RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (23) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave Has More Questions About Apes, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,03:55   

DIFFICULT QUESTIONS REMAIN FOR APE/HUMAN ORIGINS

I appreciate the good information that was exchanged on my "Chimp Chromosome Thread."  I have learned some important information regarding the similarity of the genomes of apes and humans.  I agree that the similarities are quite striking indeed and cannot be dismissed as some Creationists attempt to do.

However, I believe there are a number of major issues which would have to be solved before a scientist could logically adopt the firm position that humans and apes DO IN FACT share a common ancestor.  Of course, I am becoming quite proficient at searching the "Index to Creationist Claims" and the Article DB at Talk Origins now BEFORE posting my questions here, so as not to waste your time.  I will summarize the points of agreement that I share with Neo-Darwinists, then pose my questions.  I have surveyed the various Creationist refutations of common descent for apes and humans and have found most of them to be inadequate.  These inadequacies are spelled out rather nicely by Todd Charles Wood (2006) of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, who appears from this paper to be a fair-minded creationist.
Wood Article (2006)

Points of Agreement between myself (Wood also) and Common Descent Advocates
(1)  Nucleotide mismatches appear to be very small ~1.5%
(2)  Alignment gaps are also very small ~3-4%
(3)  Human Chromosome 2 does in fact appear to be a result of the fusion of 2 chimp chromosomes
(4)  The pseudogene for Vitamin C production does in fact appear to support common descent theory
(5)  Body similarities are indeed very striking and pose interesting questions
(6)  Many creationist arguments are inadequate.

Summary of Inadequacies of Creationist Responses (Wood)
(1) Similarity pointing to Common Design is inadequate.
Quote
A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design (e.g. Batten 1996; Thompson and Harrub 2005; DeWitt 2005). While this is true, the mere fact of similarity is only a small part of the evolutionary argument. Far more important than the mere occurrence of similarity is the kind of similarity observed.(p.7)

(2) Possibility of higher % differences proves nothing.
Quote
More recently, creationists have begun to argue that the similarity between chimpanzees and humans is less – sometimes much less – than claimed by evolutionary biologists (DeWitt 2003, 2005; Criswell 2005; Thompson and Harrub 2005). These arguments are inspired in part by a study by Britten (2002) that concluded that the overall similarity of human and chimpanzee genomes is ~95%. Britten arrived at this greater dissimilarity by including in his calculations not only nucleotide mismatches but also alignment gaps. Creationists also tend to emphasize other important differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, including the differing chromosome numbers (DeWitt 2003, 2005) and the differences in gene expression in the humans and chimpanzees (Rana 2001).Differences are certainly important, and there are many differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, as detailed above. However, emphasizing these differences does not resolve the problem of similarity. Even if the chimpanzee genome were more than 5% or 10% different from the human genome, the differences are still vastly outnumbered by the similarities (at least 9 to 1). The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. (p.9)

(3) There may be NO "Haldane's Dillema" at all.
Quote
Based on a 10% dissimilarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes, Criswell argued that humans and chimpanzees could not have evolved from a common ancestor. Criswell reasoned that if evolution were true, a 10% difference would mean that 300 million mutations had been fixed in the human and chimpanzee genomes, or roughly 150 million mutations in each species. Assuming that the human/chimpanzee last common ancestor lived 5 million years ago (Ma), he calculated that an average of 600 “beneficial mutations” must have been fixed in each generation. He concluded that Haldane’s dilemma prohibits such a large number of mutations fixed by selection.Even conceding his assertion of <90% identity between human and chimpanzee genomes, his argument suffers from some errors. (p.10)


Wood then goes on to propose an intriguing alternative ...
Quote
Despite these shortcomings[of the ReMine Message Theory], it is possible that ReMine’s message theory could be modified to explain biological similarity. Although ReMine (1993, p. 368) claimed that his message theory would be invalidated if the unique, nested hierarchy of organisms was falsified, other interpretations of the biotic message could be consistent with non-nested or non-hierarchical patterns. For example, a network pattern of similarity can also serve as a message because a network pattern has the attributes of language. In written language, a very limited number of letters can be rearranged to form a great number of words, which in turn can be rearranged (following rules of grammar and syntax) to express a virtually unlimited number of ideas. If organisms and their genomes are conveying a message (or messages) from the Creator, we should expect a high degree of repetition, both within and between genomes, because of the nature of language. It is therefore intriguing that the human and chimpanzee genomes contain a high fraction of repetitive DNA and that some of the more significant differences between the genomes are in their repetitive DNA (segmental duplication and transposable element) content. If correct, this line of reasoning would imply that a proper understanding of the similarity of humans and primates would depend on detecting rules of “syntax” and “grammar” in the biotic message and applying them.
Furthermore, a network pattern of similarity resulting from transposition could serve a non-naturalistic function since a network pattern is not expected from tree-like inheritance. ReMine (1993, pp. 342-343) argued that evolution “does not predict a nested hierarchy,” but that is only true if evolution is understood in the broadest possible way to include many different (and potentially contradictory) theories. Specific theories of evolution (like Darwin’s) do predict nested hierarchies. Other theories (e.g. Woese 1998) could be constructed to accommodate widespread transposition, but these arguments are not arguments for common descent. As a result, a network pattern of similarity resist simple explanation by naturalistic theories (although complicated theories of transposition might explain it), thus reinforcing its origin by design.(p.12)


and he asks an important question which serves as an excellent prelude to my own questions ...
Quote
What is a Genome? This might seem like a trivial and self-evident question, but its simplicity hides a deep challenge (Wood 2001). The Bible teaches that God created adult organisms and presumably even complete ecosystems by covering the land with plants. Thus, the Bible favors a holistic perspective of organisms. Modern molecular biology has favored the opposite perspective: that life is the complicated interaction of molecules and that DNA is the “code of life.” If the molecular viewpoint is correct, then the differences between organisms that really matter are indeed the differences in the DNA. If a holistic perspective is correct, then perhaps differences in the DNA are not paramount to understanding organismal differences.Complicating this reasoning is the fact that differences in DNA do indeed cause differences at the organismal level. There is a definite relationship between phenotype and genotype, even though the relationship is not as simple as Mendel might have imagined it. We could understand the genome as a repository of some of the information necessary for the physical composition of the organism (Wood 2001). In that case, far more important than the genome may be its cellular context, which interprets and applies the information stored in the genome. Since some of the cellular context is coded by the genome, we have something of a chicken/egg problem, which can only be resolved by a creation event.The similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes offers evidence that the genome could primarily be a repository. If the fixed nucleotide mismatches between the chimpanzee and human genomes are 1.06%, then the original nucleotide identity could be as high as 99%. At that high level of similarity, perhaps it is not impossible to believe that God created humans and chimpanzees with identical genomes. The known differences between human and chimpanzee biochemistry (see Varki 2000; Varki and Atheide 2005) may well rule this out, but it is an intriguing possibility. Even at 99% identity, however, the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences. Theologically, the high similarity of humans and chimpanzees reinforces our spiritual – not physical (Ecc. 3:18-21) – distinctiveness from the animals. It is the image of God that makes us human not some intrinsically valuable genetic element.(p.12)


This paper by Wood is quite interesting to me and serves well as a prelude to my own questions which I shall now present to you ...

(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today?  It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that  we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans.  I suppose a hopeful candidate for this type of civilization has been the remote tribes of jungle natives found throughout the world.  However, I have firsthand experience with one such tribe, the Wai-Wai indians of Southern Guyana/Northern Brazil (My father is a Bible Translator for this tribe), and we have observed no evidence of anything 'primitive' about their human characteristics.  To be sure, their civilization and technology was quite primitive (they were basically hunter/gatherers), but their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages (I speak the language some and have a copy of their grammar, which my dad produced).  Their behaviour is in no way 'primitive' for the purpose of determining if they are 'less evolved.'  They laugh, cry, make jokes, tell stories, get mad at one another, read, write, learn foreign languages, play guitars and keyboards, have political battles, and in short do everything that any human society also does.  The main difference is in technology, which of course is not advanced.  As far as I know, there are Apes and there are Humans.  And there are no existing 'in-betweens.'  How do you explain this?

(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me.  Here is the supposed evidence from Talk Origins ...
Quote
Intermediate fossils include
Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).
And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
 Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?  i.e. Pygmies and 'Aborigines' ?  

(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying.  But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences?  Humans have highly complex symbolic languages.  Apes probably communicate some, but do they communicate in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES in different parts of the world?  Are there any apes that have learned how to write?  Do apes organize themselves into 'governments' and seek to conquer  other ape groups?  Is there any indication of abstract thinking among the apes?  Is there any evidence of any 'technology' developed by apes?  Even primitive technology?  And this is only the tip of the iceberg with such questions.

(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.'"  This would be a silly idea to me of course, but it appears to be a logical conclusion of some evolutionist thinking.

(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?

My conclusion then is that in spite of striking genome similarities, humans and the apes are VERY DIFFERENT in many important ways.  All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God."  It appears to me also that Neo-Darwininsts are not even close to being able to answer ANY of the above questions in a satisfactory manner.  But maybe you will prove me wrong.

OK.  That should do it for starters.  I welcome your comments.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:00   

Quote
It appears to me also that Neo-Darwininsts are not even close to being able to answer ANY of the above questions in a satisfactory manner.  
When someone completely ignorant of biology, doesn't agree with the biology experts, it really suggests to us that the experts are wrong.

Oh wait, it doesn't.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:08   

Quote
How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations'

We killed them. Them as in Neanderthals.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:15   

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?


The 'Hitler = Darwin' equation has been tried out by every creationist for the last 60 years. It's bullshit. Start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

Please go back and try again. You don't want to make Christians look stupid, do you?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:17   

Oops, I should have read farther, I see the thread's already been Godwined. Sorry, you lose afdave!

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:20   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,09:55)
I am becoming quite proficient at searching the "Index to Creationist Claims" and the Article DB at Talk Origins now BEFORE posting my questions here, so as not to waste your time.

And yet, you chose to trot out Hitler anyway?

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:20   

Sorry, you lost me when this question:
Quote
What is a Genome?

was answered with
Quote
The Bible teaches...


"What is the Bernoulli effect? Well, the Bible teaches..."

Sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
ltracey



Posts: 4
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:26   

Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?  i.e. Pygmies and 'Aborigines' ?


Whoa, I seriously cannot believe we just saw another instance of "why are there still pygmies and dwarves?".

The mind wobbles...

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:29   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,08:55)
Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?

Not really.

The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,08:55)
Are there any apes that have learned how to write?

Just some notes  on primate language use:

http://www.koko.org/
http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html
Koko has a sign language vocabulary of over 1000 words, which she uses in complex statements and questions. Most of these signs are standard American Sign Language (ASL), but some are either invented or slightly modified by Koko to form what we call Gorilla Sign Langue (GSL), or "Gorilla Speak."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-09-koko-gorilla_x.htm
More Koko news.

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/publica....eys.cfm
some researchers have suggested that primate "talk" may show evidence of "syntax" and/or "semantics" in a loose sense.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:44   

http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn4.html

Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:49   

Arden Chatfield said ...
Quote
The 'Hitler = Darwin' equation has been tried out by every creationist for the last 60 years. It's bullshit. Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

I did and it is extremely weak.

Then go look here for a much stronger case.

The Holocaust and Darwinism


Quote
Hitler was especially determined to prevent Aryans from breeding with non-Aryans, a concern that eventually resulted in the ‘final solution’. Once the inferior races were exterminated, Hitler believed that future generations would be eternally grateful for the improvement that his programs brought to humanity:

‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).’ 20

Individuals are not only far less important than the race, but the Nazis concluded that certain races were not human, but were animals:

‘The Jews, labelled subhumans, became nonbeings. It was both legal and right to exterminate them in the collectivist and evolutionist viewpoint. They were not considered … persons in the sight of the German government.’ 34

As a result, the Darwinist movement was ‘one of the most powerful forces in the nineteenth–twentieth centuries German intellectual history [and] may be fully understood as a prelude to the doctrine of national socialism [Nazism]’.35 Why did evolution catch hold in Germany faster, and take a firmer hold there than any other place in the world?


But OK.  You don't want to accept this?  What about the other questions?

Ltracey said ...
Quote
Whoa, I seriously cannot believe we just saw another instance of "why are there still pygmies and dwarves?".


That's not what I am saying.  I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins.

I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have.  Is this not correct?

Tom Ames said ...
Quote
"What is the Bernoulli effect? Well, the Bible teaches..."  Sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it?

Sure, THAT does.  But you are distorting what the paragraph says.  Read the context.  What Wood is saying is "What is a Genome?  It is something worth studying, no question.  But is the Genome going to explain the real differences?  No.  There are differences which have to be accounted for by means OTHER THAN Genome studies."

Remember, that I and apparently Wood view the Bible as a SOURCE FOR PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES.  I also believe in Biblical inerrancy.  But this is a separate issue which must be proven on its own merits.  Biblical inerrancy has nothing to do with the issue you just raised.

Norm said ...
Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.

This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?

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

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:57   

(1) Elimination by competition.  Your concept of less-evolved is inaccurate - "primitive" tribes should be just as evolved as we are.  They may have evolved slightly differently, but not enough to be reproductively isolated in the elapsed time since divergence.  The fact that they are so similar is strong indication that the core aspects of what make us human had fully evolved before they split off.

(2) No.  The features are in fact quite different.

(3) The non-biological differences arise from two genetic traits basically unique to humans - the ability to efficiently move without using our arms and the capacity for extensive abstract thought.  Yes.  There is one ape (at least) that has learned to sign.  Yes.  Some, but not extensive.  Yes, but very primitive.

(4) That's a question for society at large to answer.

(5) No, and this is a violation of Godwin's Law.  Just because there are natural trends, does not mean that it is imperative that we follow those trends - part of our evolutionary advantage is the ability to change the environment and the selective pressures, and another part is our concept of ethics and morals.  No - again, you are entirely incorrect in your concept of evolution.  Every individual in a generation is just as evolved as the rest of its generation.  We are in fact less evolved than most apes, since they have a shorter generation period, and significantly less evolved than bacteria, speaking strictly from a evolutionary standpoint.  Evolutionary theory does not provide any support for the arguments you try to make.  These are issues for society, not science, to resolve.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:59   

http://www.istc.cnr.it/showabstract.php?bibid=27
Evidence for primates' understanding of causality is presented and discussed.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi....7.1.301
Cultural primatology is hypothesized on the basis of social learning of group-specific behavior by nonhuman primates...

http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/section2.htm
Our near relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos, have male-bonded societies in which females migrate between troops, and individuals leave and rejoin the group. This means an individual potentially has private information it could share or withhold. Vocalizations of monkeys, and probably apes, contain semantic detail about social relations as well as external threats. Chimpanzees give food-calls in the wild which attract others; in captivity they can lead others to hidden food, and convey its quality.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,04:59   

Quote
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.
Quote
This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?
Is there some reason not to?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:01   

Dave, I am not a scientist, but I’ll offer my understanding of the answers to your questions:

Quote
(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today?  It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that  we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans.

Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case. The other way of looking at it, of course, is that the ape groups that DO exist ARE the “Hominid Civilizations” you are speculating, but they aren’t quite as advanced as what you imagined.

Quote
(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me.

I’ll leave this one to those who are better qualified to comment on it. (See how that works?)

Quote
(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying.  But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences?

No, it does not. The biological differences are the biological differences and the NON-biological differences are the NON-biological differences. We categorize them differently so that they can be studied appropriately. No one here will argue that an ape is a human. Apes are apes. Humans are human. They are similar in some respects, but different in others. That's all.

Quote
(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.'"  This would be a silly idea to me of course, but it appears to be a logical conclusion of some evolutionist thinking.

This would be a silly idea to me, too. If someone arrived at this conclusion by extrapolating from evolution, I’d describe it as “wrong”.

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?

Sure he was. But, as above, I think most people would describe him as “wrong”; he MISINTERPRETED evolutionary theory and arrived at bad conclusions. Wasn’t he also a Christian? Would you say he followed Christian precepts correctly?

Quote
Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?

Not withstanding the fact that there is no "more" or "less" evolved, why yes, it WOULD be logical to assume that there might be some differences between races. What makes science nice is that it does not STOP there, but goes on to say: “Let’s investigate it further and do some research to see if it is, in fact, true.” Oh, look. The evidence shows that the differences between the various races are negligible, and that their abilities are essentially identical. Huh. I guess that makes it an instance of "Things are not always what you expect."

Quote
My conclusion then is that in spite of striking genome similarities, humans and the apes are VERY DIFFERENT in many important ways.

My, what a strikingly insightful conclusion that is. No one will disagree with that statement, Dave. It is self-evident. It is your next line…
Quote
All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God."

…that the reality-based people here will take issue with.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:04   

I said ...
Quote
That's not what I am saying.  I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins.

I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have.  Is this not correct?


Oops.  Let's try that again ...

That's not what I am saying.  I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans DIED, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins??

I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have.  Is this not correct?

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

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:08   

Quote
Norm said ...
[quote]
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether or not we believe this.  It is an inescapable consequence of evolution.  Therefore, you can't invoke evolutionary theory to support your arguments in the context you are using.  Not with any honesty, at least.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:12   

More on Koko:
Quote
Koko has a great sense of humour. When asked the colour of her white towel over and over again, she eventually got bored and signed the word ‘red’. When asked again, she replied ‘red’ twice more! Then she carefully picked a piece of red thread off the towel and laughed, saying ‘red’ again.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:13   

Quote
No one here will argue that an ape is a human. Apes are apes. Humans are human. They are similar in some respects, but different in others. That's all.
Much as no one here will argue that mammals are humans. I, however, would argue that humans are one of the 5 surviving species of great apes.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:14   

Dave, this is not germaine to your post but I have to ask a creationist who takes himself seriously.  Creationists bandy about all the time about there being gaps in evolutionary theory.  They could be referring to places where our understanding is lacking or we have insufficient ideas to test but, of course, what they are really refering to are the gaps in the fossil evidence.  What I wanted to ask you was what are we suppose to make of the non-gaps(I don't know what else to call a non-gap, maybe evidence woudl be a good name, but if anyone has an idea please do tell) in the fossil evidence?  You know, the places that make all those gaps the creationists complain about possible.  All that evidence has to mean something.  Especially since the evidence between the gaps shows such flow(again a bad word but the only one I could think of) between features and anytime a new piece of evidence is found it fits into the flow just as we would expect it to.  Focusing only on the gaps gives the lopsided picture that the gaps are all that is important, but as I said above without the evidence there would be no gaps; or, rephrased, all of prehistory would would be one giant gap.  And if creationism was true(especially YEC) that is all we would expect.  One giant gap.  Why can't creationists get that?

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:15   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,09:49)
Norm said ...
Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?

Yes. The fact that you don't indicates that you have a profound misunderstanding of what evolution is.

You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all.

It's not the difference in genes that makes a primitive society primitive. It's the evolution of the society which is not genetic,  but memetic.

Take Newton and Einstein and transplant them as infants into a caveman society or an Amazon tribe and they would never have accomplished what they did. They might or might not have had an edge in chipping stones to make axe heads but calculus and relativity were built on knowledge that was evolving within society, not genes.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:18   

Quote

This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?
Anybody with at least a freshman understanding of biology knows this. That would not include you.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:21   

Maybe someone should patiently explain that human social structures have always been heirarchies. Heirarchies mean someone is at the top of the heap. Those at the top of the heap are always seeking to justify their position somehow. Before Darwin, kings and nobles and lords and such were divinely appointed. In other words, religious justifications were used.

After Darwin, a new possibility was raised: that those at the top of the social pyramid deserved to be there for natural reasons rather than religious reasons. There has never been ANY doubt by those at the top that their position is deserved. So these "natural" justifications have been deployed both by nations (as in Germany) and by scientists (searching for natural explanations for why the French are superior to the Germans or vice versa (depending on who's doing the study), or why whites are superior to blacks (again depending on who's doing the study). In brief, it fell out of fashion for those born into privilege to say God put them there, and into fashion to say they are "more evolved" and rose to the top from sheer innate superiority.

Neither the religious nor the natural explanation has anything to do with Darwin or evolution, of course. It's all about *staying on top*.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:34   

Ah yes, where would creationists be without comparisons of Hitler and Darwin? And where would they be without AIG?

Okay, Dave try answering this.

Adolf Hitler was a Christian. Catholic, in fact. The great majority of Nazis were Christians of some kind. Hitler frequently rationalized his attitudes towards 'racial purity' by appeals to Jesus and God. From this, one could conclude that a natural consequence of Christianity is murdering Jews. You presumably disagree. So do I. But why is this any less reasonable than your logic? It's FAR EASIER to find statements by the Nazis invoking Jesus for what they did than invoking Darwin.

Quote

This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?


Yes. If you weren't ignorant of evolutionary biology and how the scientific process works, this wouldn't shock you. If you want to rationalize your ideas by appeals to more than Christian apologetics, you have to try harder.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:36   

Norm said ...
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.


and he also said this ...
Quote
You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all. ... and ... The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved' ???

Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.  

If you want me to use a new term so I don't confuse your minds, please suggest one.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:42   

How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:50   

Quote
These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved'  


You really think this is a 'contradiction'? ? ?

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,05:59   

Quote
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.


Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:00   

Yay!  Godwinned!

Which allows me to throw in this tidbit:

The anti-semitic attitudes that allowed for various attrocities - including the Holocaust - came directly from Christianity.  The notion that Hitler just came up with the idea of killing off jews all on his own is simply absurd.  Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born.  Hitler was just continuing a popular tradition, and adding his own spin to the process.

Linking any theory of evolution to the Holocaust is a tremendous stretch, and ultimately a useless exercise.  If you are looking for an ideology to blame, you need look no further than Christianity.

--------------
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.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:11   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:59)
Quote
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.


Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

You're right, Dave. You've defeated us. We give up. You win. We secular liberals are so weakened by not going to church, pot smoking, voting Democrat, and advanced degrees that we had no defenses for a true Christian logic, a man who was willing to start with the Bible and to bravely and incisively go wherever the evidence leads, and who objectively is not tied to any particular view but who only seeks the truth. When we make fun of you, it's not that we think your arguments are inconsequential or ridiculous -- it's because we're AFRAID of you, and ASHAMED. No one who has come on to this site before has shown us what you've shown us -- that all our book larnin is for naught. That in fact, the LESS one knows about history and the development of man, the BETTER qualified one is to discuss it.

GOD, we're embarrassed, Dave. But I guess your experience in the military was what qualified you to defeat us secular humanists where GoP and Thordaddy always failed before.

Tell us what to do, now, Dave. Obviously we have to start from scratch. I mean, I assume I have to get one of those Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish for my car, and vote Republican this fall, but aside from that, I'm at a loss.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:36)
Norm said ...
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.


and he also said this ...
Quote
You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all. ... and ... The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved' ???

Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.  

If you want me to use a new term so I don't confuse your minds, please suggest one.

No contradiction. Humans live in a very different niche than bacteria. Our social structures demand higher levels of intelligence as more knowledge accumulates. They do say "driven by the pressures of natural selection." And selection is obviously happening in our socities. Lots of men never  mate, they don't make it to where they have the economic means to raise a family. We have to figure out a social world that gets more and more complex, demands more and more scientific knowledge to find a place where one can have an income and reproduce.

Selection in bacteria demands different abilities and they are highly evolved for those abilities.

Each organism to its niche and what that niche requires to survive and reproduce.

From the moment those cave paintings began appearing on  cave walls (and probably before) our niche was social organization and intelligence. We primates don't have the tiger's speed and claws, the elephant's strength, the turtles protective shell... We have something else and you see it all around you: society. That's the niche we survive in, a kind of super organism.

Science requires a complex social structure -- societies of certain size. We war with other socities...

  
jstockwell



Posts: 10
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:29   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:59)
Quote
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.


Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

afdave,

The reason you're getting some short answers is because you're demonstrating that you're unwilling to attempt to understand basic elements of evolutionary theory.  How can you hope to find any flaws in something of which you have no understanding?  

Saying that humans are clearly 'more evolved' than anything else is ridiculous.  Evolutionary biology studies how life survives.  The only measure of any significance to evolution is survival.  Every organism alive on this world now is here because its ancestors stretching back billions of years survived.  So each one has had the same amount of time to evolve.

Humans have clearly had some measure of success, based on their huge population and climate range for an animal of their size.  But more success than bacteria?  Bacteria outnumber and outmass us, populate far more environments than we do, and will surely survive long after we blow ourselves into smithereens, as you say.  So which is more successful?  In terms of evolution, at the moment we're pretty much even, but I think it's far more likely that humans will go extinct than bacteria.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:29   

Quote

Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?


Out of patience. It's fine that you come in here with absolutely no understanding of science. We were all ignorant at one point. I didn't know what 5' and 3' meant with regard to DNA either, before 9th grade biology. But you come in with arrogance and attitude on top of that. You don't show any respect for the opinions of people who do know things. So yeah, you're going to get some hostile treatment after a while. Go read a beginner's biology textbook and shut up.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:46   

Quote
Out of answers and energy, perhaps?
or patience, perhaps. If you think there's some new challenge here, you're deluding yourself.
Quote
I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?
I suspect there may be some frustration. But it's not because you're "starting to make sense". Quite the contrary.
Quote
Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?
All I have invested in is what works. If creationism offered some explanations of the otherwise unexplained, if it made any predictions at all that worked, I still have my life and my work. It wouldn't cost me a thing to adopt it. If it worked. But it doesn't.

Now, let's talk about what you have invested in creationism. Suppose we were able to convince you that AiG is just as obviously, glaringly, unambiguously wrong about everything else as I hope you have come to realize they are about the chromosome fusion story. Suppose you had to accept what every scientist who's looked at the evidence objectively accepts: that the earth is billions of years old, and that humans are just one little twig on the tree of life, that has been on the scene for but an infinitesimal fraction of the planet's history. Would that make you reassess your thoughts on life and your alleged god?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:53   

Quote
More Koko news.

I acknowledged up front that apes have communication ability and even some of the other abilities mentioned here.  This does not overcome the ENORMOUS differences between Apes and Humans.  The BEST explanation remains, as it did before Darwin, that an Intelligent Designer made Humans to be Humans and Apes to be Apes.
Quote
Oh, look. The evidence shows that the differences between the various races are negligible, and that their abilities are essentially identical. Huh. I guess that makes it an instance of "Things are not always what you expect."

My point exactly.  Things ARE NOT as one would expect if evolution were true.
Quote
It is your next line ...that the reality-based people here will take issue with. 'All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God."'

Why?  What is wrong with proposing this as a hypothesis and testing it?  This is what am doing on my other thread (well into Point 1 already).  If the evidence fails to support it, then fine.  I will abandon the proposition.

You should not be calling people here 'reality based.' Because many of them refuse to consider the possibility of what may in fact be quite legitimate REALITIES -- God, angels, demons, afterlife, etc.  I will be showing excellent evidence for just these types of realities on my other thread.  I cannot prove them, but there is much evidence.  A better term for the people here might be 'naturalistic based.'  In other words, they only acknowledge things they can test with their meters and such.  They think that there is no 'God-meter' so to speak, so they reject the possibility out of hand. I will show that this is a mistake.
Quote
What I wanted to ask you was what are we suppose to make of the non-gaps(I don't know what else to call a non-gap, maybe evidence woudl be a good name, but if anyone has an idea please do tell) in the fossil evidence?  You know, the places that make all those gaps the creationists complain about possible.  All that evidence has to mean something.  Especially since the evidence between the gaps shows such flow(again a bad word but the only one I could think of) between features and anytime a new piece of evidence is found it fits into the flow just as we would expect it to.  Focusing only on the gaps gives the lopsided picture that the gaps are all that is important, but as I said above without the evidence there would be no gaps; or, rephrased, all of prehistory would would be one giant gap.  And if creationism was true(especially YEC) that is all we would expect.  One giant gap.  Why can't creationists get that?

I will cover this on my other thread.  Keep checking back.  Thanks for the question.
Quote
(Arden)Ah yes, where would creationists be without comparisons of Hitler and Darwin? And where would they be with AIG? (Didn't use AIG this time ... are you happy?) Okay, Dave try answering this.
Adolf Hitler was a Christian. Catholic, in fact. The great majority of Nazis were Christians of some kind. Hitler frequently rationalized his attitudes towards 'racial purity' by appeals to Jesus and God. From this, one could conclude that a natural consequence of Christianity is murdering Jews. You presumably disagree. So do I. But why is this any less reasonable than your logic? It's FAR EASIER to find statements by the Nazis invoking Jesus for what they did than invoking Darwin.
(Joe the Ordinary Guy) Sure he [Hitler] was. But, as above, I think most people would describe him as “wrong”; he MISINTERPRETED evolutionary theory and arrived at bad conclusions. Wasn’t he also a Christian? Would you say he followed Christian precepts correctly?

I might concede this point.  It is true that various twisted versions of Christianity has wreaked enormous havoc on the human race, the medieval Catholic Church being a case in point, in my opinion.  But history also has a very recent example of a nation which based its laws upon the general Protestant interpretation of Christianity (the USA)--there is a very strong case that this is true--it should be self-evident, but may not be now thanks to post-1950 (or so) revisionists of American history.  America (and the British Empire before it)  owes its success more than anything else to the Bible and to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.  And by "success", I mean equality, prosperity, culture, conveniences, art, music, good treatment of women and children, etc.  Note that people from all over the world want to come to America.  I cannot help but think that the story of Great Britain and America would have been quite different (maybe like the USSR?) had they been founded upon Darwinism instead of upon the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.  Do you disagree with this?

To me, basing society upon the Bible and the teachings of Jesus has been demonstrated to be a good idea, whether they happen to be true or not.  And basing a society upon Darwinism would be a bad idea, whether it is true or not.  But I believe I have a "double whammy" if you will.  Not only do I believe Darwinism is unsupported by adequate evidence AND has bad societal influences, but I also believe that Biblical Christianity and YEC is supported by overwhelming evidence AND is good for society.  

This explains my zeal in fighting AGAINST Darwinism and FOR Biblical Christianity and Creationism.

Quote
Evolutionary theory does not provide any support for the arguments you try to make.  These are issues for society, not science, to resolve.
True, and I am not an official member of the science community, but policy makers rely on what they think is good science many times to make good decisions.  I am a concerned citizen with a scientific mind who feels that a pseudo-science called Neo-Darwinism is being called science on a large scale.  This gives politicians scientific sounding reasons to implement potentially disastrous policies in our society.

Quote
Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born.
Twisted Christianity had been.  You are correct.  It got so bad that a man named Martin Luther turned things upside down.  The result?  The translation of the Bible into the English language and the attendant success of the British Empire, followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also, again with great results.  Note also the DECLINE of the British Empire coincident with the REJECTION of the validity and authority of the Bible.

Quote
Tell us what to do, now, Dave. Obviously we have to start from scratch. I mean, I assume I have to get one of those Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish for my car, and vote Republican this fall, but aside from that, I'm at a loss.
No one will make you do any of those things.  That's the beauty of America.  We let people be Atheist or Islamic or Buddhist or Nothing with no penalties.  And the reason for this is the Christian worldview which is unique in the world in that it allows maximum freedom.

What we DO want is to NOT have our Creationist views ridiculed in the public square, and we want school children to hear both sides of the evidence (whether in ID format or Creo format, I don't care).  I hear this is starting to happen in the UK and I think this is great!

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,06:56   

AFDave,
Quote
These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved'  

The brain is changing. Bacteria have undergone more of a change.  Evolution predicts that the more reproductive cycles an organism undergoes, the greater the chances of a mutation linked to reproduction.  Add stress that tends to favor successful mutations, and you have a system that promotes change and rewards more successful creatures with more surviving offspring. Does this mean that bacteria are inferior because they do not have highly developed brains?  Of course not.  They are successful as bacteria, successful in changing enough to continually infect other organisms.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:07   

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?


What does this have to do with the biologically history of the planet Earth?  The fact that some people can corrupt knowledge to their own perverted ends does not mean the knowledge is factually incorrect.  It only means that some people can corrupt knowledge to their own perverted ends.  What I hear from you here is that since some people can corrupt knowledge that knowledge should never have been learned in the first place and should be abandonded(to be politic, banned to be impolitic).  What is it with christians and their obsession with forbidding knowledge.  Oh yeah, that's right, the garden.  Never mind.

Let's try it this way.
Quote
Do apes organize themselves into 'governments' and seek to conquer  other ape groups?

I don't know about 'governments' but chimpanzee tribes have been documented to practice organized warfare on other tribes for no better apparent reason than that they wanted to.  This ought to tell you that the latent human capacity to violence and cruelty is not unique to us (and conversely, an additional instance of how close chimps are to us).  But we also have compassion, as evident in, say, a mother's tenderness toward her child.  We DO have the ability to make our own ethical and moral rules for living with our fellow humanity and we DO have the ability to get a consensus with our fellow humanity on what those rules should be.  We don't have to have an imaginary sky daddy to provide us with that.  Just because there are Hitlers in our past(who, incidentally, relied on the religious beliefs of his fellow Germans in that same sky daddy to justify and support his crimes) does not invalidate humanity's ability to create and arrive at a consensus on ethical and moral codes.  Hitler was wrong because we have decided he was wrong.  More importantly Hitler was wrong because millions of people in dozens of countries around the world did decide he was wrong and did something about it.  And yes, some of them used that sky daddy's moral code to help them decide that he was wrong.  So I will ask you the reverse question:
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current religious thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less divine' than others if there is only one true religion?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more divine' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if there is only one true religion, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?
What good is religion if it can be worked both ways?

Why am I justified in asking these questions?  Because evolution theory absolutely does not support the assertian that any race is 'higher' or 'lower' than any other race.  Please tell me how Hitler used evolution theory to tell the difference between a lutheran, a jew, a catholic, an atheist, a gypsy, a moslem.  What physical differences separate these categories?  The only differences are religious(or lack thereof).  How can evolution theory tell them apart?  Hitler may very well have uttered the word evolution in a racist context(I can't say otherwise) but the source of the racism was religious, not biological.

Quote
Is there any evidence of any 'technology' developed by apes?  Even primitive technology?


Try Googling "chimpanzee warfare" and "chimpanzee tool use".  You might be surprised.

Sincerely,

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:15   

Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:

Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?

--------------
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.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:31   

Quote
Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?

I find it misleading. Are you trying to imply that all the other apes are NOT evolved?

Dave lacks more than a rudimentary clue about biology, unfortunately. He also lacks any idea what a fact is, or what evidence means. We are seeing an example of what religion can do to a human brain if permitted to do so. Does anyone here think, if religion were entirely expunged from Dave's brain, there would be much left at all? Could he eat or walk?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:35   

Quote
Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:

Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?


If it does indeed turn out to be false when I have finished my investigation into the claim, then YES, I would be offended at the idea of teaching it as if it were true.

I will resume posts on my other thread tomorrow morning.  I was not avoiding yours or anyone's questions over there.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:41   

Quote

(1) Similarity pointing to Common Design is inadequate.
"A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design …"

This argument isn’t falsifiable (as ID). The world surrounding you may not exist in reality or could have just been created one minute ago, with all your memories. Prove me wrong.
Quote

(2) Possibility of higher % differences proves nothing. "
… The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. (p.9)"

Similarity level = 100% - level of difference, and reciprocally. What is your point here?
Quote

(3) There may be NO "Haldane's Dillema" at all.
"...Assuming that the human/chimpanzee last common ancestor lived 5 million years ago (Ma), he calculated that an average of 600 “beneficial mutations” must have been fixed in each generation. He concluded that Haldane’s dilemma prohibits such a large number of mutations fixed by selection. (p.10)..."
Several flaws here.
- Thanks to sexual reproduction and recombination, mutations don’t have to be ‘fixed’ at each generation (which is a nonsense), but can occur in different genomes.
- The divergence between chimps and human occurred 15 My ago, IIRC.
- Most mutations are neutral
Quote

… If organisms and their genomes are conveying a message (or messages) from the Creator, we should expect a high degree of repetition…
Pure speculation. Genomic evolution can explain this pattern as well.
Quote

… the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences.
So where can they be found? In different sun beams that transform a chimp egg into a human egg?
Quote

(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today?  It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that  we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans.  
Sure, as we should expect civilizations of ‘less evolved’ apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates... Oh wait…
Quote

As far as I know, there are Apes and there are Humans.  And there are no existing 'in-betweens.'  How do you explain this?
Don’t know. Extinctions perhaps?
Quote



(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me.   Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?  i.e. Pygmies and 'Aborigines' ?  
So where do the fossils come from?
Quote

(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying.  But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences?  
15 million years of divergent evolution can produce some differences.
Quote

(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government….
Fundamental science has nothing to do with moral, law or politics.
Quote

(5) Was not Adolf Hitler…
See above.
Quote

My conclusion then is…
based on nothing very convincing.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:42   

so afdave, have you confronted AIG about the lies on their site as you said you were going to do yet?

Please give us details.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:42   

Dave asks:
Quote
Is there any indication of abstract thinking among the apes?


Dave supplies an example of what he thinks abstract thinking is:
Quote
I have firsthand experience with one such tribe, the Wai-Wai indians of Southern Guyana/Northern Brazil... ...and we have observed no evidence of anything 'primitive' about their human characteristics.  To be sure, their civilization and technology was quite primitive (they were basically hunter/gatherers), but their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages.  Their behaviour is in no way 'primitive' for the purpose of determining if they are 'less evolved.'  They laugh, cry,

make jokes,

tell stories, get mad at one another, read, write, learn foreign languages, play guitars and keyboards, have political battles, and in short do everything that any human society also does.


To which Ved replied:
Quote
More on Koko:
Koko has a great sense of humour. When asked the colour of her white towel over and over again, she eventually got bored and signed the word ‘red’. When asked again, she replied ‘red’ twice more! Then she carefully picked a piece of red thread off the towel and laughed, saying ‘red’ again.


The problem is not that chimps, and the animal kingdom in general, is so far behind.  It is that you are so completely unknowing of just how capable chimps really are and that you are full of species superiority about how far advanced humans really are.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:54   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:59)
Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?

Hmmmm ....

Dave, the reason people are becoming frustrated with you is because most of the questions you have, which you seem to view as huge problems for evolutionary biology, are in fact a result of your limited understanding of evolutionary biology. Many if not most of the questions you are asking are things that would be answered if you simply had a better understanding of the topic at hand.

Wouldn't you be a little frustrated teaching someone how to fly if they kept asking how it was possible for planes to fly when planes weigh more than air does? After a while, wouldn't you just tell them to go out and buy a few textbooks on physics, or a biography on Bournoulli?

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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:04   

Again, a quick summary. Evolution did not happen, and does not happen. This is not negotiable. Now, I want some coherent explanation for the evidence we see on the ground. DO NOT try to renegotiate the non-negotiable, this only wastes everyone's time.

(Hint: Until you realize that goddidit, you won't have the right answer.)

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:09   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,11:53)
Things ARE NOT as one would expect if evolution were true.

How can you know what to expect from evolution if you don't understand what evolution is and what it means?

Quote

Why?  What is wrong with proposing this as a hypothesis and testing it?  This is what am doing on my other thread (well into Point 1 already).  If the evidence fails to support it, then fine.  I will abandon the proposition.


How do you test for God?

How can you know what to expect from God if you don't understand what God is?

Consider this -- not only do theologians of different religions disagree hugely about the nature of God, even in what are supposed to be people of the same faiths you have wildly different views.

But across this world, biologists understand the essential features of evolution in a way theology can never approach its understanding of God. When scientists argue - things get settled. Not so with religion.

All the different religions  look a lot like something you'd see in the evolutionary tree of life -- we even have fossil religions, like those of Egypt and Greece.

But science doesn't branch like that. It's nature is not divergening random mutations, but an accumulation of effective knowledge that actually has a real application to our technological world.

Or more simply -- there is only one science -- ever changing, but there are thousands of religions.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:18   

Dave, let's assume for the sake of argument that "guilt by association" is an effective, rational strategy upon which to base one's decisions (as opposed to pure fallacious rhetoric). Let's assume for the sake of argument that Hitler rooted much of his 'politics' in evolutionary theory (I don't agree with this, but I'm willing to stipulate it for this game). Let's assume Godwin didn't know what the #### he was talking about when it came to rational discourse.  To #### with it all -- let's play Hitler ping-pong!

If we accept that Hitler's ascendancy was based on an evolutionary argument (and the lay support of that argument), then you must concede that it was woefully in error.  As everyone with an ounce of understanding in evolutionary theory has pointed out to you (to your dumbfound surprise), there is no such thing as Darwin's Chosen Race (be it human civilization, species, genus, kingdom, whatever), though if the title had to be granted, I think it's a race between bacteria and beetles, with bacteria leading in the polls). It's been pointed out to you that there simply is no such thing as "less evolved".  So if Hitler "did it for evolution", he was wrong. Recently, you seem to have acknowledged this.

So let's play Hitler ping-pong, you versus me. I can show a recent, specific instance where you willingly accepted (positively trumpeted) an argument for a specific religious/political stance (can we call that propaganda, Dave?) that was BASED ON (i.e., did not just reference) an elementary "mistake" in evolutionary biology from which all arguments simply could not follow (they probably wouldn't have followed from even a correct understanding of microbiology, but that's beside the point). Furthermore, one merely has to read this thread to see that you believe in an "evolutionary ladder", where certain human cultures and species are "more evolved", and hence superior.  Everyone on the "evolution side" of this debate rejects this nonsense, and you seemed absolutely shocked to find out there are people who don't see life on this planet in such a straightforward hierarchical fashion. Dave, when evolutionary biologists use the term 'primitive' (if they use it at all), they mean only an identifiable trait that came first chronologically.  They do not attach the subjective baggage of superiority to it that you do.  This kind of miscommunication occurs often between those educated in evolutionary biology and those who think they understand it from the ladder-type early hominid drawings in museums, "good of the species" Animal Kingdom shows, and AiG screeds.

So on which side falls Hitler, Dave?  I think it'd be fair to say that the...ahem...ball is in your court.  Luckily, you seem willing to extract yourself from this assinine 'argument' in the most face-saving manner possible (i.e., by acknowledging that people do cruel things and justify it in whatever manner they can get away with, be it by appealing to a higher power or a greater goal).  If you do that, you just have a bit of egg on your face for bringing it up in the first place and breaking Godwin's Law.  For a second I was worried you would take the other route, and claim that evolution actually does say what you think Hitler thought it said, and that we evolutionary biologists who claim otherwise are actually part of some clandestine conspiracy or New World Order. Of course, such paranoia would be a bit of a whiff in Hitler ping-pong, now wouldn't it?

But note that the actual theory of evolution is absolutely mute when it comes to higher powers and greater goals, whereas religion is emphatically not. You and I can agree that "a society based on Darwinism" would be a bad thing (if only because I have no idea what that would actually look like -- we might as well argue about a society based on algebra or a society based on gravity). But if you mean "a society based on someone's idea of Darwinism", I shudder just as much as you.  Of course, I do disagree with you about a society purportedly based on Protestant Christianity, as I note that in proclaiming the freedom and tolerance of such a society, you managed to gloss over quite a few warts (e.g., it's been a while since I've met an American so enamoured with the good of British imperialism, and I would have to question your country's "tolerance" of atheism when a recent president mused that atheists might not properly be considered citizens). I'm not saying that I renounce the Christian influence in North America (I am Canadian, and things are a little different here, eh?).  Merely that I simply do not agree that it is the best way of doing things (though I concede it is certainly not the worst).  And it definitely beats a society "based" on Darwinism or gravity, though what that has to do with truth and knowledge in those concepts, I have absolutely no idea.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:20   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,11:53)
I will cover this on my other thread.  Keep checking back.  Thanks for the question.

