet Commissar, reading announcements about how the bread production is up 200%, and the meat production is up 300%, and you know the shelves are empty and it's just a boring lie you'll hear today, and tomorrow, and the next day...

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,01:36    130   -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,01:55    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,10:55) BTW, (stevestory) are you going to The 2007 North Carolina Science Blogging Conference? I may try to make that. It looks like it will be held around the Chapel Hill area, which means that I'll be loitering around the vicinity, even if I'm not a participant. BTW, if anyone's attending, and will be around Chapel Hill, make sure you bring a Taser or a nightstick or something for all the bums you're going to have to deal with. It's out of control around here. Really a blight on Chapel Hill.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,02:56    This thread will be closed soon? Oh noes! JUST as dave was about to answer all those questions.... But wait, I see he's spending his last posts on  lame mockery and stupid gloatings about AiG's profits from selling crap to the gullible. Which makes sense, since we all know he had nothing all along and his only goal was to play martyr. Oh well. It's a shame, though... I won't return to my comp untill tomorrow, and it seems the thread will be over by then. Is there a chance of a slight delay? I'd like a few last words with our honest friend... I know he'd be posting again, but those will just be hit and run attacks of supidity. He'll never "have time" for answers then, either. Not that he has now, but here that makes him look even more dishonest. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,03:08    126   -------------- 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

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,03:18    Oh my    125! -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,03:21    Quote (Faid @ Jan. 03 2007,03:56) It's a shame, though... I won't return to my comp untill tomorrow, and it seems the thread will be over by then. Is there a chance of a slight delay? I'd like a few last words with our honest friend... 125 posts left...I think you've got two or three more days. Few worries that AFDave'll suddenly post something informative and we'll have to go into overtime.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,05:24    123!   -------------- 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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,07:14    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,22:21) Lenny ...     Quote What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions. ... "cuz I was too cheap to buy the book."  Send me your address, Lenny.  I'll buy the book and mail it to you.  Running from questions!  What a funny guy.        Oh ... and do you know what that "ALL" option does?  It downloads ALL of the thread.  Wesley added that for cheap people like you and me who want free answers.  Just do a CTRL-F search for HLA-B and you'll find it.  Now ... let's see who the runner is.   Why can't you just answer my goddamn questions?  Right here.  In front of everyone. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,07:18    You seem to have not answered my questions, Davey (surprise, surprise). so I'll ask again.  And again.  And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away. *ahem* Davey, do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist? Do you think women should be allowed to speak in church? Do you think there are people who are possessed by demons? Think carefully before you answer. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Tim Posts: 40 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,07:19    Well, as this thread is facing it's timely brick wall, I thought I'd toss in my tuppence-worth as another long-term lurker. I've been here since before our Air-Force friend crash-landed at ATBC, and have followed every post from the first and will to the last. Overall I've thoroughly enjoyed the rickety journey, and as a non-biologist, non-anthropologist, non-palentologist, non-archaeologist, non-phycisist, non-linguist and non-geneticist, I've garnered some very, very useful info from these circa. 11,000 posts. The patience and layman's language used with which to explain some very basic stuff so that the uneducated can understand it has proven to be invaluable to someone like myself. To that extent I am grateful to the thread-starter for inducing the regulars to make these wonderful explanations. It leads me to realise firstly just how much there is to learn, and secondly just what utterly complex subjects these really are. More than a lifetime's worth of learning, which makes one feel quite humble. Which then compels me to wonder just how a layman (such as the thread-starter) can attempt to not only grapple with some of the more detailed aspects of evolutionary biology, physics, anthropology, genetics, cladistics etc by mere drive-by reading of encyclopaedias (and faux-encyclopaedic websites), but also to overturn and refute the research carried out by the many thousands who have made these subjects their lifetime's work. Humble is not on show here. I have gone from amusement through open-jawed amazement all the way to utter incredulity at what I have witnessed on this thread. The moment of realisation of what we were really dealing with finally hit home during the (non-) debate on the watchmaker analogy. One or two regulars posted wonderfully lucid explanations as to why the watchmaker analogy fails in the context of evolutionary biology, to the extent that not only could I understand it, but that it became obvious; watches don't reproduce. This perfectly simple point just failed to reach the thread-starter, despite repeated (bold-faced, italicised, capitalised ad infinitum) posts of