news aggregator
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by snorkild
If Robert was capable of understanding what he is writing, I believe he wouldn't write things like this:
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,01:38)Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.
If Robert was capable of understanding what he is writing, I believe he wouldn't write things like this:
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,01:38)Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 3
Post by JLT
As a follow-up to my previous post:
DO'L is still at it!
She's now established that hrun is not a proud Canadian, who is probably funded by DO'L and therefore has a personal financial interest in ... um ... something.
Quote hrun0815 does not wish to say if he a Canadian. If so, I assume he is not a proud one.
Also does not wish to say if my taxes fund him. Whether proud of that or otherwise, I cannot judge, but I suspect I do fund him.
Consider: Anyone would immediately disclaim personal financial interest in a matter in which they do not in fact have a personal financial interest. So, beating around the bush suggests a personal financial interest.
Someone should ask her whether she promotes ID because she's being paid for it.
And, of course, she still doesn't get that the reptilian brain theory is about the human brain and not about the brain of reptiles.
As a follow-up to my previous post:
DO'L is still at it!
She's now established that hrun is not a proud Canadian, who is probably funded by DO'L and therefore has a personal financial interest in ... um ... something.
Quote hrun0815 does not wish to say if he a Canadian. If so, I assume he is not a proud one.
Also does not wish to say if my taxes fund him. Whether proud of that or otherwise, I cannot judge, but I suspect I do fund him.
Consider: Anyone would immediately disclaim personal financial interest in a matter in which they do not in fact have a personal financial interest. So, beating around the bush suggests a personal financial interest.
Someone should ask her whether she promotes ID because she's being paid for it.
And, of course, she still doesn't get that the reptilian brain theory is about the human brain and not about the brain of reptiles.
Categories: AE Public BB
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by didymos
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,23:38)No reason not to see it that way.
No, it requires a near total inability to reason to see it that way.
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,23:38)No reason not to see it that way.
No, it requires a near total inability to reason to see it that way.
Categories: AE Public BB
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by didymos
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27)Seals are from the "dog kind"?
See? It's the caniform thing again:
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,21:41) Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.
why?
Why not? It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.
It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.
He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind".
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27)Seals are from the "dog kind"?
See? It's the caniform thing again:
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,21:41) Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.
why?
Why not? It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.
It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.
He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind".
Categories: AE Public BB
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by Badger3k
Seals are from the "dog kind"? We don't know much about DNA?
I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did. Just keep piling it on. Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force? Would our minds?
But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings? Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection? Why so silent on that? Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links?
Seals are from the "dog kind"? We don't know much about DNA?
I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did. Just keep piling it on. Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force? Would our minds?
But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings? Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection? Why so silent on that? Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 3
Post by Amadan
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 10 2010,21:50) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2010,17:26)[tangent] I went here for fodder [/tangent].
"Roughing up the suspect"! priceless.
"Answering the Bat Phone" Har!
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 10 2010,21:50) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2010,17:26)[tangent] I went here for fodder [/tangent].
"Roughing up the suspect"! priceless.
"Answering the Bat Phone" Har!
Categories: AE Public BB
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by Reed
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,23:32)
As i said I think its been a classic error to see mutations as a real thing in nature.
One problem with this. Mutations are a "real thing". We have observed them. We understand the mechanisms, and have confirmed this understanding by experiment.
Quote
Dna is still a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence.
Right. We just have no idea how this DNA stuff works.
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,23:32)
As i said I think its been a classic error to see mutations as a real thing in nature.
One problem with this. Mutations are a "real thing". We have observed them. We understand the mechanisms, and have confirmed this understanding by experiment.
Quote
Dna is still a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence.
Right. We just have no idea how this DNA stuff works.
Categories: AE Public BB
Prescribed Evo. Hypothesis Boosting
Post by jeannot
Actually I am not that much interested on her view on speciation and I do not have much time to spend on this. Sorry.
Actually I am not that much interested on her view on speciation and I do not have much time to spend on this. Sorry.
Categories: AE Public BB
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by Robert Byers
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44) Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11) Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12) Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.
This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.
The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?
All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?
And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?
No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.
Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?
And, how are proteins produced in cells?
I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms? Is DNA a new elementary particle? Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?
Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.
Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings. I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't. We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes. I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn.
I do see DNA as a atomic thing. I mean the smallness of nature revealing itself.
Dna is still a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.
The evidence shows quick instant adaptation. So Dna must be flexible to aid in this.
I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher on earth. So I know DNA is not a trail here but only a indication that like parts equal like DNA. Also a change to different parts amongst many unrelated creatures will result in like DNA for those parts.
No reason not to see it that way.
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44) Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11) Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12) Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.
This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.
With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.
The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?
All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!
Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?
And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?
No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.
Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?