Which thread?  You have several.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:32   

All quotes from AFDave:

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?


Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Quote
MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.


Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?

Quote
Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?


Dealing with willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is frustrating.  And yet Dave wonders why so many people have come to view him as a clueless but arrogant jerk.

BIG FAT HINT:  Personal incredulity based on woeful ignorance will never be considered evidence.

--------------
"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: May 08 2006,08:36   

Quote
To #### with it all -- let's play Hitler ping-pong!


We are getting off on rabbit trails.  I said I would concede the Hitler point.

Let me put us back on the main track.

The BOTTOM, BOTTOM, BOTTOM line for me is this, guys.

None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...

(a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

and ...

(b) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.


OK?  

Now ... my BIG problem is this ...

Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.  My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.

And that ... my friends ... is the BOTTOM LINE on this thread.

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

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:38   

So, AFDave.  What of that promise you made, when I confronted you early on, that you would argue with intellectual honesty throughout your dealings.  Want to admit that you were being slightly less than truthful, or did you just forget your promise.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:36)
Norm said ...
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.


and he also said this ...
Quote
You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all. ... and ... The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved' ???

Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.  

Your asumption is wrong, and reveals your fundamental ignorance about evolutionary processes.  The human brain is evolving to be different, not necessarily more intelligent.  If the environment is such that stupid humans out-reproduce more intelligent humans, natural selection will select for stupider humans and the human brain will evolve to be less intelligent.

Your concept is also wrong.  More evolved = better fitting an environmental niche.  That may mean fewer abilities (many abilities come at a cost which isn't worth it unless it affects reproduction).  Oh, and when you are contemplating what some organisms can do and some can't, consider a weightlifting contest or an arboreal travel contest between an average human and an average orangutan.  The human loses.  Big time.  And it doesn't matter what you or I think are important abilities; natural selection tells us what's important.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:44   

Quote
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?


That's an easy one.  Because your ideas are not within the mainstream of scientific understanding today.  It's that simple.

Now, here's a question for you, since I was nice enough to answer yours: Under what pretense do you believe yourself to be more capable of rendering a decision on this subject than 150 years of biological science?  Why do you, Mr. former air force pilot and engineer, feel that you have answers that are correct, even though they contradict the findings of people who have spent their entire professional careers studying evolutionary biology?  How are you so utterly conceited that you think your answers are the correct ones in the face of all the evidence that they have compiled?  How big, exactly, are your cojones?

Bonus question: Why do you ignore the fact that the chimp/human DNA thing is a PRETTY DURN BIG piece of evidence in favor of evolution, especially since it is the proof of predictions made before people even knew there was such a thing as DNA?

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:44   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:36)
Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.

That would be your problem right there- this is also why people are telling you to do a little learning yourself. Insofar as "more evolved" HAS a meaning at all, it means: better adapted to your niche in the environment.

There is no universal tendency driving towards greater intelligence. Bacteria have no intelligence whatsoever but they're staggeringly successful and highly evolved; in evolutionary terms they're doing very well. As humans, our niche depends on being intelligent, so we value that trait highly. You just shouldn't confuse a value system specific to human beings with some sort of universal.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:50   

AFDave, since you refer to 'more evolved' humans, do you admit that we are the result of some evolution?  :0

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:00   

AFDave says:
Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  


Because the idea is so overwhelmingly supported by all the available scientific evidence that it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.  Your ignorance based tirades do not constitute "reasonable doubt".

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.


Theories are taught based on the quantity and quality of positive evidence.  All theories are NOT equal in this respect.  Do you think we should teach the Geocentric Theory of the universe to kids as well as the Heliocentric one?  They’re both UNPROVEN THEORIES, so should we teach BOTH and let PARENTS and CHILDREN decide?

Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.


For the umpteenth time – science is NOT a democracy, and scientific truth is NOT decided by popular vote.  Your opinion based on ignorance  doesn’t mean jack sh*t to the scientific realities of the evidence.

Dave, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you’re sure doing a good impersonation of a cement-headed dumbf*ck.

--------------
"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.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:00   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)

Quote
We are getting off on rabbit trails.  I said I would concede the Hitler point.


"Follow me down the rabbit trail, folks!...Wait, what are you doing here?"

Quote
(a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

and ...

(b) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.


Anybody who has actually read those books you keep being referred to has a big problem with (a), Dave.  We know that humans ARE apes as well as we know all that other stuff that we as a society feel constitutes a basic education.  What God or Dave wants us to know or not know (for our own good, I'm sure) really isn't relevant (see (b)).  But of course you're living evidence that you shouldn't be too worried about students being indoctrinated in actual science. Ignorance is a powerful adversary, as anyone here who has tried to help you learn (just a little!;) about the topic you're spouting off about can certainly attest.

(B), while true, is as relevant to biology classes as it is to math, physics, chemistry, history, and any subject other than religious studies.  And according to the tried and true laws and freedoms of the good ol' US of A (that I assume you once admirably defended, Dave), that is to say: "not at all".

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:01   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Nope. It's not Ape to Human, humans are an ape. It's that Apes, Monkeys and humans came from a common primate ancestor.

We're teaching kids that this is science's best guess and its as factual as this kind of science ever gets. And that is the truth. Nothing can be known with any absolute certainty, but that doesn't put all ideas on an equal footing. The evidence is clearly against "GODDIDIT" in at least the direct way that creationists want to have had it happen.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:06   

Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

Let's just forget about the bacteria and the rest until another day ...

OK?  Everybody happy now?

Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?


is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...

Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)

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

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...

[b](a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

The fact that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors is as well established as the fact that the earth orbits the sun. That used to be controversial too. Should we let geocentrism have equal time in physics classes?

Looking at human society, behaviour, anatomy, physiology and genetics, our close evolutionary relationship to the great apes is obvious. Remember the vitC gene?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:08   

A couple quick comments:

Quote
(Jeannot: ) - The divergence between chimps and human occurred 15 My ago, IIRC.
I think the consensus these days is more like 5 My ago. About 50% longer ago for the (human/chimp)-gorilla divergence, and maybe about double that for the (human/chimp/gorilla)-orang utan divergence. Humans are more closely related to chimps (and bonobos) than chimps are related to gorillas.

Quote
(AFDave: ) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.
"We" don't know to your satisfaction, perhaps. But you have demonstrated here that you are not really competent to judge.

I am quite confident that we "know" this as well as other conclusions we call "known" in science - like that the earth is billions of years old, or that ordinary matter is composed of atoms.

Are we "lying" when we teach these things in science class? Should we teach "both theories" about matter: that it is composed of atoms, and that it's not composed of atoms?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:09   

Well, going through the motions out of sheer boredom:

Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

It's a fact in the sense Gould described: attested to so thoroughly and without contradiction, by so overwhelming a body of consistent evidence, that it would be perverse to withhold tentative assent.

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.

Nope, it's not. If evidence is ignored or discarded, why bother teaching anything?

Quote
What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN

The problem here is, design is not a theory. It makes no predictions, has no hypotheses, has no track record, nobody is doing any research or even suggesting how research might be done. Claiming that design is a theory is a lie.

Quote
and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.

And of course, evidence doesn't matter. But in the world of science, evidence DOES matter. Theories in science are the best-fit explanations to the known evidence. No theory can EVER be proved, only the degree of evidential support can be reinforced. Evidence-based explanations aren't coin-flips or idle opinions. You are confusing science with religion.

Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.

Again, only if you regard evidence as irrelevant. But science is based on facts. Your tax dollars are going to show people still capable of thinking, how evidence leads to tentative conclusions. You may not LIKE the conclusions evidence leads to, and you may decide that evidence doesn't matter as a result. Too bad.

Quote
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?

You will find little support for your defense of our children's right to remain totally ignorant, on a forum generally populated by people who have dedicated many years to dispelling their ignorance rather than wallowing in it. On the evidence, your opinions are simply incorrect.

Quote
Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.

But what we are discussing here is science, and science is NOT a democracy. Science is too closely tied to reality, where fact simply outweighs fiction and knowledge beats make-believe.

So the bottom line on this thread is that the evidence that humans are prime members of the great apes is so overwhelming that it's perverse to deny it. And your god-given right to remain stone ignorant of any relevant biology doesn't change this even a little bit.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:14   

afdave, if you need retarded "science" (your idiotic AIG approved "science") to justify your faith in god you were in a world of hurt long before you came to this web site.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:15   

To trot out an over used but apt comparrison.  A recent poll came out that said barely 1/3 of questioned people could locate Iraq on a map.  Does that mean that:

1)  We should improve geographic education to make sure that Americans are more aware of the world around them or
2)  We should "teach the controversy" and show both sides of the issue, both those people who believe Iraq is in the middle east, and those people who pointed at Australia and said "I think it's around here somewhere".

Popular opinion about the validity of a falsifiable fact should not be used to dictate education towards ignorance.  If anything, it means that efforts should be redoubled in those areas that people are ignorant in.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:18   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Because we teach them that gravity makes apples fall.

Should we teach them that god pushes every obect downward, but that we are not sure because it can't be proven?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:27   

:08-->
Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,14:08)
I think the consensus these days is more like 5 My ago.

I just found my notes on a conference I assisted. There, Yves Coppens (French paleo-anthropologist) said that pre-humans diverged from pan some 10 Mya.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:35   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...

(a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

and ...

(b) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.


OK?

Dave, we're as sure that humans and apes have a common ancestor as we're as sure of anything. The evidence of common ancestry is ironclad.

The fact that we don't have a perfect, mutation-by-mutation account of how and when humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor is due to two things: not all organisms leave fossils; and DNA doesn't fossilize.

No one will ever be able to prove whether common descent is as a result of natural laws which happened by accident of by the will of God, but such questions are beyond the realm of science.

That you don't believe the evidence is conclusive is largely due to your ignorance of the science, not due to the weakness of that science. If you were to take a course in evolutionary biology, and were honest enough to set aside your religious objections to the idea of humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor, you would have no doubts about its reality.



Quote
Now ... my BIG problem is this ...

Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?


Because it is a fact, Dave (well, except  that you're stating it wrong: it's not "ape to human evolution," it's "humans share a common ancestry with other apes") No one who actually has the training to evaluate the evidence doubts that. Do you honestly believe that all paleontologists who work in the field are deluded? What makes you think you are a better judge of the evidence than the people who have devoted their lives to studying it?

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.


No we should not. Creationism is not a "theory" because it has no explicative power (saying "goddidit" doesn't explain anything), makes no testable predictions, and is unfalsifiable in principle. It's not a matter of "he said, she said." The only "parents" who are qualified to decide between the two are those who have the technical expertise to evaluate the evidence. You may think that's elitist, but it's the way of the world. How many parents do you think are competent to evaluate the evidence supporting superstring theory and that supporting loop quantum gravity?


Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.


Dave, neither superstring theory nor loop quantum gravity are "provable." Do you object to one being taught over the other at state-funded universities? No? Could that be because neither one impinges on your religious beliefs the way evolution does?

Your objections to evolutionary theory have everything to do with your relgious beliefs and nothing whatsoever to do with the strength of the evidence. That has become abundantly plain throughout every thread you've started.

Speaking of which, how are you doing with supporting your three assertions? Despite the fact that you stated you're not prepared to address the impossibility of evolution, you're spending most of your energy trying to support that very assertion. It's plain at this point that your biggest objection to evolution is that evolution plainly implies that your ancestors at one point were ape-like? Would you care to explain exactly why that is?

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

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:06)
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?


is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...

Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)

Ah, for cryin' out loud.  I had just replaced my top-of-the-line irony meter after davescot pulled the same trick earlier this week (i.e., breaking Godwin's Law in prominent fashion before invoking it to chastise all who reply).  This is getting bloody expensive.

Dave, a few simple questions (I have spent considerable effort trying to answer yours):

Can we agree to define science (as it is taught in schools) most simply as "what scientists do, how they do it, and what they uncover about the world around us as they do it"?  You have claimed to be objectively interested in fact and reality, and you seem strong in your faith, so I don't think you should have any trouble recognizing science not as a democracy, but as a meritocracy?

Now, as a YEC, it does not surprise me that you might want to see the Bible taught as the root of understanding that you believe it to be.  But can you get it through the front door of that meritocracy honestly?

The (sometimes unlikely) source of many a good idea has preceded it into science class.  For example, from my organic chemistry classes, I still smile at Kekule's reported "eureka" moment when he supposed deduced the elusive structure of benzene from a dream of a snake eating its own tail.  That's stuck with me, even though I'd be hard-pressed to draw hydrocarbon valences now.  There are pleny of other examples, some apocryphal, some not.  Why do I have no recollection of something along the lines of:

"Beginning from the idea that Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale, marine biologists at Bob Jones University predicted that the gross morphology of the cetacean digestive system would accomodate the survival of a full-grown human.  Subsequent experiments employing undergraduate volunteers revealed this to be true.  Furthermore, a stastically significant proportion reported feeling thoroughly uncomfortable and "forsaken"."

In your previous thread, you learned how the idea that humans and other great apes shared a common ancestor led to the hypothesis that "missing" chromosome in humans likely indicated a fusion event, and how this hypothesis was later confirmed.  In the foreseeable future, students will be learning how evolution and common descent predicted a reality in microbiology.  Furthermore, if you succeed in your attempts to include "common design" alongside "common descent", they would learn how in this case (and many others), common descent predicted something in much finer detail than could be deduced from the vague concept of common design, and thus emerges as the superior hypothesis.  Same goes for the Vitamin C pseudogene -- "common design" didn't give us anything concrete and substantive to work with, but common descent predicted the presence of a "broken" gene.  At the moment, when I teach undergrads what scientists do, how they do it, and what we've learned, I don't compare the predictions and tests of descent and design. Do you really want me to start?

No doubt my teaching about common ancestry (especially regarding humans and apes) makes you feel uncomfortable, since you deny the starting premise.  So why not put up?  Exactly what do you want me to teach, DAve? What would a "science-minded" YEC like yourself have my students learn about the world that was predicted by the Bible and later born out unequivocally through experimentally tested hypotheses and observations?  Can you give us one example that is as clear and unambiguous as chromosome 2 or Vitamin C pseudogenes or the whole science of phylogeny or...  Can you give me a "snake eating its tail" seed that I can plant in the minds of my students for years to come?

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:44   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
[b]Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Because it's science, Dave.  The purpose of sitting in science class it to learn science.  If you don't like that don't sit in a science class.  If you want to learn religion go to church, no pesky science there.  But the purpose of sitting in science class is not to learn Shakespeare, basket weaving, cake baking, typing, grammar, or religion.  It is to learn science, and science was created by humanity to provide us with the best explanation we can get of how the world works and why.  It is a crying shame the conclusions of science don't agree with your religion, but maybe the religio-politico leaders of 7th century b.c. Jeruselum should have waited 2700 years before putting a plagiarised creation myth on papyrus.

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:52   

"More evolved" is a difficult term and issue.  However, I don't think that it is truly meaningless in biology, nor that it would necessarily apply to the highly successful micro-organisms better than to multi-celled eukaryotes.

The human brain is generally considered to be more highly evolved than the H. erectus brain.  One reason is that it comes later, however that is not the only measure.  Size and apparent specialization, probably for speech or for more refined speech, would generally be used as criteria for using the term "more evolved".  We might very well see ourselves as "more evolved" than H. floresiensis, then, although I realize that the specialization (for instance, smaller size) of the hobbit is a credible argument against such a judgment.  More likely, then, we might judge our abstract abilities to be "more evolved" than the hobbits' (not demonstrated yet, but at least possible), while other factors might be "more evolved" in the hobbits.

Highly selected characteristics could be considered to be "more evolved", though of course more careful speech would simply use the term "highly selected characteristics".  Whole organisms/populations are not particularly good candidates for determining the "more evolved" species, using this criterion, while we may indeed think in terms of "more evolved" for certain characteristics.

If we do dare to think of whole organisms as more evolved, it is perhaps less likely that free-living bacteria are "more evolved" than are sexually-reproducing eukaryotes, at least those whose phenotypes and ways of living have changed dramatically through time.  For, although there is no doubt cyanobacteria have evolved in crucial ways through time, it is not unlikely that in many respects they have not evolved much at all.  That is how we tend to see them, in any case, since many of their metabolic activities seem rather "primitive" (for the most part).  However, their defenses against viruses and the like could hardly have been static for a couple billion years or so.

Most viruses do seem to be "highly evolved", all right, as one would expect from the arms races between parasites and hosts.  Yet one would probably do best to differentiate between what "highly evolved" means for viruses, and what it means for human cognitive abilities.  In eukaryotes, "more evolved" often can mean "more complex" (at least in non-parasitical organisms), while it rarely means that in prokaryotes.

The upshot is, of course, that "more evolved" or "more highly evolved" are slippery terms not generally used in more precise biological writings.  Nevertheless, these are not meaningless terms either.  And they are used, generally to denote improvements in selected capabilities of organisms.  "More evolved" refers best to traits, not to organisms themselves, while "more evolved" also has different meanings when we are discussing viruses than when we are discussing primates.

Within H. sapiens there is too little variation for "more evolved" to refer properly to human groups, and perhaps not even to any traits.  We almost certainly could be said to be "more evolved" than Neanderthals in some important aspects, which may also be partly why Neanderthals no longer exist.   I should add that Neanderthals were also more evolved than ourselves in physical adaptations to cold environments--if apparently these did not confer enough of an advantage for them to have survived.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:53   

:06-->
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:06)
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

I don't know.  Last time I checked I couldn't swing through trees 100 feet up in the air. :)

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:06   

AFDave says
Quote
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...

(snip my observations on Dave's claim that Hitler was an Evolutionist)

is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...


Actually Dave, satire and parody work quite well in pointing out the gross inanity of your anti-evolution "argument".  Your peeved response shows that I did indeed hit the mark.

Quote
Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)


Gee, looks like that "I can take it, I'm an AF pilot with a thick skin" was just an act of bravado.  I'll try harder not to hurt your sensitive feeling next time.

You can help too - if you don't like being embarrassed in public, then stop repeating such bloody stupid Creationist lies like "ToE = support for Nazis".

--------------
"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.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:08   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?


is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

And by saying this you have completely missed his two points.  You suggested that because Hitler allegedly based his racism on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection that we must, at the very least, regard it with suspicion, or perhaps, ultimately reject it entirely out of hand.  This is so fallacious it's infantile.
And if you were dropped into the habitat of a great white shark without any of the fancy technology bequethed to you by the fancy brains of your ancestors would you regard yourself as 'more' evolved or 'less' evolved.  Evolution is about fitting envionmental niches.  Science uses its own definitions.  It is not required to use the ones AFDave wants to fob off on it.

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

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:11   

Quote
I just found my notes on a conference I assisted. There, Yves Coppens (French paleo-anthropologist) said that pre-humans diverged from pan some 10 Mya.
(emphasis mine)
Well, there you go. Need I say more? I mean, it was the French who would have had us believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. (Oh... wait a minute...)

But seriously, I think that the molecular evidence favors the more recent date, and my (American!;)) paleontologist friend says he's comfortable with that, too.

I refer you to Richard Dawkins's "The Ancestor's Tale" for the dates I'm (provisionally) going by.

Let me take this opportunity to repeat a point that AFDave seems not to have absorbed. Chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans are all fully apes, right? No one of them is "apier" than another, right? Now, since humans are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than they are to gorillas, by what possible criterion could humans not be fully certified, card-carrying, dues-paid-up members of the Ape Club? Speaking of humans as opposed to apes makes no more sense than speaking of humans as opposed to mammals.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:35   

Dave, as I understand the current arrangement, we as a society teach science to our children so that they will know a little science. We teach them English literature so that they will know a little English literature, and so on down the line. The exception is religion. We as a society do NOT teach religion to our children because people have significantly differing religious beliefs, and parents prefer to teach these to their children on their own. Thus, Catholic parents teach their children Catholicism, Muslim parents teach Islam, Hindu parents teach Hinduism, and so forth.

I can imagine that for those parents who teach a religion that makes testable world-claims, the task is complicated by the fact that their children will learn something contrary in school. I’ve always imagined that such parents, when confronted with the inevitable, “But why…” questions, would simply say that the religion version is true and the school version is false. Oh, and kids, you have to learn the false school version just well enough to pass the test, but don’t believe it.

In other words, because religious education falls to parents, those who need it ALREADY HAVE the “present both sides and let the kids decide” option available to them.

Why is this system inadequate for you?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:41   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ May 08 2006,14:53)
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:0)
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

I don't know.  Last time I checked I couldn't swing through trees 100 feet up in the air. <!--emo&:)

Let's not forget that when caged an ape's poop flinging skill seems "more evolved" than a humans as well.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:42   

And as a followup question to Joe's: Why should it be your religion that the government subsidises the teaching of?

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:44   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 08 2006,15:41)
Let's not forget that when caged an ape's poop flinging skill seems "more evolved" than a humans as well.

I dunno about that.  Exhibit A is JAD vs. DaveScot on Larry's blog.  Put them in an actual cage (as opposed to their metaphoric mental ones), take away their keyboards...I know where I'm putting my money.  I've watched apes: they get bored of poop flinging after a while.

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:47   

Hello AFDave,

I realise that you have a lot on your plate already, but I couldn't let this go:

Quote

"Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born."
Twisted Christianity had been.  You are correct.  It got so bad that a man named Martin Luther turned things upside down.  The result?  The translation of the Bible into the English language and the attendant success of the British Empire, followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also, again with great results.  Note also the DECLINE of the British Empire coincident with the REJECTION of the validity and authority of the Bible.


AFDave, it seems that the history of Christianity is another thing that you could learn more about. Next time you are researching, Google "Martin Luther" and anti-semitism. Read his actual writings. With regard to your claims about history, I will just observe that correlation is not causation.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:52   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,15:11)
But seriously, I think that the molecular evidence favors the more recent date, and my (American!;)) paleontologist friend says he's comfortable with that, too.

Molecular datation can't contradict geological datation. It is calibrated from geological datation (fossils or other biogeographical data).
About Sahelanthropus tchadensis:
Quote
The search for the earliest fossil evidence of the human lineage has been concentrated in East Africa. Here we report the discovery of six hominid specimens from Chad, central Africa, 2,500 km from the East African Rift Valley. The fossils include a nearly complete cranium and fragmentary lower jaws. The associated fauna suggest the fossils are between 6 and 7 million years old.

It doesn't confirm the 10 Mya, but if their datation is correct, -6 Mya is the upper limit regarding the split between our lineage and chimps.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/nature00879.html
(a French discovery ;) Paleo-anthopology the only scientifict field we have left, so let me be proud of it)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:53   

Indeed, Dave should not start thinking that all the Christians who mistreated Jews were all Catholics, and that Protestants all treated them well. Many high ranking Nazis were Protestants as well. Here's what Wikipedia says about Luther:
Quote

"Luther and the Jews"

See Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies
Luther's views on the Jews have been described as racial or religious anti-Semitism, [25] or as anti-Judaism. [26] He initially believed that the Jews had been prevented from believing in Christ by the actions of Christians, and the proclamation of what he believed to be an impure Gospel. He imagined that they would respond favorably to the evangelical message. When they did not, his fury was aroused, fanned by the appearance of a forged document purporting to be written by a Jew, which was insulting to Christian faith.
In his pamphlet Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time."[27] He also appeared to sanction their murder: [28] "Jerusalem was destroyed over 1400 years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world ... So we are even at fault for not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem ... We are at fault in not slaying them."[29]
British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust."[30] Four centuries after it was written, the Nazis cited Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution.[31] Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally denouncing these writings, though they carefully qualify their declarations to fall short of characterizing Luther as an anti-Semite.


A whole bunch more info is HERE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews

So, uh, Dave, don't pretend Luther 'fixed' everything.

(And let's not even MENTION Luther's weird shit fetish...)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:57   

Quote
followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also
absolutely not.

Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:07   

Quote
Molecular datation can't contradict geological datation. It is calibrated from geological datation (fossils or other biogeographical data).
No, indeed. But with molecular data, you're not limited to the fossils of the particular animal in question; you get to use a much larger data set of animals with their attendant geological correlates - at least insofar as you can rely on molecular clock assumptions (a whole other discussion).

(By the way, I think we just say "dating" in English).

But it strikes me that this is a much more productive subject to explore than whether AFDave accepts a round earth, atomic theory, or other elements of modernity. What do you say we start another thread?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:17   

[quote=Russell,May 08 2006,15:11]
Quote
by what possible criterion could humans not be fully certified, card-carrying, dues-paid-up members of the Ape Club?

I haven't paid any dues for that there club. ;)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:19   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006)
(By the way, I think we just say "dating" in English).

The dictionary included in Mac OS X thinks that too.
I thought 'datation' was also an English word.

A perfect example of 'Frenglish'.  :(

About a dedicated thread, anytime you want Russel.
I'm not a expert in molecular clock calibration, but I may have to do some molecular datING in my study, so I'll have to get familiar with the subject.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:33   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,15:57)
Quote
followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also
absolutely not.

Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.

Yes Russell, but you are not going by rightwingnut approved pre-1950's history.  All that history you learned is 'liberal' history.  Can't trust that, oh no. ;)

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:37   

Well ... one thing is sure ... most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer ...

We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:39   

Well ... one thing is sure ... most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer ...

We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:49   

Quote
most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer

Admittedly, we are evidence addicts, every one of us. Your ministry is desperately needed here.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,12:03   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,16:39)
We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

There are some rules here at ATBC, and I predict you won't persist in babbling your nonsense any longer.  
;)

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,12:11   

What will stop him? There's no rule against being a horse's ass here.

   
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,13:10   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

Irrelevant.

What is relevant is how humans and apes are suited to their respective ecological niches.

Apes are stronger.  Many species of apes are better at nivigating through treetops than humans.  Apes have more and better abilities than humans ... in the area where it counts for them.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,13:19   

I was just sitting here thinking....
Something occured to me...

Would it make the IDists/Creationists happy if we removed biology from the required education at schools?

Go with me here....
Sex education is voluntary at some schools...
You either take a sex-ed class...or you go take a "dissect animals sexual organs" class...

Maybe we could do the same thing for the religious...
Offer a "theological biology" class.....
They could teach the differing opinions of different religions as to the origins of life....
I think it would be fun to go one step further and teach a comparitive religions class....

I know this is old hat...and has been mentioned a million times before...but i suddenly realized something today...

AFDave is correct.
Science is only accurate from the scientific perspective...
If you deny the scientific perspective....which is very easy to do.... science is just a bunch of unsubstantiated hogwash.
I think if a parent believes that the scientific method is erroneous, that they should be able to keep their children from attending science classes.
This, however, would mean that they cannot attend any science classes...and their degrees for graduation would reflect this fact.
Im sure that if ID/Creationism is so popular, they will easily find employement and higher education oppurtunities.
I just question AFDave's denial of only one aspect of scientific understanding....

He doesnt believe in evolution...but he believes that the stars are actually giant balls of gas with massive fusion reactions occuring...
We have so little evidence to support this viewpoint it is laughable...yet we teach kids this stuff in science class everyday.
We have never visited the sun....
We have definately never visited the stars...
The inside of the sun could be jello, and the stars could just be optical illusions for all we know...
Why allow the teaching of "fusion reaction stars"?
AFDave...please explain....will you join me in my resistance of teaching star theory?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,13:22   

Teach the star controversy?
I'm on board.  Chemistry would have been a snap, too!

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,15:46   

[QUOTE="Paul Flocken"]The problem is not that chimps, and the animal kingdom in general, is so far behind.  It is that you are so completely unknowing of just how capable chimps really are and that you are full of species superiority about how far advanced humans really are. [/QUOTE]

Exactly Paul. Individuals of our species get a HUGE leg up on our planet by being immersed in the current incarnation of human culture of whatever location they happen to be born. Where would they be if they were born into the wild and cared for by animals, or by parents that had no concept of language, and if they had no contact with anything manmade? That recent thread that touched on the subject of feral children leads me to think that they wouldn't fare very well. The extremely rare child that is raised by animals imprints upon their adoptive parents, crawling like dogs, or imitating chickens. We spend years with our families and in schools learning just the basics about the world and how to interact with it.

Seeing the capabilies of Koko, given the advantage of being taught an already established, open ended language that promotes structured thought, leaves me quite awestruck at how smart and similar to us gorillas are. Whoever said that these ape societies are the 'Hominid Civilizations' afdave is looking for is right. It just goes to show what a good ecological niche it is that we used to share. There's plenty of room in the jungle for apes.


edit: OK i give up, how in the world wide web do you make a Quote BY someone on this board. You see what a wrote, if that's not it I have no idea...

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,16:08   

Quote (Ved @ May 08 2006,20:46)
Individuals of our species get a HUGE leg up on our planet by being immersed in the current incarnation of human culture of whatever location they happen to be born.

If you put a human infant in with a chimp troop, the chimps would probably think the baby was a moron by chimp standards and understanding.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,16:22   

Well AFDave, while you’re busy patting yourself on the back for anticipating the answers you’d get from those evil atheists evos, maybe you can answer a few questions about the Air Force.

Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets?  Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?

And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all?  Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics?  Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?

I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.

Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified.  My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.

You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave?  Shouldn’t it be applied here too?  I’m really curious to hear your answers.

--------------
"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.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,17:07   

Quote
I’m really curious to hear your answers.


you are?  really?

I'm of the opinion that "AF" dave was booted on a section 8.

I'm also beginning to think that most here apparently have a morbid fascination for the mentally handicapped.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,17:19   

Why would somebody be offended by having been taught something that was believed by scientists at the time, but that found out later to be incorrect? I can see being annoyed by that, but offended? Consider some theories that were believed to at least some extent in the last 2 centuries, like ether or phlogisten (sp?). Should somebody be offended to have "learned" one or both of those while they were accepted only to have to "unlearn" them later? I wouldn't think so.

In my case, I "learned" in elementary school in the sixties that fungi are plants that happen to not have chlorophyl, that protozoans are animals that happen to be single celled, that bacteria are plants because they aren't animals and have to be one or the other, and that the periodic table of elements had 103 +/- 2 elements on it*. All of those things I've had to "unlearn", but I wasn't offended by any of them.

*Not biology related, but scienctific assertion that wasn't correct even at the time, since printed periodic charts hadn't caught up with even with the then current research. Today there's 116 elements that have been reported as observed, and it changes a few times a decade on average, usually upward although once it went down (in 1999 iirc).

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,18:05   

normdoering,

Re "If you put a human infant in with a chimp troop, the chimps would probably think the baby was a moron by chimp standards and understanding."

That's if they don't think of it as lunch.

Henry

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,19:18   

Quote
 
<I’m really curious to hear your answers.>  

you are?  really?


Sure.  To paraphrase our newest ATBC evangelist:

"Now we scientific literati are reasonable people and we will forgive blustering ex-AF pilots if they admit their errors and fix them." ;)

--------------
"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.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,19:49   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,12:35)
Quote
Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:

Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?


If it does indeed turn out to be false when I have finished my investigation into the claim, then YES, I would be offended at the idea of teaching it as if it were true.

I will resume posts on my other thread tomorrow morning.  I was not avoiding yours or anyone's questions over there.

You are still avoiding the question.  I mentioned nothing whatsoever about teaching it.

Now let's try this again.  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?

--------------
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.

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,20:02   

Afdave,

If by "more evolved" you mean, as you say, more intelligent and more abilities, then on what basis might anyone, including the nazis, have concluded that Jews are less evolved? If anything, a strong case can be made, even before the recently discovered genetic evidence pertaining to Ashkenzic Jews, that the Jews are "most evolved". And the great irony is that one can further argue that the Germans have demonstrated, by their immoral ape-like behavior, that they are the "least evolved" homo sapiens on the planet. Even more, one can make a great case that Christians thru the last two millenia have demonstrated a similar degree of evolution.

You seem to miss the key aspect of nazi immorality and racist immorality in general. It is not that they thought highly of themselves despite an absence of justification for that attitude. It is that they ordined to kill or otherwise enslave and/or dehumanize other human beings. Period.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,21:38   

Apologies if this stuff gas already been covered I haven't had time to read the whole thread.

Firstly, what has whether Hitler based his views on Darwin got to do wih whether or not Darwin was right. If Hitlers book was called: 'Mein Kampf, or why Charles Darwin's theory of evolution says we should kill all the Jews' this would have no effect on whether evolution was true.

Quote
When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes
There is a reason why most churches think God of the gaps is a bad idea, gaps shrink. Humans have more advanced abilitied in apes. It's a lot to do with duplication and subsequent differential expression during development of certain hormones, which gives us larger and more complex brains. We didn't know that until a couple of years ago, so maybe it was reasonable to assume that God miraculously grew out brains. Sure you can argue that we also have a spiritual component, or that some aspcts of our consciousness can't be explained simply by our brain power. and maybe God did put them there, but that does not effect whether or not we evolved from apes.

Quote
their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages
What I find interesting is that many tribal languages are structured so that they could be spoken with more 'ape like' vocal cords. I also once read an interesting study of some other Brazilian tribe that said they posses:
Quote
no numbers of any kind, no terms for quantification (such as all, each, every, most and some), no colour terms and no perfect tense. They appear to have borrowed their pronouns from another language, having previously possessed none. They have no “individual or collective memory of more than two generations past”, no drawing or other art, no fiction and “no creation stories or myths.”
which sounds quite primitive to me, although aparently their verbal morphology was quite complex.

Quote
Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?
No, if you think size and gait are the only differences, you really haven't been paying much attention.

Quote
Do apes organize themselves into 'governments' and seek to conquer  other ape groups?
You'll find that most sociological behaivour displayed by us is exhibited by apes in an incredibly primitive form. Chimps even obey the golden rule most of the time. Gorillas get divorced less than in Vegas (and the bible belt for that matter).

Quote
Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.
Again this has nothing to do with whether or not it is actualy true. I agree though it's a bit outdated in that we know that the large phenotypc differences are caused by small genetic differences so basing your argument on straight genome comparison is a bit daft in my opinion. Although Im pretty sure the great ape project is based more on the phenopic similarites.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,02:56   

Quote
Even more, one can make a great case that Christians thru the last two millenia have demonstrated a similar degree of evolution.
I'm a little confused about the antecedents here. Similar to whom? To the Nazis, or to the Jews?

[just for the record, I'm not trying to be polemical here; I can see a case for either position]

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,04:27   

Quote
their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages


Quote
What I find interesting is that many tribal languages are structured so that they could be spoken with more 'ape like' vocal cords.


What? ? ? Where did you read that? No offense, but that's nonsense.

There are no grammatical or phonetic differences between tribal languages and nontribal languages. All languages started out as 'tribal', including English.

Quote
I also once read an interesting study of some other Brazilian tribe that said they posses:


You're referring to the Piraha language of the Amazon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language

Quote

no numbers of any kind, no terms for quantification (such as all, each, every, most and some),


Not quite true, they have 3 such terms, which is still an abnormally small number.

Quote
no colour terms and no perfect tense. They appear to have borrowed their pronouns from another language, having previously possessed none.


This is one of the odder things. They don't know that the language previously possessed no pronouns, not having old documentation on the language, but there is no evidence in the language for native, unborrowed pronouns.

Quote
They have no “individual or collective memory of more than two generations past”, no drawing or other art, no fiction and “no creation stories or myths.”
which sounds quite primitive to me,


I wouldn't say that says anything about how primitive their LANGUAGE is, but it's a reflection of their culture. And a very weird fact. I've never heard of any other 'primitive tribe' anywhere that lacked those things.

Quote
although aparently their verbal morphology was quite complex.


Right. The language is grammatically very complex, which is one of the few ordinary things about it.

These claims about Piraha are quite controversial in linguistics, since it's extremely hard to find any other languages anywhere that share such features, such as the lack of numbers, the incredibly small number of kinship terms (many Indian languages of North America can have 40+ kinship terms, with systems much more complex than that of English), and an extremely small phoneme inventory (tho its inventory is not the smallest in the world). In other words, Piraha is very abnormal indeed, even when compared to other languages of 'primitive tribes', or even languages of neighboring Amazonian tribes. I have done a lot of work on North American Indian languages, and no language I've seen there shares ANY of these bizarre features.

In my opinion, setting aside things like pidgins, there is no such thing as a 'primitive language'. Languages of 'primitive tribes' are often grammatically staggeringly complex, far more so than English or Mandarin. There are some odd things that verge on primitive in Piraha, but the complex verb morphology would seem to negate the idea that you could call the language as a whole 'primitive'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:21   

Good morning everyone!

I hope everyone has had an excellent night's sleep so your mind is clear and your wits are sharp!  The remaining half of my brain that's not "religion darkened" feels pretty good, so I'm ready to go at it again hammer and tongs!  

It was a fun day for me yesterday ... I learned some really interesting things, and my wife and I got some great laughs from some of the creative answers you gave.

I do see that some of my "Chief Insult Hurlers" have abandoned that tactic apparently because they found it ineffective for their cause.  We'll see how long it takes ALL the Insult Hurlers to figure this out. (You know ... some are more "highly evolved" than others, so it takes a while with some ... just kidding, JUST KIDDING! :-)  )


NOTEWORTHY HIGHLIGHTS FROM YESTERDAY'S SKIRMISHES

Tom Ames runs for cover when the "B WORD"  is mentioned ...
Quote
What is a Genome? This might seem like a trivial and self-evident question, but its simplicity hides a deep challenge (Wood 2001). The Bible (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! ALL PERSONNEL TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY!! THE DEPLORABLE WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN!;) teaches that God created adult organisms and presumably even complete ecosystems by covering the land with plants. Thus, the Bible (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!!;) favors a holistic perspective of organisms. Modern molecular biology has favored the opposite perspective: that life is the complicated interaction of molecules and that DNA is the “code of life.” If the molecular viewpoint is correct, then the differences between organisms that really matter are indeed the differences in the DNA. If a holistic perspective is correct, then perhaps differences in the DNA are not paramount to understanding organismal differences.Complicating this reasoning is the fact that differences in DNA do indeed cause differences at the organismal level. There is a definite relationship between phenotype and genotype, even though the relationship is not as simple as Mendel might have imagined it. We could understand the genome as a repository of some of the information necessary for the physical composition of the organism (Wood 2001). In that case, far more important than the genome may be its cellular context, which interprets and applies the information stored in the genome. Since some of the cellular context is coded by the genome, we have something of a chicken/egg problem, which can only be resolved by a creation event.The similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes offers evidence that the genome could primarily be a repository. If the fixed nucleotide mismatches between the chimpanzee and human genomes are 1.06%, then the original nucleotide identity could be as high as 99%. At that high level of similarity, perhaps it is not impossible to believe that God created humans and chimpanzees with identical genomes. The known differences between human and chimpanzee biochemistry (see Varki 2000; Varki and Atheide 2005) may well rule this out, but it is an intriguing possibility. Even at 99% identity, however, the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences. Theologically, the high similarity of humans and chimpanzees reinforces our spiritual – not physical (Ecc. 3:18-21) (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!!;) – distinctiveness from the animals. It is the image of God (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! THE OTHER DEPLORABLE WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN!;) that makes us human not some intrinsically valuable genetic element.(p.12)


NOTE:  Let me emphasize again that for YECs showing evidence of YEC Theory, the Bible is a SOURCE FOR HYPOTHESES.  Belief in Biblical inerrancy IS NOT required in this discussion.  This is a SEPARATE ISSUE and stands or falls on its own merits.

Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii.
 I just LOVE this one!  My kids got a great laugh too.  I quickly learned yesterday that I am not up to date on the latest version of THE GREAT MYTH, so I thank all of you for fixing that.  You'll have to pardon me for making this mistake.  When I was in grade school, I remember all the encyclopedias showing Evolution going something like AMOEBAS - WORMS - SQUIDS - FISH - AMPHIBIANS - MAMMALS - APES - HUMANS (did I get that right?), with humans at the top of the tree.  Anyway, I remember seeing a nice little Ape to Human progression and I remember quotes from Huxley and the like saying things about whites being "more evolved" than humans.  I guess it stands to reason that ND Theory would have to change as racism became less fashionable worldwide throughout the 20th Century.  And I do apologize for not keeping up on the latest version of THE GREAT MYTH.  The Bible (My "myth" as you call it) says the same thing THIS century as it did in Darwin's day, so it's easier to keep up with than YOUR MYTH.

Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving: Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

And why shouldn't it be if evolution is true?  It seems that the ToE would actually PREDICT continual brain sophistication (oops ... there's one of those evil "directional" words) ... er, shall we say, er ... I'm at a loss ... anyway ... ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens species who might be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, play 100 simultaneous chess games, memorize large books in minutes, etc, etc.

Quote
Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case.

Actually, there is EVERY reason to believe this should be the case if the ToE is true.

Quote
After Darwin, a new possibility was raised: that those at the top of the social pyramid deserved to be there for natural reasons rather than religious reasons. There has never been ANY doubt by those at the top that their position is deserved. So these "natural" justifications have been deployed both by nations (as in Germany) and by scientists (searching for natural explanations for why the French are superior to the Germans or vice versa (depending on who's doing the study), or why whites are superior to blacks (again depending on who's doing the study). In brief, it fell out of fashion for those born into privilege to say God put them there, and into fashion to say they are "more evolved" and rose to the top from sheer innate superiority.


Quote
The anti-semitic attitudes that allowed for various attrocities - including the Holocaust - came directly from Christianity.  The notion that Hitler just came up with the idea of killing off jews all on his own is simply absurd.  Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born.  Hitler was just continuing a popular tradition, and adding his own spin to the process.

You need to remove the word 'Christianity' from this one and insert 'Catholicism' instead.  The two are vastly different as I will show on a future "Martin Luther" post.  That one should be fun!

Quote
How can you hope to find any flaws in something of which you have no understanding?

My 1st grader can easily grasp the truth that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans and that they probably HAVE ALWAYS BEEN just that, and probably WILL ALWAYS BE just that.  It doesn't take very much understanding of biology.  The reason you don't grasp this is beyond me.  Maybe too much ToE indocrination in higher education?

Quote
But you come in with arrogance and attitude on top of that. You don't show any respect for the opinions of people who do know things.
I'll give you that one.  I did come in kind of cocky on the chimp chromo thing and you are right ... I should not be cocky, but I did show respect for people's opinions when they showed me the truth.  I have always said I would ... and I did.  You got me on that one, and now I agree with you that it does in fact appear that this supports ToE.  So basically now you are "one bucket full" of water closer to draining the ocean.  You should feel justifiably proud.

Quote
If creationism offered some explanations of the otherwise unexplained, if it made any predictions at all that worked, I still have my life and my work. It wouldn't cost me a thing to adopt it. If it worked. But it doesn't.
Stay with me.  I will be resuming my work on my "Creator God Hypothesis" thread and I hope for your sake that it makes sense to you.  The world is truly a fun place when you have the right view of it!

Quote
Now, let's talk about what you have invested in creationism. Suppose we were able to convince you that AiG is just as obviously, glaringly, unambiguously wrong about everything else as I hope you have come to realize they are about the chromosome fusion story. Suppose you had to accept what every scientist who's looked at the evidence objectively accepts: that the earth is billions of years old, and that humans are just one little twig on the tree of life, that has been on the scene for but an infinitesimal fraction of the planet's history. Would that make you reassess your thoughts on life and your alleged god?

Sure.  I'd probably think there ISN'T a God.  And yes, I would be disappointed.  I admit that I LIKE the idea of there being one.  But I don't think I am necessarily jaded by this.  I think everyone's thinking is affected somewhat by their "wanters", but we have to keep this "wanter" under control.  "Evos", like "Creos" also have "wanters" and many of them DON'T WANT there to be a God because they think their life would somehow be worse, or they'd have to tie half their brain behind their back, or some such thing.