that very point. Either it failed to reach him or he refused to understand it. Beyond that he became really very confused, stating that the 'difference' between a watch and a butterfly was one of complexity, when complexity is one of quantitative similarity, and not a difference at all. Unbe-smegging-lievable. It was at this point that I finally accepted the reality of the situation and capitulated; this thread is doomed. Since that time the thread-starter has begun using the word 'intractable' to describe his YEC position, as well as describing himself as an 'amateur scientist'. The words intractable and scientist form an oxymoron of the highest order, but I'm sure this point is lost on the  thread-starter, just as so many other seemingly simple points are lost. I have more recently spent some time lurking at www.theologyweb.com in the natural sciences area; a regular haunt of G R Morton. The YECs encountered there are quite a bit younger, and a number have switched from YEC through OEC to full appreciation of the scientific world-view, in the face of patient explanation from the resident scientists. The point that at least two recent converts there have cited as their main reason to change their world-view is that of attempting to reconcile starlight with a young universe; ie the YEC God would have to be a con-artist. It is satisfying to see the opening-up of young minds who have been brought up (dare I say brain-washed) in YEC environments when confronted with scientific reason. Without fail they have found the experience both humbling and overwhelming. It is at times like those that I am utterly glad we have threads like this where the studied knowledge and dogged patience of forum-posters can open up heretofore closed minds. I have come to realise however, that the thread-starter, in part due to his age perhaps, and the amount (in time, money and effort) he has invested in his world-view, will never reach this point. Intractable sums up the position of the thread-starter rather nicely here, and I'm sure he would become a little more humble if he ever comes to realise that intractable is exactly what science is not.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,07:56    my only regret that this thread is closing is that it will be cut short before a full year is up. You see, AFDave started this thread about 8 months ago. If it had been left for a full year THE EARTH WOULD BE 6001 YEARS OLD! And that's a fact -------------- 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

Reluctant Cannibal Posts: 36 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,08:25    Another mostly-lurker here, dropping in to say goodbye to this thread. I was going to write a bit more than this, but I find it can be expressed fairly accurately as "What Tim said". And AFDave, some impartial advice for you. If you really want to keep this thread going forever, I'm sure that Steve Story would look favourably on an honest attempt to respond to any one of the hundreds of unanswered questions floating around. Or you could even retract one of your more flagrantly wrong assertions (The 61 HLA-B alleles thingie would be a good one, as it is recent and particularly simple to prove). But you won't. I'm sure you are very relieved that the end is in sight. Apart from the considerable cost to you in time, the strain of keeping your stories straight and the constant risk that you might absorb a clue must be taking its toll of you.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,09:05    Hey AFDave, You worked out those heat dissipation numbers for the drag-racing continents yet?   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,09:43    BASIC GENETICS REVIEW FOR ERIC AND OTHERS Now I hope no one is insulted by this title ... "Dave!  Giving a refresher course in genetics!  Guffaw!"  And it is true that a few months ago I didn't even know the exact definition of an allele ... I just knew it had something to do with genes. But whether you are insulted or not, you should read this, because judging from some of your comments, I think I now have a better grip on basic genetics than some of you.  I learn quickly. :-) GENES, ALLELES AND HETEROZYGOSITY Terms we all have thrown around alot lately so we need to be clear about them.  We turn to our trusty friend Wikipedia ...     Quote The terms Homozygous, Heterozygous and Hemizygous are used to simplify the description of the genotype of a diploid organism at a single genetic locus. At a given gene or position along a chromosome (a locus), the DNA sequence can vary among individuals in the population. The variable DNA segments are referred to as alleles, and diploid organisms generally have two alleles at each locus, one allele for each of the two homologous chromosomes. Simply stated, homozygous describes two identical alleles or DNA sequences at one locus, heterozygous describes two different alleles at one locus, and hemizygous describes the presence of only a single copy of the gene in an otherwise diploid organism. OK.  So are we clear? A diploid organism (an individual) can have two alleles at each locus.  If the alleles are the same -- homozygous.  If different -- heterozygous. COMMON (OR WILD) ALLELES, MUTATED ALLELES, RARE ALLELES So we understand individuals.  What about populations?  How many different alleles are there in typical diploid organism populations?  The individual can only have two, but there could be many in a population from which two per individual are selected.  As you would expect, someone has studied this -- G.S. Mani.  According to him, most loci of present-day animals contain between 1 and 5 alleles (disregarding the MHC complex--separate topic discussed already).  (Mani, G.S. 1984. "Darwinian theory of enzyme polymorphism (pp. 242-298) in Mani, G.S., ed., Evolutionary Dynamics of Genetic Diversity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.)  Woodmorappe notes ...     