And, how are proteins produced in cells?
I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms? Is DNA a new elementary particle? Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?
Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.
Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings. I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't. We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes. I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn.
I do see DNA as a atomic thing. I mean the smallness of nature revealing itself.
Dna is still a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.
The evidence shows quick instant adaptation. So Dna must be flexible to aid in this.
I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher on earth. So I know DNA is not a trail here but only a indication that like parts equal like DNA. Also a change to different parts amongst many unrelated creatures will result in like DNA for those parts.
No reason not to see it that way.
Categories: AE Public BB
Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?
Post by Robert Byers
Quote (Reed @ Mar. 11 2010,02:34) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 10 2010,23:22) I do think creatures could be changed by man by fiddleing with the Dna. if mans knowledge was that great. No there yet by far.
Wrong. It has already been done many times.
Quote
I see physical change in nature as having innate triggers.
You may "see" this but without evidence, it's just a pointless statement.
Quote
The example could be breeds of dogs.
They show how diverse one get from a few original types.
Yet i don't see this as showing mere selection on random traits but rather the tip of the ice berg.
The diversity of traits is so much a part of nature and dogs that it easily just slips over the side allowing artificial selection to bring about the breeds.
This is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times over by experiment. We have in many cases identified the exact mutations responsible for things like specific traits of dog breeds. We understand the mechanisms behind the mutations, we have observed these mechanisms in nature and reproduced them in the lab. We know they are essentially random in nature, and have abundant evidence the same mechanisms were present in the past. We know how frequently mutations happen today, and understanding the mechanisms, we can make reasonable assumptions about their rates in the past. This leads to predictions which are broadly confirmed by many independent lines of evidence.
Isn't it time to admit (to yourself at least) that you have absolutely no idea what the last 50 years of molecular biology has accomplished ? That, lacking such knowledge, you are in no position to pass judgment on whether it's conclusions are correct ?
Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past.
So breeds of dogs today is just showing what can be instantly done in nature. Even webbed feet can show how the origin of water mammals came. In fact probably seals are from, perhaps, the same kind as dogs.
Mutations is in fact not what happens. They are not errors but simply over flow options in the genetics.
The great evidence for this is the great post flood diversity.
Living and fossil creatures is the great guide to understanding diversity in biology.
As i said I think its been a classic error to see mutations as a real thing in nature. Its rather just showing genetic power. Its not errors but mere slippage.
Quote (Reed @ Mar. 11 2010,02:34) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 10 2010,23:22) I do think creatures could be changed by man by fiddleing with the Dna. if mans knowledge was that great. No there yet by far.
Wrong. It has already been done many times.
Quote
I see physical change in nature as having innate triggers.
You may "see" this but without evidence, it's just a pointless statement.
Quote
The example could be breeds of dogs.
They show how diverse one get from a few original types.
Yet i don't see this as showing mere selection on random traits but rather the tip of the ice berg.
The diversity of traits is so much a part of nature and dogs that it easily just slips over the side allowing artificial selection to bring about the breeds.
This is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times over by experiment. We have in many cases identified the exact mutations responsible for things like specific traits of dog breeds. We understand the mechanisms behind the mutations, we have observed these mechanisms in nature and reproduced them in the lab. We know they are essentially random in nature, and have abundant evidence the same mechanisms were present in the past. We know how frequently mutations happen today, and understanding the mechanisms, we can make reasonable assumptions about their rates in the past. This leads to predictions which are broadly confirmed by many independent lines of evidence.
Isn't it time to admit (to yourself at least) that you have absolutely no idea what the last 50 years of molecular biology has accomplished ? That, lacking such knowledge, you are in no position to pass judgment on whether it's conclusions are correct ?
Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past.
So breeds of dogs today is just showing what can be instantly done in nature. Even webbed feet can show how the origin of water mammals came. In fact probably seals are from, perhaps, the same kind as dogs.
Mutations is in fact not what happens. They are not errors but simply over flow options in the genetics.
The great evidence for this is the great post flood diversity.
Living and fossil creatures is the great guide to understanding diversity in biology.
As i said I think its been a classic error to see mutations as a real thing in nature. Its rather just showing genetic power. Its not errors but mere slippage.
Categories: AE Public BB
Telic Thoughts Thread
Post by Cubist
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 10 2010,13:52) Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 10 2010,13:32) Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 10 2010,12:27)TARD!
Quote chunkdz: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.
You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.
Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.
I think he's right -- "TARD" is a slur against people with mental disabilities.
It's just not the same (set of) disabilities he's referring to...
Damn - beaten to it!
Of course, that does imply that there is mentality there to begin with, and I'm not sure that assumption is justified for all of them.
"Assumes organ not in evidence", eh?
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 10 2010,13:52) Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 10 2010,13:32) Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 10 2010,12:27)TARD!