Quote
What does this (Hitler) have to do with the biologically history of the planet Earth?
Simply this. If you compare the two "World Views" you have something like the following major points:

DARWINISM:  
Survival of the fittest
Humans are animals-nothing more
No God required-I'm not accountable to anyone but myself

CHRISTIANITY (American Protestantism specifically):
God created mankind in His image
All humans are created equal
Don't kill, don't steal, etc.
Treat others as you would have them treat you
Love one another
Turn the other cheek
Bless your enemies
If your enemy is thirsty, give him a drink
Do not repay evil for evil

Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ...

NOT ONLY IS DARWINISM FALSE AND AN INSULT TO INTELLIGENCE ... demonstrably so as we saw for many years with Henry Morris and Co. and are now seeing with Dembski, Denton, Behe, etc.

BUT IT IS ALSO AN BAD FOUNDATION UPON WHICH TO BUILD A NATION.
I don't know of a single one that was built on the Principles listed above under "Darwinism" that I would want to live in.  Do you?

In stark contrast to that, we have at least TWO examples of nations who built their laws squarely upon the CHRISTIANITY principles listed above:  Great Britain and the USA.

Now you see what gives me such zeal in fighting Darwinism.

Again, so no one misses it ... the two reasons I fight Darwinism are ...
(A) IT IS FALSE
(B) IT IS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY

Are there any questions?  Is my position perfectly clear?

By the way, for those of you wise enough to "get off the Darwin train" BEFORE the train wreck, your buddy Bill Dembski has come up with a neat list of over 500 scientists who have had the kahoonas to sign their names to a public statement that says ...
Quote
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."


It also notes that ...
Quote
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001 [in response to the PBS "Evolution" propaganda piece] over 500 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Polish and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.


Here's the link ... [url="http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org"]

(What?  We have rebels in the Ivy League too?  Heaven help us! er ... Deep space help us! (?) ... er ... May the Force help us! ... er ... well ... anyway, SOMEONE help us!;)

THOUGHT QUESTION FOR THE DAY:  If over 500 scientists have actually had the kahoonas to SIGN such a document, how many others AGREE with the document, but are AFRAID to sign it because of peer pressure, fear of not getting tenured, etc., etc.

Hmmmm ....

Quote
so afdave, have you confronted AIG about the lies on their site as you said you were going to do yet?

Patience, my friend.  These things take time.  AIG is so popular right now that they get ZILLIONS of questions every day and it takes time to get to mine.  Actually, I think the only way I will get an answer in any reasonable amount of time will be if I use my connections.  But I don't even know for sure if that will work quickly.  Stay tuned, though.

Quote
The problem is not that chimps, and the animal kingdom in general, is so far behind.  It is that you are so completely unknowing of just how capable chimps really are and that you are full of species superiority about how far advanced humans really are.
Yes. Maybe we should take this up in Congress and maybe come up with an "Ape Bill of Rights."  Good idea.  I'll take this one with me on my next trip to Washington.  Oh ... and maybe we could have an "Ape Olympics" and make it a world class event ... and maybe we should modify laws to allow Apes free access to various public places like Walmart and the Public Library, etc.  Excellent idea.  I like your progressiveness.

Quote
Dave, the reason people are becoming frustrated with you is because most of the questions you have, which you seem to view as huge problems for evolutionary biology, are in fact a result of your limited understanding of evolutionary biology.
I have an alternative explanation for the frustration (imagine that!;)  Mine is like this ...

STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.  
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  See www.dissentfromdarwin.org
STAGE 3: And now, ordinary amateur scientists like me are jumping in the fray and shining a light on a foolish theory.
STAGE 4: Frustration ensues, followed by name calling, arrogant and belittling comments, talk of censorship, and the like.
STAGE 5: This is turn fuels more doubts in people minds. ("Why would that guy resort to name calling?  Doesn't he have any GOODS?" etc.)  
STAGE 6: Which in turn fuels more frustration and mental anguish.  And so the cycle goes until finally for some ... in a desperate moment ... possibly in the middle of the night ... or out on a peaceful lake while fishing ...
STAGE 7: THE LIGHT BULB COMES ON!  (Trumpets) And one more Darwinist is rescued from the darkness of error.

Quote
How do you test for God?
With a God Meter of course.  No.  Seriously, there are some very good ways.  Cosmic fine tuning and Biological Machines are great for starters.  And if I could get everyone on this thread to agree with me, I could hop back over to that thread (AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis) and give you more.  Lots more.  Stay with me.  We'll get there.

Quote
Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?
Aftershave ... you're in STAGE 4.  See above.  (Which means there's hope for you)

Quote
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?

That's an easy one.  Because your ideas are not within the mainstream of scientific understanding today.  It's that simple.

Yes.  Galileo's ideas were not mainstream either.  Right.

Quote
Why do you ignore the fact that the chimp/human DNA thing is a PRETTY DURN BIG piece of evidence in favor of evolution, especially since it is the proof of predictions made before people even knew there was such a thing as DNA?
I don't ignore it.  In fact I've acknowledged it several times to prove my sense of fairness and honesty.  Go read the whole "Chimp Chromo" thread and you will see this.  I'm trying to set a good example for how someone should act when they are proven wrong on a point as I was.

And here it would be appropriate for me to repeat what I told Steve Story ... that with your "Chimp Chromo" victory ...

... you are "one bucket full" of water closer to draining the ocean.  You should feel justifiably proud.

Quote
AFDave, since you refer to 'more evolved' humans, do you admit that we are the result of some evolution?
No.  I do not believe there is such a thing as 'more evolved' humans.  I just asked our ToE advocates why there ARE NO EXAMPLES of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' humans.  There should be some living today if ToE is true.

Quote
For the umpteenth time – science is NOT a democracy, and scientific truth is NOT decided by popular vote.  Your opinion based on ignorance  doesn’t mean jack sh*t to the scientific realities of the evidence. Dave, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you’re sure doing a good impersonation of a cement-headed dumbf*ck.
Not just STAGE 4.  SERIOUS, "E.R." STAGE 4.  See above.

Quote
We're teaching kids that this is science's best guess and its as factual as this kind of science ever gets.
There are apparently more and more scientists who have a DIFFERENT guess.  But let's not consider their guess.  They are obviously 'unscientific.'

Quote
Looking at human society, behaviour, anatomy, physiology and genetics, our close evolutionary relationship to the great apes is obvious. Remember the vitC gene?
No disagreement with any of this.  I just think it indicates COMMON DESIGN, not common descent.  Not a looney, fringe idea. Should be taught in school too.  I'm in good company ... Newton for one.  Apparently thousands of currently living scientists as well in all major universities.

Quote
But you have demonstrated here that you are not really competent to judge.
Agreed.  That's why I enlist the help of Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe, etc. etc.

Quote
And of course, evidence doesn't matter. But in the world of science, evidence DOES matter.
 Evidence DOES matter.  That's why we are having this discussion.  Because the EVIDENCE favors COMMON DESIGN, not common descent.

Quote
But what we are discussing here is science, and science is NOT a democracy.
Quite true.  Science is not a democracy.  We have to go with the evidence.  But politicians are elected by majority.  And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.

Quote
afdave, if you need retarded "science" (your idiotic AIG approved "science") to justify your faith in god you were in a world of hurt long before you came to this web site.
I think you must not yet know WHY I came to this website.

Quote
To trot out an over used but apt comparrison.  A recent poll came out that said barely 1/3 of questioned people could locate Iraq on a map.  Does that mean that:
1)  We should improve geographic education to make sure that Americans are more aware of the world around them or
2)  We should "teach the controversy" and show both sides of the issue, both those people who believe Iraq is in the middle east, and those people who pointed at Australia and said "I think it's around here somewhere".


Your analogy works if you assume that "Teaching Darwinism = Teaching that Iraq is Somewhere near the North Pole", which I of course do believe is a good equation.  And in this case, YES, I would advocate (2).  

Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  Because we teach them that gravity makes apples fall.
Jeannot, Jeannot.  Come now.  Look what you just did.  You compared something with ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY (Gravity), with something for which there is NO EVIDENCE OF IT OCCURRING (Apelike ancestor becoming Human).  Or do you see this occurring in France?  (I can think of a joke about the REVERSE occurring, but I will be nice and refrain.  Besides, I liked Lafayette.)  I was beginning to be impressed with your grasp of science (the DNA replication info). How could you make this basic error?

Quote
Speaking of which, how are you doing with supporting your three assertions? Eric is referring to these ...
1. The Bible is literally inerrant;
2. The earth is not billions of years old, but only thousands of years old; and
3. Evolution cannot explain the origin of species.

FIRST, these are not assertions that I made in my Creator God Hypothesis although I heartily agree with them all and they all have mountains of evidence to support them which I hope we can get into.  The reason I did not make them in my Hypothesis is that there are more important things to show evidence for first.  It is most important that I BEGIN with the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ... namely, the Cosmos and the Living World around us.  This evidence includes Cosmic Fine Tuning, Biological Machines and Relativity.  Next we should observe Humanity and Moral Laws which in fact are REAL THINGS, although we cannot "see" them.  From this evidence we can postulate a Cause for all these phenomena.  There are other phenomena we can observe to get a better and better description of what this Cause might be like.  If we can establish a pretty good case for the existence of a Great First Cause, then we are not unreasonable to postulate than maybe He gave us a written message.  We posulate the Bible as a possible candidate for THE MESSAGE OF GOD TO MANKIND because of its uniqueness and seemingly supernatural character, then test our theory in detail.  If this theory is well supported from things easily verifiable, we can now move on and investigate various claims of the Bible such as the Flood, Young Earth, the Changing of Languages at Babel, etc. which are disputed widely today.  This is the general outline I am following.  Again, remember that I have never before published a "God Hypothesis" ... I am proposing one and working out the exact details of how it should go with YOUR HELP!  Thank you!  As for proving Evolution to be false, this is not my priority, as some others are doing a good job of that.  Henry Morris, Michael Denton and Michael Behe, to name a few.  Denton was more polite than I would have been in titling his book.  Instead of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", I would have named it "Evolution: Impending Train Wreck."

NOTE:  Let me emphasize again that for YECs showing evidence of YEC Theory, the Bible is a SOURCE FOR PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES, nothing more.  Belief in Biblical inerrancy IS NOT required in this discussion.  This is a SEPARATE ISSUE and stands or falls on its own merits.

Quote
But can you get it through the front door of that meritocracy honestly?
Yes.  This is happening as we speak.

Quote
No doubt my teaching about common ancestry (especially regarding humans and apes) makes you feel uncomfortable, since you deny the starting premise.
Again, I am perfectly comfortable teaching things THAT ARE TRUE.  What I am uncomfortable with is ASSERTING things AS IF they were proven, when in fact they are not, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.

Quote
"More evolved" is a difficult term and issue.  However, I don't think that it is truly meaningless in biology, nor that it would necessarily apply to the highly successful micro-organisms better than to multi-celled eukaryotes.
Glen ... I enjoyed reading your entire piece.  Very insightful.  Thanks!

Quote
AFDave, it seems that the history of Christianity is another thing that you could learn more about. Next time you are researching, Google "Martin Luther" and anti-semitism. Read his actual writings. With regard to your claims about history, I will just observe that correlation is not causation.
I'm sure I would agree with you.  But this has nothing to do with my point.  Go back and read my point again.  We'll do another thread an ML.  He's one of my favorites.  But not now.  I have alot on my plate :-)

Quote
Indeed, Dave should not start thinking that all the Christians who mistreated Jews were all Catholics, and that Protestants all treated them well. Many high ranking Nazis were Protestants as well. Here's what Wikipedia says about Luther:
Agreed.  It was Protestants who burned William Tyndale at the stake.  You are absolutely right.  But this does not change the fact of history that the Protestant Reformation changed the world for the better.

Quote
Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.
Oh?  I'll take you up on the challenge sometime.  That will be fun too!

Quote
There are some rules here at ATBC, and I predict you won't persist in babbling your nonsense any longer.
Jeannot, have you never heard of a nifty little thing made famous by Americans called FREEDOM OF SPEECH?  Do you not have this in France?

BTW ... I salute Steve and Wes for honoring Free Speech!  You have my accolades.

Quote
Offer a "theological biology" class.....
The Darwinist Religious belief on Origins would be PERFECT for this class.

Quote
Exactly Paul. Individuals of our species get a HUGE leg up on our planet by being immersed in the current incarnation of human culture of whatever location they happen to be born. Where would they be if they were born into the wild and cared for by animals, or by parents that had no concept of language, and if they had no contact with anything manmade? That recent thread that touched on the subject of feral children leads me to think that they wouldn't fare very well. The extremely rare child that is raised by animals imprints upon their adoptive parents, crawling like dogs, or imitating chickens. We spend years with our families and in schools learning just the basics about the world and how to interact with it.

Seeing the capabilies of Koko, given the advantage of being taught an already established, open ended language that promotes structured thought, leaves me quite awestruck at how smart and similar to us gorillas are. Whoever said that these ape societies are the 'Hominid Civilizations' afdave is looking for is right. It just goes to show what a good ecological niche it is that we used to share. There's plenty of room in the jungle for apes.
I agree.  All the apes need is a good environment and they will become rocket scientists.  When I am in Washington next, I will suggest to Ike Skelton that he introduce legislation for a new, tax-funded, "Primate Education Program."  Maybe we could even have a new cabinet level office ... we already have the Department of Education ... why not have the Department of Ape Education.  

Quote
Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets?  Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?

And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all?  Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics?  Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?

I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.
Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified.  My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS. You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave?  Shouldn’t it be applied here too?  I’m really curious to hear your answers.
Good question.  I knew you could say something substantive. Answer:  The generals who set the rules EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS.  What is this EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTH?  It's very easy to distinguish the good pilot candidates from the bad ones.  In science today, we are talking about a different matter.  We are talking about many qualified students who can do much in the way of good, useful scientific work regardless of their worldview.  To exclude people because of their worldview is like excluding people based on sex or religious preference, ESPECIALLY when there are thousands of "Darwin dissenters" among scinetists in all major universities AND half the US and British population rejects Darwinism.  This is a significant difference.  Contrast this with putting the following question on the next national ballot, "Do you think there should be a selection process in choosing fighter pilots?"  I think you'd be very close to 100% YES.

Quote
Why would somebody be offended by having been taught something that was believed by scientists at the time, but that found out later to be incorrect?
No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists.  Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.

Quote
Now let's try this again.  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?
I'm perfectly fine with the idea if it turns out to be proven true.

Quote
I said ... Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?
Let me explain this one again, since it was misunderstood.

I am saying that if we took an assortment of recently (let's say they all died at once yesterday, OK?) dead African pygmies, maybe some dead dwarfs, some dead Aborigines, some dead gorillas, etc. (a morbid thought to be sure, but you get the idea ... we are collecting 'ape-like bones';) ... but if we somehow collected all these bones, we could quite possibly bury fragments of them in various places throughout the world and have a 'hominid" fossil situation  quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have.  Make sense?  Now that you understand what I am saying, please ... go ahead and refute me.  Who knows?  Maybe you can.


MAIN POINTS I LEARNED YESTERDAY
(1) Humans are Humans
(2) Apes are Apes
(3) No one has observed Apelike ancestors becoming Humans in their lifetimes and no one ever will.
(4) Fossil evidence is dicey at best
(5) Genetic similarities are striking, but can just as easily be explained by Common Design (probably better when we really get into it) as by Common Descent
(6) Creos and Evos have strong and opposite opinions about something which cannot be proven because NO ONE CAN OBSERVE IT HAPPENING.  Contrast this with Gravity, etc.
(7) Evos are the "rulers" in academia right now and they like to call the Creos "non-scientific"
(8) There's hope for academia in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe and apparently a growing number of good scientists (over 500 signatories so far on a Darwin Dissent Document)

I need to get back to my main Creator God Hypothesis today if I can.  So do me a favor and just agree with me quickly so we can get on with it, would you?   :-)

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

  
jstockwell



Posts: 10
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:41   

afdave,

Can you explain how you reconcile the chromosomal fusion event with your explanation?  You keep saying that it is evidence for common design, not common descent, but you don't say why.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:45   

Geez, AFD. You've got way too much time on your hands. Pity you can't use it to learn something. For instance, I doubt that among the "Main Points [you] Learned Yesterday", there was a single one of them of which you were not fully sure the day before yesterday.

I'll just comment on this one, and get on to more productive activities.
Quote
(Russell: ) But you have demonstrated here that you are not really competent to judge.
Quote
(AFDave: ) Agreed.  That's why I enlist the help of Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe, etc. etc.
If you're not competent to judge information that is presented by scientists who don't care about your religion, what makes you think you are competent to sort out fact from fiction coming from these guys whose stated agenda is to align science with their religion? You're not "enlisting their help", you're just playing their stooge.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,05:52   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
And why shouldn't it be if evolution is true?  It seems that the ToE would actually PREDICT continual brain sophistication (oops ... there's one of those evil "directional" words) ... er, shall we say, er ... I'm at a loss ... anyway ... ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens species who might be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, play 100 simultaneous chess games, memorize large books in minutes, etc, etc.

As an engineer, Dave, you should know this isn't true. Living organisms, like anything else that uses energy, are a result of trade-offs. The human brain already uses such a large percentage of the body's resources that it's unlikely to ever get much bigger than it is.

As a bicyclist, I know first-hand the trade-offs involved in building muscle mass. It is very expensive to maintain greater muscle mass than needed. If I take two weeks off from riding, I can see the atrophy of muscles, and it takes a lot of hard work to get back where I was.

The abilities you're talking about (leaping tall buildings—come on Dave; as an engineer you should know the type of development that would be required) would be selected against because the benefits would be vastly outweighed by disadvantages of devoting the immense resources required to achieve them.

Dave, sometimes your understanding of evolution seems very cartoonish. I really, really think you should read a few good books on evolutionary topics aimed at a general readership. You keep making elementary mistakes in thinking about evolution that take thousands of words on our part to correct. You could save us all a lot of time if you did so.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:00   

Quote
Dave, sometimes your understanding of evolution seems very cartoonish. I really, really think you should read a few good books on evolutionary topics aimed at a general readership.
Is there a better author than Dawkins for this type of book?  I do read him some.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:04   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Quote
How can you hope to find any flaws in something of which you have no understanding?

My 1st grader can easily grasp the truth that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans and that they probably HAVE ALWAYS BEEN just that, and probably WILL ALWAYS BE just that.  It doesn't take very much understanding of biology.  The reason you don't grasp this is beyond me.  Maybe too much ToE indocrination in higher education?

This is the part I don't get, Dave, and makes me wonder how intellectually honest you're being here.

We show you compelling evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. You first dispute the evidence by reference to 30-year old studies, but eventually concede the point when we show you that your objections are meritless. You appear to accept the fact that humans have one chromosome less than chimps due to chromosomal fusion, and that identical errors in human and chimp genes are strong evidence of common ancestry.

But here we are, a few days later, and now you're back to insisting that humans aren't even related to apes (despite the fact that humans are apes). Are we now going to have to assume that points you conceded a week ago are no longer conceded? Does this mean we're going to have to go over the same ground again and again with you, à la Thordaddy? Because that will get old very quickly.

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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:08   

Dawkins is good. Gould wrote hundreds of essays for Natural History, and collected many of them into a half dozen excellent books. Ernst Mayr wrote some highly accessible stuff.

None of this material will turn you into a biologist, but it CAN provide enough background so that after a few hundred hours of reading, you'll have enough of the background under control to at least have some slight grasp of what people are telling you. That way, when presented with valid biology, you can react more rationally than with reflexive and ignorant laughter and denial.

Of course, this material is pretty darn accurate, meaning your laugh-and-deny reflex will probably be triggered about twice per paragraph.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:17   

Quote
It seems that the ToE would actually PREDICT continual brain sophistication (oops ... there's one of those evil "directional" words) ... er, shall we say, er ... I'm at a loss ... anyway ... ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens species who might be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, play 100 simultaneous chess games, memorize large books in minutes, etc, etc.

What a maroon.

Everything has a cost.  Bigger brains, among other things: 1) Consume more energy, requiring more food intake/metabolic processing and generating more heat that needs to be dissipated; 2) Take up more space, requiring tradeoff with other critical skull-based systems and/or making the head larger, affecting balance and needing more robust bodies to support the weight--as well as increasing the chance of accidental damage; 3) Require more developmental complexity, creating more things that can go wrong, larger maternal pelvises (ever watched a human birth?  $hitty 'design' there, huh?), etc., etc.  If all of these factors don't add up to an organism that survives and reproduces more effectively in its environment than the original model, the bigger brain doesn't happen.

afdave is/was supposedly an engineer.  I don't know what he worked on, but an automobile-industry engineer with his moronic mindset would churn out designs for cars with ever bigger and more powerful engines, proposing 20,000-HP monsters that would weigh 30 tons, cost millions of dollars and travel like rockets down the freeway, consuming hundreds of gallons of gas per minute, impossible to control.  That model wouldn't sell and would become extinct, as would his job.

He really doesn't think at all, does he.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:23   

Quote (Flint @ May 09 2006,11<!--emo&:0)
Dawkins is good. Gould wrote hundreds of essays for Natural History, and collected many of them into a half dozen excellent books. Ernst Mayr wrote some highly accessible stuff.

I've actually never read any of Dawkins' books. Can anyone recommend what the best one to start with would be?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:43   

Quote
But here we are, a few days later, and now you're back to insisting that humans aren't even related to apes (despite the fact that humans are apes). Are we now going to have to assume that points you conceded a week ago are no longer conceded? Does this mean we're going to have to go over the same ground again and again with you, à la Thordaddy? Because that will get old very quickly.


No, no.  We will not have to cover anything over again.  I DO agree with all those things I said I agree with.  

I agree that I need to explain more fully why I believe the similarities favor Common Design over Common Descent.  I will try to address this soon.

Thanks

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

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:44   

Quote
I've actually never read any of Dawkins' books. Can anyone recommend what the best one to start with would be?
Depends on what you're after. I think he's a wonderfully clear explainer of ideas, which is what bugs the bejeezus out of creationists, and why, rather than actually take on the content of his explanations, they resort to a cartoon of a rabid militant atheist.

Anyway, his first book "The Selfish Gene" is relatively short and succinct. His latest "The Ancestor's Tale" is the opposite, but does two things: One, it gives a neat overview of the whole history of the tree of life going from the human twig to the root, and Two, as the various organisms are joined to the tree, it brings up individual issues that illustrate important concepts and tools in evolutionary biology.

For dealing with the issues raised by creationists, it's hard to beat "The Blind Watchmaker".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:49   

Quote
I need to explain more fully why I believe the similarities favor Common Design over Common Descent.  I will try to address this soon.
This should be entertaining. I hope your explanation for the vitamin C story will be a prominent part of it.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,06:54   

Oh fer Gods sake.
500 scientists?
This tard-tacular chestnut again???
Ask how many of those scientists were actually biologists, or part of a related field.
Ask what they actually signed.  Read the document.
Ask how many scientists named "Steve" believe in ToE.(last time I checked, it was over 700.)
AFDave, you need to filter.
You have learned nothing.
You however HAVE absorbed one tiny bucketfull, but shouldn't you do a little critical reading before posting?  Please don't troll with your cut and paste from websites who are lying for their deity.  It makes you no better than they are.
Learn to Google.
Edit: Scientists named Steve.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:10   

Quote

But what we are discussing here is science, and science is NOT a democracy.
Quote

Quite true.  Science is not a democracy.  We have to go with the evidence.  But politicians are elected by majority.  And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.

And Americans don't fret that we are falling behind educationally. But I think that AFDave has a point. How much book learnin do young'uns need? :p

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:20   

Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,10:45)
You're not "enlisting their help", you're just playing their stooge.

afstooge has a nice ring to it.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:31   

Quote
Science is not a democracy.  We have to go with the evidence.  But politicians are elected by majority.  And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.


I'm confused, Dave -- since scientists overwhelmingly disagree with you that Darwinism is junk science, who exactly was it that came up with the conclusion that it is?

You know, we should probably clarify this before politicians start 'punishing' schools, and all...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:43   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
MAIN POINTS I LEARNED YESTERDAY
(1) Humans are Humans
(2) Apes are Apes
(3) No one has observed Apelike ancestors becoming Humans in their lifetimes and no one ever will.
(4) Fossil evidence is dicey at best
(5) Genetic similarities are striking, but can just as easily be explained by Common Design (probably better when we really get into it) as by Common Descent
(6) Creos and Evos have strong and opposite opinions about something which cannot be proven because NO ONE CAN OBSERVE IT HAPPENING.  Contrast this with Gravity, etc.
(7) Evos are the "rulers" in academia right now and they like to call the Creos "non-scientific"
(8) There's hope for academia in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe and apparently a growing number of good scientists (over 500 signatories so far on a Darwin Dissent Document)

I need to get back to my main Creator God Hypothesis today if I can.  So do me a favor and just agree with me quickly so we can get on with it, would you?   :-)

Let's see what Dave would have learned if he hadn't been blinded by ideology:

(1) Humans are apes
(2) Apes are, well, apes too
(3) No one will ever observe anything evolving into humans a) because evolution doesn't work that way, and b) evolution is not observable on the timescale of an individual life
(4) Fossil evidence is as solid as any other type of physical evidence
(5) Common design has no explicative power, because either a) without knowing the capabilities of the designer it's impossible to know what the designer can or cannot design; or b) if a designer's capabilties are infinite, there is no way to know whether something was designed or only appears that way
(6) science is not in the business of "proving" anything. "Proof" is the province of mathematics, not science. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is equally as established within the scientific community as general relativity or quantum physics. The only "controversy" regarding the theory of evolution is outside of the scientific community.
(7) Creationists are not "scientists" because they do not practice science, they practice religion.
(8) The works of people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, and Behe have been thoroughly and comprehensively discredited in the scientific community.
(9) There are more scientists named "Steve" who believe in the accuracy of evolutionary theory than there are signatories of the Darwin Dissent Document.

Yes, Dave, you really do need to get back to the Creator God Hypothesis. So far you have come up with zero evidence to support it.

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

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:44   

Quote
DARWINISM:

No one here is defending these as "main points" of "Darwinism" as a "world view". Anyone who thinks we are is an idiot or a liar. This is a straw man, and several people just got done explaining why none of these points are true.

Survival of the fittest- is one tiny cog in mechanism of evolution, and is no excuse for human behavior. If I were to shoot you in the face and say "ahh well, too bad afdave, survival of the fittest, you know!" there is no doubt that I have committed a moral atrocity.

Humans are animals- nothing more- Humans are animals, yes? Do you disagree? Isn't it obvious that we are a little bit "more" than just the average animal? We've done some pretty amazing things, gone to the moon, split atoms, pondered the meaning of the universe...

No God required-I'm not accountable to anyone but myself- This is complete bull. Even if there just happens to be no God, does that mean I'm not accountable for my actions? Would your family not care that I shot you in the face?



Quote
CHRISTIANITY (American Protestantism specifically):

You may be shocked to learn that as an athiest I don't have a problem living by most of the "major points" you purport to be important to the Christian "world view".

God created mankind in His image- Here's the only big one, the way I understand it, mankind made God in our image, and many aspire to be more like him and less like wild animals straight from the jungle.

All humans are created equal- I have no problem with giving all humans the benefit of the doubt and treating them as equals.

Don't kill, don't steal, etc.- I don't do any of that stuff. Funny, seems like those things are wrong.

Treat others as you would have them treat you- Jesus heard of the Golden Rule, huh? Yeah, I agree that's a good rule of thumb.

Love one another- Cool, I love my homies, my family...

Turn the other cheek- Most times, sure. Sometimes duck.

Bless your enemies- Our supposed enemies at the moment are the terrorists. I don't agree with our present military policy.

If your enemy is thirsty, give him a drink- Lots of thirsty people over in Iraq, I agree could use some help.

Do not repay evil for evil- Better to take the high road, sounds good. Revenge is over-rated and dangerous.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,07:56   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Quote
Speaking of which, how are you doing with supporting your three assertions? Eric is referring to these ...
1. The Bible is literally inerrant;
2. The earth is not billions of years old, but only thousands of years old; and
3. Evolution cannot explain the origin of species.

FIRST, these are not assertions that I made in my Creator God Hypothesis although I heartily agree with them all and they all have mountains of evidence to support them which I hope we can get into.  The reason I did not make them in my Hypothesis is that there are more important things to show evidence for first.   :-)

Dave, I don't understand why you keep claiming you did not make these assertions in your Creator God Hypothesis. You most certainly did, as anyone who reads your first post on that thread can see.

You claim you have mountains of evidence to support these assertions, and you've been saying that for weeks now, but so far you have not provided a single smidgen of evidence to support any assertion you have made. You've spent most of your time unsuccessfully trying to rebut evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution, and at this rate I wonder if we'll ever see any of your purported "evidence." You're beginning to remind me not just of Thordaddy but also of Mr. Paley.

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:00   

AFDave:
Quote
STAGE 3: And now, ordinary amateur scientists like me are jumping in the fray and shining a light on a foolish theory.

Cutting and pasting from AIG makes you a scientist?  How did you get your purported engineering degree?  Boxtops?

Seriously, you came in here all excited with your fistful of drivel from AIG, it got blasted.  All we need for the next bucketful is some more rubbish from you.  OR, you could read.  Preferably biology. Make it sporting.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:05   

As a side note, Dave, I'm curious as to why you have all this heartburn about the Theory of Evolution, about which you appear to know almost nothing, but you don't seem to have any problems with, say, Quantum Theory, about which I'm guessing you also know almost nothing.

The predictions that quantum theory makes are vastly more absurd, incomprehensible, and counterintuitive than anything in the Theory of Evolution. Why do you not have similar problems with quantum theory? Could it be that quantum theory does not challenge your religious beliefs in the same direct way as you obviously think the Theory of Evolution does?

After reading your posts for a couple of weeks, it's become clear to me that essentially all your objections to the Theory of Evolution have nothing to do with the strength of the evidence supporting it. Rather, your objections to it are based entirely on the fact that numerous elements of evolutionary theory directly contradict what you have read in the Bible.

I know you'll deny this, but I think the other readers of your threads can draw their own conclusions on the matter.

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:10   

Eric, all his quotes are from AIG.  He doesn't even want to read an opposing view.  He comes barreling in here, hyperventilating with excitement, ready to tell off all 'dem science folks.  And got blasted.  AND WENT RIGHT BACK TO AIG.  Wacky! ???
The next step is lying for Jesus.
That's when he fails to really believe all his rubbish, but like AIG repeats it none the less.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:35   

Quote (Seven Popes @ May 09 2006,13:10)
Eric, all his quotes are from AIG.  He doesn't even want to read an opposing view.  He comes barreling in here, hyperventilating with excitement, ready to tell off all 'dem science folks.  And got blasted.  AND WENT RIGHT BACK TO AIG.  Wacky! ???

Yeah, I have the feeling that eventually AFDave's threads will degenerate to where they're indistinguishable from Thordaddy's threads. He'll keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again, while we'll wearily repeat the same devastating rebuttals of them over and over again.

Gets tedious after a while.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:36   

Quote
OA says: Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets?  Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?

And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all?  Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics?  Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?

I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.
Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified.  My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS. You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave?  Shouldn’t it be applied here too?  I’m really curious to hear your answers.


AFDave says:
Quote
Good question.  I knew you could say something substantive.


When will be able to say the same for you? ???

Quote
Answer:  The generals who set the rules EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS.  What is this EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTH?  It's very easy to distinguish the good pilot candidates from the bad ones.  In science today, we are talking about a different matter.  


Wrong Dave, we’re talking about the exact same thing.  Scientific ideas are put through a rigorous peer-review process very similar to pilot selection.   The scientific peer-reviewers are the “generals” who have EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS.  It is very easy for scientists to winnow out the sound scientific theories like ToE from the crappy pseudoscientific junk like Young Earth Creationism by the quality and quantity of the evidence.  In fact, the YECs have submitted almost NOTHING in the way of positive evidence TO BE reviewed.  They consistently and willfully AVOID THE SELECTION PROCESS because they know they can’t cut the muster.  That which they have submitted for scrutiny has been found woefully lacking, just like the noob pilots who wash out on their first day.

Would you fly on a plane with a pilot who washed out of flight school, then went crying to his local Congressman and got given his pilot’s license anyway over the severe objections of the flight school professionals?  That’s exactly what you’re doing when you accept AIG’s YEC claims over the objections of the qualified scientific community.

Once more, with feeling:  You, Dave, ARE NOT QUALIFIED to judge the quality of scientific evidence being presented, just as I an NOT QUALIFIED to dispute the generals’ judgments about a pilot’s aptitude.  The charlatans at AIG, your primary information source, are also NOT QUALIFIED to judge.  They, like you, are motivated by their religious beliefs, NOT by any desire for scientific veracity.  AIG is rife with lies and disinformation.  You saw how badly they misrepresented the human-chimp chromosomal fusion info – just wait till you see how badly they lie about the Young Earth data.

Quote
We are talking about many qualified students who can do much in the way of good, useful scientific work regardless of their worldview.  To exclude people because of their worldview is like excluding people based on sex or religious preference, ESPECIALLY when there are thousands of "Darwin dissenters" among scientists in all major universities AND half the US and British population rejects Darwinism.


Your worldview is not an issue as long as the quality of your work doesn’t suffer because of it.  You can be an atheist and be a damm fine pilot, you can also be a YEC and be a damm fine doctor or scientist.  However, if you reject any of your scientific findings based solely on your YEC preconceptions then you deserve to be tossed out on your ass.   Imagine your daughter is desperately ill.  You take her to Doctor A who prescribes a new antibiotic, because he understands the strain of flu your daughter has contracted has evolved and no longer responds to the old antibiotic.  Doctor B is a YEC, and he tells you your daughter is possessed by Satan’s minions and that you should just go home and pray.  Whose advice would you follow, and why?

Quote
This is a significant difference.  Contrast this with putting the following question on the next national ballot, "Do you think there should be a selection process in choosing fighter pilots?"  I think you'd be very close to 100% YES.


Agreed.  Do you think there should be a selection process based on positive evidence in deciding the veracity of scientific ideas?  Or should every last idea, even the crackpot ones, be given equal time in school?

--------------
"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.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:54   

Quote
No.  I do not believe there is such a thing as 'more evolved' humans.  I just asked our ToE advocates why there ARE NO EXAMPLES of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' humans.  There should be some living today if ToE is true.

It seems likely from the evidence of paleoanthropology that, at any given time in Africa, there were several extant species of Australopithecine simultaneously. And that H. habilis probably overlapped with Australopithecines. H. habilis and H. erectus were probably alive at the same time. And, most recently, H. sapiens and H. neanderthalis certainly lived at the same time. So, for most of the history of hominids, the situation you describe roughly pertained. Of course, "more" and "less" evolved still betrays a misunderstanding. All of the creatures in question were successful species in their own right that lived for millions of years. H. sapiens sapiens is the question mark there. A million years is looking like a longshot for us.

It cannot be stressed enough that a single human lifetime is the briefest of 'snapshots' through which to view the history of life on earth. And even the history of civilization is a blip in deep time. That is why a serious engagement with the molecular and fossil evidence is the only way to understand the basis for evolutionary thought. Against tens of thousands of scientists uncovering and interpreting this evidence for over one hundred years, you offer only incredulity, based on prior religious commitments. No one here is going to buy it, so your fantasies of "waking up" a deluded Darwinist is mere bluster. You're just here to amuse yourself (as well as your wife and children, apparently).

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,08:57   

Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii.

AFDave "I just LOVE this one!  My kids got a great laugh too. "
Well, being evolved is not a scientific attribute. We don’t have any measure for that. All currently living lineages have evolved for the same exact time. Maybe some have undergone more mutations, maybe some have undergone more phenotypic changes… This is moot. The fittest in its environment reproduce more efficiently, that’s all we have to know.
Quote

ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens …
Absolutely not. Do people with a more sophisticated brain have more children?
Quote

[quote]Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case.

AFDave: "Actually, there is EVERY reason to believe this should be the case if the ToE is true."
No there is not.
Even if there were, do you really think we could tolerate another human species (say Homo neanderthalensis)?
Quote
After Darwin, a new possibility was raised: that those at the top of the social …
I skip the politico-social nonsense. If you can’t understand that scientific facts (fundamental science) has nothing to do with morality, this discussion won’t go anywhere.
What is the position of your (creationist) president on social Darwinism?
Quote

STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.  
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  
OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!;)
Quote

With a God Meter of course.  No.  Seriously, there are some very good ways.  Cosmic fine tuning …
Dave, what observation could falsify the existence of God?
Is it possible for us to observe a universe that couldn’t have permitted our existence?
Quote

…blablabla COMMON DESIGN blablablabla…
What observation could falsify common design?
Quote

Jeannot, have you never heard of a nifty little thing made famous by Americans called FREEDOM OF SPEECH?  Do you not have this in France?
Trolls aren’t well appreciated in discussion boards in both countries. If you keep asking question without willing to learn anything, you are a troll. And I won’t start on this topic if I were you. You know, Christian fundamentalism and freedom of speech don’t go together well.
Quote

No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists.  Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.
If you like, we can call evolution a theory and ID… nothing at all.
Quote

Now let's try this again.  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?

AFDave: "I'm perfectly fine with the idea if it turns out to be proven true."
Out of curiosity, what evidence would convince you?
Quote

I am saying that if we took an assortment of recently (let's say they all died at once yesterday, OK?) dead African pygmies…
… and have a 'hominid" fossil situation  quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have.  
Wow… :/  Paleontologists draw their conclusion on each separate bones.
Quote

(4) Fossil evidence is dicey at best
Question: where do you think these fossils come from? You haven’t answered me yet.
Quote

(7) Evos are the "rulers" in academia right now and they like to call the Creos "non-scientific"
What research have you been doing lately?
Quote

(8) There's hope for academia in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe and apparently a growing number of good scientists (over 500 signatories so far on a Darwin Dissent Document)
What about doing some research to test your theory?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:07   

Quote
do you really think we could tolerate another human species (say Homo neanderthalensis)?
Makes for a really interesting thought experiment, doesn't it?

Quote
…blablabla COMMON DESIGN blablablabla…
What observation could falsify common design?
Vitamin C?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:14   

Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
Quote
do you really think we could tolerate another human species (say Homo neanderthalensis)?
Makes for a really interesting thought experiment, doesn't it?

Yes it does. A war experiment actually. I'm pretty sure we would never tolerate a competing species. There wouldn't show any moral or mercy there. It would be a struggle to death. That's my prediction (not that I'd approve it)

How do Vitamin C falsify common design?
I'm not aware of this case, do you have a link?

EDIT: Ok I found one. But it doesn't falsify common design. One could argue that god decided to deactivate this gene for some reason.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:17   

Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:23   

Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,14:17)
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:24   

Ah, so our troll found the rather infamous "list of scientists" that "support" creationism.  I was wondering how long it would take for him to get to that.

So then, here are some questions based on that for AFDave:

1) Are you aware of Project Steve?  Project Steve is a listing of scientists who have signed a document saying they support evolution, and right now that list is at 740 compared to your claims of 500 who are against it.  Now, that might not sound like much, it isn't even 50% above the creationist list.  Well, the name Project Steve comes from the fact that it only allows scientists named Steve or Stephanie to sign the list.  Thus, there is more demonstrated support of evolution among scientists named Steve than there is support of creationism among all scientists.

2) Are you using the AIG list?  Because if you are, are you aware that there are many many MANY problems with that list.

3) I believe you are going to inevitably claim that Project Steve doesn't count, because that's the only possible way out of admitting that the vast huge massive majority of scientists are on the side of evolution.  So, why are your 500 scientists greater than Project Steve's 740?  In addition, are you willing to account for the fact that Project Steve has a lot more star power to it, as it includes such famous Steve scientists as Hawking?

4) Are you aware that NEITHER the creationist list of scientists NOR Project Steve even matter?  Why's this you ask?  Because both of them are a prime example of argumentum ad verecundiam, which is a logical fallacy right up there with argumentum ad populum (which is what your attempts to democratize science fall under).  In fact, Project Steve was intentionally set up to show that.

So.  Still want to stand up your list, still think it represents some kind of devistating attack under which evolution whithers?  Or are you willing to conceed that it's based on a logical fallacy, and that even if it wasn't a fallacious line of reasoning, it would be trumped so hard by Project Steve?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,09:29   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,14:14)
How do Vitamin C falsify common design?
I'm not aware about this case, do you have a link?

The busted Vitamin C gene that humans and chimps does not, of course, "falsify" common design (since common design is, after all, unfalsifiable), but it does make it look pretty dubious.

It would be hard to argue that a busted gene would be "designed" into an organism. If God took the basic chimp design, and modified it create humans, wouldn't he take the time to first fix the busted gene? Or is God just congenitally lazy?

For a guy who can create everything from electrons to galactic superclusters, fixing one little transcription error seems like it would have been pretty trivial. Kind of like Windows, where you see the same bugs cropping up in versions of Windows ten years later.

Or maybe Windows programmers' flaws are evidence that God created man in his own image? Who knows?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:10   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,14:23)
Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,14:17)
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

Dunkirk?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:13   

American Revolutionary War?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:13   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 09 2006,13:35)
Quote (Seven Popes @ May 09 2006,13:10)
Eric, all his quotes are from AIG.  He doesn't even want to read an opposing view.  He comes barreling in here, hyperventilating with excitement, ready to tell off all 'dem science folks.  And got blasted.  AND WENT RIGHT BACK TO AIG.  Wacky! ???

Yeah, I have the feeling that eventually AFDave's threads will degenerate to where they're indistinguishable from Thordaddy's threads. He'll keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again, while we'll wearily repeat the same devastating rebuttals of them over and over again.

Gets tedious after a while.

It looks like even Thordaddy got tired of that. Now he's content to just drop by every so often and fulminate against gays.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:16   

Don't forget Singapore

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:17   

Re "I don't know any famous British defeat."
The one after Washington crossed the Delaware?
(The Battle of Trenton. )

Henry

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:18   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2006,15:10)
[quote=jeannot,May 09 2006,14:23][quote=Henry J,May 09 2006,14:17]Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.[/quote]
Dunkirk?[/quote]
You mean Dunkerque?

(There are some problems with nested quotes.  :angry: )

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:24   

Hi AFDave,

I'm looking forward to your thesis on why common design is a superior interpretation of the evidence than common descent.  I'd like to make sure you include a section on endogenous retroviral sequences and how they factor into your hypothesis, keeping in mind that it doesn't matter whether or not ERVs have function, but only that we can recognize ERV sequences as such.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:27   

Quote
=jeannot,May 09 2006,15:18][=Arden Chatfield,May 09 2006,15:10][quote=jeannot,May 09 2006,14:23][=Henry J,May 09 2006,14:17]Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)
So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

Dunkirk?

You mean Dunkerque?

(There are some problems with nested quotes.  :angry: )


Yeah, 'Dunkirk' is the usual British spelling of 'Dunkerque'.

The English also pronounce 'Calais' as 'cally'. Ouch.

I shouldn't complain, tho, all Anglophones pronounce 'Paris' as 'perriss'. Oh well.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:31   

Personally, I'd like to hear Dave's thoughts about endosymbiosis and the species concept.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:32   

"Dunkirk" is the English spelling, "Dunkerque" is the French spelling.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:35   

Actually, I thought of this possibility... but too late.  :0

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:38   

Then there was the Alamo, but it wasn't (yet) part of the U.S. at the time.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:42   

English Waterloo: yes, the American Revolution. But more specifically, the final battle, Yorktown, after which Cornwallis surrendered.