Quote Since most of the pre-Flood animal pairs could have carried 4 alleles per locus, this means that, in most cases, no mutations need have taken place since the Flood to generate the 1 to 5 alleles per locus seen today.  Of course, most loci have fewer than 4 alleles per locus because the Ark animals did not always carry the maximum possible four per pair, and/or some alleles have been lost since the Flood by genetic drift. (Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, p.195) Also, there is a book with a very interesting title that I want to get: The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza et. al.  This book (which is about humans, not sure if other mammals are discussed) has a table (pp. 8-9) that shows that the overwhelming majority of polymorphic loci have no more than four alleles per locus, very rare variants excepted.  Continuing with info from Woodmorappe ... Furthermore, there is usually a single allele occurring at high frequency (at least 85%), with 1 to 3 other alleles found at frequencies of 1-15%. (MHC Polymorphism and the Design of Captive Breeding Programs - group of 4 »AL Hughes - Conservation Biology, 1991 - Blackwell Synergy, p. 249).  In fact, of all alleles, most exist at low frequency (Considerations on the conservation of alleles and of genic heterozygosity in small managed … PA Fuerst, T Maruyama - Zoo Biology, 1986 - doi.wiley.com, p. 174).  This is further borne out by the very definition of a polymorphic locus: one where the most common allele occurs at no more than 95% frequency in the population. (Inbreeding: one word, several meanings, much confusion. - group of 2 »AR Templeton, B Read - EXS, 1994 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, p. 60) LET'S DO A LITTLE SPECULATING HERE FOR A MINUTE Notice I'm clearly labeling this part as speculation.  I think it is possible that God originally created only two alleles per locus.  I'm even more confident that He created no more than 4.  But I think there is evidence that there were only 2 originally.  Why do I think this?  Several reasons.  The info just given above about allele frequencies is a big one.  Also, some (probably many) alleles are different from other alleles at only ONE nucleotide position indicating that there is an original designed allele and a mutated version of that same allele which was not designed. The eye color discussion below also makes me think this as you will see because all the various eye colors are controlled by only two different alleles at 3 (maybe more) loci.  Of course, you think that ALL alleles were created by mutation and that is where we differ. So to sum up this section, you read various terms associated with alleles such as "common" and "rare" and "wild" and "mutated."       Quote A wild type allele is an allele which is considered to be "normal" for the organism in question, as opposed to a mutant allele which is usually a relatively new modification. [Wikipedia "allele"] [URL=http://www.filecrunch.com/file....FD_CGH1 AFD_CGH2 I will update these when this thread is closed so you can have the complete thread. *************************************************************** INCORYGIBLE'S REQUEST FOR AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR CLASSIFYING ORGANISMS     Quote [Dave]Aren't all dog/wolf/coyote sequence differences miniscule? [Cory]Yes. Which really makes them a rather poor example of genetic diversity emerging from small founding populations, eh? (You do know the difference between genotypes and phenotypes, right?) So if I was arguing that genetic diversity could arise rapidly (e.g., the genetic diversity we find among species of the same supposed 'kind' today), dogs certainly would not be my case study of choice. I am arguing that phenotypic diversity can arise rapidly, not genetic diversity as measured by sequence differences.  IOW, I am arguing that a single pair of the "dog/wolf" kind possessing a fair amount of heterozygosity (most common alleles included--yes, only 4 per pair, Eric) could rapidly diversify and generate the "dramatic differences" we see today in a very short time.  This founder pair would probably look similar to one another and would be somewhere in the middle of either extremes for any given characteristics.  This is what Ayala is speaking of when he talks about the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."  A vast amount of variation can be stored in just one founder pair with only two alleles per locus.  As we have seen in the case of eye color in humans, only 2 alleles on two different genes (and likely only 2 different alleles on some as yet unknown other genes) cause a wide range of eye colors.  Not lots of alleles as previously thought.  Just several different genes, each with 2 different alleles is probably all that is required for massive diversity in every characteristic.     Quote Dave, Hominidae is a FAMILY consisting of humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans. You have stated that the created kinds were probably on the level of the FAMILY. Humans and chimps are actually two VERY CLOSELY RELATED species of the SAME FAMILY (much closer than the average distance between family members if we were to pick two species at random from some shared family). I asked for an OBJECTIVE STANDARD (no scripture, no handwaving about "non-biological" differences) by which we could confidently separate humans from (other) apes and yet still be able to group all those emerging family members after the flood into the same 'kind' in order to keep the ark's passenger list feasible. You suggested sequence differences, and I would agree. Problem is, those aren't going to separate humans and chimps (they would separate out the 'rangs and gorillas into separate kinds first). And if you want to use a figure of ~5% sequence divergence for your delineation of kinds, you can't fit the planet's biodiversity on the boat. You wouldn't be trying some special pleading when it comes to humans, would you? Because that's not allowed in an objective standard (or in rational debate). So, if we figure that 'kind' ~ biological family, then it stands to reason that Adam and Eve (and by extension, God, given that whole "in His image" thing) were probably hairy apes, based on the shared characteristics of surviving members of this 'kind'. There's also a good chance that they were largely arboreal, which explains how they reached God's untouchable fruit (not to mention fruit-monopolization itself). No way of knowing if they shared the same fecal fascination exhibited by apes in captivity (does the garden count as captivity?). Yes.  