Quote chunkdz: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.
You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.
Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.
I think he's right -- "TARD" is a slur against people with mental disabilities.
It's just not the same (set of) disabilities he's referring to...
Damn - beaten to it!
Of course, that does imply that there is mentality there to begin with, and I'm not sure that assumption is justified for all of them.
"Assumes organ not in evidence", eh?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 3
Post by Cubist
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,17:30) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2010,18:26)[tangent] I went here for fodder [/tangent].
"Roughing up the suspect"! priceless.
"Cursing Richards?" What's that about?
The message board from which "cursing Richards" originated is for devotees of Brian Michael Bendis, a guy who writes comicbooks for Marvel. One of Marvel Comics' major characters is Reed Richards, aka Mister Fantastic, a gent with a 4-digit IQ and the power to expand/reshape every part of his body in any way he deems fit. Does that answer your question, RB?
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,17:30) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2010,18:26)[tangent] I went here for fodder [/tangent].
"Roughing up the suspect"! priceless.
"Cursing Richards?" What's that about?
The message board from which "cursing Richards" originated is for devotees of Brian Michael Bendis, a guy who writes comicbooks for Marvel. One of Marvel Comics' major characters is Reed Richards, aka Mister Fantastic, a gent with a 4-digit IQ and the power to expand/reshape every part of his body in any way he deems fit. Does that answer your question, RB?
Categories: AE Public BB
Prescribed Evo. Hypothesis Boosting
Post by Patrickarbuthnot
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 11 2010,08:08)On Margulis: I have not read her book, but from reviews I can see here and there, I can only concur with her critics. Her view on speciation is not supported by studies on natural populations.
I may expand on this topic, which have been my area of research for the past 4 years. At best, it may inform our friend Patrickarbuthnot and clear some early misconceptions on speciation (for example, the view that speciation rarely involves natural selection).
Contrarily to Margulis' opinion, there is considerable evidence that speciation involves genetic changes (point mutations or other genomic rearrangements) and wherever these changes have been pinpointed, they appeared to have been subject to selection. In many cases divergent adaptation to distinct ecological niches has been shown to contribute to reproductive isolation. Geographical isolation will permit the fixation of these changes, though it is not an absolute requirement if divergent selection is strong.
On the other hand, there very little (or no) evidence that genetic drift and bottlenecks induce reproductive isolation (via the "genetic revolutions" proposed by Mayr, among other models). The various founder-effect speciation models have failed all laboratory tests. These were proposed to explain the frequent events of peripratric speciation (in founding populations), but in the end, it seems that natural selection in the new colonized habitat is the main driver of reproductive isolation (aided by geographical isolation).
Speciation by deleterious chromosomal rearrangements does not appear very common. The "stasipatric" model of speciation has recently been discredited in the biological model where it was first proposed (Australian grasshoppers or something). But chromosomal speciation requires more investigation. It could act in mammals, but the only studied case I know is the house mouse. There may be a couple of other candidate models though.
Speciation by polyploidization is frequent in plants (especially ferns), but less common than the classical model (selected genetic changes in isolated populations) and rare in animals.
Overall, it seems that Margulis gives too much importance to endosymbiosis. Although it certainly enabled the colonization of new niches (in insects in particular), thereby contributing to biodiversity, a direct link to speciation is not demonstrated.
It is sad that Margulis seems to embrace controversial hypotheses without looking carefully at the available data. I am not judging from her book (which I haven't read), but from the recent fiasco at PNAS, where she communicated this ridulous paper advocating the hypothesis that caterpillars came from velvet worms. :(
If you don't mind I will ask her that very thing in a e-mail and see what she says? I don't necessarily believe her hypothesis is correct I just am interested in her research.
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 11 2010,08:08)On Margulis: I have not read her book, but from reviews I can see here and there, I can only concur with her critics. Her view on speciation is not supported by studies on natural populations.
I may expand on this topic, which have been my area of research for the past 4 years. At best, it may inform our friend Patrickarbuthnot and clear some early misconceptions on speciation (for example, the view that speciation rarely involves natural selection).
Contrarily to Margulis' opinion, there is considerable evidence that speciation involves genetic changes (point mutations or other genomic rearrangements) and wherever these changes have been pinpointed, they appeared to have been subject to selection. In many cases divergent adaptation to distinct ecological niches has been shown to contribute to reproductive isolation. Geographical isolation will permit the fixation of these changes, though it is not an absolute requirement if divergent selection is strong.
On the other hand, there very little (or no) evidence that genetic drift and bottlenecks induce reproductive isolation (via the "genetic revolutions" proposed by Mayr, among other models). The various founder-effect speciation models have failed all laboratory tests. These were proposed to explain the frequent events of peripratric speciation (in founding populations), but in the end, it seems that natural selection in the new colonized habitat is the main driver of reproductive isolation (aided by geographical isolation).