Vitamin C: The Designer apparently decided to give humans, chimps, gorillas AND guinea pigs broken vitamin C making enzymes. Well, it's been said The Designer works in mysterious ways; I suppose He must have had a reason for doing that. But why did he give all the primates the same defect, and the guinea pigs another? Seems a whole lot more compatible with common descent than common (mis)design to me.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:48   

Quote

Vitamin C: The Designer apparently decided to give humans, chimps, gorillas AND guinea pigs broken vitamin C making enzymes. Well, it's been said The Designer works in mysterious ways; I suppose He must have had a reason for doing that. But why did he give all the primates the same defect, and the guinea pigs another?


Some sort of punishment for the Garden of Eden, no doubt.

Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:51   

What did the guinea pigs do to merit that punishment of having their vit-C thing broken? Did they pick the wrong side in the Garden, or something? :)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:52   

Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,15:51)
What did the guinea pigs do to merit that punishment of having their vit-C thing broken? Did they pick the wrong side in the Garden, or something? :)

Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,10:59   

Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,15:38)
Then there was the Alamo, but it wasn't (yet) part of the U.S. at the time.

While we're at it, the second famous French defeat, is the battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954), where we got humiliated by Vietnamese (who were not vietnamese at that time). Next comes the Blitzkrieg (1940), and I dare not tell you more about it.
And don't forget Azincourt (1415), where we got soundly beaten by English who were four times less numerous than us.
 :0

(I'm preparing my defeat, that's why I'm doing some history. You should too, while there's still time  ;) )

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:05   

I suppose that if the "designer" produced new species by modifying earlier species, and if an earlier species with a broken gene were picked as the "template" (so to speak) for both human and chimpanzee, then the broken gene thing could be construed as consistent with "design".

Say, what's the point in sticking the word "common" in front of "design", anyway?

Come to think of it, why do people use the phrase "common descent" to mean "common ancestry"? That phrasing puzzles me.

Henry

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:06   

Quote
Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...


being the omniscient being, it was pre-emptive punishment for guinea pigs far in the future allowing themselves to be abused in a certain way by Richard Gere.

If you don't know what I'm speaking of, you don't want to, as the author of the quote correctly implies.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:06   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,13:57)
Do people with a more sophisticated brain have more children?

We try! We try!

The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank:
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-1400061245-0

The "Genius Babies," and How They Grew:
http://www.slate.com/id/100331/

Quote
...in the late 1970s, Graham persuaded several Nobel Prize winners in science—either three or five, depending on who's talking—to give him their sperm. Later he recruited dozens of younger scientists for his bank. Graham advertised for mothers in a Mensa magazine. Women had to be married to infertile men, well-educated, and financially comfortable. Soon he had a waiting list. He mailed out a catalog that advertised men such as "Mr. Fuschia," an Olympic gold medallist—"Tall, dark, handsome, bright, a successful businessman and author"; and "Mr. Grey-White … ruggedly handsome, outgoing, and positive, a university professor, expert marksman who enjoys the classics." (The repository revolutionized the sperm bank industry by—oddly for such an avowedly elitist institution—democratizing it: It took donor choice away from doctors and gave it to mothers. Instead of settling for a doctor's paltry offerings, mothers could be demanding customers, requiring as much [or more] accomplishment from a vial of sperm as from her flesh-and-blood husband.)

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:06   

Quote
You need to remove the word 'Christianity' from this one and insert 'Catholicism' instead.  The two are vastly different as I will show on a future "Martin Luther" post.
Please please don't.

Quote
Maybe too much ToE indocrination in higher education?
I don't know about today, but when I went they didn't make such a big deal out of it.

Quote
Bill Dembski has come up with a neat list of over 500 scientists who have had the kahoonas to sign their names to a public statement that says ...
I'd sign that statement, to say it is purely random mutation followed by natural selection is a gross oversimplification at best. Sometimes it's the other way round for a start. To say that statement reprsents a dismissal of modern evolutionary theory is just plain wrong.

Quote
STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.
For example?

Quote
Biological Machines are great for starters
Don't pretend you've even begun to give evidence for this.

Quote
I just asked our ToE advocates why there ARE NO EXAMPLES of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' humans.  There should be some living today if ToE is true.
More evolved is a meaningless term, just like 'genetically superior'.

Quote
There are apparently more and more scientists who have a DIFFERENT guess
Are there more and more? Actual scientists with qualifications in the relevent field?

Quote
Evidence DOES matter.  That's why we are having this discussion.  Because the EVIDENCE favors COMMON DESIGN, not common descent.
If you could list the main evidence for this in bullet points I would be very grateful.

Quote
And politicians give funding to public schools and universities.  And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.
If creation is so much better then let the schools an colleges that teach it produce research and make scientific discoveries based on evolution, then the electorate won't need to bother.

Quote
Your analogy works if you assume that "Teaching Darwinism = Teaching that Iraq is Somewhere near the North Pole", which I of course do believe is a good equation.
I prefer the analogy of teaching children about the holocaust. A minoroty of historians don't think it happened, but we still teach children it did.

Quote
Jeannot, Jeannot.  Come now.  Look what you just did.  You compared something with ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY (Gravity), with something for which there is NO EVIDENCE OF IT OCCURRING (Apelike ancestor becoming Human).
Gravity isn't the act of things falling, it is our theory of the forces that cause things to fall. Evolution is our theory explaining the distribution of species on the planet.

Quote
What I am uncomfortable with is ASSERTING things AS IF they were proven, when in fact they are not, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.
I was never taught any theory as true, I was taught it as the best theory to explain the evidence. Yes I know you don't think evolution is the best theory to explain the evidence, and we'd all be grateful if you tell us why.

Quote
We'll do another thread [o]n ML.
I promise if you post it on another forum to where it is more suited we will all come over and argue with you about it.

Quote
I agree.  All the apes need is a good environment and they will become rocket scientists.  When I am in Washington next, I will suggest to Ike Skelton that he introduce legislation for a new, tax-funded, "Primate Education Program."  Maybe we could even have a new cabinet level office ... we already have the Department of Education ... why not have the Department of Ape Education.
You seem to be making the common creationist mistake of forgeting the millions of years part. Can you please tell us now if you won't accept evolution until you see this kind of change take place naturally.

Quote
No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists.  Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.
Evolution is taught as a theory AFAIK. As far as shutting out the ID view, if we teach kids that something like Darwin's black box is a good piece of scientific analysis we will be producing bad scientists. Desing might be true but if it is it should be able to lead to superior scientific research. Even if there is a consiracy against it, point me to the research in creationist journals.

Quote
... but if we somehow collected all these bones, we could quite possibly bury fragments of them in various places throughout the world and have a 'hominid" fossil situation  quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have.  Make sense?
No, the differences are not just the difference between us and pygmies.

This is getting very old, could you just post your evidence on whatever thread you like. We do not need a philosophical discussion of why your evidence is right, just your evidence.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:12   

Re "I'm preparing my defeat, that's why I'm doing some history. You should too, while there's still time "

Uh oh - in that case I'm in trouble; history wasn't my best subject.

Henry

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:12   

chris, rather than bother responding to each piece of dave's ramblings, there is a single word that correctly summarizes ALL of Dave's drivel:

PROJECTION.

in spades.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:16   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 09 2006,16:06)
Quote
Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...


being the omniscient being, it was pre-emptive punishment for guinea pigs far in the future allowing themselves to be abused in a certain way by Richard Gere.

If you don't know what I'm speaking of, you don't want to, as the author of the quote correctly implies.

(a) I thought that was hamsters, not guinea pigs, and
(b) it's an urban legend anyway.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:21   

And anyway, I thought that was Bill Murray and groundhogs?

(Uh - on second thought, never mind. :) )

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:27   

Guinea pigs ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Eating Their Own Young, of course!

sir_toejam, projection and how! I think it's the only way a person can cope with making those kind of arguments...

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:28   

Don't be ironical.
Dave certainly knows what the guinea pig did, and we'll be PWNED when he expose this biblical evidence.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:29   

Re "The predictions that quantum theory makes are vastly more absurd, incomprehensible, and counterintuitive than anything in the Theory of Evolution."

Yep. Quantum tunneling, particle entanglement, discrete possible "orbits", wave-particle duality, etc.

Otoh, evolution "predicts" that new species will be slight modifications of a previous nearby species, and that developments that are indedendent of each other will for the most part differ from each other in areas not constained by environment. And both of those sound like common sense to me.

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,11:51   

Quote
Dave certainly knows what the guinea pig did, and we'll be PWNED when he expose this biblical evidence.
Paley has a definitive model showing what the guinea pigs did. But he's just been busy at work lately, and really not enough people have voted for the guinea pigs, and anyway this thread is supposed to be about apes,....

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:09   

Riddle me this,  guinea pigs are fine tuned creatures, apes are fine tuned creatures....how come we don't see any half guinea pigs half apes walking around?  I think afdave might be on to something after all....

Gosh, I'm starting to think I've been listening to the wrong crowd the whole time!   A space alien musta invented guinea pigs!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:26   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 09 2006,17:09)
how come we don't see any half guinea pigs half apes walking around?

It's called a koala bear.


And, according to some ancient Greeks, an ostrich is what happens when a male gnat accidently flies up into the genitals of a giraffe.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:36   

Quote
Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps.
Apparently it's all primates. The broken gene is thought to be inherited from an ancestor common to all the primates about 40 million years ago. So you've got all these primates with a broken gene. And, once it was broken, of course, there's no selection that prevents it from accumulating more mutations. And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?

(Actually, I don't know how much of the relevant data is already in; I certainly can't cite the relevant research. So you can regard it both as a sketchy summary of the sketchy data that's already in and a prediction of data yet to be produced. What predictions does the "common designer hypothesis" make about it?)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,12:40   

You don't fool ME, Mr Darwinist.  That picture of a half guinea pig half ape is obviously a forgery!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,15:26   

Quote (jeannot @ May 09 2006,14:23)
Quote (Henry J @ May 09 2006,14:17)
Re " OMG! We're going toward our Waterloo ? (gasp!"

Darwin was English. ;)

So I'm going toward my Waterloo, and you'll meet your Pearl Harbour soon.
I don't know any famous British defeat.

Isandlwana

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,16:55   

And the wiki link to the above mentioned war.
The Battle of Isandlwana was a battle in the Anglo-Zulu War in which a Zulu army wiped out a British force on January 22, 1879. The British were commanded by Frederick Augustus Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,00:36   

Quote
The British were commanded by Frederick Augustus Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford.
Was that the guy that looks an awful lot like Michael Caine?

Quote
And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?
The best answer I can think of is that the designer knew that primates were getting ample amounts of vitamin C from their diets, and so he inactivated the gene. The advantage of this would be that the animals would waste less energy producing an unessecary protein. This still suggests common descent though, but I'm confident it's better than the official creationist story.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,01:18   

Afdave keeps on harping on about the evidence he presented. I have been reading all his threads, but cannot see any evidence presented by him. It appears as if he thinks the cc is evidence. Is it just me, or are other people also still waiting on his evidence? Is there ANYONE here that picked up on any evidence that Afdave has presented? Is there ANYONE?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,03:00   

Renier:

You have to understand that within the religious mindset, 'evidence' has a very different meaning from what you may expect. The bible is evidence. Claims made by congenial authorities are evidence. Sincere belief in the absence of, or even defiance of, scientific evidence is also evidence.

Basically, start with your convictions. Find something that can be represented as supporting them. *Anything* that can be so represented is a good candidate, including uninformed opinions, declarations of doctrine, making stuff up, whatever works. Since these support the target convictions, they become evidence.

Remember, Behe testified that "an intelligence is involved" is something he regards as raw data, a straight unambiguous observation. Evidence.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,03:16   

Remember the guy on Uncommonly Dense who claimed that he could feel his Intelligent Designer, and why wasn't that scientific evidence?

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:19   

Good point. How can one deny the reality of anything that answers your prayers, enters your heart, and speaks directly to your soul?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:21   

Good morning to all my "Evo" friends ...

The Vitamin C issue with apes and humans seems to be a very compelling evidence for you that Apes and Humans do indeed share a common ancestor.

OK.  Let's take a look.  I assume everyone is familiar with the Talk Origins article my Dr. Edward Max here and the AIG article by Woodmorappe here, right?

Dr. Max begins with an analogy to a plagiarism case ...
Quote
One way to distinguish between copying and independent creation is suggested by analogy to the following two cases from the legal literature. In 1941 the author of a chemistry textbook brought suit charging that portions of his textbook had been plagiarized by the author of a competing textbook (Colonial Book Co, Inc. v. Amsco School Publications, Inc., 41 F. Supp.156 (S.D.N.Y. 1941), aff'd 142 F.2d 362 (2nd Cir. 1944)). In 1946 the publisher of a trade directory for the construction industry made similar charges against a competing directory publisher (Sub-Contractors Register, Inc. v McGovern's Contractors & Builders Manual, Inc. 69 F.Supp. 507, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 1946)). In both cases, mere similarity between the contents of the alleged copies and the originals was not considered compelling evidence of copying. After all, both chemistry textbooks were describing the same body of chemical knowledge (the books were designed to "function similarly") and both directories listed members of the same industry, so substantial resemblance would be expected even if no copying had occurred. However, in both cases errors present in the "originals" appeared in the alleged copies. The courts judged that it was inconceivable that the same errors could have been made independently by each plaintiff and defendant, and ruled in both cases that copying had occurred. The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is now well established in copyright law. (In recognition of this fact, directory publishers routinely include false entries in their directories to trap potential plagiarizers.)


Now I have read both articles in their entirety, but before Dr. Max even gets into the details of gene "mistakes", there is one very large item jumps out at me. The analogy seems very clever, but there is a huge assumption that is made which I consider to be invalid and to me this destroys the whole analogy.  See what you think and please correct me if I am wrong.

OK.  Are you ready?  With the plagiarism case, we are talking about printed words in a well-known language.  In the GLO gene case, we are talking about genetic "words" in a poorly-understood language.  I hope I don't have to cite the recent literature to prove to you how poorly we understand the genetic language.  If you do a Google Scholar search, you will see numerous articles talking about pseudogene and "junk DNA" function and how much we are learning and how much there is remaining to be learned.  Here's just one with an appropriate comment from Woodmorappe ...
Quote
Balakirev, E.S. and Ayala, F.J., Pseudogenes: are they ‘junk’ or functional DNA? Annual Review of Genetics 37:123–151, 2003. The very title of this article would have, only a few years ago, been almost on a par with the following: ‘The Earth: is it spherical or flat?’


Are you with me so far?  I don't want to lose anyone.  Again, I am saying that ...

With the plagiarism case, we are talking about printed words in a well-known language.  In the GLO gene case, we are talking about genetic "words" in a poorly-understood language.  This is a big, big difference.

Notice again that Dr. Max's whole argument rests on the following ...
Quote
In both cases, mere similarity between the contents of the alleged copies and the originals was not considered compelling evidence of copying ... The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is now well established in copyright law.


Do you see where I am going?  Dr. Max is assuming that the state of the GLO gene in humans and apes is an error and with our as yet limited knowledge of gene function, genome function as a whole, pseudogene function discoveries, and "not-junk-after-all" discoveries about "junk DNA", this seems to be an enormous unwarranted assumption.  If, in fact, this GLO gene turns out to have some function, then Max's whole argument fails, because now the gene would be rightly interpreted as part of the correct informational content analogous to the correct informational content in the textbooks.

To emphasize this point, consider a passage of text from a language which you do not know, but I do (my dad's jungle tribe for whom he is a Bible translator).  In this case, I am playing the role of the hypothetical "Designer" and you are playing the role of the genetic researcher trying to unlock the code.    Let us say the above plagiarism case involved the following text ...

Quote

ORIGINAL TEXT:  Twaihsom me thakwa xatkene roowo pono komo ahnoro.  Yipinin yaw so tko xakne Kaan.  Ero ke Tumumuru tak nimyakne rma okwe twaihsom mera tak ehtome so.  Waipini ro me xa matko naxe Noro pona enine komo.

ALLEGED PLAGIARIZED TEXT:  Twaihsom me thakwa xatkene roowo pono komo.  Yipinin yaw so xakne Kaan.  Ero ke Tumumuru tak nimyakne okwe twaihsom mera tak ehtome so. Waipini ro me naxe Noro pona enine komo.


While a word by word comparison of the above text gives some evidence of plagiarism, i.e. they are similar, you cannot conclude this positively if we use the court case guidelines because you do not know the language so as to be able to detect errors.

Now I DO know the language, so I can identify an error, namely that the word "cewnaninhiri" which means "only begotten" (it is John 3:16) is left out of both texts.

So we see that for Dr. Max's argument to be valid, we have to know the language which obviously, genetic researchers do not yet very well.


Now there is something else interesting here.  This text of John 3:16 could be rendered in a number of different ways and yet communicate the same meaning.  For example, we could say ...
Quote
Yipinin yaw so xakne Kaan roowo pono komo poko. Ero ke Tumumuru tak nimyakne okwe twaihsom mera tak ehtome so. Waipini ro me naxe Kaan pona enine komo.


I know the language well enough to know that this would communicate the same message, but with different structure.

Now, back to biology.  It is my theory that this is exactly the situation which we will find in the genomes of various organisms as we understand more and more about them every year.  I predict that we will find that the genetic code is a very real language, complete with "words", "sentences", "phrases", "paragraphs", and different ways of saying the same thing.

Now, here is something else ...

How do you explain the similarity of the GLO gene "defects" of humans and guinea pigs? (you knew I was going to go here, didn't you)  Apparently, something like 36% of the substitutions are the same when compared to the functional rat GLO gene.  If we assume that there is some pro-simian ancestor that has a functional GLO gene, then it would appear that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to this pro-simian ancestor.  This would seem to defy the evolutionary scenario.  How do you explain this?

OK.  There's some food for thought.  Now pick me apart.


Oh ... and here the quote from Balakirev and Ayala for you

Quote
Annual Review of Genetics
Vol. 37: 123-151 (Volume publication date December 2003)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.37.040103.103949)

First published online as a Review in Advance on June 25, 2003

PSEUDOGENES: Are They "Junk" or Functional DNA?

Evgeniy S. Balakirev1,2 and ­Francisco J. Ayala1­
1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-2525; email: fjayala@uci.edu

2Institute of Marine Biology, Vladivostok 690041,

Russia and Academy of Ecology, Marine Biology, and Biotechnology, Far Eastern State University, Vladivostok 690600, Russia; email: esbalak@bio.dvgu.ru

Pseudogenes have been defined as nonfunctional sequences of genomic DNA originally derived from functional genes. It is therefore assumed that all pseudogene mutations are selectively neutral and have equal probability to become fixed in the population. Rather, pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles, such as gene expression, gene regulation, generation of genetic (antibody, antigenic, and other) diversity. Pseudogenes are involved in gene conversion or recombination with functional genes. Link to article




And here's one I like from Dr. Max that confirms what us YECers so often say about mutations ...
Quote
Mutations causing genetic diseases and malformations are generally so detrimental to the organism's survival and reproductive success that in the wild--i.e. in the absence of modern medical science--they would tend to be "weeded out" by the pressure of natural selection. Rarely, mutations can be beneficial to an organism: these rare cases form the basis for evolutionary adaptations that improve the "fitness" of an organism to its environment.Link to article


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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:26   

And now, while you all are busy refuting me on this thread, I will hop back over to the "Creator God Hypothesis" thread and dive in again ...

It appears that no one accepts the evidence for a Creator I have given so far, so we will explore that some and find out why ...

See you there ... :-)

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:36   

Also check the "AF Dave wants you to prove Evolution to him" thread ...

I will be posting some questions there directly out of a children's book about evolution ...

It's called (ingeniously) "Evolution" and it is from the DK Eyewitness series.  It is pretty recent (2000).

That should be fun as well !!

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:57   

I haven't read any of those vitamin c articles you mentioned, but I think  your missing the point. The pseudogene may have function but is no longer a gene which produces a protein involved vitamin C synthesis. It is good evidence for common descent whether or not the pseudogene has function. Am I missing something there?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:00   

Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,17:36)
Quote
Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps.
Apparently it's all primates. The broken gene is thought to be inherited from an ancestor common to all the primates about 40 million years ago. So you've got all these primates with a broken gene. And, once it was broken, of course, there's no selection that prevents it from accumulating more mutations. And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?

(Actually, I don't know how much of the relevant data is already in; I certainly can't cite the relevant research. So you can regard it both as a sketchy summary of the sketchy data that's already in and a prediction of data yet to be produced. What predictions does the "common designer hypothesis" make about it?)

All well and good, but here's what's confusing me. I think it's obvious that the Designer broke our Vitamin C gene as punishment for the Garden of Eden, eating apples, all that. We've established that scientifically. But this whole 'collateral damage' thing of chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans also getting their Vitamin C taken away baffles me. Why should our Designer punish a bunch of apes like that, and not other animals, like, say, badgers, skunks, Komodo dragons, and kangaroos? Is this some indication that back in the Garden the apes were also disobeying their Lord?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:21)
With the plagiarism case, we are talking about printed words in a well-known language.  In the GLO gene case, we are talking about genetic "words" in a poorly-understood language.  I hope I don't have to cite the recent literature to prove to you how poorly we understand the genetic language.

That's a half truth. It's true that we don't know enough yet to write sophisticated creatures using the DNA language. In fact we're still struggling with finding the simplest cell.

Looking for the "minimal cell":
http://microbialcellproject.org/complete.shtml
http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2000/Hutchison.htm
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news8460.html

However, it somehow seems to have escaped your notice that large parts of this DNA language are well understood and that there was enough detail in the Dr. Max article to make good comparisons. Your question is even addressed in his article:

Quote

Imagine a defendant at a murder trial defending himself--against overwhelming incriminating evidence--with the parallel argument: that since some convicted criminals have later been exonerated, he (the current defendant) should therefore be acquitted now, because someday in the future, evidence might be found to clear him! This defense would be as ridiculous as Dr. Gish's argument is.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:54   

Quote
I haven't read any of those vitamin c articles you mentioned, but I think  your missing the point. The pseudogene may have function but is no longer a gene which produces a protein involved vitamin C synthesis. It is good evidence for common descent whether or not the pseudogene has function. Am I missing something there?


My point is that your statement and Dr. Max's statement assumes that somewhere back in time, the GLO gene functioned to produce vitamin C, but now no longer does.  I am just saying that I think this assumes too much, namely that we know what the gene used to be like.  We do not know this.  All we really know is that ... (a) it is somewhat similar to the functional rat GLO gene (149 out of 647 substitutions when comparing humans to rats, 96 out of 647 substitutions when comparing guinea pigs to rats), and (b) that humans cannot synthesize their own Vitamin C. (we are presuming that this is because the GLO gene is "broken", and we are assuming that other primates GLO genes are almost identical to ours) (a safe bet probably, but it has not been determined yet)

What reason do we have to assume that the modern GLO gene in humans ever was used for Vitamin C production?  As I said, we really don't know the language that well yet ... my understanding is that we have just scratched the surface ... it is entirely reasonable to me that the supposed "broken GLO gene" has always had a function which has nothing to do with Vitamin C production.  In any case, we cannot determine that it is broken until we know the language better, just as you could not determine the error in my text examples.

Quote
However, it somehow seems to have escaped your notice that large parts of this DNA language are well understood and that there was enough detail in the Dr. Max article to make good comparisons. Your question is even addressed in his article:

Quote  

Imagine a defendant at a murder trial defending himself--against overwhelming incriminating evidence--with the parallel argument: that since some convicted criminals have later been exonerated, he (the current defendant) should therefore be acquitted now, because someday in the future, evidence might be found to clear him! This defense would be as ridiculous as Dr. Gish's argument is.


No.  I read that part.  I am in no way defending Gish's argument.

I am making my own and it is entirely different.  The paragraph above is talking about letting the guy off because of future evidence we may have in the future.

My argument recognizes that we don't have evidence RIGHT NOW to convict the guy.  To make the analogy correct, imagine that the judge and jury only spoke French and there was no interpreter.  Now they could not convict him on evidence which was written in English because they could not even determine what an error is.

This is situation we have in genetics today.

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

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:55   

No reason to belabor the point: normdoering made it very well. It's the ultimate answer to any hopeless argument: "Sure, it looks like an open and shut case now, but sometime in the future we may learn something totally unexpected that changes everything!"  That's kind of a science stopper, isn't it? Why bother trying to understand anything, knowing that some future information might change our conclusions?

Here's a ground rule we'll just have to accept in order not to render all discussions ridiculous: explain observations based on currently known data, or admit that you really can't explain it.  For instance, given the data on the broken vitamin C gene, it could be explained by (A) common inheritance of a mutation that occurred in a common ancestor, or (B) it could be explained by an as yet unknown explanation.
Quote
Now, here is something else ...

How do you explain the similarity of the GLO gene "defects" of humans and guinea pigs? (you knew I was going to go here, didn't you)  Apparently, something like 36% of the substitutions are the same when compared to the functional rat GLO gene.  If we assume that there is some pro-simian ancestor that has a functional GLO gene, then it would appear that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to this pro-simian ancestor.  This would seem to defy the evolutionary scenario.  How do you explain this?
Now, this may prove interesting. We can think of it as an experiment. (I'm not familiar with the data you're talking about, so I'm going to assume it's in the Max article - if not, please clarify.) Now I would predict, based on evolution, that the errors would be essentially random, and that we should not see a statistically improbable coincidence in guinea pig and primate errors. I gather you're saying that we do, which I guess you contend challenges evolution. In fact, if the errors are sufficiently similar, it might be construed as consistent with the "common designer hypothesis". (I.e. The Designer says to Himself, "for reasons known only to me, I see the need to give guinea pigs, humans, and all the monkeys and apes a broken vitamin C gene. No need to reinvent the wheel, I'll just give them the same broken gene!"). I predict that a careful examination of the data will prove you wrong. Further, I predict that you won't admit it.

Quote
And here's one I like from Dr. Max that confirms what us YECers so often say about mutations ...
Wow! You guys are way ahead of us! Do you also stake out such bold claims as "water is wet"?

Actually, believe it or not, geneticists have always known that mutations are more likely to be detrimental than beneficial. But unless you can quantify the odds in some meaningful way, relative to the "statistical resources" (i.e. the number of "trials" available), it's completely useless.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:59   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:21)
Now I have read both articles in their entirety, but before Dr. Max even gets into the details of gene "mistakes", there is one very large item jumps out at me. The analogy seems very clever, but there is a huge assumption that is made which I consider to be invalid and to me this destroys the whole analogy.

Nope. You're completely missing the point of the analogy, Dave.

Suppose you've got two samples of text in a language you don't understand. Finnish, say. Both samples are about the same length, say, 20 pages, and have a similar number of paragraphs, sentences, etc. They look like they're probably different versions of the same story. You don't understand the language at all, but you see a lot of the same words, in roughly the same places in various paragraphs. Is one a copy of the other? At this point, you don't know. They could be different versions of the same story, say two newspaper articles about the same event.

Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance?

You don't need to know anything whatsoever about the language to make this determination, Dave. And it is far from true that biologists know nothing at all about the genetic code. In fact, they may not know what all the "paragraphs" (i.e., genes) in the genetic code mean, but they sure know what the "words" (i.e., codons) mean.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:13   

Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ...

Well, since the single greatest contributing factor to the Holocaust is over a thousand years of Christians hating Jews, Christianity is the obvious answer.

It seems you are disregarding the facts in favor of a pet theory.  Here's a hint: if your pet theory is in conflict with known facts, then it's probably your theory that's wrong - not the facts.

--------------
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.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:19   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,10:54)
My argument recognizes that we don't have evidence RIGHT NOW to convict the guy.  To make the analogy correct, imagine that the judge and jury only spoke French and there was no interpreter.  Now they could not convict him on evidence which was written in English because they could not even determine what an error is.

This is situation we have in genetics today.

Your analogy doesn't work. Your example is too unknown and there are only two versions. We have hundreds of versions and we know a lot about Vitamin C and the genes involved.

It's also a clear prediction of evolution -- we should find vestigial DNA. Humans don't have the capability to synthesize Vitamin C, we can get scurvy. Our predicted ancestors had this function (as do all animals except primates and guinea pigs).  Therefore, we predicted this, not assume it, as you claim. humans, primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character. We looked for it and found it.

We found a lot of details to support that conclusion.

What does your theory look for?

What has your theory found?

What does your theory predict about the details we will find in  DNA.

You have nothing.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:20   

Quote
Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance?

You don't need to know anything whatsoever about the language to make this determination, Dave. And it is far from true that biologists know nothing at all about the genetic code. In fact, they may not know what all the "paragraphs" (i.e., genes) in the genetic code mean, but they sure know what the "words" (i.e., codons) mean.


Are you saying that this is what has been found?  I did not understand that from the findings of the authors below ...

My knowledge of this
Quote
All we really know is that ... (a) it is somewhat similar to the functional rat GLO gene (149 out of 647 substitutions when comparing humans to rats, 96 out of 647 substitutions when comparing guinea pigs to rats),

comes from this
Quote
Inai, Y., Ohta, Y. and Nishikimi, M., The whole structure of the human non-functional L-gulono-ã-lactone oxidase gene—the gene responsible for scurvy—and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon, J. Nutritional Science and Vitaminology (Tokyo) 49(5):315–319, 2003.


Apparently we do not have a situation of identical sequences if I am reading this correctly.  Or maybe there is another study that I could not find which states that the human and ape GLO genes ARE identical?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:22   

Quote (improvius @ May 11 2006,11:13)
Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ...

Well, since the single greatest contributing factor to the Holocaust is over a thousand years of Christians hating Jews, Christianity is the obvious answer.

It seems you are disregarding the facts in favor of a pet theory.  Here's a hint: if your pet theory is in conflict with known facts, then it's probably your theory that's wrong - not the facts.

I've linked to this before, but this should clarify a lot, as well as disposing of the idea that the Holocaust was all some Catholic conspiracy and had nothing to do with Protestants:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor3

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:35   

Again ... IF we find the GLO gene sequences identical (or very close) in apes (I think we only have rat, human and GP currently), why does this prove common descent of apes and humans?  We do not KNOW that the human (and presumable ape) manifestation is in fact an "error" because we don't know the genetic language well enough yet.  All we know is that BOTH apes and humans cannot synthesize Vitamin C.  It is and ASSUMPTION to say that "see it's because their GLO gene is broken."  How can you say that?  Maybe that's was never intended to BE a GLO gene in the first place.  You don't know because you don't know the language well enough yet.

My bet is that when we DO learn the language well enough, we will see it has a purpose far different that Vitamin C production.

Here's another analogy ...

Do you think that "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" means that the second sentence is somehow "broken"??  Of course not.  They are both valid sentences but they mean ENTIRELY different things.

Also, in our language, the same words can mean two different things in different contexts, i.e. "bark" (dog) and "bark" (on a tree).

I really think Dr. Max is making a bad analogy and assuming too many things.

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

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:46   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:35)
Again ... IF we find the GLO gene sequences identical (or very close) in apes (I think we only have rat, human and GP currently), why does this prove common descent of apes and humans?  We do not KNOW that the human (and presumable ape) manifestation is in fact an "error" because we don't know the genetic language well enough yet.  All we know is that BOTH apes and humans cannot synthesize Vitamin C.  It is and ASSUMPTION to say that "see it's because their GLO gene is broken."  How can you say that?  Maybe that's was never intended to BE a GLO gene in the first place.  You don't know because you don't know the language well enough yet.

My bet is that when we DO learn the language well enough, we will see it has a purpose far different that Vitamin C production.

Here's another analogy ...

Do you think that "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" means that the second sentence is somehow "broken"??  Of course not.  They are both valid sentences but they mean ENTIRELY different things.

Also, in our language, the same words can mean two different things in different contexts, i.e. "bark" (dog) and "bark" (on a tree).

I really think Dr. Max is making a bad analogy and assuming too many things.

AFdave:

Can you tell me what a "frameshift mutation" is?

Can you tell me the significance of a frameshift mutation?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:53   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,11:35)
Do you think that "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" means that the second sentence is somehow "broken"??

What if "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" were two sentences from two different novels that were 95+% similar?

You seem to be forgetting the Vitamin C stuff happens in that kind of context.

And it's not a rat and an ape -- it's the guinea pig and primates and there are a lot of primates and  a lot of variation and variation in the Vitamin C DNA.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,11:20)
Quote
Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance?


Are you saying that this is what has been found?  I did not understand that from the findings of the authors below ...

Yeah. Look at the cytochrome c gene.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:22   

Quote
Can you tell me what a "frameshift mutation" is?
Can you tell me the significance of a frameshift mutation?

Somewhat familiar ... I can read up on it quickly if I need to ...

But go ahead ... why is that significant here?  I honestly want to understand this

Quote
Yeah. Look at the cytochrome c gene.
I thought were talking about the GLO gene which supposedly formerly allowed Vit C production in primates, but now is broken and does not anymore.  Why do you mention Cytochrome C genes?

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:36   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 11 2006,10:59)
Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance?

Okay, lets take a human (or God?) example:

From Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason":
Quote

... look at the first three verses in Ezra, and the last two in 2 Chronicles; for by what kind of cutting and shuffling has it been that the first three verses in Ezra should be the last two verses in 2 Chronicles, or that the last two in 2 Chronicles should be the first three in Ezra? Either the authors did not know their own works or the compilers did not know the authors.

Last Two Verses of 2 Chronicles.

Ver. 22. Now in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word of the Lord, spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying.

earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up. ***

First Three Verses of Ezra.

Ver. 1. Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord, by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying.

2. Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

3. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem.

*** The last verse in Chronicles is broken abruptly, and ends in the middle of the phrase with the word 'up' without signifying to what place. This abrupt break, and the appearance of the same verses in different books, show as I have already said, the disorder and ignorance in which the Bible has been put together, and that the compilers of it had no authority for what they were doing, nor we any authority for believing what they have done. [NOTE I observed, as I passed along, several broken and senseless passages in the Bible, without thinking them of consequence enough to be introduced in the body of the work; such as that, 1 Samuel xiii. 1, where it is said, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men," etc. The first part of the verse, that Saul reigned one year has no sense, since it does not tell us what Saul did, nor say any thing of what happened at the end of that one year; and it is, besides, mere absurdity to say he reigned one year, when the very next phrase says he had reigned two for if he had reigned two, it was impossible not to have reigned one.


If god edits the Bible poorly, why should we expect him  to edit DNA any better?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:40   

Quote
What if "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" were two sentences from two different novels that were 95+% similar?

You seem to be forgetting the Vitamin C stuff happens in that kind of context.


No I'm not forgetting.  But OK.  Let's write a "novel" describing how to make a pine tree and another "novel" that describes how to make an oak tree.  OK?

HOW TO MAKE A PINE TREE
Start with a 50 foot long piece of soft wood.  Add some rough bark.  Poke it upright in the ground.  Add some kinda straight branches that angle down.  Add leaves that are thin and poky.  Etc. Etc.

Voila!  Pine Tree!

HOW TO MAKE AN OAK TREE
Start with a 50 foot long piece of hard wood.  Add some semi-rough bark.  Poke it upright in the ground.  Add some kinda crooked branches that angle up.  Add leaves that are broad and smooth.  Etc. Etc.

Voila!  Oak Tree!

Now ... notice they are 95% (or so) similar?  Do they share a common ancestor?  No.  I assembled them in my backyard with raw materials following these highly detailed instructions. (I didn't really, but I could have)

The burden of proof for Common Descent seems to me to be much more difficult that the burden of proof on Common Design.

Thoughts?

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:46   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,12:40)
... notice they are 95% (or so) similar?  Do they share a common ancestor?  No.

Wrong again, pine breath! You are the common ancestor of both.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:49   

Quote
The burden of proof for Common Descent seems to me to be much more difficult that the burden of proof on Common Design
It's hard to judge as you haven't presented any evidence for common design.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:08   

Quote
Wrong again, pine breath! You are the common ancestor of both.

Hey watch it, oak breath ... I am the common DESIGNER of both :-)

Quote
It's hard to judge as you haven't presented any evidence for common design.
This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!  And tell your friends to quit throwing fire bombs and at least listen .... then make judgment.

That's the hard part -- even getting people to listen --because most people are so set in their thinking.

Well ... I'm quitting until evening ... so I guess I'm gonna start losing now by default.

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:10   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,13:08)
I am the common DESIGNER of both :-)

Ever heard  of "self-plagerism"?

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:15   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,14:08)
This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!  

The ID movement has been telling us to stay tuned for 20+ years.  You've been telling us to stay tuned for several days.  How long are we supposed to wait for the earth shattering research that ID is doing?  Or are you willing to admit that ID is doing nothing but PR, and you're doing nothing but stalling?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:33   

Why do we believe that gene deletion in L-gulonolactone oxidase causes vitamin C deficiency?  Because we have observed this happening in other species.

Link to abstract.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:38   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,12:40)
The burden of proof for Common Descent seems to me to be much more difficult that the burden of proof on Common Design.

Thoughts?

Do a little research into nested hierarchies, Dave.

Yes, it's true, nested hierarchies don't prove God doesn't exists. Nothing proves God doesn't exist.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:04   

AFDave says
Quote
It appears that no one accepts the evidence for a Creator I have given so far, so we will explore that some and find out why ...


Easy.  It's because you haven't provided one shred of evidence, just lots of claims based on your own personal incredulity and ignorance.

Personal incredulity and ignorance will never be considered evidence Dave.  Haven't you had this explained to you at least half a dozen times on this board so far?

Quote
I will be posting some questions there directly out of a children's book about evolution ...


Given your demonstrated level of scientific understanding, I'd say that's just about right for you. :p

--------------
"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.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:11   

Quote
This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!  
Most of the spokespeople of the ID movement seem to accept common descent.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:12   

Re "And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?"

Maybe the engineer who implemented the design just used a prior existing life form as a starting point, and the one he/she/it picked just happened to have that gene broke?

Henry

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:24   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,12:22)
Quote
Can you tell me what a "frameshift mutation" is?
Can you tell me the significance of a frameshift mutation?

Somewhat familiar ... I can read up on it quickly if I need to ...
But go ahead ... why is that significant here?  I honestly want to understand this

"Joystick? Altimeter? Throttle? Those sound somewhat familiar. I can look them up if I need to.

Now pay attention while I teach you how to fly a plane."

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:41   

Quote (thurdl01 @ May 11 2006,13:15)
The ID movement has been telling us to stay tuned for 20+ years.

An interesting new google feature lets you track trends:
http://www.google.com/trends

I tried "Intelligent Design":
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Intelligent+Design

It peaks when there is a trial, but has otherwise remained flat and low.

"Creationism" scores better over time but doesn't peak as high:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Creationism

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,11:07   

Quote
Maybe the engineer who implemented the design just used a prior existing life form as a starting point, and the one he/she/it picked just happened to have that gene broke?
No, that still wouldn't explain the nested structure of the hierarchy. Let's say, for instance, that The Designer's project for the day is primates. So He picks a prior existing primate or proto-primate genome, tweaks it here and there, and - poof! - a gorilla; tweaks it a little differently, and - poof! - a chimp; a little differently again, and - poof! - a lemur. So the original prototype had a defect in the GLO. You might expect all these primates to get it, perhaps decorated with extra mutations either randomly or intentionally introduced. But why would you get a set of mutations that are almost the same comparing chimp to human, mostly the same comparing (chimp/human) to  gorilla, less so comparing (chimp/human)/gorilla) to lemur?

It would make sense if The Designer started with a common prototype for chimp and human, and that prototype was derived from a previous prototype from which the gorilla was also developed, which was derived from a previous prototype from which the lemur was also developed. In other words, it would make sense if The Designer was... evolution.

I believe AFdave is trying to tell us that the evidence fits the "common designer hypothesis" better than the "common descent hypothesis". So far all we've got is if you make all kinds of excuses and ad hoc fixes, you could conceive of a Designer mimicking the results that evolution predicts occurring naturally. Call me closed-minded, but I just don't find that very convincing.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,11:47   

Right. And that line of reasoning brings us right back to parsimony. You can add God, The Designer, Kali, FSM, what have you, to a model, any model, and... it does nothing. It's just a redundant loop. The model suffers not a bit if the loop is removed, and so we see no need for God in any scientific hypothesis.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,16:36   

Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,13<!--emo&:0)
Quote
Wrong again, pine breath! You are the common ancestor of both.

Hey watch it, oak breath ... I am the common DESIGNER of both :-)

Quote
It's hard to judge as you haven't presented any evidence for common design.
This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!  And tell your friends to quit throwing fire bombs and at least listen .... then make judgment.

That's the hard part -- even getting people to listen --because most people are so set in their thinking.

Well ... I'm quitting until evening ... so I guess I'm gonna start losing now by default.

AFDave, we HAVE listened.  You have provided us with nothing.  Neither have the others that have come here breathless with cut & paste rubbish from AIG, eager to show us that degrees in biology mean nothing.  The very nature of scientists is that they are not set in their ways.  They love controversy, and feast on new information.  You, on the other hand, are frustrated because we anticipate the bad science and pseudo science you're trying to sell.  We have heard this before.  Many of us have asked these very questions of our HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY teachers.  Your poor education leaves you unprepared to question the nonsense you have been funneled from AIG.  We're still listening...  But we don't have to be patient.


Quote
Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii.
Quote

I just LOVE this one!  My kids got a great laugh too.


P.S. did your wife and kids have a giggle when they read the paper by Hasan L, Vogeli P, Stoll P, Kramer SS, Stranzinger G, Neuenschwander S.?  I knew you would love it, but did they?  I mean, y'all ARE doing the homework, not just trolling, right?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,17:25   

Quote (Seven Popes @ May 09 2006,11:54)
Oh fer Gods sake.
500 scientists?
This tard-tacular chestnut again???
Ask how many of those scientists were actually biologists, or part of a related field.
Ask what they actually signed.  Read the document.
Ask how many scientists named "Steve" believe in ToE.(last time I checked, it was over 700.)
AFDave, you need to filter.
You have learned nothing.
You however HAVE absorbed one tiny bucketfull, but shouldn't you do a little critical reading before posting?  Please don't troll with your cut and paste from websites who are lying for their deity.  It makes you no better than they are.
Learn to Google.
Edit: Scientists named Steve.

I read your posts and couldn't find where you responded to this, Hope you will soon.  Still waiting ???  ???  ???

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,02:49   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2006,15:27)

The English also pronounce 'Calais' as 'cally'. Ouch.

Funny. I've lived in the UK for over 16 years now and I've yet to encounter a local who doesn't pronounce Calais in the same way that the French do; (ie 'callay' ).

But then knowing how hopeless the English are at learning and speaking foreign languages it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they did.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,03:14   

I think people from some places probably do (ie liverpool), but most people pronouce it correctly.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,05:06   

AFDave wrote:
Quote
How do you explain the similarity of the GLO gene "defects" of humans and guinea pigs? (you knew I was going to go here, didn't you)  Apparently, something like 36% of the substitutions are the same when compared to the functional rat GLO gene.  If we assume that there is some pro-simian ancestor that has a functional GLO gene, then it would appear that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to this pro-simian ancestor.  This would seem to defy the evolutionary scenario.  How do you explain this?
If you're seriously interested in exploring this, you'll need to give a reference for the data. It's not in the Max paper.

Of course, it's possible that you're not serious about exploring it, but that you just wanted to throw out some mumbo-jumbo with numbers in it, to appear as if you have a clue.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,06:58   

Good morning everyone--

We are getting close to wrapping up this thread and I feel it is an important thread because the differences between apes and humans are in fact immense, and whether you realize it or not, there are many major issues riding on the answer to the question, "Common Descent or Common Design?"  

The bottom line, of course, is ...

IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator.  Humans are free to believe in one, or pretend there is one, or whatever.  None of the 'God talk' really matters much and those who don't care to participate in 'God think' are free to leave 'Him' completely out of their thoughts and discussions.  There is no afterlife, no heaven, no ####, no judgment for actions in this life, and the best we can do is live in harmony with our fellow man and have a good time until we die.  And when we die, that's the end of the story.