I quoted Woodmorappe's opinion that the created kind probably was roughly equivalent to the family (at least in the case of mammals and birds).  And you would have a very good point in asking how can we separate humans from the great apes if sequence difference is our objective guide .. EXCEPT ... for the fact that you are overlooking one key item.   You are disregarding two pieces of Biblical information ... "Genesis 1: 26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ... and ... "Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Now of course, you do not take these statements as authoritative, which is fine for now ... you will in time either in this life or the next, but nevertheless, even with your present dim view of the Genesis record, these passages stand as possible clues to the profound mystery of the differences we see between apes and humans. "In the image of God?"  "Breathed into his nostrils the breath of life?"  Hmmm ... come to think of it, that's a pretty good description.  Think about it.  The Bible claims that God has creative ability, a will, a knowledge of right and wrong, and an appreciation for art and beauty, to name a few.  Well ... guess what.  Mankind has those characteristics also.  And what animal do you know of that has these?  Can you think of one?  I cannot.  So in a very real sense, we see agreement between some observations in the physical world and the record of Scripture.  This is just one example, but it should give a thoughful person pause.  There are many, many other examples of agreement between "God's World" and "God's Word."  It's an exciting study! But I'm sure that hearing this, you will accuse me of special pleading in my objective standard and I am afraid I will be found guilty, although as I think I can show, this special pleading is justified.  As has been stated before, scientific evidence can only get us so far.  (A lot farther that many Bible believers think, but still only so far. ************************************************************** A NOTE ABOUT WHAT WE CAN PROVE AND WHAT WE CANNOT PROVE I noticed some interesting discussion on the "DGSVWEDA THREAD" about items taken on faith and items not taken on faith and this relates somewhat to this Ape/Human discussion. I think it is very important to note that neither side of the current debate -- Evolutionist or Creationist -- can prove exactly how "Goddidit" or how "Evolutiondidit" whether we are talking about Apes and Humans or the Flood or the exact demarcation of kinds or what have you. We are both in the predicament of being a little like detectives investigating a crime scene. But thankfully, there are a lot of clues.  And in my study of science and history, I have found that overwhelmingly, the clues point toward the truth of the Genesis Record. *************************************************************** A NOTE ABOUT FUTURE DEBATES I am considering where to "set up shop" next.  Thanks to Steve Story for the suggestion to go to http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php   He says they have huge traffic and this may be perfect for me.  Second choice would be at my own blog airdave.blogspot.com   If I do that, I would welcome anyone from here and would of course open up comments.  And I may do both.  We shall see.  As you can tell from Steve's efforts, moderating comments can involve some work and I'm not sure I want that workload.  In any case, I have many topics yet to cover (including about 35 questions still to go on the Deadman "50" List, the Ice Age and Ice Cores, the Tower of Babel and the founding of China and Egypt, questions like Argy's parasites and "Did Adam and Eve have an immune system" etc.) ******************************************** MY NEW FAVORITE WORD Unbe-smegging-lievable.  Thanks, Tim.       -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Tim Posts: 40 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,10:07    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,09:43) ******************************************** MY NEW FAVORITE WORD Unbe-smegging-lievable.  Thanks, Tim.       Welcome. Use it wisely.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,10:12    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,10:43) I am arguing that phenotypic diversity can arise rapidly, not genetic diversity as measured by sequence differences.  IOW, I am arguing that a single pair of the "dog/wolf" kind possessing a fair amount of heterozygosity (most common alleles included--yes, only 4 per pair, Eric) could rapidly diversify and generate the "dramatic differences" we see today in a very short time. Wrong.  You most certainly ARE arguing that genetic diversity can arise rapidly - even though you don't realize it.  Going back to dogs, for example, you are arguing that the rather large genetic differences we see in canidae arose over the past 4000 years.  Forgetting about the relatively miniscule changes at the allele level, you have to account for a red fox having 36 chromosomes and a dog having 78. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Pages: (167) < ... 158 159 160 161 162 [163] 164 165 166 167 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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