Speciation by deleterious chromosomal rearrangements does not appear very common. The "stasipatric" model of speciation has recently been discredited in the biological model where it was first proposed (Australian grasshoppers or something). But chromosomal speciation requires more investigation. It could act in mammals, but the only studied case I know is the house mouse. There may be a couple of other candidate models though.
Speciation by polyploidization is frequent in plants (especially ferns), but less common than the classical model (selected genetic changes in isolated populations) and rare in animals.
Overall, it seems that Margulis gives too much importance to endosymbiosis. Although it certainly enabled the colonization of new niches (in insects in particular), thereby contributing to biodiversity, a direct link to speciation is not demonstrated.
It is sad that Margulis seems to embrace controversial hypotheses without looking carefully at the available data. I am not judging from her book (which I haven't read), but from the recent fiasco at PNAS, where she communicated this ridulous paper advocating the hypothesis that caterpillars came from velvet worms. :(
If you don't mind I will ask her that very thing in a e-mail and see what she says? I don't necessarily believe her hypothesis is correct I just am interested in her research.
Categories: AE Public BB
IDC != AntiEvolution?
Post by fnxtr
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58) Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16) Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.
I must dispute this claim.
A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.
Exaptation?
I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.
(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!
With sleeves?
Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58) Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16) Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.
I must dispute this claim.
A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.
Exaptation?
I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.
(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!
With sleeves?
Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.
Categories: AE Public BB
Telic Thoughts Thread
Post by fnxtr
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 11 2010,07:31)This is getting downright funny.
About the only people left who don't know "ID Guy" is "Joe G" are those who have never heard of them.
Well, that narrows it down to just.. uh, several billion individuals, doesn't it. :-)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 11 2010,07:31)This is getting downright funny.
About the only people left who don't know "ID Guy" is "Joe G" are those who have never heard of them.
Well, that narrows it down to just.. uh, several billion individuals, doesn't it. :-)
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Reciprocating Bill
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,22:53)And an anxious nation awaits endarkenment, err, entardemission, maybe jerkjissim.
Does it seem that there is a cycle to this bull shit? Do we have enough of the cycle to know its period? Is there a hetro-cycle (not likely, I would predict an off-set homocycle)?
The cycle you're looking for is "tricycle."
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,22:53)And an anxious nation awaits endarkenment, err, entardemission, maybe jerkjissim.
Does it seem that there is a cycle to this bull shit? Do we have enough of the cycle to know its period? Is there a hetro-cycle (not likely, I would predict an off-set homocycle)?
The cycle you're looking for is "tricycle."
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Dr.GH
And an anxious nation awaits endarkenment, err, entardemission, maybe jerkjissim.
Does it seem that there is a cycle to this bull shit? Do we have enough of the cycle to know its period? Is there a hetro-cycle (not likely, I would predict an off-set homocycle)?
And an anxious nation awaits endarkenment, err, entardemission, maybe jerkjissim.
Does it seem that there is a cycle to this bull shit? Do we have enough of the cycle to know its period? Is there a hetro-cycle (not likely, I would predict an off-set homocycle)?
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Richard Simons
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.
OK. So you've measured the complexity of a particular English language definition of an aardvark. How does that help you determine how much complexity there is in a real beastie? (BTW, I read the post when it first came out. It has not improved with keeping.)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.
OK. So you've measured the complexity of a particular English language definition of an aardvark. How does that help you determine how much complexity there is in a real beastie? (BTW, I read the post when it first came out. It has not improved with keeping.)
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Reciprocating Bill
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 11 2010,14:07) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.
Is there any evidence that this can be accomplished by a disembodied unknown "intelligence"?
Perhaps disembodied intelligences design disembodied body parts and disembodied body plans. We just can't see them.
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 11 2010,14:07) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.
Is there any evidence that this can be accomplished by a disembodied unknown "intelligence"?
Perhaps disembodied intelligences design disembodied body parts and disembodied body plans. We just can't see them.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by blipey
Hey, Joe.
Perhaps you could use this forum to reveal (revelate?) how you would determine the CSI of a river rock from its manufactured copy.
I understand you would have to examine it personally (I have no idea why this is so other than you say it is so, but I'll take you at your word), so what will you be looking for when you examine these two objects personally?
Please be specific.
Hey, Joe.
Perhaps you could use this forum to reveal (revelate?) how you would determine the CSI of a river rock from its manufactured copy.
I understand you would have to examine it personally (I have no idea why this is so other than you say it is so, but I'll take you at your word), so what will you be looking for when you examine these two objects personally?
Please be specific.
Categories: AE Public BB