However, IF Common Design is true, then this raises a whole string of potentially life changing questions.  What is this Designer like?  Is it one Designer?  Or many?  If He designed ME, does he want anything from me?  The Creation myths are well known ... could there be any truth to any of them?  After all, there is one in particular that speaks of a Creator God who will someday hold humans accountable for their actions.  Could there be any truth to this?  Could it be that the Creator God spoken of in the Bible might in fact be one and the same as the Designer of the Cosmos and Biological Systems for which evidence continues to mount?

I think it was Renier (can't remember for sure) who said that he "used to be a YEC fundy" but is no longer because of the Vitamin C issue.

Just to recap yesterday ... Talk Origins has two relevant articles that I found

(1)  Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy
by Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D.

and

(2)  29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, Part 2: Past History
Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters

Abstracts for the 3 articles referred to by the second article are as follows:
Quote
Abstracts from Talk Origins:  29+ Evidences - Vitamin C Pseudogene

1: J Biol Chem. 1992 Oct 25;267(30):21967-72. Related Articles, Links  
Guinea pigs possess a highly mutated gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the key enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in this species.
Nishikimi M, Kawai T, Yagi K.
Institute of Applied Biochemistry, Yagi Memorial Park, Gifu, Japan.
Guinea pigs cannot synthesize L-ascorbic acid because of their deficiency in L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, a key enzyme for the biosynthesis of this vitamin in higher animals. In this study we isolated the L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene of the rat and the homologue of this gene of the guinea pig by screening rat and guinea pig genomic DNA libraries in lambda phage vectors, respectively, using a rat L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase cDNA as a probe. Sequencing analysis showed that the amino acid sequence of the rat enzyme is encoded by 12 exons and that all the intron/exon boundaries follow the GT/AG rule. On the other hand, regions corresponding to exons I and V were not identified in the guinea pig L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene homologue. Other defects found in this gene homologue are a deletion of the nucleotide sequence corresponding to a 3' 84-base pair part of rat exon VI, a 2-base pair deletion in the remaining exon VI-related region, and nonconformance to the GT/AG rule at one of the putative intron/exon boundaries. Furthermore, a large number of mutations were found in the amino acid-coding regions of the guinea pig sequence; more than half of them lead to nonconservative amino acid changes, and there are three stop codons as well. Thus it is clear that the guinea pig homologue of the L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene exists as a pseudogene that randomly accumulated a large number of mutations without functional constraint since the gene ceased to be active during evolution. On the basis of the neutral theory of evolution, the date of the loss of L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase in the ancestors of the guinea pig was roughly calculated to be less than 20 million years ago.

J Biol Chem. 1994 May 6;269(18):13685-8. Related Articles, Links  
Cloning and chromosomal mapping of the human nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in man.
Nishikimi M, Fukuyama R, Minoshima S, Shimizu N, Yagi K.
Institute of Applied Biochemistry, Yagi Memorial Park, Gifu, Japan.
Man is among the exceptional higher animals that are unable to synthesize L-ascorbic acid because of their deficiency in L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme catalyzing the terminal step in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis. In the present study, we isolated a segment of the nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene from a human genomic library, and mapped it on chromosome 8p21.1 by spot blot hybridization using flow-sorted human chromosomes and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Sequencing analysis indicated that the isolated segment represented a 3'-part of the gene, where the regions corresponding to exons VII, IX, X, and XII of the rat L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene remain with probable deletion of the regions corresponding to exons VIII and XI. In the identified exon regions were found various anomalous nucleotide changes, such as deletion and insertion of nucleotide(s) and nonconformance to the GT/AG rule at intron/exon boundaries. When the conceptual amino acid sequences deduced from the four exon sequences were compared with the corresponding rat sequences, there were a large number of nonconservative substitutions and also two stop codons. These findings indicate that the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene has accumulated a large number of mutations without selective pressure since it ceased to function during evolution.

Biochimica Biophysica Acta, International Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics,(ISSN: 00063002) 1999 Oct 18;1472(1-2):408-11.  Related Articles, Links
Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis.
Ohta Y, Nishikimi M.
Department of Biochemistry, Wakayama Medical College, Japan.
Humans and other primates have no functional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase that catalyzes the last step of L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis. The 164-nucleotide sequence of exon X of the gene was compared among human, chimpanzee, orangutan, and macaque, and it was found that nucleotide substitutions had occurred at random throughout the sequence with a single nucleotide deletion, indicating that the primate L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase genes are a typical example of pseudogene.



The first article above compares the functional rat GLO gene with the supposedly homologous guinea pig GLO gene and finds significant differences.  They say "Thus it is clear that the guinea pig homologue of the L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene exists as a pseudogene that randomly accumulated a large number of mutations without functional constraint since the gene ceased to be active during evolution."

The second article does the same comparison for rats and humans and concludes ... "These findings indicate that the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene has accumulated a large number of mutations without selective pressure since it ceased to function during evolution."

The third article does the same comparison among humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques, and it was found that "nucleotide substitutions had occurred at random throughout the sequence with a single nucleotide deletion, indicating that the primate L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase genes are a typical example of pseudogene."

Dr. Max draws on these findings and compares the situation to a copyright court case.  His argument is that since apes and humans have the same "errors" in the "broken GLO gene", this shows that apes and humans have a common ancestor.

Now this has one HUGE assumption which appears to me to be entirely unwarranted.  now maybe it is warranted,  but no one gave me any reasons that it should be yesterday

DR. MAX's HUGE ASSUMPTION
The apparently homologous "GLO gene" in humans, primates and guinea pigs used to function to produce Vitamin C, but now no longer does.  As such this constitutes a "broken gene" caused by random mutation.  My question is ... why do you assume these 3 organisms EVER had a functioning GLO gene?  Maybe this gene DOES HAVE a function which we just don't know about.  After all, we are seeing a dramatic reversal in the area of pseudogenes.  Scientists are all of a sudden finding all kinds of purpose for them.  Do a Google Scholar search to see this.

Does anyone have any good arguments for why this is a good assumption to make?

Because Dr. Max's whole argument rests on this being a valid assumption.  If it is not valid, then his whole argument fails.

OK ... now tell me ... why is this assumption valid?

(By the way, Tom Ames, I didn't see that frame shift mutations have anything to do with this discussion, but please correct me if I am wrong)

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

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,07:13   

Oh, I get it.  It was my mistaken impression that I passed an accident on the highway this morning.  Since I only saw a rim and no tire, it was my mistaken hypothesis that the van's front left tire had blown, rendering the vehicle inoperable.  It is now apparent to me that: (1) it was never a van, but was always a heavily modified, only-non-functioning-to-the-untrained-eye tricycle; (2) the empty rim was just for decoration or for some other purpose that we can't possibly know, given how little we know about motor vehicles; and (3) the driver hadn't lost control and veered wildly into the guardrail, but had instead parked that way for a similarly unknowable purpose.  Gotcha.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,07:16   

I mean gosh incorygible, that was such a HUGE unfounded assumption. I hope you've learned your lesson. It's equally likely the whole scene with the van was arranged ex nihilo by a magical being for inscrutable reasons. You're so stupid.

   
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,07:26   

Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2006,12:16)
I mean gosh incorygible, that was such a HUGE unfounded assumption. I hope you've learned your lesson. It's equally likely the whole scene with the van was arranged ex nihilo by a magical being for inscrutable reasons. You're so stupid.

I know, I know.  However, in my defense, I *did* allow the outside possibility for exactly that.  Maybe some benevolent aerial muse wanted to give me fodder for analogy today.  (####!  Now I'm really dumb!  I just broke the first rule of ID Club and tried to contemplate the motives and properties of an unknowable designer!;)  It was also  *conceivable* that the scene had been designed by a known intelligent agency, perhaps to film a movie or destract authorities from a heist or...  But in my silly scientific fashion, I observed all I could and applied parsimony in the analysis.  Whoops.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,07:39   

Whate makes me laff the most is the idiotic assertion by some religionists that goes something like

"If it is true there is not god, then nothing matters, we can rape all the white women and murder is ok"

It is as if their whole morality is based on the bible and they simply check their intelligence at the door.  They seem to believe that a belief in (or more like fear of) god is the moral fabric that keeps us from killing one another.

I laff and laff everytime I read such utter nonsense.

My bias - I do not belive in gods.  Stranger yet,  I do not kill, rape, steal, lie, cheat or even vote republican.  Even weirder I have on more than one occassion been accused of being a very good father to my two children.  How in the world is someone like me, an admitted atheist, able to resist killing, stealing, raping, lying, and cheating without the bible or jeebus to tell me what is right and wrong and generally do my thinking for me?  

It still gets weirder.  I have a lot of friends who are believers and others who like me reject the god thing.  My godless pals have all been able to refrain from raping, murdering, stealing, lying and not one has ever adused any children.  Strange but true.

How can this be?  It boggles the mind!

But I am happy people like aftard keep their religious notions, otherwise by their own admission they would have no moral compass which implies they would likely become murdering, raping, thieving lunatics and we simply can't have that.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,07:51   

My point regarding frameshift mutations is this: you claimed that "we" don't understand enough of the "DNA language" to  know that the human GULOP pseudogene is homologous to certain other genes in other organisms.

I asked a very basic question about the kinds of mutations we frequently see in these kinds of situations. You'd never heard of them.

I submit that the fact that YOU don't understand the "DNA language" does not mean that no-one else does.

If you're really interested in understanding the evidence for the homology between GULOP and GLO, you'll need to do some research. If you're more intent on drawing a scientific conclusion based on its moral consequences, then this whole conversation becomes somewhat pointless. Don't you think?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,07:54   

Christopher, they're basically admitting they're psychopaths.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,08:01   

Poor afdave's faith in God is so weak that it is completely dashed upon accepting common descent.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,08:10   

Well, at least he's being honest and not hiding the god part. I'd love to see him go over to Uncommonly Dense and explain to Davetard, who believes in common descent, that Davetard and Michael Behe, who believes in common descent, are wrong. But we all know what happened last time.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,08:21   

RE: Max's "Huge Assumption"
It's not Max's assumption. It's the basis of the Nishikimi work and hundreds - thousands -  of papers with which the Nishikimi papers mesh, if you care to start reading the references. It's called "evolution", and it provides a framework for understanding why Nishikimi's group coud reasonably expect to find homologs to gulo sequences in the primate and guinea pig genomes.

What is your explanation as to why these similar sequences exist, if their function was never the same?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,08:27   

Quote
The bottom line, of course, is ...

IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator.  Humans are free ...
And this has what to do with whether or not common descent is true?

Quote
After all, we are seeing a dramatic reversal in the area of pseudogenes.  Scientists are all of a sudden finding all kinds of purpose for them.
How does the fact that some pseudogenes have function change that they were one a gene that produced a protein for something else?

Please explain why you think common design explains the evidence better than common descent?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,08:38   

Russell, you know what the response to that's going to be, don't you? If you don't, here's a hint:



   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,09:30   

Quote
However, IF Common Design is true, then this raises a whole string of potentially life changing questions.  What is this Designer like?  Is it one Designer?  Or many?  If He designed ME, does he want anything from me?


No it doesn't. My life wouldn't change one bit.

When god comes down and appologizes for all the crap people have done in his name, then I'll forgive her maybe. Until then, there is not one single shred of hard evidence that god is in any way interested in life on this planet so the designer hypothesis is at best irrelevant. What is relevant to science at least, is looking at the way things work and figuring out the mechanisms and characteristics of them.

I have read this thread patiently, waiting for you to utter an informed sentence Mr. Dave, but, not to my total surprise, you haven't. You are so totally lacking in the fundemental understanding of the entire subject you are taking on that there is no point arguing these finer details.

If you can tell me things like:

What is the geology of the area you live? When did it start to look like it does now?

What fossils have been discovered that fit into that time scale?

Why do specific flora and fauna (plants and animals-sorry) live in particular places? Why do they move around geographically as climate changes?

What does a top level predator provide to an ecosystem?

Why is there a system of ridges and trenches under the oceans? What do they signify?

Why do scientists think that dinosaurs existed? Why do they think it was so long ago? How do they arive at that belief?

Why do you think that echinoderms as varied as a sea slug and a starfish share certain characteristics but other similar creatures like molluscs (I'm thinking particularly about squid or octopus) don't share those same characteristics?

What does the magnetic orientation of rocks on the sea floor tell us?

And other questions like these I would be surprised. My bet is that at least half of those questions you can't answer off the top of your head. My other bet is that most of the sciency types here can answer all of those questions off the top of their head and that at least some can point out the problem with one of those questions.

Until you can gain that basic knowledge, you really can't discuss finer and more nuanced details that relate to those questions. Chimps and humans question really encompasses all of them to some degree.

Anybody else? Help me out here.

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

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,10:12   

Well, this won't be the first time I've pointed this out, but evidently it bears repeating: AFDave simply is not competent even to engage in discussions on these topics (I think most people here will agree that if someone believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, he or she is simply not competent to discuss any scientific topic).

But Dave seems to believe that, by dint of a few trips to the AiG website and a few quick Google searches, he can get up to speed. Well (in the immortal words of Malcolm Reynolds), he can't.

I'm not a trained scientist (not by a long shot), but I have read extensively in the sciences on my own over the past 30 years or so, and have at least a layman's understanding of most disciplines (chemistry is probably my biggest weakness). In all that reading, I've come to an understanding of and an appreciation for how scientific evidence from widely disparate scientific disciplines is mutually confirmatory and reinforcing.

For example, let's look at the earth's age. Dave's Bible tells him the earth is 6,000 years old. But there's no evidence from any other area of knowledge that confirms or reinforces that belief. On the other hand, the true age of the earth (4.6 billion years, plus or minus a hundred million or so) is confirmed from almost every branch of science: astronomy, cosmology, geology, chemistry, physics, biology, paleontology. It's not just that there's a mountain of evidence for the earth's age. More important, in fact, is that all that evidence, coming from multiple independent directions (and there's no inherent reason why any of it should converge on any particular value), points to the same value, within a few percent.

I told Dave a while ago that if he wants to disprove, e.g., the earth's > 10^9-year age, he can't just find flaws in a few pieces of evidence here and there. He'd have to comprehensively refute as much as 90% of it, because the remaining 10% is probably enough to clinch the argument. Given Dave's overall scientific ignorance, he doesn't have a prayer of doing that. Which should be obvious, given that the overwhelming scientific consensus (the opinions of people who actually are competent to evaluate the evidence) is that the earth is close to six orders of magnitude older than the Bible says it is.

This is the part Dave doesn't get. That, and the fact that you can't just become an instant expert in some area of science by reading a few articles on the web.

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

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,10:13   

Dave, I sense a genuine fear on your part that “IF no Creator God, THEN anarchy and chaos”. But why can’t you see that it is incomplete to cast the choice as “either-or”.

Quote
The bottom line, of course, is ...

IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator.

This is plainly false. Many happy theists believe that God caused the Big Bang and then just sat back to see what happened. And as it turned out, WE happened. And God is OK with that, (although He was really hoping to see what the dinosaurs would become.) It’s called Theistic Evolution. Your insistence is not only that “Goddidit” but specifically, “Goddiditthisway”. If you’re talking about GOD, who is omnipotent, it is unseemly of you to presume to limit His methods.

The point here is that, as you yourself have admitted,

Quote
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.

Well said. So, no matter what you do, belief in a Creator will always HAVE to be an article of faith.

Why not adopt a faith that is more congenial to the facts?

And before you sputter, “One does not change faiths so casually, bub!” I would point out that your research has not been all that casual. You’ve read a lot on the topic, and are fairly well versed in the broad issues, but you are suffering from trying to fit the evidence to your conclusions, rather than adjust your conclusions based on the evidence.

You’re a researching kind of a guy; do a little research into the >1200 religions active in the US and find the one that is most like yours now, except for the biblical literalism part.

People change faiths every day, and nothing bad happens to them because of it.

Just a thought.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,10:48   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 12 2006,12:39)
"If it is true there is not god, then nothing matters, we can rape all the white women and murder is ok"

It is as if their whole morality is based on the bible and they simply check their intelligence at the door.  They seem to believe that a belief in (or more like fear of) god is the moral fabric that keeps us from killing one another.

I see that argument all the time. What's even weirder is that they essentially admit that their religion is the only thing keeping them from killing or robbing everyone, and then act like this makes them BETTER people than 'nonbelievers'. I've never been able to make any sense of that at all.

And another thing that happens is when someone attacks you for being an atheist using that same argument. It goes like this:

1) there is no morality without belief in a supreme being. God is the only thing keeping us from going out and killing everyone.

2) you do not believe in God.

3) therefore there is nothing keeping YOU from going out and killing and raping people

4) therefore, YOU are a horrible person who is about to go out and kill people.

5) This proves that atheists are all violent, amoral people!


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,10:57   

Quote (afdave @ May 12 2006,11:58)
Does anyone have any good arguments for why this is a good assumption to make?

Suppose you see a man who is missing half of his ring finger. It ends at the first joint, with what looks like an obvious scar.

Do you conclude that he used to have a complete finger, like everyone else, and somehow lost the end? Or do you decide he was probably designed that way on purpose, because having half a finger serves some important function for him?

By the way - I'm another non-believer who has yet to kill or rape someone. Is there a list I should sign, or something?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,11:04   

AFDave,

Now that I go back and read the list I wrote, I am more curious than when I wrote it. Can you answer these questions?

Others here: Can you answer those questions?

(Without a reference)

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

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,11:31   

The first question is a little vague. Your second question (first line), and therefore the third one, are subjective (you say "look like").
These questions aside, I could answer the others.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,11:40   

But you could also probably talk about the first and second intelligently though, right?

And they are quite elementary to science in general, (earth and life sciences) right?

Anyone with an undergrad degree in some earth or life science could answer them, right?

And, there wouldn't be any disagreement over the answers (other than the vagueness of the one), right?

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

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,11:42   

Great idea.  I'll call it the Dissent from Ignorant Fundy Dumb@55es list.

It will start with something like

"We are skeptical of ignorant fundamentalist claims that atheists and other free thinkers are prone to violence, unhappiness, selfishness, and lead lives of criminal or other anti-social behaviour. Careful examination of the evidence for atheists being moral, decent citizens who lead fulfilling and meaningful lives should be encouraged"

What do you think?  Who wants to sign it? :-)

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,11:52   

Quote
Others here: Can you answer those questions?
Yes, but I'm not sure what the one answer to the "top level predator" question should be.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,11:59   

Quote
why do you assume these 3 organisms EVER had a functioning GLO gene?  Maybe this gene DOES HAVE a function which we just don't know about.

Dave, we won't convince you that this gene doesn't have a function because it's virtually impossible to prove a negative.
Even it we could remove the gene and show you that this doesn't change anything in the phenotype, you would come and say "maybe it changed something we can't see".

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,12:13   

Quote (BWE @ May 12 2006,16<!--emo&:0)
AFDave,

Now that I go back and read the list I wrote, I am more curious than when I wrote it. Can you answer these questions?

Others here: Can you answer those questions?

(Without a reference)

Okay, I'll give your questions a try (without any research or reference to anything other than the questions themselves). And, before you laugh, keep in mind that I don't have an undergraduate degree in anything:

1) I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. The geology of the area is largely the result of the Pacific plate grinding up against the North American plate along the San Andreas fault. The terrane I live on is largely comprised of the Franciscan melange, mixed in with what appear to be large bits and pieces broken off of the Smartville Block which underlies most of the Central Valley in California. The geology of the San Francisco Bay Area is on the order of five million years old, and is comprised of sediments and metamorphic rocks of widespread provenance spread over much of the pacific rim.

2) Most of the fossils in the immediate area of marine origin, mostly dating from the late cretaceous/early Cenozoic.

3) This question is a bit vague, but often various speciation events are the result of geographical/climatological isolation events. Obviously climatological changes will result in differing habitat ranges. An example would be the northerly drift of many commercially-important fish like cod and salmon, which have drifted north as the climate has warmed up. Also, organisms can become reproductively isolated over longer timespans due to tectonic forces operating on continental landmasses.

4) Again, the question is somewhat vague and has more than one potential answer, but one thing a top-level predator in an ecosystem provides is selection pressure on its prey. Of course, it also provides population control.

5) Ridges and trenches are the result of tectonic activity involving the earth's crust and convection cells in the mantle. Trenches result when one oceanic plate subducts under another, as in the Cayman Trench and the Marianas Trench. The most famous spreading center is undoubtedly the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where upwelling magma creates a spreading center that runs the entire length of the Atlantic. As one moves away from the ridge, one encounters progressively older crustal material. A further observation would be that as the Mid-Antlantic Ridge creates new oceanic crust, the Atlantic Ocean gets larger, while subduction trenches in the Pacific make that ocean smaller.

6) Scientists believe that dinosaurs existed because they see abundant evidence for their existence in the numerous fossils they have discovered, deposited during the ~180 million years that dinosaurs existed (from ~220 mya until ~65 mya).

Estimates for the age of dinosaur fossils result from several converging lines of evidence, principally stratological estimates derived from estimates of sedimentation rates, along with radiological data. Also, estimates of mutation rates along with investigations into primitive and derived characteristics provide additional calibration for the dates of various fossils.

7) In general, the answer to this question probably involves the concept of nested hierarchies. To use an example AFDave should be able to understand: bats and birds seem superficially more similar than bats and chimps. However, cladistically bats nest more readily with chimps than with birds, because bats and chimps diverged more recently than bats and birds. While there are no mammals with feathers (a primitive characteristic), there are indeed mammals with wings (a derived characteristic).

8) The magnetic orientation of the seabed gives us evidence that the polarity of the earth's magnetic field has reversed numerous times over the earth's lifetime, with an irregular period of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. As seabed formed from oceanic spreading centers, the intrinsic magnetism of the rock "froze" in a particular orientation as the magma cooled. The stripes of opposing magnetic orientation in the seafloor moving outwards from spreading centers provides evidence for the creation of new seafloor at spreading centers and for reverses in the earth's magnetic field.

I'm sure there are more than a few errors here, but again, I did no research whatsoever to answer these questions; my answers are literally off the top of my head. So I won't take corrections to this post badly. And any corrections won't present a huge challenge to my world-view, either. After all, if I doubt your criticisms, I can always find out what the scientific consensus is.

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,12:34   

Quote (Joe the Ordinary Guy @ May 12 2006,15:13)
Dave, I sense a genuine fear on your part that “IF no Creator God, THEN anarchy and chaos”. But why can’t you see that it is incomplete to cast the choice as “either-or”.

Poor afdave, you guys have really piled on him.

There's a point here, Dave. Just because evolutionary theories contradict a literal, fundy stile reading of your Bible doesn't mean there is no God (other things might there is no God -- and I think they do -- but not evolution). The universe could still have been brought into existence by something like God and then designed so that it would bring forth life.

There is a huge variety of ways people reconcile religion and science. You just haven't thought this through.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,12:46   

Whether spreading centers originate with convection cells in the mantle is in a little bit of controversy.  It's arguable that the subducting plates, pulled down by their cold, heavy, vater-infiltrated weight, are instead tugging open the spreading centers, which are then filled by unroofed mantle, which creates a void which then draws further mantle up from lower, higher-pressure areas, rather than the upwelling mantle "pushing" the spreading centers open.
Folks may wish to google Don Anderson, G. Foulger, top-down tectonics, and terms like that, or just go to mantlepumes.com, if they want to learn more about a REAL scientific controversy...  Doesn't mean the "top-downers" are RIGHT, of course, but it's an interesting example of what could be a paradigm-transition.
But generally I appreciated the answers to afdave about the geology of the San Andreas Fault, etc.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,13:04   

Well, here are my answers to your questions BWE.

Brittany (where I live) is an old mountain chain, the Armorican mountains. It's the result of the Hercynian (or was it Caledonian?) orogenesis which occurred during the Paleozoic era. Since then, it has been eroded to its impressive 400 m of maximum altitude.

Fossils: well not much since this is a granitic region, but during that timescale (from Paleozoic to present), a lot of species lived and died.

Species live in a particular places for:
- Ecological reasons: they are fit to a particular niche (habitat, resource, other species) that prevents their migration where it doesn't exist. That's why, if a climate change induces a displacement of their optimal habitat, their individuals that migrate in the correct direction are selected (habitat tracking) therefor a hole biota migrates.
- Historical reasons (seed dispersion, accidents, speciation events...)
(this is a very incomplete answer, it would require a whole book)

A top-level predator regulates its preys which themselves affect the lower levels of the trophic chain and so on. Therefore they are often considered as "key species".

Scientists think dinosaurs existed because they have found fossils. The time required for fossilization and sedimentation is important. Absolute dating by radionuclides confirms this.

Ridges and trenches in the ocean are caused by tectonic plates divergence and subduction.

Mollusks and echinoderms belong to very different groups. Mollusks are protostomian and echinoderms are deuterostomian. But within each group, taxa share ancestral traits, like the balstopore evolving into the mouth or the anus.

The magnetic orientation of some sediments indicates the direction of the magnetic poles, which are frequently inverted. (I think)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,13:40   

Thanks to Tom Ames for clarifying one point -- I thought you were bringing up something that was relevant to our discussion of the supposedly "broken GLO gene", but apparently I was mistaken.  

Maybe it's time for a review again.  I'll put it in bold so no one will miss it ... then I'll repeat it a few days from now for the slow ones

THINGS THAT ARE NOT AF DAVE'S GOALS
(1)  Get a biology degree
(2)  Become a genetic engineer
(3)  Get an advanced science degree
(4)  Become a biochemical researcher
(5)  Pretend I know more about biology than you
(6)  Become a geologist
(7)  Become an astrophysicist

OK?  ... again, I appreciate all the admonitions to get this or that degree or go buy this or that book ... but it's not necessary ... there are plenty of competent researchers like Mr. Nishikimi out there who give me the data I need, and of course I do have YOU ALL to keep me straight.

And I should point out that you guys do a great job of knowing biology and the workings of DNA and transcription and chromosomes and all these wonderful details.

Your problem is NOT your comprehension of the data or in understanding the mechanics of how things work.  You are even quite good at explaining this stuff -- Incorygible did a great job explaining the transcription thing.  Spent a lot of time on it too, I understand.

Your problem is simply your interpretation of data and your sometimes faulty logic.  I don't fault you for this ... it's understandable because of the overwhelming power of your Darwinian worldview.  You have been fed a steady diet of Darwinism since you were very young and it wields much power over your minds (much like a religion) and while this is not a problem for most of the things you do, it makes you fall into saying some illogical things when you start trying to explain your view of origins.



THINGS THAT ARE AF DAVE'S GOALS HERE AT PANDA'S THUMB
(1)  Find out firsthand why Darwinists believe humans and apes have a common ancestor and evaluate if this is reasonable.  We're making good progress here.
(2)  Find out firsthand why Darwinists are apparently losing the PR game in the USA.  I find it strange that Darwinists have been so unsuccessful in convincing the public of their views because of the virtual monopoly that Darwinists hold over schools, museums, magazines, the media, etc.
(3)  Present my evidence that supports a Designer, followed by evidence for YEC, the Flood, the inerrancy of the Bible, etc.
(4)  Help as many open-minded folks as possible who read my threads walk through all of my "SEVEN STAGES IN THE EVOLUTION OF A FORMER DARWINIST."

Again, these are ...

SEVEN STAGES IN THE EVOLUTION OF A FORMER DARWINIST
STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.  
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  See www.dissentfromdarwin.org
STAGE 3: And now, ordinary amateur scientists like me are jumping in the fray and shining the light on their weak arguments.
STAGE 4: Frustration ensues, followed by name calling, arrogant and belittling comments, talk of censorship, and the like.
STAGE 5: This is turn fuels more doubts in people minds. ("Why would that guy resort to name calling?  Doesn't he have any GOODS?" etc.)  
STAGE 6: Which in turn fuels more frustration and mental anguish.  And so the cycle goes until finally for some ... in a desperate moment ... possibly in the middle of the night ... or out on a peaceful lake while fishing ...
STAGE 7: THE LIGHT BULB COMES ON!  (Trumpets) And one more Darwinist is rescued from the darkness of error.


Now that we have that clarified, the present issue that we are discussing is ...


THE SUPPOSEDLY BROKEN VITAMIN C GENE IN HUMANS AND APES
Again, some of you need to re-read yesterday's posts because someone made the same mistake today which was made yesterday, namely, someone today was basically saying ...

"Of course humans and apes have a broken Vitamin C gene.  Isn't that obvious?  Wouldn't it be obvious if there were some tires and broken car pieces laying on the side of the road that we were viewing a broken car?"

YES with the car.  NO with the genes.

Your mistake in logic is that you have ASSUMED that humans and apes at one time in their history actually had a functional GLO gene.  This has to be your assumption if you say it is "broken" now, and the fact is that you do not know this.  Also, you are assuming that you (or the genetics researchers, rather) know enough about the genetic language to even recognize an error.  My contention is that we (genetic researchers) know SO LITTLE about any genomes, that we cannot assert that this gene or that gene is broken.

Please tell me that you guys ARE aware of all the new information coming in about "junk DNA" that apparently isn't junk after all (the gene we are discussing IS one of those genes, right?)?  

You guys are the biology experts ... you should know this.

So am I clear now?  You guys did very well on the Chimp Chromosome thing, but on this thread, it seems you don't have much understanding of this particular issue and many of you apparently have not even read the relevant articles.

Do you really want me to go away from this thread thinking you guys are confused about this issue?  Because right now, that's what I think.  Remember, one of my goals is to try to determine why Darwinists have been only mildly successful in selling their views on the open market.  Your arguments on this thread so far help me understand why this is.

Maybe you can think about some of this tonight and redeem your arguments tomorrow.

Remember, you guys did good just last week on the chromo thing ... I know you guys can give me some substance on this thread as well.

Again, this is really simple ... all you have to do is present evidence of WHY you are so sure that humans and apes formerly had a functioning GLO gene, but now do not.  Simple, right?  Sleep on it ... it'll probably come to you.

(Oh, and BTW ... I think Atheists are very good, moral people ... it's the long term trend of society that worries me, but we'll get to that elsewhere ...)

Have a good night and I'll see you in the morning!

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,13:40   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ May 12 2006,17:46)
...if they want to learn more about a REAL scientific controversy...

You know, sometimes I think creationists like AFDave see any kind of scientific controversy (and the evo/ID thing is not a "scientific" controversy) as proof that scientists have no credibility.

Sure, there's lots of controversy in the scientific community about evolutionary biology. There are lots of things about how organisms evolve that are poorly understood. But that doesn't mean there's any controversy over whether organisms evolve. They do. There's no doubt whatsoever about that.

Not among scientists, anyway.

--------------
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: May 12 2006,14:08   

I can't even respond to AFDave's latest post. I'd just get mad and call him names. It's that combination of complete ignorance and arrogance that angries up the blood.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,14:08   

Quote (afdave @ May 12 2006,18:40)
THINGS THAT ARE NOT AF DAVE'S GOALS
(1)  Get a biology degree
(2)  Become a genetic engineer
(3)  Get an advanced science degree
(4)  Become a biochemical researcher
(5)  Pretend I know more about biology than you
(6)  Become a geologist
(7)  Become an astrophysicist

Dave, you have two choices:

1) you can go out and get a degree in the relevant field (in this case, evolutionary biology and related fields); or

2) you can rely on the opinions of those who already do have degrees in the relevant fields.

3) there is no third choice.

You can complain all you want about how our "worldview" is infected by our "Darwinist indoctrination" (and just for your information, Dave, I never even heard Darwin's name in any science class I ever took in the Bible-belt schools in Massachusetts), but the fact of the matter is that most of the points you dispute are in fact well-settled in the scientific community. Those of us here who are non-specialists in the relevant fields (biology, genetics) at least have the wit to know who has credible opinions on the matters at hand, and who doesn't. Douglas Theobald is credible; AiG is not.

If you persist in getting your information on science from disreputable sources, nothing anyone here can say will help you. It doesn't matter what we think the evidence is; it matters what the scientific community thinks it is.

Look, Dave. You either are open-minded or you're not. If you persist in holding onto discredited beliefs that have been comprehensively refuted, you're going to have a hard time convincing any of us that you're open-minded.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,14:13   

Quote
STAGE 4: Frustration ensues, followed by name calling, arrogant and belittling comments, talk of censorship, and the like.


Dave, you're entirely mistaken as to the causes of stage 4. The frustration you note comes not from our inability to support our arugments; it comes from your inability to understand our arguments.

Just out of curiosity: how many of BWE's questions were you able to answer correctly (or even understand) without doing any research?

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,14:13   

Quote
Please tell me that you guys ARE aware of all the new information coming in about "junk DNA" that apparently isn't junk after all (the gene we are discussing IS one of those genes, right?)?  

You guys are the biology experts ... you should know this.

No, the gene we are discussing is not part of the DNA that IBM researchers have studied. In fact, most of our DNA, contrary to GLO, doesn't show any recognizable genic structure. But it can have a structural function for instance.

And we are aware of the latest discoveries before you, Dave.
However, I would point that there isn't any evidence yet for a biological function in the patterns recently discovered by IBM scientists. Even if it were, it wouldn't contradict evolution in the slightest.

But if you want a proof of common descent, I suggest you google "endosymbiosis" and "nucleomorph" or even "buchnera". (An evidence that is not discussed at talkorigins, afaik.).
Of course, it requires some basic knowledge in biology and doesn't falsify common design (nothing can).

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,14:21   

Quote
Find out firsthand why Darwinists are apparently losing the PR game in the USA.
I imagine it could have something to do with religion. And the fact that scientists don't tend to hire PR firms.

Quote
ToE advocates are becoming frustrated
Nope. Well none of the ones I know.

Quote
The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg
Nope, every paper I read answers another question.

Quote
My contention is that we (genetic researchers) know SO LITTLE about any genomes, that we cannot assert that this gene or that gene is broken.
We can assert that it does not produce the protein to make vitamin C.

Quote
Please tell me that you guys ARE aware of all the new information coming in about "junk DNA"
Ive read papers from the early eighties that talk about functional non-coding DNA and RNA. The term was origionally meant to mean long repetetive stretches of DNA. It has been a long time if at all since people thought only protein coding regions had function.

Quote
You guys are the biology experts ... you should know this.
Quote
Maybe you can think about some of this tonight and redeem your arguments tomorrow.
Quote
Remember, you guys did good just last week on the chromo thing ... I know you guys can give me some substance on this thread as well.
Many people on theis forum have been very patient with you, but you have shown your self to be willfully ignorant of the subjects you are trying to argue about. If you really want to have a decent conversation with scientists being undeservedly smug and patronising isn't the correct way to go about it.

The reason we are certain that a chromosome fusion occured is becuase we see the evidence that the sequences appear to match, and we know that such chromosome rearrangements commonly occur. Think about what you have learned about the vitamin C gene and you will see that we have applied the same reasoning. On the other hand, if you claim common design is a better hypothesis, you need only explain why.

ps Once again could you confirm or deny that you don't think we can infer any of this stuff as we didn't see it happen.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,14:30   

Quote
STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.  
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  See www.dissentfromdarwin.org
...

1- This is ironical, coming from someone taking the Bible as evidence for his hypothesis. :) But please, pick some research papers on evolution and explain how evolutionists' arguments evolve as you describe.

2 - Go read some recent scientific journal (Nature, Science) and show us where the shipwreck of 'Darwinism' lies.

Thanks.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,14:38   

Quote
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  See www.dissentfromdarwin.org


Oh Dave you're so innovative. We've never heard that before.

Quote

Your problem is simply your interpretation of data and your sometimes faulty logic.  I don't fault you for this ... it's understandable because of the overwhelming power of your Darwinian worldview.


Never heard that one before either, Dave.

bo-ring.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,14:52   

AFDave: Your smugness is quite grating. I assume you're doing that on purpose, no? It always amazes me how the preachiest christians lack what I would have thought would be the "zeroth commandment" of christianity: humility.

YOU need to reread the Vitamin C discussion. I asked you some specific questions that you have ignored.

Nobody really cares what your goals are and what they aren't. I can answer specific questions, if they're phrased sensibly and if I think that either you or some other reader might be interested.

Quote
Your [i.e. scientists'] problem is simply your interpretation of data and your sometimes faulty logic.
We check that on a daily, if not hourly basis. It's part of the job. Has it occurred to you that your interpretations and logic might be faulty, especially in light of the fact that your grasp of the basics is tenuous at best?

Now to cover some specifics:

Quote
Your mistake in logic is that you have ASSUMED that humans and apes at one time in their history actually had a functional GLO gene.  This has to be your assumption if you say it is "broken" now, and the fact is that you do not know this.
This is among the things I explained and you ignored. I'll try one more time. It's not an assumption. It's a tested hypothesis that follows from the theory of evolution. It's been cross-checked in thousands of organisms and it fits neatly with all the data. I asked you to explain why Nishikimi could expect to find gulo-homologous sequences in humans, orangs and guinea pigs, if not because of common descent. No response.

Quote
Please tell me that you guys ARE aware of all the new information coming in about "junk DNA" that apparently isn't junk after all (the gene we are discussing IS one of those genes, right?)?
Not only are we aware of it, we know what the research is actually saying. Moreover, we -at least no scientist I know-  never suffered from the cartoon misunderstandings that creationists so smugly infer from the unfortunate term "junk DNA".

This has become the creationists' all-purpose "get out of any argument free" card; when asked to explain some aspect of genetics that only makes sense in light of evolution,  you can always invoke a yet-to-be-discovered function of DNA, as you are doing here. What you are ignoring, though, is that there are real differences between the severity of the constraints imposed on DNA sequence by the requirement of functional protein coding and by the various "new" roles of non-coding DNA. There is no function of DNA that we know of, or that has even been suggested that imposes the kind of sequence constraints seen in the gulo pseudogenes, other than protein coding. As I pointed out yesterday, you can either explain it coherently in the framework of common descent, or you can admit that you just can't explain it, and hope that some future discovery will rescue your hypothesis in some completely unanticipated way. Sorry. That's just not an argument.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,15:19   

Quote (afdave @ May 12 2006,18:40)
Please tell me that you guys ARE aware of all the new information coming in about "junk DNA" that apparently isn't junk after all (the gene we are discussing IS one of those genes, right?)?

I'm aware of lots of new information coming out concerning "Junk DNA." None of it supports creationism.

What are you talking about?

This? :
Quote
Andras Pellionisz claims that so-called junk DNA is actually the "real" blueprints, stored in fractal patterns, that tells genes how to build living tissue. If correct, he stands to make billions of dollars from his patent application, which covers all attempts to count, measure and compare the fractal properties of introns (the more respectable term for junk DNA)


I think that idea sounds a little screwy, but it does seem to me that some junk DNA won't be the vesigial stuff we are predicting. Supposedly 90 percent of our genetic material is this junk DNA, but our bodies don't support 90 percent  junk organs -- or vestigial organs -- why would our DNA?

Are you aware of how Junk DNA was discovered and how it got called junk?

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/03/junk_dna_is_junk.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6291140

Quote
Using molecular engineering, they snipped out DNA sequences in mice embryonic stem cells and generated a strain of mice with the abridged genome.

They analyzed features such as growth, longevity and molecular and biochemical features, comparing the normal mice and those with the abridged genome, but found no difference.


You can't say Junk DNA is critical for that mouse when it is removed and the mouse still becomes a mouse.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,15:25   

AFDave said
Quote
blah blah blah junk dna blah blah


More nonsense we've heard so many times we've archived a response to it.

Further information.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,15:31   

-Sigh-

And you're calling us confused?

Dave, that gene is a pseudogene. Pseudogenes are just part of what is commonly referred to as junk DNA, and noone says that they never had any coding function. In the case of this gene, we know it's function: We have identified the gene (in it's active form) in the rat,verified it's existense in many organisms, and it's corrupted form in primates and guinea pigs:

+AND+267[VOL]+AND+842[PAGE]&doptcmdl=Abstract]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez.....bstract

<edit: I can't seem to link to the article... Anyway, googling "Nishikimi et al, J Biol Chem 267" will do it.>

Which this gene is, and what it does (coding for a specific protein), is not a wild assumption; it is a FACT. A wild (and completely unsupportable) assumption is what you say: that the gene in question has some other imaginary, undefined purpose in its broken form, that we have not understood yet (or the mechanism by which it is produced), and it just happens to look identical to a broken GULO gene- and that's about as unscientific as you can get.
And what arguments do you provide for this? Analogies with language. Sheesh.
Dave, Language is arbitrary. Words are arbitrary.
"Barking" and "Barfing" look alike only because we made them that way in English, not because there's some magical connection between the two actions they represent, so that one can become the other with a change of a letter in the word (well, unless you believe in Kabbalah, that is :p).
Genetics is not arbitrary. Change (or rather, destroy) a key element in the complicated biochemical process of transcription, and it's not another intriguing result that suddenly pops up: You know what happens? That's right, nothing. Everything else is just wishful thinking on your part. Wishful dreaming, rather.
Dave, noone expects you to become a rocket scientist. We just think that it's necessary, since you also like to refer to yourself as an "amateur scientist", to have at least some knowledge of the fundamentals of the sciences (yes, whole sciences) you're arguing against.

Is that too much to ask?


You can start here, if you really came to learn something in these forums:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psa.ball.html
Answer key

I won't even adress your other "arguments" (about losing the PR fight, ToE's boat sinking etc). They were blown to smithereens the first time you posted them; it gets tedious after a while.

--------------
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."

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,16:36   

Hi AFDave,

Let me see if I can add something to the conversation.

You've been arguing that what appears to be a broken GLO in primates may not be in fact broken at all, but is rather a designed stretch of DNA that performs some unknown function (we'll call this "pseudo-GLO").  You haven't stated it explicitly, but I think we can infer that this putative function has nothing to do with Vitamin C synthesis (seeing as primates and guinea pigs can't do it).  That is, pseudo-GLO has a function entirely distinct from regular GLO.

If pseudo-GLO has a distinct function, we could use the framework of common design (as well as common descent) to predict that pseudo-GLO would be found in organisms that have functioning GLO.  This is because there is no reason to predict that a gene unrelated to Vitamin C would only be found in GLO-deficient species.

So there are two possible scenarios:
(1) Pseudo-GLO is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.

(2) Pseudo-GLO is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C.

It seems to me that a design hypothesis would only predict scenario (1), for reasons discussed above.  Common descent would predict either scenario (2), or scenario (1) with nested hierarchies of Pseudo-GLO (this would be the result of a duplication of GLO followed by the inactivation of one of the copies, which still persists in the population).  Seeing pseudo-GLOs (especially those that look very much alike) randomly throughout the animal kingdom would certainly be a surprise to me (I can think of a mechanism by which it might occur, but we won't get in to that).  Ubiquitous pseudo-GLO would strongly imply that it has an important function, but would not really support either common descent or common design over the other.

I haven't done the research to find out which is the case, but there should be sufficient online tools to find out which is the correct scenario.  With the relatively low number of genomes sequenced, it is probably not possible right now (using good ole look-it-up-online methods) to differentiate between the subscenarios of scenario (1).

I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model.

So how's about it, Dave?  Shall we do some science?

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

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,16:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 12 2006,18:40)
Your mistake in logic is that you have ASSUMED that humans and apes at one time in their history actually had a functional GLO gene.

No, dave. It's not an assumption. It's an inference, based on evidence. There's a difference.

By the way, it's rather amusing to see you try to lecture people on mistakes in logic:
Quote
IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator....There is no afterlife, no heaven, no ####, no judgment for actions in this life, and the best we can do is live in harmony with our fellow man and have a good time until we die.  And when we die, that's the end of the story.

Is this what you consider logic? There couldn't possibly be a God, heaven, he##, and common descent? Why not?
Quote
Could it be that the Creator God spoken of in the Bible might in fact be one and the same as the Designer of the Cosmos and Biological Systems...

Yes, it could be. I don't see anyone claiming it's impossible. However, you do understand that mere possibility does not logically support a proposition, right? After all, it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us with his noodly appendage. What do you think that means, logically?
Quote
...for which evidence continues to mount?

Not that I can see, it doesn't. You've promised to provide some, but all I've seen are erroneous attacks on evolutionary theory, references to fine tuning, and incredulity about how life looks designed.

Is that your idea of logic? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,16:44   

Quote (normdoering @ May 12 2006,20:19)
What are you talking about?

This? :
Quote
Andras Pellionisz claims that so-called junk DNA is actually the "real" blueprints, stored in fractal patterns, that tells genes how to build living tissue. If correct, he stands to make billions of dollars from his patent application, which covers all attempts to count, measure and compare the fractal properties of introns (the more respectable term for junk DNA)


I think that idea sounds a little screwy....

It sure does. Anyone who thinks the word introns is just a "more respectable term for junk DNA" clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,17:37   

Speaking of shared ancestry!



--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,18:21   

Ok AFDave. Everyone but you got my point. But I guess I have to speak slowly for you.

Y o u    a r e n ' t   q u a l i f i e d    t o   h a v e   t  h i s    d i s c u s s i o n .

You can't say anything with out a basic knowledge. You couldn't answer those questions because they weren't directly about evolution. BUT! You really can't understand the science of evolution without really getting those questions. Note, when I asked a vague question, the respondents could still respond intelligently.


You have yet to do that.

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

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,18:21   

Poor afDave.  I have to admire your chutzpah, considering the extraordinary scientific illiteracy you display.

Quote
THINGS THAT ARE AF DAVE'S GOALS HERE AT PANDA'S THUMB
Gentle hint: you've failed on all counts.  Just thought you'd like to know.

Quote
(1)  Find out firsthand why Darwinists believe humans and apes have a common ancestor and evaluate if this is reasonable.  We're making good progress here.
No, actually we're not.  In order for you to understand why we accept the CA as the best current explanation, there is a certain irreducible amount of biology that you must know.  Comments such as
Quote
Your mistake in logic is that you have ASSUMED that humans and apes at one time in their history actually had a functional GLO gene.  This has to be your assumption if you say it is "broken" now, and the fact is that you do not know this.  Also, you are assuming that you (or the genetics researchers, rather) know enough about the genetic language to even recognize an error.  My contention is that we (genetic researchers) know SO LITTLE about any genomes, that we cannot assert that this gene or that gene is broken.
demonstrate that you know so little of the relevant genetic theory that it is not possible to educate you.

You have to educate yourself to a base level (say, 12th grade biology) before you can even start to understand.  Once you've gotten there, we'd be happy to help you.

Until then, we'll just have to laugh.

Quote
(2)  Find out firsthand why Darwinists are apparently losing the PR game in the USA.  I find it strange that Darwinists have been so unsuccessful in convincing the public of their views because of the virtual monopoly that Darwinists hold over schools, museums, magazines, the media, etc.
Never understimate the stupidity of the human species.  Ever.  Most people can't think; most of the remainder don't think; and the few who do think mostly don't do it very well.

That and the fact that ignorance and stupidity (as you are demonstrating in this thread) are always easier.  You don't have to use your brain that way.

Quote
(3)  Present my evidence that supports a Designer, followed by evidence for YEC, the Flood, the inerrancy of the Bible, etc.
Well, you've posted dozens of times, and have yet to present any evidence whatever.  Are you planning to start anytime soon?

Quote
(4)  Help as many open-minded folks as possible who read my threads walk through all of my "SEVEN STAGES IN THE EVOLUTION OF A FORMER DARWINIST."
Poor baby: you're hear to preach.

Sorry, no one is listening.  I mean really and truly, there are NO lurkers here who find you convincing.

Any lurkers find Dave convincing?  Speak up now!

(Crickets chirping)

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,18:28   

:08-->
Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2006,19:08)
I can't even respond to AFDave's latest post. I'd just get mad and call him names. It's that combination of complete ignorance and arrogance that angries up the blood.

Oh, but one can't get mad at Dave; it would be like getting mad at a four year old for explaining that he can make you disappear by closing his eyes.

It's cute.

I admit it's rather tedious, since he's not saying anything we haven't heard several hundred times (and quite often better expressed - clarity and logic don't seem to be Dave's strong points), but it's impossible to get angry.  It would take an actual argument from Dave to get me angry.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,20:43   

That is the problem with fundies in general. They don't understand how come we lump them together. They always feel like "they" have a special knowledge. And yet, it's always the exact same knowledge with the exact same understanding behind it.

Dave, GoP, T-diddy, and whoever else like you out there, you have to know a few things first. You should know enough earth science to know how different fields find similar info. You should know enough biology to understand process rather than mechanics. mechanics at the genome level are so tied up in process that they are meaningless without that understanding.

If you could skip the 4-8 grueling years of college and possibly grad school or doctoral dissertation that it takes to get to the point where you can discuss these topics in any meaningful way, don't you think the scientists would be doing it?

I even went to grad school in science and I don't know half of what these guys who are specialists are talking about. The difference between me and the nutjobs though is that I know what subject they are talking about. I know specifically what it is that I don't know. So I know what education I would need to really know what this gene or that gene is really for. And I can tell you this: I know how to look at mine or your or anyones DNA with the naked eye. I've done it in Jr. High biology class where I occasionally guest lecture. But would I be qualified to use new discoveries in genetics to argue that all of science is wrong? I'd have to be pretty convinced, I'll tell you that. And, having undergone a rigorous science training, I can say that It would be impossible without a much more thorough training than that. Look to Hawking for it maybe. But not anyone who starts with belief. That isn't how science works. If you can understand what Gould was saying, you will have come quite a ways but without the cross-discipline general knowledge, you will always fall short.

And Dave, T-diddy, GoP, et. al.- you are the guys who are standing around with your pants around your ankles. It doesn't have to do with gay genes or vitamin c genes or god genes or blue jeans, it has to do with trying to fit reality to your pre-existing belief system rather than the other way around.

There is a lot of disagreement over the nature of the human condition, morality, spirituality etc. among the folks who make fun of you. They (we) aren't a homogeneous group. I bet we could discover nuanced understandings of economics as well as quite unsophisticated ones. That is likely in any subjective field. It's just that once you have learned to look at the data before you come to conclusions, you really can't go back. You can disagree over interpretation but not data. You are disagreeing over data. We can tell whether your arguments are a product of your beliefs rather than any kind of evidence.

After hearing enough folks who think they have an answer - like you guys- we all begin to realize that not only do you not base your arguments on evidence, you actively ignore overwhelming evidence that doesn't support your beliefs.

I'm sorry to break this to you but no one has the slightest idea about god. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we can feel our connection to the cosmos and whatever but no book on Earth has ever been written by anything other than a human and your idea that the bible contains any truth as to the actual genesis stories is sadly mistaken. There is overwhelming evidence from all sources that converge on a point and the sacred texts don't fall within that space.

As mentioned before, that doesn't make them not sacred, it just makes the idea of sacred a little more complicated. But that is the price we pay for our evolution, we have to think harder and harder to stay afloat.

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

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,21:06   

Here AFDave, I corrected some minor mistakes you made in your list:

THINGS THAT ARE NOT AF DAVE'S GOALS
(1)  Understand the most basic things about biology
(2)  Understand the most basic things about genetic engineer
(3)  Learn from those with advanced science degrees
(4)  Understand the most basic things about biochemical research
(5)  Care one little bit about actual biological facts
(6)  Understand the most basic things about geologist
(7)  Understand the most basic things about astrophysicist

THINGS THAT ARE AF DAVE'S GOALS HERE AT PANDA'S THUMB
(1)  Pretend to be seeking information when all I really want is an audience to evangelize to.
(2)  Lie about my motives so I can keep you guys responding as long as I can
(3)  Preach my literal Bible views to all you atheist evilutionists out there with no intention of ever backing up any of my BS.
(4)  Do my “witnessing” to amass my Get-Into-Heaven points.

Face it Dave, you see yourself as some noble missionary savior going into the land of the heathen savages to bring Jeebus into their black hearts.  Problem is, 95% of those "heathen savages" are way better educated on the topic than you, and 100% of them are more honest than you.

Quote
Your problem is NOT your comprehension of the data or in understanding the mechanics of how things work.  You are even quite good at explaining this stuff -- Incorygible did a great job explaining the transcription thing.  Spent a lot of time on it too, I understand.

Your problem is simply your interpretation of data and your sometimes faulty logic.  I don't fault you for this ... it's understandable because of the overwhelming power of your Darwinian worldview.  You have been fed a steady diet of Darwinism since you were very young and it wields much power over your minds (much like a religion) and while this is not a problem for most of the things you do, it makes you fall into saying some illogical things when you start trying to explain your view of origins.


Actually Dave, it’s not our problem at all that you choose to remain such a willfully ignorant dumbass.  You’ve had dozens of kind folks explain to you in great detail the basic mistakes and idiotic claims you get from AIG, but you keep right on making them without missing a beat.  You’ve also proven to be quite the intellectual coward.  I’ve yet to see you answer any of the tough questions you get asked every day, like

“Should ALL scientific results have to undergo rigorous, critical peer-review before being taught in schools, and WHO is qualified to do the peer-review?”

or

"Why should the opinion of an uneducated layman mean more than that of a dedicated professional science researcher?"

You just don your ballet slippers and tutu, and pirouette daintily away.  Most military pilots I know seem to walk on water when under pressure – you just pass water.

You’re busted Dave. Your “Lying for Jesus” is readily apparent to folks because, unfortunately, we’ve seen far too much of it from arrogant know-nothings like you.

--------------
"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: May 13 2006,03:59   

Argystokes said ...
 
Quote
Hi AFDave,

Let me see if I can add something to the conversation.

You've been arguing that what appears to be a broken GLO in primates may not be in fact broken at all, but is rather a designed stretch of DNA that performs some unknown function (we'll call this "pseudo-GLO").  You haven't stated it explicitly, but I think we can infer that this putative function has nothing to do with Vitamin C synthesis (seeing as primates and guinea pigs can't do it).  That is, pseudo-GLO has a function entirely distinct from regular GLO.

If pseudo-GLO has a distinct function, we could use the framework of common design (as well as common descent) to predict that pseudo-GLO would be found in organisms that have functioning GLO.  This is because there is no reason to predict that a gene unrelated to Vitamin C would only be found in GLO-deficient species.

So there are two possible scenarios:
(1) Pseudo-GLO is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.

(2) Pseudo-GLO is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C.

It seems to me that a design hypothesis would only predict scenario (1), for reasons discussed above.  Common descent would predict either scenario (2), or scenario (1) with nested hierarchies of Pseudo-GLO (this would be the result of a duplication of GLO followed by the inactivation of one of the copies, which still persists in the population).  Seeing pseudo-GLOs (especially those that look very much alike) randomly throughout the animal kingdom would certainly be a surprise to me (I can think of a mechanism by which it might occur, but we won't get in to that).  Ubiquitous pseudo-GLO would strongly imply that it has an important function, but would not really support either common descent or common design over the other.

I haven't done the research to find out which is the case, but there should be sufficient online tools to find out which is the correct scenario.  With the relatively low number of genomes sequenced, it is probably not possible right now (using good ole look-it-up-online methods) to differentiate between the subscenarios of scenario (1).

I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model.

So how's about it, Dave?  Shall we do some science?


This is an excellent discussion here.  I like the terminology you use to keep everything clear.  You are correct that I have lately focused on the question "Why are researchers so sure this is a broken gene?"  I think this is a legitimate question to ask (but I could be wrong) in light of statements like this from Watson (co-discoverer of DNA) in 2003 ...

 
Quote
‘The most humbling aspect of the Human Genome Project so far has been the realization that we know remarkably little about what the vast majority of human genes do.(Watson, J.D., DNA: The Secret of Life, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 217, 2003.)

and we are obviously learning much about pseudogenes as the following title suggests ...
 
Quote
PSEUDOGENES: Are They "Junk" or Functional DNA?
Evgeniy S. Balakirev1,2 and ­Francisco J. Ayala1­
1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-2525; email: fjayala@uci.edu
2Institute of Marine Biology, Vladivostok 690041,
Russia and Academy of Ecology, Marine Biology, and Biotechnology, Far Eastern State University, Vladivostok 690600, Russia; email: esbalak@bio.dvgu.ru



And the answer may well turn out to be that it is in fact a broken gene, when more is known.  But if the answer is "Yes, it IS broken", then there is another question which immediately follows.  I mentioned this early on and we never explored it.  The next questions would be these ... "Did it break independently in humans and apes?  Or did it break in our ape-like ancestor and get transmitted to both apes and humans as Dr. Max asserts?"  Is it not just as plausible that both ape and human GLO "broke" independently?  Design hypothesis predicts similarity in the the two genomes also, but for a different reason than common descent advocates.  It seems to me that it is quite probable that IF apes and humans did in fact at one time have functional GLO, the functional genes would have been quite similar (is it not true that OTHER functional genes found today in apes and humans are similar?)and the large differences b/t apes and humans that we see today would have also been seen at that time in the past.  This scenario also seems to me to be supported by the 2003 Inai study comparing guinea pig and human pseudo-GLO.  Guinea pigs and humans are obviously not in sister groups, but they both have pseudo-GLO, which actually has 36% "identicalness" according to the report.  Are we to conclude that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs who (like humans) have pseudo-GLO, than to pro-simians who have functional GLO?  It seems that the guinea pig-human pseudo GLO similarity all by itself falsifies common descent for apes and humans.

So I think the following possibilities exist ...
(1) Pseudo-GLO is NOT "broken GLO" and is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.
(2) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because the gene "broke" in the ape-like ancestor, then this "broken gene" was copied throughout the evolutionary path to humans.  If this is true, however, you would still need to explain how the gene broke independently in the guinea pig ancestor, but wound up in modern guinea pigs looking "36% similar" to modern human pseudo-GLO.  You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)
(3) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because all animals were designed with a functional gene, but now some have independently lost function because of mutations.


I realize that at this point, I have not given positive evidence for the Design Hypothesis regarding apes and humans, because that was not my goal on this thread.  I have only pointed out that Dr. Max's assumptions -- (a) this is a broken gene and (b) if it is broken, this proves common descent -- are unwarranted assumptions.

This whole thread started because someone (I think Renier) said he used to be a YEC advocate, but abandoned it because of this issue which he thought was a closed case.  If nothing else, I think I have shown that it is definitely not a closed case.

As for which of the above 3 scenarios is true, I obviously do not know yet.  It does appear that (2) is not consistent with the evidence that we DO have.  My suspicion is that (3) will turn out to be the correct one when more is known.  Either (1) or (3) appears to be consistent with the Design Hypothesis.



 
Quote
ps Once again could you confirm or deny that you don't think we can infer any of this stuff as we didn't see it happen.
I confirm that we can indeed infer many things in spite of the fact that we did not see it happen with our own eyes.  In fact, this is my exact argument on my other thread where I INFER a the idea of a Super-Intelligent Engineer from "apparently engineered" biological "machines."  I also INFER an Intelligent "Parameter Setter" from the "apparent precise setting" of the many parameters required for life in the Cosmos in which we find ourselves.

 
Quote
1- This is ironical, coming from someone taking the Bible as evidence for his hypothesis.
 Again, if you read my threads, you will see that Bible is  a source for plausible hypotheses.  It is not "evidence" to support them.  My evidence comes from scientific observation of nature.

 
Quote
It's not an assumption. It's a tested hypothesis that follows from the theory of evolution. It's been cross-checked in thousands of organisms and it fits neatly with all the data. I asked you to explain why Nishikimi could expect to find gulo-homologous sequences in humans, orangs and guinea pigs, if not because of common descent. No response.
Are you saying that the analysis proposed by Argystokes has already been done?  I know of GLO being analyzed in a few primates, guinea pigs and humans, but thousands of organisms?  


 
Quote
By the way, it's rather amusing to see you try to lecture people on mistakes in logic:  "IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator....There is no afterlife, no heaven, no ####, no judgment for actions in this life, and the best we can do is live in harmony with our fellow man and have a good time until we die.  And when we die, that's the end of the story.
Is this what you consider logic? There couldn't possibly be a God, heaven, he##, and common descent? Why not?
Notice carefully what you just did ...

I said this ..."IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator"

and you quoted me as saying this ...

"There couldn't possibly be a God, heaven, he##,and common descent?

BIG, BIG difference.  Think about it.  We need to be very careful in our quotes and our logic.  I believe these types of assumptions, rushes to judgment, and lack of sound logic are precisely why Darwinists are painting themselves into a corner which will ultimately be an embarrassment to them.  We have already seen the embarrasment to Darwinists of their failed predictions in the fossil record.  Darwinists predicted continuous transitional forms in the fossil record.  Creationists predicted ubiquitous gaps.  Creationists were correct.  Darwinists predicted true "vertical evolution" (or macro-evolution), but leading evolutionary scientists have now admitted that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history. Creationists predicted that any "evolution" would be lateral or downward and this has been confirmed.  Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection, but Darwinists try to use this as evidence for their failed predictions of true vertical evolution, when in fact it is better evidence for "designed adaptability" put in the originl created "kinds" by the Creator.  Since all this and many other things outlined by Denton and others have been embarrassing and unanswerable by Darwininsts, they are now repeating the same logical mistakes at the molecular level.  I predict the results will be the same.  And if that were not enough, they are calling Creationists and ID people stupid for questioning their theories!!


Quote
After all, it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us with his noodly appendage.
I admit this is a logical possibility.  I challenge you to find evidence which supports it.

Quote
AFDave: Your smugness is quite grating. I assume you're doing that on purpose, no? It always amazes me how the preachiest christians lack what I would have thought would be the "zeroth commandment" of christianity: humility.
Have I not demonstrated humility by "eating crow" graciously about the chimp chromosome issue?  I think what you perceive as smugness here is in reality a little bit of satire and poking fun at a theory.  I am trying very hard to use innovative tools to jar people's thinking.  I think Darwinists are so steeped in logical fallacies that it takes something rather jarring to make them wake up and see the errors.

 
Quote
I think that idea sounds a little screwy, but it does seem to me that some junk DNA won't be the vesigial stuff we are predicting. Supposedly 90 percent of our genetic material is this junk DNA, but our bodies don't support 90 percent  junk organs -- or vestigial organs -- why would our DNA?
 My point exactly.  I am not familiar with the "fractal" theory or whatever it was.  I do not claim to have an idea about what all that "junk DNA" does.  It will be fun to investigate it though.


 
Quote
No, dave. It's not an assumption. It's an inference, based on evidence. There's a difference.

Thank you for agreeing with me (and Meyer) that INFERENCES to the Best Explanation are valid.  This is exactly what I am doing on my other thread to try to explain a Creator.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,04:24   

Quote
It seems that the guinea pig-human pseudo GLO similarity all by itself falsifies common descent for apes and humans.


I wish there was some way to make you see how stupid a thing to say this is, Dave. I tried, before, with the petroleum example, but you just can't get it. If you could see how this makes you look, you'd stop making a fool of yourself. But I don't think you can. You don't know enough to know how ridiculously mistaken you are.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,04:37   

Quote
You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)

Ah hahahahahahahaha! Yeah, if you're comparing that one little piece of DNA, and not the other ~99% of the evidence! Thanks for the belly laughs this morning!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,04:49   

It's not even necessarily true on that 'one little piece of DNA'. Whats the sequence similarity for the GLOs? We just know in this discussion that two are broken. It's absolutely idiotic to use this single fact to infer things about common descent. There are several different ways they could be broken, and it's almost certain that there's more sequence similarity between the human and primate GLOs. Going by nothing more than which two are broken is painfully stupid. It's like saying that this Porsche 944 with a broken windshield is closer to this Dodge Dart with a broken windshield, than to this Porsche 928, because the 928's windshield is intact.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:03   

Quote (argystokes @ May 12 2006,21:36)
I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model.

So how's about it, Dave?  Shall we do some science?

Also, argystokes, at the risk of making dave's assumptions more complicated than they already are...
...We won't be looking for just one "pseudo-GLO" gene.
We must look for many genes, some only slightly different, some a lot more, each (apparently) responsible for different, not identified functions, whose only common characteristic is, well, this uncanny resemblance with a GLO gene that's broken in some way.
Not that this changes anything in your proposed search; It's just that, when we examine animals that have a functioning GLO gene (and there are a LOT), we'd have to explain why they also 'happen' to lack all those 'other' genes... according to dave's "theory", at least.

--------------
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."

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:07   

Looks like Arrogant Fundy Dave has given up all pretense of wanting to cure his ignorance and has decided to kick his “lying for Jesus” machine into high gear.  AFDave starts our Saturday with his latest bunch of "Gish gallop" whoppers:

     
Quote
BIG, BIG difference.  Think about it.  We need to be very careful in our quotes and our logic.  I believe these types of assumptions, rushes to judgment, and lack of sound logic are precisely why Darwinists are painting themselves into a corner which will ultimately be an embarrassment to them.  

We have already seen the embarrasment to Darwinists of their failed predictions in the fossil record.  Darwinists predicted continuous transitional forms in the fossil record.  Creationists predicted ubiquitous gaps.  Creationists were correct.


Lie #1.  Scientific predictions about fossil finds have been supporting ToE for over 150 years, the latest example being Tiktaalik.  YEC makes NO predictions about the fossil record whatsoever; it just tries to hand wave away the positive evidence for ToE that IS found.  This was explained in detail with examples to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying.

Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

     
Quote
Darwinists predicted true "vertical evolution" (or macro-evolution), but leading evolutionary scientists have now admitted that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.


Lie#2.  The old “there is only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution” creato standard canard..  No “leading evolutionary scientists” ANYWHERE have said that macro-evolution hasn’t happened.  This was explained in detail with real world examples of speciation to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying.

Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

     
Quote
Creationists predicted that any "evolution" would be lateral or downward and this has been confirmed.  Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection, but Darwinists try to use this as evidence for their failed predictions of true vertical evolution, when in fact it is better evidence for "designed adaptability" put in the originl created "kinds" by the Creator.  


Lie #3.  In biology there is no such thing as “upward” or “downward” evolution.  There is evolution, period.  There is also no recognized scientific definition of "kind'.  These are terms invented of the Cretos to confuse ignorant laymen like Dave.  This was explained in detail to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying.

Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

     
Quote
Since all this and many other things outlined by Denton and others have been embarrassing and unanswerable by Darwininsts, they are now repeating the same logical mistakes at the molecular level.  I predict the results will be the same.  And if that were not enough, they are calling Creationists and ID people stupid for questioning their theories!!


Lie #4.  Everyone has the right to question existing scientific theories, and critical peer-review is an ongoing part of the scientific method.  We call Creationists and IDiots stupid because they don’t understand the sciences involved enough to ask logical pertinent questions. Changes to scientific theories happen all the time as new evidence becomes available.  However, refinements and updates to ToE DO NOT mean that the whole theory is wrong, and DO NOT provide any positive evidence for YEC. This has been explained ad nauseum to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying.

Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

My prediction:  Missionary Dave will continue to ignore all attempts to correct his blatant scientific ignorance, and will continue to arrogantly preach to those who know the subject way better that him.  Anyone wanna bet?

--------------
"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.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:10   

Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,08:59)
Notice carefully what you just did ...

I said this ..."IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator"

and you quoted me as saying this ...

"There couldn't possibly be a God, heaven, he##,and common descent?

BIG, BIG difference.  Think about it.

??? YOU'RE the one who said it, not me! YOU claimed that IF CD is true, then there is no need for a Creater, AND then there is no heaven, no ####, no afterlife, etc. I quoted your exact words, only snipping out some intermediate sentences that didn't change your meaning at all. Here, I'll quote the entire passage this time:

 
Quote (afdave @ May 12 2006,11:58)
The bottom line, of course, is ...

IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator.  Humans are free to believe in one, or pretend there is one, or whatever.  None of the 'God talk' really matters much and those who don't care to participate in 'God think' are free to leave 'Him' completely out of their thoughts and discussions.  There is no afterlife, no heaven, no ####, no judgment for actions in this life, and the best we can do is live in harmony with our fellow man and have a good time until we die.  And when we die, that's the end of the story.

That is a clear claim on your part that IF commond descent is true, THEN there is no afterlife, no heaven, and so on. Which is clearly a logical non sequitur. Yet you seem to think it's true "of course."

If that's not what you really mean, then I suggest you retract it. You might also try to express yourself more clearly in the future. And, you might stop chastising others for 'faulty' logic when you clearly are much more deficient in that area yourself.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:22   

Quote
So I think the following possibilities exist ...
(1) Pseudo-GLO is NOT "broken GLO" and is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.

Not our scenario, though. GLO gene is a unitary one. Scurvy, remember? Next...
 
Quote
(2) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because the gene "broke" in the ape-like ancestor, then this "broken gene" was copied throughout the evolutionary path to humans.  If this is true, however, you would still need to explain how the gene broke independently in the guinea pig ancestor, but wound up in modern guinea pigs looking "36% similar" to modern human pseudo-GLO.  You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)

The gene is a basic one for survival of all life: It's needed for animals of all kinds, and has developed very early in the course of life on the planet. Under that perspective, 36% is too little a resemblance. Especially when compared to the minimal differences between primates. As for being closer to guinea pigs than pro-simians... what part of "broke independently" (which you yourself wrote) didn't you get?
Please, please read the links we provided before trying to make stuff up.
<edit: Oh, I see that you're not: You're just parroting AiG- they try to make stuff up.>
 
Quote
(3) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because all animals were designed with a functional gene, but now some have independently lost function because of mutations.
Well, well... 3 sounds about right, if you replace the ridiculous "designed" with the more accurate "evolved"...  :p
...And, since there is no more evolutionary pressure in an already broken gene, and it continues to accumulate mutations over time, what do the minimal differences of the broken genes between humans and primates tell us? Take the test I linked you to, and I'll let you figure that out yourself.
Any more questions?

--------------
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."

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:49   

Dave, could you give me a reference that says the guinea pig pseudogene appears to be more closely related to the human pseudogene than the other simians, thanks.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,06:28   

Chris Hyland wrote:
Quote
Dave, could you give me a reference that says the guinea pig pseudogene appears to be more closely related to the human pseudogene than the other simians, thanks.
Yes. That's what I've been trying to get out of him for a couple of days now. I proposed an "experiment", above, based on this. In his latest volley, AFdave mentions an article by Inai et al. in connection with this 36% number. I paste the abstract, below, but my library is apparently less encyclopedic than AFdave's as I don't have access to the full article. (I assume AFdave must be basing his extraordinary claims on the article, not on the abstract - which doesn't support them - or on AiG reinterpretations, since surely he's learned by now how foolish that would be.)
Quote
J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2003 Oct;49(5):315-9.

The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene--the gene responsible for scurvy--and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon.

Inai Y, Ohta Y, Nishikimi M.

Department of Biochemistry, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama 641-0012, Japan.

L-Gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GULO), which catalyzes the last step of ascorbic acid biosynthesis, is missing in humans. The whole structure of the human gene homologue for this enzyme was disclosed by a computer-assisted search. Only five exons, as compared to 12 exons constituting the functional rat GULO gene, remain in the human genome. A comparison of these exons with those of their functional counterparts in rat showed that there are two single nucleotide deletions, one triple nucleotide deletion, and one single nucleotide insertion in the human sequence. When compared in terms of codons, the human sequence has a deletion of a single amino acid, two stop codons, and two aberrant codons missing one nucleotide besides many amino acid substitutions. A comparison of the remaining human exon sequences with the corresponding sequences of the guinea pig nonfunctional GULO gene revealed that the same substitutions from rats to both species occurred at a large number of nucleotide positions. From analyses of the molecular evolution of Alu sequences in the human GULO gene homologue, it is thought that two Alu sequences were inserted in the vicinity of a presumed position of lost exon 11 during the same period as GULO lost its function. It is predicted that six LINE-1 sequences located in and near the gene homologue were inserted not during that period.


--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,06:44   

I dunno... I think that, if Dave had even bothered to look at the links we provided for him form the start of this thread, he'd seen that the major deletions in the broken guinea pig gene occur in different locations than in the human one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....=240400

And he could have compared it with the differences in the broken genes of primates, seen here:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psb.st.pdf

And reach to an intelligent conclusion.

...That is, if he had bothered.

--------------
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."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,06:59   

Yes. But where is that 36% number coming from? Does dave, in fact, have the whole article? Or is he taking someone else's word for it?

And Dave, if you haven't checked out Faid's links, please do. Especially that second one. It's a sort of tutorial that addresses a lot of the issues we've been talking about.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:18   

Quote
After all, it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us with his noodly appendage.
Quote
I admit this is a logical possibility.  I challenge you to find evidence which supports it.
Well, this devout pastafarian admits he's stumped. I just have to accept His Noodly Appendage on faith. Now, I challenge you to admit that the christian SkyDaddy case is in exactly the same position.
Quote
Have I not demonstrated humility by "eating crow" graciously about the chimp chromosome issue?
Not really. Obviously you had to admit the fact that AiG was flat wrong about that. It's not like you had much of a choice there. But you failed to concede the obvious conclusion: that common descent is pretty much inescapable. No, the occasion called for a serious crow banquet; you barely sniffed at it.
Quote
I think what you perceive as smugness here is in reality a little bit of satire and poking fun at a theory.
Oh, I see. It's another example of the "Cordova Cockstrut", an ostentatiously disdainful display of false confidence in lieu of any actual supporting evidence.  
Quote
I am trying very hard to use innovative tools to jar people's thinking.  I think Darwinists are so steeped in logical fallacies that it takes something rather jarring to make them wake up and see the errors.
Motes and beams, dave. Motes and beams.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:24   

Quote
Does dave, in fact, have the whole article?
I think he read an AiG article and it looks like they have read the full article. The AiG article however does not discuss the similarity between the human gene and the primate genes.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:26   

Quote

Is it not just as plausible that both ape and human GLO "broke" independently?   So I think the following possibilities exist ...
(1) Pseudo-GLO is NOT "broken GLO" and is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.
You’ll have to explain why the species that carry a pseudo-GLO gene are the ones that can’t synthesize vitamin C. Coincidence?
 
Quote

(2) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because the gene "broke" in the ape-like ancestor, then this "broken gene" was copied throughout the evolutionary path to humans.  If this is true, however, you would still need to explain how the gene broke independently in the guinea pig ancestor, but wound up in modern guinea pigs looking "36% similar" to modern human pseudo-GLO.  You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)
The 36% similarity is in fact a powerful evidence for common descent, given that the absolute minimal level of similarity is 25 %. 36 % is extremely low, and proves that this pseudogene is not subject to stabilizing selection. What is the similarity between human and other apes, out of curiosity?
 
Quote

(3) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because all animals were designed with a functional gene, but now some have independently lost function because of mutations.
Hundreds of primate species losing a gene function independently with the same mutations? Do you know the concept of parsimony?
 
Quote

We have already seen the embarrasment to Darwinists of their failed predictions in the fossil record.  Darwinists predicted continuous transitional forms in the fossil record.  Creationists predicted ubiquitous gaps.  
Wrong, YECs predicted no fossils at all. The fact that they don’t know anything about fossilization and sedimentation make them completely incompetent on the subject.
 
Quote

Darwinists predicted true "vertical evolution" (or macro-evolution), but leading evolutionary scientists have now admitted that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history. Creationists predicted that any "evolution" would be lateral or downward and this has been confirmed.  
Could you point a research paper supporting this claim? And what is ‘vertical evolution’?
 
Quote

Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection, but Darwinists try to use this as evidence for their failed predictions of true vertical evolution,
Speciation have been observed in the lab (and in the wild) many times.
 
Quote

   
Quote
After all, it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us with his noodly appendage.
I admit this is a logical possibility.  I challenge you to find evidence which supports it.
A flying spaghetti monster would allow us to eat spaghetti. The prediction is confirmed.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:27   

Quote (Russell @ May 13 2006,11:59)
Yes. But where is that 36% number coming from? Does dave, in fact, have the whole article? Or is he taking someone else's word for it?

What do you think?  ;)

--------------
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."

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:40   


They use the term 'lesions' instead of 'nucleotids', which is misleading since most of the homologies are not due to convergent mutations (lesions), but common ancestry.

Anyway, I fail to get their logic. Even if  '36% of identical lesions' were the correct expression, their tree clearly supports common descent : human and other apes belong to a clade where similarities between taxa are far higher than 36%.

EDIT : I didn't notice the question marks after the apes names. But I'm pretty sure that the tree built with GLO will look the like this.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:56   

Quote
Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection
Again the old 'dog breeders can only make dogs', you forgot that natural selection also needs variation to act on. This comes with large populations and a lot of time.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,09:25   

Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,08:59)
Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection....

This is another example of illogic.

Creationism predicts that we could see radically new species appear every day of the week. Any time God feels like it, he could create a 'dat' (except Sunday, I guess).

Evolution predicts we can only expect to see 'small' speciation events occur in our lifetimes. 'Large' changes should take hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,09:38   

So, I read the AiG site, and I must say it's just precious.
I realized this: The magic "36%" comes from the 47 point substitutions (of 126 overall) that the human gene shares with the guinea pigs.
That's right, just the substitutions. Suprised? I'm not.
Now, they seem to be aware of the concept of point mutation hotspots, but they try to work around it (?) with this piece of blabber:
   
Quote
It has long been known that mutations are quite non-random in occurrence, but the variety and complexity of mutational hotspots has seldom been appreciated. Rogozin et al.36 have recently summarized our current knowledge of experimentally induced mutations. Many nucleotide motifs other than the earlier-discussed CG doublet can serve as mutational hotspots. It is now known that the sequence content tens of bases away from a given motif can influence the degree of its hotspot behaviour. Moreover, the propensity of nucleotide motifs to be mutational hotspots varies from gene to gene and from one region of the genome to another. Moreover, the foregoing considerations do not even touch the higher-level features of gene or chromatin structure as causes of mutational hotspot behaviour.37 The large relative number of parallel mutations in the guinea pig and primate GULO pseudogenes cannot be said to be unprecedented. Experimental evidence has already demonstrated that nucleotide substitutions (as well as indels, for that matter) can, unexpectedly, occur in a very strongly concerted manner.38

Can anyone make sense of it? How does all this argue against hotspots in a given gene? It seems like they're copy/pasting various phrases from different sources, trying to look like they're actually arguing about something. Or, if they seriously think the hotspot concept works for them, how do they explain the much larger simillarity of the broken gene among primates? Oh that's right, they don't.
But maybe I'm wrong, I dunno... The main issue is this: They don't say anything about deletions. At all. For AiG, entire deletions corresponding to exons might as well not exist. And that's in spite of the fact they receive prime mention in their source. They mention something about the exons remaining in humans, but not in relation to guinea pigs, and they forget about it afterwards.
Gee, I wonder why:
Quote
Since deletions are not likely to occur independently at the same site and are highly unlikely to be “undone” by later mutations, finding the same deletion in two different individuals or two different species is highly suggestive ofcommon ancestry. (This is in agreement with what is observed in “tracing”certain deletion mutations in human pedigrees.)


Hey Dave, guess who's been lying to you again?

--------------
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: May 13 2006,10:01   

Quote
THINGS THAT ARE NOT AF DAVE'S GOALS
(1)  Get a biology degree
(2)  Become a genetic engineer
(3)  Get an advanced science degree
(4)  Become a biochemical researcher
(5)  Pretend I know more about biology than you
(6)  Become a geologist
(7)  Become an astrophysicist

OK?  ... again, I appreciate all the admonitions to get this or that degree or go buy this or that book ... but it's not necessary ... there are plenty of competent researchers like Mr. Nishikimi out there who give me the data I need, and of course I do have YOU ALL to keep me straight.

And I should point out that you guys do a great job of knowing biology and the workings of DNA and transcription and chromosomes and all these wonderful details.


Those 1st several things do not have to be goals. But you have to have the BASIC knowlege before the ADVANCED knowlege is any use to you. It isn't the advanced stuff that proves evolution or plate techtonics or expanding universe. It's the BASIC stuff. The advanced stuff is simply layers and facets to the picture. Argue genes all day long buddy. It doesn't make the fossil record any less relevant. Argue the fossil record all day long, it doesn't make it's relationship with geology any less relevant. Argue any detail in any specialty field of science and you aren't saying a danm thing about the big picture which shows conclusively and overwhelmingly that, not only is evolution the way speciation DID, DOES, and WILL occur, but that ALL provincial interpretations of religion are mere projection.

Not to say that god isn't there. Merely to say that no one has any privilaged info on it. And that is why your argument keeps going round and round. Because you have to jump to different disciplines to defend your ignorant ideas. As soon as you get on unsure footing in one discipline, a scientist can look at data from another to check a hypothosis. You, in attempting to engage in scientific discussion, are having to do it too. Unfortunately, there isn't a safe haven for you since your provincial view of god has forced you to take positions that are exactly what science DOESN'T find. So you go to science and are shocked that scientists, who are busy discovering more and more detail about how things DO work, don't take you seriously when you spout off ignorant and false "facts" that are easily disprovable with a inter-disciplined first year science curriculum. You are effectively telling nuclear physicists that they are wrong and basing your idea on the fact that a lever reduces the amount of force available.

We can't really speak to your questions because you are too totally lacking in BASIC understanding. You are wrong, ignorant, and your hubris is a projection of fear that you need it to be a certain way so you can't even see that you are wrong. Unlike T-diddy, you don't appear to be an idiot, but you are wrong. It is to big of a task to explain why.

You never answered my questions earlier because you can't. And they are VERY basic questions but the info you need to be able to answer them is critical to understanding almost anything else, especially in the kind of biology that you need to know to understand evolution. Genetics-you can't even DO genetics without understanding evolution. You can't argue genetics without understanding how niches, ecosystems, selective pressures and etc. affect organisms. And you cand understand  niches, ecosystems, selective pressures and etc without understanding a bit of earth science.

So, I'm sorry but you are simply too ignorant to be educated in this blog. Go read geology 101, oceanography 101, astonomy 101, biology 101, and maybe chemistry 101.

Any combination of two or three of these would probably do the trick but you just can't join the debate without these.

Does anybody disagree?

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

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,10:33   

I think someone can join in the debate without learning a lot of science, the problem comes when you think you know more than the experts. A little knowledge of course comes in handy if you want to understand the reasons why you are wrong.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,11:58   

I just performed a quick BLAST of GULO (exon 10), and the homology between human and chimp is 97%.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,12:00   

Quote
Does dave, in fact, have the whole article?
 
Quote
I think he read an AiG article and it looks like they have read the full article
:O Oh, no. Here we go again. How many cycles of debunking AiG will we have to go through before AFDave comes to be just a wee bit suspicious of their reliability? ???

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,14:12   

BWE, I completely agree.  I've been pining to state as much for well over a week now, but lack the authority to do so eloquently.  I'd have resorted to much more porochial, sophomoric rhetoric that could be easily ignored. . . . :p

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,15:27   

Quote
I just performed a quick BLAST of GULO (exon 10), and the homology between human and chimp is 97%.
No surprises there, right?

So you want the original article? ... I can probably have it on Monday or Tuesday ...

Are you saying you will agree with me if I give it to you?

(Just kidding!;)

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,15:39   

Agree with what, Dave? that 36% of the point mutations in the two broken genes are the same? Sure, we agree. Now, will you read our answers, and the links we gave you?

--------------
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."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,15:58   

Quote
It's not even necessarily true on that 'one little piece of DNA'. Whats the sequence similarity for the GLOs? We just know in this discussion that two are broken. It's absolutely idiotic to use this single fact to infer things about common descent.


Steve!  My buddy!  You and I agree on something ... I KNEW it would happen sooner or later.

That's what I've been trying to say ... Dr. Max's article on T.O. uses this as evidence of common descent for apes and humans.  My point has been all along that this assertion is not warranted with just this little bit of knowledge that we have.

But I'm also not saying it proves Common Design.  It obviously doesn't, but it at least argues that either one is a possibility.

Again, the whole thing started with Renier saying "Look ... Dr. Max has proven common descent with this Vitamin C thing" which I think he has not.

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

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,16:33   

Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,21:58)
Quote

It's not even necessarily true on that 'one little piece of DNA'. Whats the sequence similarity for the GLOs? We just know in this discussion that two are broken. It's absolutely idiotic to use this single fact to infer things about common descent.

Steve!  My buddy!  You and I agree on something ... I KNEW it would happen sooner or later.

That's what I've been trying to say ... Dr. Max's article on T.O. uses this as evidence of common descent for apes and humans.  My point has been all along that this assertion is not warranted with just this little bit of knowledge that we have.

afdave, that's just retarded! And you're quote mining. steve is talking about that so called 36% similarity being poor evidence of our relatedness to rats. That might be a good number for a presidential approval rating now-a-days, but it's got nothing on our well documented overall DNA similarity to chimpanzees, not to mention the obviously plaigerized vitamin C error which is incredibly strong evidence of common descent.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,16:37   

Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,20:58)
That's what I've been trying to say ... Dr. Max's article on T.O. uses this as evidence of common descent for apes and humans.  My point has been all along that this assertion is not warranted with just this little bit of knowledge that we have.

*sigh*

Dave, for the love of the Designer Who Must Not Be Named, read the links. See for yourself this "little knowledge" science has on the subject. See who's withholding the truth from you.

--------------
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."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,16:56   

Quote
afdave, that's just retarded! And you're quote mining. steve is talking about that so called 36% similarity being poor evidence of our relatedness to rats.


Aw come on ... you mean Steve isn't agreeing with me here?  Bummer ...

Oh well ... gotta keep trying!  Gonna happen sooner or later ...

I AM interested in hearing the outcome of the big Saturday night event ... "Max vs. Woodmorappe"

Faid?  Any more analysis from your corner?

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,17:36   

Hmm... Dunno about Max, but I can analyse Woodmorappe's "feasibility of the Ark" crap, if you like...

Why do you ask? Got anything to share?

--------------
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."

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,18:29   

You guys still going at it?  Wow, you have some stamina!

Anyway, since AIG is being quote and mentioned again on this thread, now might be a good time to quote something from their own "About" page:
Quote
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible.

There it is.  They don't do science, they do apologetics.  They don't do any scientific research for themselves--the best you can say is that they are armchair critics.

Maybe if afDave started quoting directly from sources doing the science instead of parroting an apologetics organization we would begin to talk him more seriously.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,22:35   

Quote (Faid @ May 13 2006,20:39)
Agree with what, Dave? that 36% of the point mutations in the two broken genes are the same? Sure, we agree. Now, will you read our answers, and the links we gave you?

It would be more accurate to use the term 'nucleotids' instead of 'mutations', because mutations are changes of ancestral states. 36% of similar point mutations would imply that 36% of the changes in GLO since the human and rodent lineages split are convergent, which is not the case(I'm sure the percentage is just the basic distance between the genes).

So Dave, since 36% of similarity between the broken GLO genes in guinea pigs and human are very low and support our view, what is your interpretation?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,22:51   

Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,20:27)
Quote
I just performed a quick BLAST of GULO (exon 10), and the homology between human and chimp is 97%.
No surprises there, right?

So you want the original article? ... I can probably have it on Monday or Tuesday ...

I appreciate, but I already have the paper (Nishikimi et al.).

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,01:40   

Quote
Why do you ask? Got anything to share?


I thought you were going to show why Dr. Max of Talk Origins is correct and Woodmorappe of AIG is wrong on this "Vitamin C gene" issue.

That's what we were talking about ...

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,01:48   

Quote
There it is.  They [AIG] don't do science, they do apologetics.  They don't do any scientific research for themselves--the best you can say is that they are armchair critics.


Armchair critics ... er, yes ... sort of like you, right?

It's funny that Evos think that Creos should "do their own research."  That would be like me saying   "PT and TO people shouldn't quote researchers like Nikimishi and Inai ... they should do their own research!!"

Pretty silly argument, now, isn't it?

Yeah, I thought so ... you can take it back if you like ... I won't embarrass you by quoting you further.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,02:08   

Quote
So Dave, since 36% of similarity between the broken GLO genes in guinea pigs and human are very low and support our view, what is your interpretation?

My view is that Dr. Max made an unwarranted assertion by saying that "GLO mistakes" were copied from the common ancestor of apes and humans.  I think the GLO situation we have in humans and apes today could just as easily support Common Design Theory.  

Of course, it is fine for him to have that interpretation if he chooses.  I just think we know too little to be dogmatic as he seems to be.

Renier said that basically this was a closed case for him and was the very issue that made him abandon the YEC position.

*********************
Separate issue:  the guinea pig thing

This is interesting, but I'm not saying anything dogmatic about it.  I really don't understand enough about it and I would value Jeannot's analysis of the AIG article.  Jeannot, do you also have the Inai article that AIG quotes?

It appears that they are saying that humans would be more closely related to guinea pigs (because humans also have broken GLO) than to pro-simians (functional GLO) if we followed evolutionary logic, but this is obviously absurd, because they are not related.  Again, I don't know if I agree with this or not.

I think they are also pointing out that evolutionists agree that guinea pig GLO broke independently from the simian line, so why shouldn't we expect ape GLO to break independently from human GLO?

We should.  At the very least, we cannot dogmatically say that the GLO gene definitely broke in the common ancestor, then was copied to apes and humans.

Do you agree?

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,03:10   

No.

Dave, read the links.

See the actual kind of differences present between human and guinea pig GULO genes (not just the ones AiG mentions, which are but a small part) and compare them to the minimal differences between primates.

This is the fifth (I think?) time I'm asking you to... You have repeatedly claimed that you read the links we provide: Are you going to make a liar out of yourself?

--------------
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."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,03:17   

Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,06:48)
Quote
There it is.  They [AIG] don't do science, they do apologetics.  They don't do any scientific research for themselves--the best you can say is that they are armchair critics.


Armchair critics ... er, yes ... sort of like you, right?

It's funny that Evos think that Creos should "do their own research."  That would be like me saying   "PT and TO people shouldn't quote researchers like Nikimishi and Inai ... they should do their own research!!"

Pretty silly argument, now, isn't it?

Yeah, I thought so ... you can take it back if you like ... I won't embarrass you by quoting you further.

Dave, we're referring to AiG and all their proclaimed experts, like Woodmorappe, not you. You reply by referring to us.
And AiG does not quote scientific research that supports Genesis (because there isn't any, and they cannot come up with any), so they take existing scientific research and try to twist and distort its data to their liking. They're liars, dave.

I'll give you a chance to retract what you said, before you embarrass yourself even further.

--------------
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."

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,04:47   

Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,07:08)
It appears that they are saying that humans would be more closely related to guinea pigs (because humans also have broken GLO) than to pro-simians (functional GLO) if we followed evolutionary logic, but this is obviously absurd, because they are not related.  Again, I don't know if I agree with this or not.

I think they are also pointing out that evolutionists agree that guinea pig GLO broke independently from the simian line, so why shouldn't we expect ape GLO to break independently from human GLO?

We should.  At the very least, we cannot dogmatically say that the GLO gene definitely broke in the common ancestor, then was copied to apes and humans.

Do you agree?

It's not simply the fact that GLO is 'broken.' It's the exact nature of the 'breaks.' That's what supports evolution & common descent.

You realize that genes are generally a few thousand base pairs long (or longer), right? And you realize that there are many, many, many different genetic changes that can 'break' (inactivate) any given change?

So, if humans and other great apes all have an inactivated GLO gene, and the cause of the inactivation is virtually identical in all of them, that's evidence for evolution via common descent. Not proof. Evidence.

If you want to cling to the statement that we can't dogmatically say the GLO gene definitely broke in the common ancestor, go right ahead. Of course, the GLO gene is just one piece of evidence, among thousands of others. But even with all that evidence, we can't definitely say evolution and common descent are proven.

What we can say is that evolution not only provides detailed, mechanistic explanations of the available data, is also accurately and reproducibly predicts new observations. Creationism does neither of those things. That's why evolution is science, and creationism is not. That's why evolution should be taught in science class, and creationism should not.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,04:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,07:08)
I think they are also pointing out that evolutionists agree that guinea pig GLO broke independently from the simian line, so why shouldn't we expect ape GLO to break independently from human GLO?

We should.  At the very least, we cannot dogmatically say that the GLO gene definitely broke in the common ancestor, then was copied to apes and humans.

Do you agree?

No.
We use the principle of parsimony. All copies of the GLO gene are broken in the same way in primates, which besides were known to share a common ancestor way before (that's why they constitute an order).The pylogeny (tree) made with that pseudogene reflects the phylogenies based on other coding genes.
Parallel loss of function, resulting from the same mutations, are extremely improbable. Do you know how many primate species exist?
And the pattern of mutations confirms, alongside the fact that those organisms can't survive without vitamin C, that GLO is not coding and evolves by genetic drift, not NS.

According to common design, the creator would have put broken copies of a gene in each species, copies that reflect the current phylogeny, built with coding genes. Why would he? A broken gene is not part of a design, it's useless.

You said you would readily accept any evidence for common descent. I don't think you are sincere. What kind of proof would convince you?

And what are your thoughts on the fact that AIG only referred to the 36% homology between guinea pigs and humans, but forgot to mention the 97% identity between us and chimpanzees? Silly mistake again?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,06:00   

Quote
I think the GLO situation we have in humans and apes today could just as easily support Common Design Theory.  
I keep asking, and you keep not answering: what, in the "common design theory", would have led Nishikimi to expect to find gulo homologs in humans and guinea pigs?"

If you can't answer that, then, no, the common design theory is not "just as easily supported".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,06:39   

Quote
You said you would readily accept any evidence for common descent. I don't think you are sincere. What kind of proof would convince you?
Jeannot asks an important question, in fact the important question, here.

The only evidence that I can imagine persuading AFD is AnswersInGenesis publicly admitting that they're wrong, and that the case is, in fact, every bit as solid as the scientists say. And that's not going to happen.

Think about it. AiG has a far-fetched answer for everything, and it was like pulling teeth to get AFD to see the lameness of even the lamest B.S. Even then, it doesn't seem to have put much of a dent in his confidence in them. So we move on to the next AiG bogosity, then the next, and the next... until AiG runs out of money. (I was going to say, runs out of arguments, but as we all know, they just start recycling at that point.)

I think it's a valid question, and AFD should probably address it before he wastes a lot more time with his claims to open-mindedness:

Apparently the fossil evidence, DNA sequence analysis, chromosome structure, and a coherent theory are not enough.
What kind of proof would convince you?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,07:40   

mmm actually, I spoke too fast. :O
Faid, you were right.
There indeed seems to be a convergence between human and guinea pig for some substitutions in GLO. I should have read your post, and the abstract that Russel provided more carefully.        
Quote
A comparison of the remaining human exon sequences with the corresponding sequences of the guinea pig nonfunctional GULO gene revealed that the same substitutions from rats to both species occurred at a large number of nucleotide positions.

I don't have access to this paper, but to another by one of the authors.

I'm not an expert in molecular biology, but these 36% of convergence are not very disturbing. Convergence increases to a value of 25% as mutations accumulate. Some mutational 'hot spots' (I don't know much about them) may account for the difference.
Anyway, the percentage of identical substitutions between human and chimp is certainly well above 36%.

However, their sentence puzzles me: "from rats to both species occurred... ". Since when are modern rats the ancestors of primates and other rodents?
That could be misleading. One must not consider that GLO in rats is the ancestral state of the borken copies in guinea pigs and primates. The 36% of convergent substitutions might be an overestimation. Some neutral substitutions may have occurred in the rats lineage only.
EDIT : I already see IDers coming. For every gene showing some convergence between lineages (and there are several) they'll be claming "See? Darwinism is doomed, this one gene contradicts comon descent, ah ah...ect." ???

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,08:15   

Quote
However, their sentence puzzles me: "from rats to both species occurred... ". Since when are modern rats the ancestors of primates and other rodents?
I suspect that's exactly the problem.

I don't have access to the paper, either. But I do have access to GeneBank. What do you want to bet that most of that 36% will turn out to be rat-specific mutations from the consensus?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,08:21   

...and if that does turn out to be the case, what is the more likely explanation for AiG's mistake: incompetence, or dishonesty?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,08:27   

Quote (Russell @ May 14 2006,13:15)
       
Quote
However, their sentence puzzles me: "from rats to both species occurred... ". Since when are modern rats the ancestors of primates and other rodents?
I suspect that's exactly the problem.

I don't have access to the paper, either. But I do have access to GeneBank. What do you want to bet that most of that 36% will turn out to be rat-specific mutations from the consensus?

I won't bet because that's what I think too (except for the "most"). In fact, I edited my post in that way just before I read yours.  ;)

To check that, we should gather several sequences from rodents, primates (and maybe other mammals), if available, and build a maximum likelihood our parsimony phylogeny. The three sequences alone (rat, guinea pig and human) won't do.
But the number of mutations is expected to be much higher in the broken genes, so I don't expect the level of convergence to be much reduced.

Maybe we could write a paper together?  ;)

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,09:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,07:08)
My view is that Dr. Max made an unwarranted assertion by saying that "GLO mistakes" were copied from the common ancestor of apes and humans.  I think the GLO situation we have in humans and apes today could just as easily support Common Design Theory.

We're back to your problems with logic, Dave.

In your mind what does "warrant" any evidence used in any  argument? How does "evidence" "support" any argument?

Step back from the evolution/ID argument and look at some other scientific theories. We can translate your complaints about evolution into complaints about any major scientific theory. You can name any scientific theory you like and believe in, Dave, and I'll use your style of argument to frustrate you.

Take "plate tectonics," (google it) a theory that says the Earth is covered in plates of crust floating on molten rock and growing out where the molten rock rises from the Earth's interior. One one side the plate grows cold and sinks down into the interior, where it's remelted. Continents ride on top of these plates. Sometimes they crash into each other, forming mountains.

If you're a young earth creationist than you don't believe this theory either since it requires an old Earth. But you can choose your own, Dave. Then I'll throw your illogical and irrational style of argument back at you.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,09:15   

Quote (Russell @ May 14 2006,13:21)
...and if that does turn out to be the case, what is the more likely explanation for AiG's mistake: incompetence, or dishonesty?

Well, since we've seen that they've already withheld information regarding deletions, and made it look like the 36% simillarity in substitutions alone is the overall simillarity in the two genes... Need you ask?  ;)

I admit I hadn't thought of that: Point mutations (not deletions though- I think) can also accumulate in species with an active form of the gene, as long as the gene remains functional after them. So, a significant number of those could have happened after rats and guinea pigs diverged. That would make the number of simillar subtitutions attributed to other reasons (like mutational hotspots) much less.
Not that this affects the fact that the remarkable resemblance (including specific deletions etc.) of the broken gene in primates suggests common descent from a gene broken in a single species, of course: This evidence is way strong the way it stands. It just helps to clear out the AiG smokescreens easier.

...You know, it's a good thing creationists like Dave drop by from time to time and try to "enlighten" us: It helps us refresh things we had forgotten, learn things we didn't know, have constructive debates (such as this) we'd normally not have, and in the end appreciate science even more.

--------------
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."

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,09:46   

Quote (Faid @ May 14 2006,14:15)
... a significant number of those could have happened after rats and guinea pigs diverged. That would make the number of simillar subtitutions attributed to other reasons (like mutational hotspots) much less.

That's what Inai et al. measured. The substitutions between rats and guinea pigs (not from rat to guinea pigs, and that's their mistake), which they compared to rat-human substitutions, necessarily occured after their lineages diverged.
The apparent convergence of 36% could be significantly reduced, only if several substitutions accumulated in the rat lineage only, which is not likely since the active GLO is subject to purifying selection.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,10:12   

Quote (jeannot @ May 14 2006,14:46)
The apparent convergence of 36% could be significantly reduced, only if several substitutions accumulated in the rat lineage only, which is not likely since the active GLO is subject to purifying selection.

I know, that's why I'm speaking of substitutions that do not affect the gene's function. Now, I think such are possible to occur (although much, much less than all the kinds of mutations that accumulate in broken genes, of course)... Otherwise, the GULO gene should be 100% identical in all animals that can make their own vit. C- And I think that is not the case? Or is it? Does anyone have a relevant source?

Did I mention that this is fun?  :)

--------------
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."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,10:18   

I wonder why AFDave isn't hear setting you all straight about your convergences and your BLASTs and what have you.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,10:24   

Quote (Faid @ May 14 2006,15:12)
Quote (jeannot @ May 14 2006,14:46)
The apparent convergence of 36% could be significantly reduced, only if several substitutions accumulated in the rat lineage only, which is not likely since the active GLO is subject to purifying selection.

I know, that's why I'm speaking of substitutions that do not affect the gene's function. Now, I think such are possible to occur (although much, much less than all the kinds of mutations that accumulate in broken genes, of course)... Otherwise, the GULO gene should be 100% identical in all animals that can make their own vit. C- And I think that is not the case? Or is it? Does anyone have a relevant source?

Did I mention that this is fun?  :)

Sure, synonymous mutations, for instance, are essentially neutral. You can also have some beneficial mutations.
And as you said, the number of neutral substitutions is far higher in a non-coding sequence, since 100% are neutral.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,10:26   

Quote (stevestory @ May 14 2006,15:18)
I wonder why AFDave isn't hear setting you all straight about your convergences and your BLASTs and what have you.

From what I hear, he's busy posting over at his newfound haven at UD right now.

But I'm sure he'll be back...

--------------
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."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,12:06   

Quote
From what I hear, he's busy posting over at his newfound haven at UD right now.
(see comment #5 on this UD thread:)
Quote
I spend a lot of time over at Panda’s Thumb at “After the Bar Closes” refuting evolution and defending Intelligent Design …
[guffaw]
Is that what you think you're doing here, Dave? Better not tell DaveSnot that what you're really doing is arguing against common descent. He'll ban your a$$ over there faster than you can say "AnswersInGenesis".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,12:34   

Nah, Davescot's been put on a leash: Young earthers are quite welcome at UD these days. I'm sure that Dave will find it quite a hospitable place, now that the Immanuel Velikovsky of Information Theory has given up all pretense, and DS is biting his lip trying to constrain himself...

--------------
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."

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,12:53   

Quote (Faid @ May 14 2006,15:26)
... he's busy posting over at his newfound haven at UD right now.

And he has a website:
http://airdave.blogspot.com

He gets Warren Buffet quoting Jesus:
http://airdave.blogspot.com/2005....te.html

But he doesn't seem to know that Warren Buffet is an atheist, like Bill Gates and George Soros.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,05:45   

Quote
The apparent convergence of 36% could be significantly reduced, only if several substitutions accumulated in the rat lineage only, which is not likely since the active GLO is subject to purifying selection.
I just did a quick look at a 3-way comparison of (1) the rat coding gulo sequence, (2) the (NON-guinea) pig coding gulo sequence, and (3) the corresponding guinea pig sequence.

Guess what?

Out of 151 point mutations between guinea pig and rat, 54 (36%! ) of them are the exact same nucleotide in the "pig" pig!  (Those are hand-counted, so don't hold me to the exact numbers; I probably missed a few).

Wow! What do you suppose? Two hypotheses occur to me.

(1) The same mutations "independently" occurred in both "pig" pig and guinea pig. If - as I suspect they will - these largely overlap the mutations that coincide between human and guinea pig - the ones that have AiG and AFDave all excited - then they "independently" occurred 3 times!. Applying Dembski's Explanatory Filter, I'm pretty sure we would have to conclude that The Designer is trying to tell us something, and we should get busy trying to figure out what it is.

OR

(2) These mutations, as I suggested before, occurred once, randomly, in the rat lineage after it diverged from the guinea pig.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,06:02   

I'm sorry, I just can't get past this. here it is interactively for Dave

And here it is in writing.

Speciation isn't something that happens quickly and AFDave is trying to fit it into his unbelievably, drastically, horrendouly, misunderestimatedly compressed timeline.

When did the split occur Dave? around the time of pharoah? Oh right you don't think there WAS a split. Interestingly, you sparked a conversation between two people who DO know what they are talking about and got some interesting info.

Arg. ???

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

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,06:49   

Faid said ...  
Quote
Dave, we're referring to AiG and all their proclaimed experts, like Woodmorappe, not you. You reply by referring to us.
And AiG does not quote scientific research that supports Genesis (because there isn't any, and they cannot come up with any), so they take existing scientific research and try to twist and distort its data to their liking. They're liars, dave.


I was not referring to you.  What I said was ...  
Quote
That would be like me saying "PT and TO people shouldn't quote researchers like Nikimishi and Inai ... they should do their own research!!"


My point was that people like Dr. Max on Talk Origins use other people's research (Inai, Nikimishi, etc.) and draw conclusions ... why shouldn't AIG do the same?  Obviously they are going to have different conclusions because they hold a different world view.  This is not lying.  You have not shown me one lie they have told.  You have shown me that Dr. Wieland was uninformed about transcription direction being unimportant.  And I agreed with you. But you have not shown me that they lie.

 
Quote
It's not simply the fact that GLO is 'broken.' It's the exact nature of the 'breaks.' That's what supports evolution & common descent.

You realize that genes are generally a few thousand base pairs long (or longer), right? And you realize that there are many, many, many different genetic changes that can 'break' (inactivate) any given change?

So, if humans and other great apes all have an inactivated GLO gene, and the cause of the inactivation is virtually identical in all of them, that's evidence for evolution via common descent. Not proof. Evidence.

I do understand all this, yes.   I think my understanding is correct that human and ape genes are about 95% (or 97) similar.  My assumption would be that the inactivated GLO gene would likewise be approximately 95% (or 97 or whatever it really is) similar also.  Is this correct?  Or am I to understand that human and ape GLO is 100% IDENTICAL?  Can someone confirm this for me?

If the former is true, then to me it is clear that Dr. Max's assertion that this proves common descent is an OK guess, but it doesn't close the case.  One could just as easily say that apes and humans are separate designs and the GLO broke independently in each.  Why should we think it would not?  Apparently it did also break independently in guinea pigs.

And again, the 36% thing to me is a side issue.  What I am trying to show is simply that Renier said that Dr. Max said that the broken GLO in humans is exactly 100% the same as in apes.  Enter Dr. Max's copyright case. And yes, IF this is the situation we in fact have, then I would agree ... it looks like common descent.

 
Quote
What we can say is that evolution not only provides detailed, mechanistic explanations of the available data, is also accurately and reproducibly predicts new observations. Creationism does neither of those things. That's why evolution is science, and creationism is not. That's why evolution should be taught in science class, and creationism should not.
Creationism HAS provided many detailed explanations of the available data and has accurately predicted many things, including ubiquitous gaps in the fossil record and the inability to induce "good changes" or "vertical evolution" in fruit flies by "speeding up the evolutionary timescale." It has predicted a certain "fixity of kinds" and "downward evolution" (not "upward") (note we are using MY terminolgy here in which humans are "at the top" of the hierarchy and single celled organisms are at the bottom--this is my convention, of course, but I believe it to be a good convention which in many ways can be a useful organizational tool) which in fact has been observed--i.e.  our bodies continue to accumulate more and more harmful mutations and the bacteria are winning, among other things.  It hypothesized that coal does not require millions of years to form, but can be formed quite quickly.  This has now been shown.  It hypothesized that sedimentation such as that seen in the Grand Canyon is not formed gradually over millions of years, but is formed catastrophically.  This has now been proven at Mt. Saint Helens where there is a "miniature Grand Canyon which was not there before 1980.  Creationism and the idea of the the Curse has the only sensible description of human nature which lines up with what we actually observe.  And many other things which we have already begun to get into on my "Creator God Hypothesis" thread.

 
Quote
According to common design, the creator would have put broken copies of a gene in each species, copies that reflect the current phylogeny, built with coding genes. Why would he? A broken gene is not part of a design, it's useless.

You said you would readily accept any evidence for common descent. I don't think you are sincere. What kind of proof would convince you?
Please see above.  Can you confirm that the broken GLO gene is 100% identical to the broken ape GLO gene?  If so, then I think you have something.

 
Quote
And what are your thoughts on the fact that AIG only referred to the 36% homology between guinea pigs and humans, but forgot to mention the 97% identity between us and chimpanzees? Silly mistake again?
No.  Just irrelevant to their discussion.  The whole Inai paper discussion (I think) is intended to show that "Guinea pigs GLO gene broke independently.  Why shouldn't apes and humans GLO gene ALSO break independently?  They may be trying to say something further than this also when they get into the pro-simian discussion and 36% etc., but I don't really follow that part of their argument.  They freely acknowledge elsewhere that there is great similarity in ape and human genes, so it is clear they are not trying to obfuscate.  They may think it will come in a bit less--maybe 90%--when more is known, but even if it stays at 95-97, this does no damage to their idea that apes and humans DO NOT share a common ancestor.  A house builder builds many houses that look similar--97% similar probably--but this is obviously because of a Common Designer, not Common Descent.

By the way, the 36% 'similarness' number comes from 47 out of 129 substitutions, i.e. 47/129=0.36.  I do have the complete Inai article, and they themselves say "A high percentage of the same substitutions in the total substitutions (36%) indicates that there were many hot spots for nucleotide substitution throughout the sequences examined." (Journal of Nutritional Science & Vitaminology, 2003, Vol. 49, Issue 5,p. 316).  This does not lead to any profound conclusions for me ... how about you?

I did not see anything in this article which would confirm 100% identicalness of human GLO to ape GLO.  Possibly some other article has this?

 
Quote
I keep asking, and you keep not answering: what, in the "common design theory", would have led Nishikimi to expect to find gulo homologs in humans and guinea pigs?"
To me it is quite conceivable that a Designer designed functional GLO genes in all the distinct "originally created kinds."  The fact that Human Designers make similar structures to perform similar function should have led Nishikimi to expect to find homologues in the natural world as well.  I don't think the genes have to be identical to be functional.  Just as several different codons can code for a particular protein (I think that's correct, right?--help me all you genetics experts). Similarly, in the English language, I can say I'm going to go grocery shopping in a variety of different ways ... "I'm going to go buy some food" and "I'm gonna drop by Safeway and restock our vittles" and "I'm going to go to town and get our pantry restocked" all communicate the same idea but with very different words.  There is no reason in my mind to think that the situation in genetics is any different than this.  

 
Quote
Apparently the fossil evidence, DNA sequence analysis, chromosome structure, and a coherent theory are not enough. What kind of proof would convince you?
100% identicalness of the GLO gene between apes and humans would be a good piece of evidence to me.  The whale evolution sequences presented to me are very unconvincing.  The chromosome thing is the best one I have been given yet, but again, considering the above discussion, why couldn't a Designer have used the '2A and 2B' chromosome info that he used for apes, modified it slightly by fusing it and a few other changes, then inserted this into the human genome?  Or vice versa.  Maybe He used Human chromosome 2, split it into two and put it into the chimp genome as 2A and 2B.  When an artist creates two pieces of artwork, they may be very similar, and the artist may reuse certain pieces of one in creating the other.  Certainly software 'artists' do this.  I've done this myself many times.  Why write a second program entirely from scratch when you can reuse some code snippets and save yourself some time?  Again, I am not saying here that I can prove this definitely happened.  I am just saying that it is perfectly plausible and exactly what we should expect from a Designer.  Some kind of 'upward evolution' (my definition of upward -- humans at the top, one-celled organisms at the bottom) in fruit flies would be impressive.  I think these experiments try to 'fast forward' evolution.  But all I've ever heard of is dead fruit flies, deformed fruit flies, etc.  Never 'advanced' fruit flies with major increased abilities.

Jeannot said ...  
Quote
Anyway, the percentage of identical substitutions between human and chimp is certainly well above 36%.
I would expect it to be around the same as the general genetic similarity -- 95-97%.  This would be consistent with Design Theory.

 
Quote
To check that, we should gather several sequences from rodents, primates (and maybe other mammals), if available, and build a maximum likelihood our parsimony phylogeny. The three sequences alone (rat, guinea pig and human) won't do.
Agreed.  Does anyone have a paper comparing human and chimp GLO, for example?  Is it 100% identical?  Or 95-97% as I predict.

 
Quote
...You know, it's a good thing creationists like Dave drop by from time to time and try to "enlighten" us: It helps us refresh things we had forgotten, learn things we didn't know, have constructive debates (such as this) we'd normally not have, and in the end appreciate science even more.
See ... even ugly, flea-bitten dogs are good for something ... to throw rocks at, kick when your mad, etc. :-)

Faid said ...  
Quote
Did I mention that this is fun?
Well ... at least I am contributing entertainment value to everyone if nothing else ... think of me a side show at the carnival that you didn't have to pay for!

 
Quote
I wonder why AFDave isn't hear setting you all straight about your convergences and your BLASTs and what have you.
 Oh, I was there alright.  I actually read these posts on my Blackberry at church during the boring announcements.  I just have never tried posting from my Blackberry.

 
Quote
From what I hear, he's busy posting over at his newfound haven at UD right now. But I'm sure he'll be back...
Oh yes.  I'll be back.  I wouldn't call UD a haven.  Those guys all agree with me.  What fun is that?  I just thought I'd better spread the word about that fun quote from TO before someone at TO changes it to sound ... er ... less supportive of Creos.

 
Quote
And he has a website:
http://airdave.blogspot.com

He gets Warren Buffet quoting Jesus:
http://airdave.blogspot.com/2005....te.html

But he doesn't seem to know that Warren Buffet is an atheist, like Bill Gates and George Soros.
Oh I know he is.  That's irrelevant to me.  I posted this in response to a friend that maintains that you shouldn't be quoting Jesus at work.  My response was "Well, why not?  Warren Buffet does!"

While you are at my blog site, you guys HAVE to try my "Mist, Ghost or Computer Graphics?" link ... but turn your speakers up loud.

 
Quote
When did the split occur Dave? around the time of pharoah? Oh right you don't think there WAS a split. Interestingly, you sparked a conversation between two people who DO know what they are talking about and got some interesting info.
Of course.  I like it when this happens.  BTW, I did see your questions and I have good answers, but I'm on a particular train of thought and would like to answer them in my own sequence.  Did you read the latest page on my "God Hypo" thread?

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

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,07:42   

Quote
What kind of proof would convince you?

 
Quote
100% identicalness of the GLO gene between apes and humans would be a good piece of evidence to me.
But evolution doesn't predict 100% identity! So why would the fulfilling of a prediction that evolution doesn't make convince you of evolution? That doesn't make much sense, does it?

As for 95% being "consistent with common design"...  Your common designer hypothesis has your designer designing humans, chimps, apes, guinea pigs, rats, and earthworms. What is it about the "designer" hypothesis that predicts that the gulo pseudogene - or any other piece of DNA - would be closer between humans and chimps than between humans and earthworms? Face it: it's not the "common design" hypothesis that the 95% (or whatever it is) similarity is consistent with; it's observation. You're just saying, more or less explicitly, what we've known all along: the "common design" hypothesis is consistent with any and all (after the fact) observations, because it makes no predictions!

I can't imagine, for instance, what about 100% identity between human and chimp gulo would convince you. (In fact, you know as well as I do it wouldn't.) Why would that not just another instance of "common design"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,07:43   

Quote
I would expect it to be around the same as the general genetic similarity -- 95-97%.  This would be consistent with Design Theory.
Please explain how design theory predicts this and common descent does not. Why does evolution predict that the sequences would be 100% identical?

Quote
I am just saying that it is perfectly plausible and exactly what we should expect from a Designer.
You have to show us why common design is more likely.

Quote
I just thought I'd better spread the word about that fun quote from TO before someone at TO changes it to sound ... er ... less supportive of Creos.
You seem to be confusing TalkOrigins with Uncommon Descent.

Quote
You have shown me that Dr. Wieland was uninformed about transcription direction being unimportant.  And I agreed with you. But you have not shown me that they lie.
He made a bold statement claiming to have discovered something every other geneticist in the world had missed when he must have known he was ignorant of even the most basic facts, and that his audience would believe him over everyone else. This is at best dishonest.

Quote
Just as several different codons can code for a particular protein (I think that's correct, right?--help me all you genetics experts).
Codons code for amino acids. This isn't something only genetics experts know, it is something anyone who claims to refute genetics should know.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,07:48   

Alright, Dave, you turn up your nose at my "brokedown van" analogy and give us houses instead.  I'm game.

So we're strolling down the winding, branching streets of our city, each of which is lined with millions of homes, but  eventually lead to cul-de-sacs where the newest homes are.  (This is strange, but hey, maybe the area is still being developed, eh?)  All of the houses look very similar (let's go with your 97%) to other houses on the block, but very different to other streets, neighbourhoods (?and cities?).  Now we're in one neighbourhood where every front door is four feet off the ground, and every house has a porch with stairs leading up to it.  The stairs vary little -- they're all made of concrete with some slight differences in tiling, and the laticework on the railings has some variance.  But functionally, they all consist of six 8-inch concrete stairs, bordered by railings, leading from walkway to porch.  Now we come to one of the many cul-de-sacs in this neighbourhood.  With our unbiased expertise (it's purely a coincidence that we live here!;), we KNOW that this is THE BEST neighbourhood in the city -- the top of the top when it comes to real estate.  Lo and behold, on every house here, there are walkways, porches, and even railings -- but no stairs!  Almost every other house in this neighbourhood has stairs (the lone exception of which we are aware being one other group of houses on a sidestreet about 70 blocks back).  One is left to wonder how the residents in these wonderful, top-of-the-line mansions get to their front door.  (The answer seems to be that they borrow stepladders from the yards of other houses, and get by well enough doing this, though once in a while they run into ugly problems when they really need up to that porch and there is no ladder to be found.)

What do you conclude about your house designer now?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,08:31   

Quote
(afd: ) Just as several different codons can code for a particular protein (I think that's correct, right?--help me all you genetics experts).
Quote
(CH: ) Codons code for amino acids. This isn't something only genetics experts know, it is something anyone who claims to refute genetics should know.
And yet, afdave has a copy of this rather difficult to find paper from Nishikimi's group! You have to wonder what he does with it.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,08:33   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 15 2006,12:43)
Quote
I would expect it to be around the same as the general genetic similarity -- 95-97%.  This would be consistent with Design Theory.
Please explain how design theory predicts this and common descent does not. Why does evolution predict that the sequences would be 100% identical?

Yes, Dave, do explain the logic behind those claims. It's like you have never in your life comprehended the first basic principles of Darwin's theory.

Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/21/13633

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,08:38   

Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,11:49)
I was not referring to you.  What I said was ...    
Quote
That would be like me saying "PT and TO people shouldn't quote researchers like Nikimishi and Inai ... they should do their own research!!"

Dave, Dave... You did not call TO or PT "armchair scientists". It was us you called that way.

And how could you, after all? The majority of people who post at TO and PT are all scientists in relative fields, most with substantial work of their own to display.
(That often leads to hilarious results: More than once, some creo troll has popped up at PT trying to prove that this or that work by an established researcher does not support the conclusion evos want... and then the authors themselves turn up and show him how he's full of it.)
And when they refer to the work of others in the field of evolution, they present their results; they don't tamper with the data, witholding some, twisting and distorting the rest, trying to show how the results are disputable or different. That's what AiG does. That's all AiG can do.
 
Quote
You have not shown me one lie they have told.  You have shown me that Dr. Wieland was uninformed about transcription direction being unimportant.  And I agreed with you. But you have not shown me that they lie.

Well, Dave, what can I say? If you think that the reason Dr.Wieland didn't even bother to look in a genetics textbook (to see that what he argued against was common everyday knowledge in genetics), was an "understandable mistake", or that Mr. Woodmorappe somehow forgot to mention the deletions in the two genes, and so accidentaly made it look like the substitutions alone (36% of which were similar) were the entire differences between the two genes, then there's nothing I can do. I can't show you how you're being misled if you don't want to even think about it.
 
Quote
Or am I to understand that human and ape GLO is 100% IDENTICAL?  Can someone confirm this for me?

Hmm... That's funny. You've never said anything about this before and now, out of the blue, you ask for it as "proof" for common descent four times... No, make that five. Could it be that, after all we said, you realized that they are not identical? Who said they were? The hominidae diverged from other primates millions of years ago, and a number of mutations has accumulated independently. I never said the two broken genes are 100% identical, dave, and you can look it up if you like: I said that the differences between them are minimal. Almost identical to our nearest primate relatives, somewhat more different with the more distant ones, but minimal enough to demonstrate their common descent from a single breaking event in the past.

Don't believe me? Fine. Read the link. Come on, Dave, I'm not even going to bother posting it again, after the six times that I've asked you to. Look it up, Read the lesson, take the test, and see the answers.
I'm not even going to ask you again: If you don't address them, I'll infer that you don't want to, and I'll regard this part of the discussion ended- with you two "points" back in your scoring system.
Quote
Well ... at least I am contributing entertainment value to everyone if nothing else ... think of me a side show at the carnival that you didn't have to pay for!

Oh come on dave... I don't mean this in an ironic way... I actually think your presence here is constructive for all. In our debate against you, we dust off basic knowledge we should remember, but had half-forgotten because we never had to use it (being, you know, basic). Also, we learn a lot of new things by reading each other's arguments and exchange knowledge in different fields than our own.

Now, if only you were willing to learn as well...  ???

--------------
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."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,08:47   

Quote
I would expect it to be around the same as the general genetic similarity -- 95-97%.  This would be consistent with Design Theory.
Quote

Please explain how design theory predicts this and common descent does not. Why does evolution predict that the sequences would be 100% identical?
Yes, afdave, as you can tell we're all on the edge of our seats.

Meanwhile, here's another prediction from evoluton relevant to the current discussion. I don't know if there is enough data available to check it yet, but I predict - based on evolution - that the divergence of the gulo pseudogene between primates will turn out to exceed the overall rate of divergence for non-broken, protein coding genes as you compare more and more distantly related primates. What does the "common designer" hypothesis predict about this?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,10:32   

Indeed Russel, most of the mutations that seemed convergent between guinea pig and human are not, but are specific to the rat lineage. (I did a quick comparison using sequences from rat, pig, guinea pig, human and cow.)
In fact, this doesn't mean that evolution was faster in rats, since lots of mutations occured in the guinea pig lineage only (therefore are not shared with human). I should have thought of that.
In a segment of the gene, I counted 9 mutations in the rat lineage and 10 in the guinea pig lineage, after their divergence. A was expecting the latter to exceed to former by a higher margin. Maybe the loss of function of GULO in guinea pigs was rather recent, but still...

Now, the abstract you posted (Inai et al.) was actually misealding. They clearly imply (unconsciously?) that the gene copy in rats was the ancestor of the copies in humans and guinea pigs, which was a unwarranted assumption.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,10:41   

Dave, no one understand why you want GLO to be 100% identical between human and chimps, since that's precisely what evolution doesn't predict. This pseudogene is not selected, so it can freely accumulate mutations at a high rate.
But if you want a 100% identical gene between human and chimpanzee, I can find one for you. Would you take it?

PS:  I already posted the 97% homology between human and chimps in GLO. You could have said that a convincing evidence for common descent would be a 98% identity.  ;)

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:02   

Quote (jeannot @ May 15 2006,15:41)
But if you want a 100% identical gene between human and chimpanzee, I can find one for you. Would you take it?

Of course he'll take it. He'll take it as evidence for creationism (aka Common Design).

The rules are:

Anything that's evidence for common descent is evidence for common design.
Anything that isn't evidence for common descent is evidence for common design.
Any evidence against common design does not exist, or isn't evidence.

This is the AFDave rule set, as inferred from his posts thus far.

Dave, were the chimpanzees created before humans (Genesis 1) or after (Genesis 2)?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:05   

Quote (jeannot @ May 15 2006,15:41)
Dave, no one understand why you want GLO to be 100% identical between human and chimps, since that's precisely what evolution doesn't predict. This pseudogene is not selected, so it can freely accumulate mutations at a high rate.
But if you want a 100% identical gene between human and chimpanzee, I can find one for you. Would you take it?

I'm pretty sure the cytochrome c gene is exactly the same (all codons identical, not just the amino acids they code for) in humans and chimps.

Given that there are in the neighborhood of 10^93 functional versions of cytochrome c, there is little chance that human and chimp versions of the gene would even remotely resemble each other. Unless, that is, humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

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

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:06   

StephenWells:

Quote
Any evidence against common design does not exist, or isn't evidence.

Not necessarily. Sometimes (as in unique or bad designes), evidence against common design is evidence for a curse, or for the fall, or for the Designer having an unlimited imagination.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:09   

Quote
Dave, no one understand why you want GLO to be 100% identical between human and chimps, since that's precisely what evolution doesn't predict. This pseudogene is not selected, so it can freely accumulate mutations at a high rate.


I just thought this was the whole premise of Dr. Max's argument -- that a mistake was copied identically from the common ancestor to apes and also to humans.

If this is not the case, then he does not have an argument, in my opinion.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:18   

He does not have an argument, in my opinion, if the error is not copied 100%.  Remember the copyright case that Dr. Max made an analogy to?

If we are just talking about the same difference as with other genes, then this is just as easily explained by common design as common descent.

Everyone else--I'll look at your points in the morning.

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

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:22   

Quote
a mistake was copied identically from the common ancestor to apes and also to humans.

What we're looking for, to confirm common descent is that yes, that exact mistake was copied, and also that other mistakes have accumulated independently since the split.

You know, mutations, selection, evolution...

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:24   

Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,16:09)
If this is not the case, then he does not have an argument, in my opinion.

*bangs head against wall*

And here we see the...ahem...fundamental problem.  There is black and white, same and different, and nothing else.  Degree and nature of similarity and difference are apparently far too subtle concepts for afdave to wrap his head around.  We saw this earlier...if humans and guinea pigs both had broken GLO genes, then, why, that must mean they were related, right?  If humans share about 97% of their DNA with chimps, then we should expect that any given stretch of DNA will be 97% similar. If the GLO genes of humans and other primates are not 100% identical, well, then there's no argument for common descent.  Dave really can't see how lame and erroneous these "deductions" are.  There is only ally and enemy, yes sir and no sir.  But when asked what he thinks of AIG's revealed misinformation, suddenly there is a complex gradient of lies, mistakes, reasons, etc. ...

*sigh*

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:25   

Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,16:09)
 
Quote
Dave, no one understand why you want GLO to be 100% identical between human and chimps, since that's precisely what evolution doesn't predict. This pseudogene is not selected, so it can freely accumulate mutations at a high rate.


I just thought this was the whole premise of Dr. Max's argument -- that a mistake was copied identically from the common ancestor to apes and also to humans.

If this is not the case, then he does not have an argument, in my opinion.

No. This assumes no mutations whatsoever after the divergence of humans and chimps from their common ancestor.

You can't look at these things in isolation, Dave. You can't draw any comparisons just looking at the genome of humans and chimps. You have to look at them in comparison to more distantly-related organisms. And guess what? When you compare the genetic differences between humans and chimps, and humans and lemurs, and humans and rats, and humans and birds, and humans and insects, and humans and bacteria, you find that the further away you get from humans, the more differences you see. This is exactly what commond descent with modification would predict.

Of course, common design could predict the same thing. But common design would also predict no pattern whatsoever. Common design is compatible with any conceivable pattern of differences and similarities between and among taxa. Which is why common design is not a theory of anything.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:27   

Quote
I'm pretty sure the cytochrome c gene is exactly the same (all codons identical, not just the amino acids they code for) in humans and chimps.


No, as Jeannot pointed out in an earlier thread, the gene for cytochrome c (DNA sequence) varies slightly between Pan and Homo, but because of the redundancy in the DNA code, the same protein sequence is synthesized.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:28   

Dave, you don't seem to undestand what common descent really implies.

Only one mutation broke the gene function. After that, the pseudo-gene underwent a lot of mutations that could also have altered its function (deletions, stop codons), and most of them are shared by humans and chimps (and other apes).

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,11:34   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 15 2006,16:05)
 
Quote (jeannot @ May 15 2006,15:41)
Dave, no one understand why you want GLO to be 100% identical between human and chimps, since that's precisely what evolution doesn't predict. This pseudogene is not selected, so it can freely accumulate mutations at a high rate.
But if you want a 100% identical gene between human and chimpanzee, I can find one for you. Would you take it?

I'm pretty sure the cytochrome c gene is exactly the same (all codons identical, not just the amino acids they code for) in humans and chimps.

mmm, not Cytochrome C... but I'm pretty sure that the mitochondrial 16 S rRNA gene (and all rRNA genes after all) is 100% identical between human and chimp.

EDIT: Damned, they are slightly different!  :p
Well, maybe there isn't any identical gene between humans and chimps.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,12:03   

Quote (jeannot @ May 15 2006,16:34)
mmm, not Cytochrome C... but I'm pretty sure that the mitochondrial 16 S rRNA gene (and all rRNA genes after all) is 100% identical between human and chimp.

EDIT: Damned, they are slightly different!  :p
Well, maybe there isn't any identical gene between humans and chimps.

When you say, "identical," do you mean a nucleotide-by-nucleotide match, or "identical" in the sense that they both code for identical proteins, or that they code for homologous proteins?

I was under the impression (from Theobald) that human and chimp cytochrome c genes code for the exact same protein sequence (i.e., the same amino acids in the same order). Is this incorrect?

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,12:08   

I meant 100% identical in nucleotide sequences, since I was talking about genes, not proteins.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,12:15   

Quote (jeannot @ May 15 2006,16:34)
Well, maybe there isn't any identical gene between humans and chimps.

That's possible, if there were, for example, 99% similarity in DNA sequences between two species and a gene were, for example, 1,000 base pairs long, then you'll average 10 mismatches per gene -- possibly making no difference in the amino acid resulting from it.

You expect natural selection to preserve the important patterns that a creature cannot survive and reproduce without and vestigial genes to be more mutated looking. But -- I don't think you can expect to find any strings over a thousand base pairs long anywhere to go unscathed as long as critical function is preserved..

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,12:15   

Quote
(jeannot: ) Now, the abstract you posted (Inai et al.) was actually misealding. They clearly imply (unconsciously?) that the gene copy in rats was the ancestor of the copies in humans and guinea pigs, which was a unwarranted assumption.
I assume you're referring to this:  
Quote
A comparison of the remaining human exon sequences with the corresponding sequences of the guinea pig nonfunctional GULO gene revealed that the same substitutions from rats to both species occurred at a large number of nucleotide positions.
I agree. That's either poorly worded or they really did think the rat gene was a reasonable approximation of the ancestral one. This may bear some relationship to the fact it's in an obscure journal.

Anyway, there's a serious point hiding in all of this. The authors may have been so enamored of the idea that a "broken" gene would diverge more rapidly after breaking that they uncritically ignored the obvious possibility that it occurred before that. That it should decay faster to one degree or another seems like a reasonable hypothesis, but what degree that is still needs work.

[And, of course, my criticism of the article should be taken with a grain of salt, as I haven't read it!;)]

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,15:03   

Quote
Please explain how design theory predicts this [degrees of DNA homology among species] and common descent does not. Why does evolution predict that the sequences would be 100% identical?
I do hope that afdave is planning to say more on this than:
Quote
If we are just talking about the same difference as with other genes, then this is just as easily explained by common design as common descent.
The common descent explanation is pretty obvious. It's by no means obvious why common design predicts anything at all. Why would the designer not stick with one gene for earthworms, rats, monkeys and humans? And, once we allow that, for whatever reason, the designer doesn't stick with one gene, why would the designer install a set of genes that shows exactly the sort of graded homology you'd expect from common descent? And why should all the genes follow the same family tree? Why wouldn't the designer want to use, say, some bird genes - presumably designed to accommodate an aerial lifestyle - for a bat? Why do all of a bat's genes seem to indicate a close relationship with rodents, and not some of them with, say, canaries?

See, common descent pretty much explains these things. You keep saying that they're "just as easily explained"  by common design. But somehow we never actually get that explanation. It's almost as if the whole "explanation" consists of saying that it's easily explained.

Likewise, after Dr. Max's thorough examination of the "shared error" argument, for you to simply say:
Quote
He does not have an argument, in my opinion, if the error is not copied 100%.  Remember the copyright case that Dr. Max made an analogy to?
is no rebuttal at all.

Here's an hypothesis: possibly opening up multiple threads in which to not address the key questions is what leads to the exasperation of certain Wesleys that shall remain unnamed.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,15:30   

Quote
It's almost as if the whole "explanation" consists of saying that it's easily explained.

But the problem is, *difficult* explanations require knowledge.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,17:06   

Re "Why do all of a bat's genes seem to indicate a close relationship with rodents,"

According to Tree of Life , bats are closer to primates than they are to rodents. Doesn't affect the argument here, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

Henry

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,02:34   

Quote
According to Tree of Life , bats are closer to primates than they are to rodents. Doesn't affect the argument here, but I thought it was interesting anyway.
Yeah, "rodents" was not the best choice of mammals I could have made (without handy reference tools, I think I was influenced by the German word, "Fledermaus"). But, of course, the point is that they're mammals, and their genes all reflect that.

Interestingly, now that I have consulted Richard Dawkins's "The Ancestor's Tale", I see he actually puts rodents a little closer to primates (having diverged 75 mya) than bats are (having diverged 85 mya). He puts bats in a large group called "laurasiatheres", that includes a bunch of other creatures I might have thought of as rodents (shrews, moles, hedgehogs), as well as dogs, horses and whales.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,03:29   

(pssst... afd:
this is your cue to cluck the "you evos can't even get your story straight, phylogeny du jour" routine.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,04:27   

OK.  It's time for a review.  I started this thread with 3 items which to me argue powerfully against common descent of apes and humans.  You can go back to the start of the thread and read them fully if you like, but here they are ...

1-Complete Absence of Hominid Civilizations Today
2-Unconvincing Fossil Record
3-Enormous Non-physical Differences Between Apes and Humans

I also mentioned 2 possible implications of common descent which to me are kind of interesting to think about, but have nothing to do with proving or disproving common descent, so I will not bring them up again.

I then brought up the Vitamin C issue which was raised to me by Renier in another thread.  Renier said that he used to be a YEC but the "broken Vitamin C" commonality between apes and humans was the major issue that made him abandon the YEC position.

I read the link that Renier referred me to, "Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics" by Dr. Edward E. Max, MD, PhD at Talk Origins.  I think you all know Dr. Max's argument.  He says that in the same way that plagiarism was proven in the copyright case because an error was duplicated, so also common descent is proven with apes and humans because their genomes contain the same error, namely the broken GULO gene.

I said that Dr. Max is making an unwarranted assumption in saying this for two possible reasons.  And at that time, I did not have enough information to know which was the most probable reason for his unwarranted assumption.  The two possible reasons were (I now put them in the order that I believe most likely) ...

Scenario 1-The GULO gene could have broken independently in apes and in humans.  The Inai article shows that it did indeed break independently in guinea pigs, so why should it not break independently in apes and humans?       OR ..

Scenario 2-The "broken" GULO gene was never a functional GULO gene in either apes or humans.  It always has had some unknown function and still does to this day.  Argystokes called this possibility "pseudo-GLO" and rightly asserted that we should be able to find this gene's homologue throughout the animal kingdom--even in animals that do have a functional GULO gene.

We went through some logic exercises comparing the DNA code to relatively unknown languages, and we went down a small rabbit trail with the AIG article and the whole "humans are more closely related to guinea pigs since they both have broken GULO and 36% similar substitutions" idea that AIG seems to be promoting.  To tell you the truth, I honestly don't even know what AIG is asserting exactly, but to me it has very little bearing (if any) on the main issue that we are discussing.

We ended up yesterday determining that the "broken" GULO gene is not 100% identical between apes and humans and you say that this is not predicted by evolution anyway.  OK fine. I think we agree that there is roughly 95% similarity as is also the case for most other genes compared between apes and humans.

So now we are back to Scenario 1 (I'm not sure anyone has ruled out Scenario 2, mind you ... if anyone has info to rule this out, please say so) and your contention is that 95% similarity of the broken GULO gene is powerful evidence of common descent, right?  

Well I disagree and here is why.

1-We have already seen that the GULO gene "broke" independently in guinea pigs.  Why should it not "break" independently in humans and apes?  I think Common Descent or Common Design can explain this equally well.  It is not deterministic between the two competing views.
2-You give me analogies of houses designed without steps but this is not analogous to the situation we have.  I will explain why, but let me first review the Creationist position.

Again, my Creationist Theory regarding apes and humans is that there was one pair of human "kind" ancestors and one pair of ape "kind" ancestors.  Now I do not have a formal definition of "kind" yet and I admit there may have been a "monkey kind" pair as well, but this is not important for the present discussion.  The general idea of Creationist Theory is that there were a relatively limited number of "kinds" created by God, and that God "programmed" enough genetic information into each separate genome so that each "kind" would be able to adapt to the various environments in which they found themselves as they spread out all over the earth.  Today, of course, we find that monkeys and apes have diversified into many different species and that humans also have diversified greatly.

If Scenario 1 above is confirmed, then it is perfectly logical to assume that the Creator designed apes and humans separately, then mutations later caused the GULO gene to break independently in both.  What is so unbelievable about this?  After all, it is a creationist prediction that organisms will accumulate more and more harmful mutations with each generation.  This has been heartily confirmed with fruit flies with "evolution on fast forward."  Why should it be any different with apes and humans?  The "missing steps on the houses" analogy does not apply because no creationist is proposing that apes or humans were originally designed with a broken GULO gene.  It is also perfectly consistent with Creationist Theory that apes and humans have 95% similarity in their genomes.  After all, why shouldn't they?  They do look about 95% similar in their morphology.  But this supports Common Design just as well as it supports Common Descent.  Sure, apes and humans could have had a common ancestor.  And if they did, we would expect to see 95% similarity, an apparently fused gene, etc.  But we would then have what I consider to be 3 enormous challenges outlined above.

Now I do realize that proposing a Creator is an enormous challenge to the intellect as well.  And I do appreciate your objections to this idea that you have voiced.  I admit that I have absolutely no idea how the Creator designed these creatures.  Does he have a neat "Animal Design Software" package that he has on His computer that he can "drag and drop" different animal parts, then hit "Process" and the computer spits out the genome?  I have no idea and I know it challenges the mind to try to imagine how any Supernatural Being could achieve the designs we see in Nature.  But to me it is an even larger mental challenge to envision how it all comes about by random mutation and natural selection.  The probabilities against evolution of gross morphological changes are staggering.  The experimental evidence is non-existent.  The fruit flies get damaged or killed when we "speed up evolution."  And where did the first single cell organism come from?  I don't think anyone has a clue about that.  The proposals for how the bacterial flagellum and other innovations might have evolved are just as "Alice-in-Wonderland-ish" to me as proposing a Creator.  I have read them.  They are a joke to me. The fossil record is extremely weak.  The "evidence" that the earth is millions of years old is based on unwarranted assumptions which I will show.  The typological perception of nature shown by Denton to exist at the molecular level is powerful confirmation of the Creationist model, not the common descent model (in spite of Talk Origins lame attempt to discredit it).  It is obvious that a global tectonic and hydraulic catastrophe was responsible for the universal phenomenon of sedimentary, fossiliferous rocks, not uniformitarian processes over millions of years.  More on all of these issues on my other thread.

But just because I have no idea how the Creator might have designed these creatures does not mean that He did not.  And I admit that I am not going to be able to "prove" to you that He did with the "Scientific Method" as you understand it. This is an extremely important point.  Scientists today do not admit certain kinds of evidence into the arena and I (and Meyer, et al) believe this is an enormous mistake.  To explain this simply, what you are really saying when you say that a "God Hypothesis" is unscientific, is that you rule out the "ET Hypothesis" that maybe an advanced civilization "planted" life here, and you rule out any possibility of any kind of Intelligence that could have been responsible for life here on earth.  This to me is ultra-naive.  Why are we so proud as to think there could be no advanced civilization that is far advanced in their technology so that they would be able to sit down at their computers and design 1000 or so distinct, original "kinds" and "plant them" here on earth?  Maybe we are one big "science experiment" to them. Or maybe it's not a civilization at all. Maybe its ONE SUPER-MIND, like God, for example.  To me, it is utter folly to rule out these possibilities.  And to really explore these issues, we need a broader definition of science than your definitions.  Falsifiability and some of the other demarcation criteria proposed last century must be dispensed with.  We need a robust science that admits all possibilities.  Quackery should not be defined and dictated by a ruling elite of naturalistic scientists.  We should allow quackery to take its course and wind up on the rubbish heap of junk science all by itself through action of the free market of ideas.  Allow astrology into the arena.  It will die a quick death on its own.  Allow Scientology and "Christian Scientists" into the arena.  They will die as well.  Allow homeopathy and acupuncture and everything else you can think of into the arena.  Who cares?  They will not gain a majority if they don't have any merit.  The only reason flat earthism and geocentrism gained a majority was because the ruling elite (the Catholic Church) force fed it to the people.  In my opinion, this is why neo-Darwinism has any following at all among the people.  It is basically being force fed by the "ruling elite" of the scientific community, which I think is quite heavily funded by the government.  

Now don't accuse me of thinking there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists.  I don't think that.  I just think there is a powerfully tempting idea out there among scientists called Darwinism, or naturalistic evolution, or whatever you want to call it.  Scientists like it because it requires no Creator and that has a lot of good implications from their perspective.  Younger scientists are taught this theory and want approval from superiors and peers alike.  So naturally they overlook some of the glaring difficulties and explain them away.  And so the cycle goes in academia.  But I do not think there is some hierarchy somewhere that is somehow planning to brainwash everyone with Darwinism.  I just think there is a government funded consensus and the result is that it has a similar effect as the medieval Catholic church did in that the people are force fed some rather strange views of Origins.

Anyway, back to the Vitamin C issue.  Let's get to the bottom line.  

It appears to me that no one here has a convincing argument that favors Common Descent over Common Design to explain the "broken" gene in both apes and humans.  Either one can explain it just as well.

Am I correct?  Or am I missing something?

(Note for Faid:  I know you are trying very hard to get me to see that the AIG people are a bunch of liars, so I'll tell you what I'll do.  I'll agree with you that they are all a bunch of liars and we all know what a liar I am--I've been told this many times here--and I would add that the Talk Origins people are probably liars as well, and probably many of you are also liars, and of course, the President is a liar and all Republicans are liars.  So why don't we just agree that we are ALL a bunch of liars, then we can agree on something and get on with arguing.  What do you think?  :-)


(One more note:  As a side issue, I am interested in hearing continuing dialog about the AIG paper by Woodmorappe and what your analysis is regarding what their argument even is and the various data which may confirm or refute it.  But I am more interested in people presenting actual relevant data to me as opposed to evolutionary analysis of that data.)

(And remember ... I WILL become an evolutionist if the evidence is convincing enough to me.)

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,05:12   

AF Dave wrote:

Quote
If Scenario 1 above is confirmed, then it is perfectly logical to assume that the Creator designed apes and humans separately, then mutations later caused the GULO gene to break independently in both.  What is so unbelievable about this?


Lack of parsimony (and remember, it's not just apes but monkees too).

If you went to church and saw half a dozen kids sitting together, and all had HUGE noses (way bigger than anyone else there, except for one of the adults sitting with them), you could conclude that each kid had a separate set of parents, and just happen to all be sitting together.  Or you could bust out Occam's Razor and conclude that they are siblings.  Oh, they also look a lot alike aside from their noses as well.  And there's no such thing as a bignose club.

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,05:14   

Quote
I WILL become an evolutionist if the evidence is convincing enough to me

Tautology.  Once the evidence convinces you, you will be convinced.  This ignores that you've already decided what to believe, in the face of a planet full of evidence you've already demonstrated you're not willing/able to understand or accept.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,05:14   

Quote
It appears to me that no one here has a convincing argument that favors Common Descent over Common Design to explain the "broken" gene in both apes and humans.  Either one can explain it just as well.

Am I correct?  Or am I missing something?
Oh Lord. Did you read any of what was addressed to you yesterday?

You seem to have missed the entire point of the Max article. Shared ancestry predicts shared errors. That's what you see in the primate gulo gene. A completely different set of errors is seen in the guinea pig gulo gene, indicating a separate origin. Got that? Common ancestry predicts the same errors in humans and the other primates; a separate set in guinea pigs. If the errors occurred independently in guinea pigs, chimps, monkeys, and humans, you would expect the errors to be similarly diverse in all of them. Since that's not what we see, the data are consistent with common ancestry, but you're going to need some ad hoc fix to make common design work. So: what is your ad hoc fix?. Now, mind you, the fact that an ad hoc fix is required is points off in the first place. But not even having an ad hoc fix is even worse. A lot worse.  (I assume you recognize by now the error of your baffling "100%" canard, and we that we don't need to revisit that.) So far as I can tell, the "common design" argument is that The Designer put in whatever The Designer felt like putting in. How do we derive from that any predictions we can check?

Now, it's clear how shared ancestry would result in the picture that we, in fact, see. How - you know: by what mechanism - would the common design argument explain it? Until you come up with some kind of answer to that, your constant repetition of    
Quote
Either one can explain it just as well.
just doesn't cut it.

Do me a favor. If you feel that you still have a case, make it!. Don't come back, yet again, with "a case could just as easily be made. It's getting beyond frustrating.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,05:17   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,09:27)
1-Complete Absence of Hominid Civilizations Today

That doesn't mean what you think, dave, unless you don't consider yourself a hominid who is now living in a civilization.

What I think you meant is that there is no signs of another hominid with a somewhat less developed civilization. No sign of something such as monkey-like creatures with tree-branch clubs living in grass huts.

If so, then you're wrong. You probably never read anything but creationist accounts of a fossil called Lucy, but she was believed to be pre-human, walking like us, and a tool user. It's the tool use that is moving towards civilization -- that's when our brains started moving toward large civilizations as a survival strategy.

When our kind does arrive on the scene, what first shows up as new is things like cave painting and better tools. The change is that these tools and tool making start improving very rapidly, driven  by a new kind of evolution.

Cavemen painting on cave walls, gathering in tribes, making tools -- the big advantage they had over other primates was those stone axes and spears, and that's when our kind of homid started taking over.

Memetic, Lamarckian evolution then takes over to shape our culture and Lamarckian evolution is much faster so our genomes are not changing as fast as our civilization -- but we are adapting to civilization too.

It's rather odd that Darwinian evolution didn't produce at least a few Lamarckian rules at the genomic level since its a faster evolver/optimization method (but such rules could limit the creativity of pure chance). Maybe it does happen in bacteria? If it does, it's pretty limited.

But I digress. Thing is -- You've been told a lie.

When I have time (if others don't) I'll dig up some links to prove it.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,05:32   

Hold on a sec, Dave.  You AGREE that the inability to synthesize Vitamin C is the result of a mutation in the GULO gene?!  You don't think the Designer designed the gene this way on purpose?  So you've abandoned the "unknown function" argument, but are keeping it around as a backup?  Good plan.  Sure, you see this mutation as the result of a fallen world, but you're halfway there, man!  Now, the only thing left is this: do you believe this mutation occurred by random change/damage to the DNA, or was it a deliberate curse on primates inflicted by your God?

Because, as we have been trying to point out to you, Dave, it's not THAT the GULO gene is broken -- it's HOW the gene is broken.

I gave you houses because you gave us houses (similar houses = common designer, remember), and you chastise me for a bad analogy.  Fine.  Let's talk about the situation in as simple and as accurate terms as possible.

The sequence evidence we have STRONGLY suggests that the original "break" in the GULO gene (a deletion, I believe) was by the exact same mechanism, in the exact same place, for all primates.  (Meanwhile, the "break" for guinea pigs was in a different place -- I'm not sure whether it was the same type of mutation.)  After it was broken, this region mutated more freely, and accumulated the errors that give it the slight differences among primates (the 5%, for example).

This is a basic element of evolution (mutation and selection).  As you seem to know, mutations happen (mostly) randomly all the time.  Sometimes they are completely neutral (e.g., a single base-pair substitution which results in a codon that specifies the exact same amino acid).  Sometimes they are generally neutral (e.g., a different amino acid results, but that amino acid is not vitally necessary to the structure and efficacy of the resulting protein, and you can hardly tell the difference).  Sometimes mutations result in reduced activity of the protein, but it remains somewhat functional.  Finally, severe mutations (frameshifts, deletions, substitutions resulting in stop codons, etc.) can destroy the function of the gene product.  This is the "break" we are speaking of when it comes to GULO.  When that happens, it is a question of whether or not the organism can "get by" without the product (which in this case means getting by without Vitamin C).  So if the break happened in an animal that didn't have sufficient Vitamin C in its diet, and now could no longer synthesize it, then there would be selection (possibly very strong selection) against the "broken" gene, and we would be less likely to find it in the population at a later time.  However, if the animal could make do, then the broken gene would be carried along.  Since it no longer does much of anything, further mutations could accumulate in that region at a faster rate (since selection would no longer be operating to maintain the gene's function).

Now, again, there are all manner of mutations by which a particular gene could break, and it could do so at any point on the DNA.  Selection makes these severe mutations in an important gene relatively rare, since the animal will have to compensate for the loss of function.  We look at primates and see the same type of break in the same place on the GULO gene.  If you agree that the original break happened randomly, via mutation, why do you think it happened on multiple occasions but in identical fashion in all primates?  What made these damaging mutations occur the same way and in the same place in primates (when they could have happened any number of ways), but a different way in guinea pigs?  This is where common descent emerges as a superior, more parsimonious explanation than common design (even when followed by "sin" and random mutation).  Unless you want to evoke your designer for breaking the gene?

You and AiG gloss over the nature of the breaks, and the nature of the remaining similarities and differences in this region of DNA, in favour of "broken" vs. "unbroken".  AiG most certainly (despite you granting them the benefit of the doubt) uses the simple trait of "broken" (hardly a good character) to imply that evolutionists should therefore conclude that humans and guinea pigs are more related than guinea pigs and rats.  (By the way, it's actually pretty close -- according to Dawkins's book, rodents separated from the human lineage about 75 million years ago, and guinea pigs separated from the rest of the rodents about 70 million years ago.)

So over to you, Dave.  If your common design scenario is to be equally valid, how does it explain "breaks" in the GULO gene that were, as best as we can tell, the same type and place of break for all primates.  How does common design suggest that these breaks occurred multiple times independently? (Maybe you should apply the same kind of probabilistic reasoning you use to doubt evolution to this question?)  Common descent has a simple answer: it happened once for primates (and once for guinea pigs), and we've inherited the remnants.

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,05:46   

Quote
How does common design suggest that these breaks occurred multiple times independently?


Well, jeez, we've had a whole 6 thousand years for it to happen, that's how!

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,05:55   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,09:27)
it is perfectly logical to assume that the Creator designed apes and humans separately, then mutations later caused the GULO gene to break independently in both.  What is so unbelievable about this?

The fossil record for one.

The fact that your Bible doesn't even exist till a couple million years after creatures like Ardipithecus ramidus walked the earth. Ardipithecus ramidus is the oldest known hominid, dated at 4.4 million years ago. We do not know a lot about them, but we know they had ape-like fingers and toes, chimp-like teeth, including large canines, premolars and molars and thin tooth enamel and -- they were bipedal like us.

Then there is Australopithecus anamensis from 4.2 - 3.9 million years ago. Paranthropus aethiopicus from 2.8 - 2.2 million years ago. The cranial capacity growing. Paranthropus robustus 2.2-1.5 million years ago. Paranthropus boisei 2.2-1.0 million years ago.
Then Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis 2.3-1.6 million years ago. The first tool users. They used tools that were chips of rock called Oldowan tools. The forehead begins to rise straight up, no brow ridge but still long ape arms. Then Homo erectus, Homo ergaster 1.8-27,000 years ago and 1.8-1.5 million years ago. They were found with a different type of tool called Achuelian tools, more advanced than the Oldowan tools. Both sides of the rock were worked on to make the tool sharp and it gave the tool a tear drop shape. These tools were used for many tasks such as chopping, scraping, and cutting. They may have used fire.

Then Archaic Homo sapiens around 800,000 years ago. The brain size is larger than H. erectus, but smaller than most "modern" humans. There is Homo heidelbergensis 500,000-100,000 years ago. With a new type of Achuelian tool. The tools were made with what is called the Levallois technique. The hominid worked on the rock from the middle out on both sides. Then Homo neanderthalensis 130,000 to 25,000 years ago. Maybe 225,000 years ago. H. neanderthalensis was found with a more advanced set of Achuelian tools called Mousterian tools. These tools are detailed with animal bones and horns. Mousterian tools were the first tools to be hafted, that is to have handles. There were 63 different types of these tools. They buried each other with tools, animal bones, horns and flowers, cared for the disabled, wore clothes, had shelters, culture and art.

Finally, Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens show up 200,000 years ago, at least a hundred thousand years before your Bible could have been written. There is now rapid increase in artifact change over time.

Site used and summarized:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~mrc1/

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,05:58   

Quote
If you went to church and saw half a dozen kids sitting together, and all had HUGE noses (way bigger than anyone else there, except for one of the adults sitting with them), you could conclude that each kid had a separate set of parents, and just happen to all be sitting together.  Or you could bust out Occam's Razor and conclude that they are siblings.  Oh, they also look a lot alike aside from their noses as well.  And there's no such thing as a bignose club.


Kids with big noses and other features that look alike is in an entirely different universe than what we are talking about.

What we are talking about is going to church and seeing some chimps on the same pew as some boys.  The creationist says "Gee, I think they are not related."  The evolutionist says, "Gee, I think they ARE related."

No you go figure who's right.

Russell said ...
Quote
You seem to have missed the entire point of the Max article. Shared ancestry predicts shared errors. That's what you see in the primate gulo gene. A completely different set of errors is seen in the guinea pig gulo gene, indicating a separate origin. Got that? Common ancestry predicts the same errors in humans and the other primates; a separate set in guinea pigs. If the errors occurred independently in guinea pigs, chimps, monkeys, and humans, you would expect the errors to be similarly diverse in all of them.


Shared ancestry predicts shared errors ... no problem.  I agree.  But Creationism predicts the same thing, namely, the Creator made apes and humans as separate kinds with functional GULO, then both might lose function through mutational degeneration.  Big deal.  This is what creationists expect.  I would expect other species to lose the function in years to come also.  What do we find in apes and humans?  Voila!  95% similar broken GULO!  No surprise there.  Even if it is the same substitution (or deletion or whatever) in apes and humans, so what?  Humans and Guinea Pigs have 36%  (High percentage to use Inai's words) identical substitutions.  Why shouldn't apes and humans also have an even higher % of identical substitutions?

Dr. Max does not even say the error itself is identical.  He just says both apes and humans have broken GLO.  But even if there were some "identicalness" this proves nothing for evolutionists.

Also note the bold print in Dr. Max's article where he makes the goofy assertion that Creationists believe that humans and guinea pigs were designed to function without GLO.

Baloney.

I just got through telling you what THIS creationist believes--they were both designed with functional GLO (if Scenario 1 is true), but then it broke.

Russell-- you have proven nothing.  

From Dr. Max's article ...

 
Quote
Guinea pigs and primates, including humans, get sick unless they consume ascorbic acid in their diet. For humans and guinea pigs, ascorbic acid is thus a vitamin (vitamin C), while most other species can synthesize their own ascorbic acid and thus do not require this molecule in their diet. The reason humans and guinea pigs cannot manufacture their own ascorbic acid is that they lack a functional gene encoding the enzyme protein known as L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO), which is required for synthesizing ascorbic acid. In most mammals functional GLO genes are present, inherited - according to the evolutionary hypothesis - from a functional GLO gene in a common ancestor of mammals. According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations. Presumably this occurred separately in guinea pig and primate ancestors whose natural diets were so rich in ascorbic acid that the absence of GLO enzyme activity was not a disadvantage--it did not cause selective pressure against the defective gene.

Molecular geneticists who examine DNA sequences from an evolutionary perspective know that large gene deletions are rare, so scientists expected that non-functional mutant GLO gene copies--known as "pseudogenes"--might still be present in primates and guinea pigs as relics of the functional ancestral gene. In contrast, Creationists believe that humans and guinea pigs were each created independently of all other species and must have been "designed" to function without GLO. If this were true, these two species would not be expected to carry a defective copy of the GLO gene. In fact, GLO pseudogenes have been detected in both guinea pigs and humans (Nishikimi et al. J Biol Chem 267: 21967, 1992; Nishikimi et al. J Biol Chem 269:13685, 1994), consistent with the evolutionary view; presumably, related pseudogenes also exist in non-human primates that require dietary vitamin C. The kinds of mutations found in the human and guinea pig pseudogenes are typical of the ones seen in genetic diseases like those mentioned earlier. In this essay I call the human and guinea pig GLO DNA sequences "unitary pseudogenes" to distinguish them from two other kinds of pseudogene occurring in a species that also possesses a functional copy of the same gene (see below). Readers should note that the term "unitary pseudogene" is used here for convenience; there is no standard nomenclature to describe this rare type of pseudogene.


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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:00   

Quote
If Scenario 1 above is confirmed, then it is perfectly logical to assume that the Creator designed apes and humans separately, then mutations later caused the GULO gene to break independently in both.  What is so unbelievable about this?
Because the deletions in the genes are the same, ie it 'broke the same'.

Quote
But to me it is an even larger mental challenge to envision how it all comes about by random mutation and natural selection.
I sympathise, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it is true.

Quote
The probabilities against evolution of gross morphological changes are staggering.
Define gross, if your talking about things like flipper to foot it really isn't as much of a feat as creationists like to make out.



Quote
explain this simply, what you are really saying when you say that a "God Hypothesis" is unscientific, is that you rule out the "ET Hypothesis" that maybe an advanced civilization "planted" life here, and you rule out any possibility of any kind of Intelligence that could have been responsible for life here on earth.
Not in the slightest, science does not rule out ETs. Science at the moment cannot investigate the actions of a supernatural entity but who knows what the future holds. Sciene however can investigate an effect that has occured with out knowing the immediate cause.

Quote
Maybe we are one big "science experiment" to them.
That fits the evidence way better than an omnipotent creator.

Quote
Falsifiability and some of the other demarcation criteria proposed last century must be dispensed with.
Falsifiability is useful, but what science really consists of is competing hypothesis making predictions.

Quote
Allow astrology into the arena.  It will die a quick death on its own.  Allow homeopathy and acupuncture and ...
They are welcome in the arena, they just have to prove their stuff works. It will be called quackery as long as they insist it works and sell it without any proof and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Quote
It is basically being force fed by the "ruling elite" of the scientific community, which I think is quite heavily funded by the government.
I've noticed that creationists have some weird ideas about how much money scientists have. In any case it has nothing to do with a ruling elite, it has to do with the scientific consensus. I think most scientists would find it quite funny if you called them a ruling elite.

Quote
Scientists like it because it requires no Creator and that has a lot of good implications from their perspective.  Younger scientists are taught this theory and want approval from superiors and peers alike.  So naturally they overlook some of the glaring difficulties and explain them away.
Most scientists I know couldn't care less whether there is a creator or not. Even up to degree level evolution wasn't particularly forced on us at all. Most of the stuff I know about it now I have had to find out for myself.

Quote
It appears to me that no one here has a convincing argument that favors Common Descent over Common Design to explain the "broken" gene in both apes and humans.  Either one can explain it just as well.
Again there are many deletions and similar mutations in common between the two. There is an incredibly small probability that they broke independently.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:02   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,09:27)
The "evidence" that the earth is millions of years old is based on unwarranted assumptions which I will show.
 
Dave, you've been promising to tell us what our "unwarranted assumptions" are for weeks now. Are you going to deliver, or what? Given the number of unwarranted assumptions you yourself have made (like, it's the number of mutations that are important, not what the mutations are), it would be staggering to think you could find "unwarranted assumptions" about the age of the earth that have eluded tens of thousands of scientists for almost a century.

 
Quote
(And remember ... I WILL become an evolutionist if the evidence is convincing enough to me.)

I predict this will never happen, no matter how powerful the evidence is (and it is powerful). Your objections to the evidence so far have been laughable (the three you presented most recently are particularly risible), and you've completely ignored the arguments that show how laughable they are. And why would you ever give up a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable, even in principle? We will never be able to prove that a "creator god" doesn't exist.

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

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:02   

Quote
...design 1000 or so distinct, original "kinds" and "plant them" here on earth...

You're thinking way, way too small Dave. There are approximately two and a half million descibed species. If they started from a thousand "kinds", there would need to be a whole heck of a lot of "positive", "upwards" evolution in order for them to exist.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:03   

I said ...

Dr. Max does not even say the error itself is identical.  He just says both apes and humans have broken GLO.  But even if there were some "identicalness" this proves nothing for evolutionists.

And I add that ...

the reason this "identicalness" proves nothing for evolutionists is because of the 36% "identicalness" with guniea pigs!  Are you going to tell me that Guinea pigs and humans are related?  I hope not.

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:06   

Quote
Quote

If you went to church and saw half a dozen kids sitting together, and all had HUGE noses (way bigger than anyone else there, except for one of the adults sitting with them), you could conclude that each kid had a separate set of parents, and just happen to all be sitting together.  Or you could bust out Occam's Razor and conclude that they are siblings.  Oh, they also look a lot alike aside from their noses as well.  And there's no such thing as a bignose club.


Kids with big noses and other features that look alike is in an entirely different universe than what we are talking about.


So in other words, you accept the principal of parsimony only when it's convenient.  Got it.

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:09   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,11:03)
Are you going to tell me that Guinea pigs and humans are related?  I hope not.

I'll tell you something even worse.

Not only are we distantly related to Guinea pigs, we're distantly related to bananas and pigs and fish and bacteria.

Sorry to dash your hopes.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:13   

Dave, imagine God designing apes and man. Ok, he would use the same tools (genes) with only slight differences (mutations) that happen to reflect a common ancestry because all primates look and work the same, but not exactly. For instance, chimps are closer to men in their design compared to gorillas and other apes.
You can hold that argumentation, but it falls as soon as the common features, which he is supposed to have used when designing his creatures, are useless.
Everything that has nothing to do with design (protein production) - third codon position, pseudogenes - reflect our common ancestry and confirms the current theory of evolution.
Moreover, why such neutral loci (loci=pieces of DNA), not subject to selection (typically, the third positions of codons), are more variable between species, as our theory predicts?
You could argue that, since these loci are not important for design, the designer placed them randomly in his creatures. Ok fine. But their distribution is not random actually. The non-coding (ie non-designing) features also reflect common ancestry.
The case of GULO is particularly striking.
You have to imagine that the designer decided to equipped primates with a broken gene (why put a broken gene instead of nothing?) having different errors that (tadaa!;) reflect common ancestry (ie Human closer to chimps than to macaques). And he is also supposed to have inserted a broken GULO in guinea pigs, but a very different copy, with BTW looks like the working gene in rats.  
Why in the world would he do that?
I await your explanation.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:19   

Guinea pigs and humans are related.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,10:58)
Shared ancestry predicts shared errors ... no problem.  I agree.  But Creationism predicts the same thing, namely, the Creator made apes and humans as separate kinds with functional GULO, then both might lose function through mutational degeneration.  Big deal.  This is what creationists expect.  

Dave, this is the part you're not getting: Creationism predicts everything. Creationism is an ad hoc hypothesis that can always fall back on the proposition that the Creator could always have done something in a particular way, and given we know almost nothing about the Creator, we cannot make assumptions about why it would do something.

Now, Dave. Tell me something you could in principle find in the natural world that Creationism would not predict. Can you do it?

Also, as a side note, does Creationism make any predictions as to the number of "kinds" there are out there? Or does Creationism even have an estimate of the number of "kinds"? Because evolution does. It has a nice little diagram of the organizational structure of life on earth. Does Creationism have its own diagram, or does it just plagiarize the one created by real scientists?

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

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:23   

Quote
Shared ancestry predicts shared errors ... no problem.  I agree.  But Creationism predicts the same thing, namely, the Creator made apes and humans as separate kinds with functional GULO, then both might lose function through mutational degeneration.  Big deal.  This is what creationists expect.  I would expect other species to lose the function in years to come also.
Wow. You're avoiding the same questions, asked in about half a dozen ways - just to increase your chance of getting it - by about half a dozen different people. If the gulo gene broke once for guinea pigs, once for humans, once for chimps, once for macaques... why are all the primate defects the same, and why is the guinea pig one the only one different?  
Quote
What do we find in apes and humans?  Voila!  95% similar broken GULO!  No surprise there.  Even if it is the same substitution (or deletion or whatever) in apes and humans, so what?
Why is there no surprise there? What about the common designer theory predicts this? There's "no surprise there" because there are thousands of separate observations that confirm this - not because there's anything in your theory that explains it. Common ancestry explains it.  
Quote
Humans and Guinea Pigs have 36%  (High percentage to use Inai's words) identical substitutions.  Why shouldn't apes and humans also have an even higher % of identical substitutions?
Look. You really don't know what you're talking about on this. If you want to pursue it, we can. But don't keep saying "it's a side issue; let's drop it" when it's inconvenient, and then bringing it up all over again when you need to fog up the argument. It's not helpful. For the record, Jeannot & I covered this yesterday. If - and only if - you do want to bring it back into the discussion, demonstrate that you understand what we wrote.
Quote
Russell-- you have proven nothing.  
Indeed. There's very little left for me to prove. The ball is in your court - and it's gathering dust.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:31   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 16 2006,11:23)
... does Creationism even have an estimate of the number of "kinds"?

Well, they would have to fit on an Ark if the creationist believes in Noah's flood.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:43   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,09:27)
... it is a creationist prediction that organisms will accumulate more and more harmful mutations with each generation.

What about gaining beneficial mutations? Bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics. It may not be good for us, but it's good for the bacteria.

That's the tip of an iceberg we could explore.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,06:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,10:58)
Shared ancestry predicts shared errors ... no problem.  I agree.  But Creationism predicts the same thing, namely, the Creator made apes and humans as separate kinds with functional GULO, then both might lose function through mutational degeneration.  Big deal.  This is what creationists expect.  I would expect other species to lose the function in years to come also.  What do we find in apes and humans?  Voila!  95% similar broken GULO!  No surprise there.  Even if it is the same substitution (or deletion or whatever) in apes and humans, so what?  Humans and Guinea Pigs have 36%  (High percentage to use Inai's words) identical substitutions.  Why shouldn't apes and humans also have an even higher % of identical substitutions?

Dr. Max does not even say the error itself is identical.  He just says both apes and humans have broken GLO.  But even if there were some "identicalness" this proves nothing for evolutionists.

Dave, ONCE AGAIN: 'shared errors' is not the same as 'also contains errors'.

So I tell you what:

You stipulate that humans, apes and monkeys have the exact same 'shared error' that broke GULO.  (You've already done as much with, "Big deal.")

In return, I'll hold my nose (something sure smells fishy) to go a huge step further in stipulating that guinea pigs have a very similar error.  In other words, we'll accept, for the sake of argument, AiG's little song-and-dance contention that 36% shared 'lesions' indicates such a similarity.  (Nevermind for the moment that others have pointed out that they conveniently ignored deletions, etc. to arrive at this figure, or the fact that 36% similarity is hardly a high index -- I'll stop calling them liars for a bit.)

So riddle me this...

We have about a thousand original kinds.  (Again, others have contested this estimate as too few to have seeded the earth without some SERIOUS evolution going on, but I'll go with it.)  Guinea pigs are part of one original kind (rodent-kind, rat-like-kind, small-furry-child-pet-kind, whatever).  Humans are most definitely their own kind.  Apes are a third.  Monkeys may be a fourth (I'll include the monkey-kind you mention, but you can omit it when you tap-dance, if you wish).  These kinds were created independently, but after the fall, random mutations resulted in broken genes like GULO.

Can you please tell me, why (oh why?!;), when we look at broken GULO, 3 of the 4 kinds that share the break (out of a thousand or more) are exactly what common descent would predict?  Furthermore, whenever we look at a broken gene like GULO, if it's broken in our kind, it's very likely to be broken in the ape kind, a little less likely (but still quite likely) to be broken in the monkey kind, not nearly as likely to be broken in the cat kind or the dog kind (but sometimes), and either not broken, or completely different, or not there at all in amphibian kinds and insect kinds and...  Why do we see this, Dave?  Even if we spot you the guinea pig GULO, and similar exceptions, we still see this pattern emerge so obviously you'd have to be blind not to see it, and you really need a predictive theory to explain it (i.e., something far better than "shit happened after the Fall", Dave).  Common design might predict the working genes being similar in similar appearing species, but by your own admission, it has nothing to do with the broken ones -- creationists don't believe they were designed that way, right?  

Do you really fall for "arguments" like the following from the AiG GULO screed:

Quote
"If a strong pattern of pseudogenic ‘shared mistakes’ can happen even once in an evolutionarily impossible manner, it can also happen again and again in an evolutionarily consistent manner. Now, more than ever, Occam’s razor dictates that ‘shared mistakes’ be approached in terms of parallel mutations rather than common evolutionary ancestry."


Do you not see that first sentence as a huge non sequitur?  Could we not just as well say, since we know of many exceptions where people have fallen from great heights unharmed, that we may as well start walking out of windows because all bets are off?  Or would you rather apply a little probabilistic reasoning in that case?  At this point, suit yourself.

Furthermore, speaking of probability, if you accept the AIG argument, you must agree with this:

Quote
Of course, it is virtually inconceivable that these many identical nucleotide substitutions have arisen solely by chance:

   ‘Assuming an equal chance of substitution throughout the sequences, the probability of the same substitutions in both humans and guinea pigs occurring at the observed number of positions and more was calculated to be 1.84 X 10-12. This extremely small probability indicates the presence of many mutational hot spots in the sequences.’35

It has long been known that mutations are quite non-random in occurrence, but the variety and complexity of mutational hotspots has seldom been appreciated. Rogozin et al.36 have recently summarized our current knowledge of experimentally induced mutations. Many nucleotide motifs other than the earlier-discussed CG doublet can serve as mutational hotspots. It is now known that the sequence content tens of bases away from a given motif can influence the degree of its hotspot behaviour. Moreover, the propensity of nucleotide motifs to be mutational hotspots varies from gene to gene and from one region of the genome to another. Moreover, the foregoing considerations do not even touch the higher-level features of gene or chromatin structure as causes of mutational hotspot behaviour.37 The large relative number of parallel mutations in the guinea pig and primate GULO pseudogenes cannot be said to be unprecedented. Experimental evidence has already demonstrated that nucleotide substitutions (as well as indels, for that matter) can, unexpectedly, occur in a very strongly concerted manner.38


So, given these non-random 'hot spots' and other biochemical phenomena that we are just beginning to understand, I'm sure you would never say anything about mutation being entirely random when it came to the evolution of life, right?  And you'd certainly never accept an argument against the probability of a genetic sequence that assumed such simplistic, purely random mutation, right?

Like this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/figures.asp

or this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp

or this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter9.asp

or all the similar ones listed here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/probabilities.asp

You and your sources would remain consistent, right?

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,07:05   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,09:27)
The probabilities against evolution of gross morphological changes are staggering.

So is the amount of time and replicated resources involved. We can mathematically demonstrate that evolution had more than enough time and resources avialable to achieve life as we know it.

While the odds against you winning the lottery are staggering, someone will eventually win the lottery, and every lottery is eventually one -- thousands of them.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,07:19   

Dave, in case you can't be bothered to read the longer post above, I'd like to ask the most important question, point-blank, so you don't miss it:

You say "common design" explains the nested genetic hierarchies we observe "just as well" as common descent.  While this assertion may be at least arguable for functioning genes (hint: try more arguing, less asserting), you have stated that the "design" had nothing to do with post-Fall mutations and errors (i.e., they weren't "designed that way", and no creationist argues that they were*).  So why do obvious genetic mistakes also show nested hierarchies, beyond those you might expect from initial "kinds", with only a handful of exceptions**?  Furthermore, why are these two sets of nested hierarchies (one deduced through "design", and one through whatever mechanism you have for post-Fall errors) identical?  How does your "theory" predict this?

*It could be just me, but I'm pretty sure that earlier in the thread (i.e., before you shifted gears) you argued that they WERE designed that way for an unknown function.  Is my memory faulty, Dave?

**Exceptions which are beginning to be explained by our understanding of hot-spots, etc., but are far too few to overshadow the obvious pattern of descent.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,07:20   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,09:27)
The fruit flies get damaged or killed when we "speed up evolution."

Everything gets damaged and everything dies in the end.

As for fruit flies, I'll bet there sometimes are beneficial mutations in some experiment somewhere. They've certainly happened in other life forms and been observed.

This TO article lists some favorable mutations we  know about:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

1. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
(situation with insects and pesticides is similar. Insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides.)

2. Bacteria that eat nylon oligomers

3. Sickle cell resistance to malaria

4. Lactose tolerance

5. Resistance to atherosclerosis
(This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.)

6. Immunity to HIV

You start accumulating those kind of mutations and you get evolution.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,08:04   

Dave, we can see you coming. You're about to argue "why don't you accept that the same mutations could have occurred independently in primates, since you admit some very improbable event (like the apparition of the first cell for example)".
But you argument is flawed.
To explain the apparition of the first cell for instance, we also have different hypothesis:
- it was the product of an extraordinary event. Creationists like Dembski believe this is our position. (???)
- Goddidit.
- it evolved from less complex life forms (our position).

You have several options:
- claim that common ancestry inferred from the mutations in GULO is in fact the product of an extraordinary chance. Most mutations are random, they may be some 'hot spots', but the probability for them to reflect the exact phylogeny built with dozen of gene is basically zero.
-  explain how common design predicted that the designer would place errors in GULO in several species, errors that reflect the phylogeny we can infer from working parts of genes.
- admit that mutations were inherited by different species from their ancestors, though genetic mechanisms known for decades.
- another hypothesis from your imagination.

Which one will you choose?

And if you're about to assert (like JAD) that all mutations are harmful, I'm afraid you don't have the knowledge to back up this argument.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,10:02   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,11:03)
Are you going to tell me that Guinea pigs and humans are related?  I hope not.

Yep, I sure am, Dave. Humans and guinea pigs are more closely related than 99% of all the organisms out there. Humans are more closely related to starfish  than to 96% of organisms out there.

(And you might want to note that, in fact, all life forms on the planet are related to some degree. Some more closely than others.)

Once again you're getting hamstrung by your ignorance. Like most people who don't really know anything about biology, you probably assume that things like mammals, birds, and reptiles make up most of the non-plant life-forms on the planet. In fact, all vertebrates taken together make up a fairly small twig on the tree of life. Take a cruise over to the Tree of Life Website sometime, and you'll get some idea of how broad the tree really is. The "Crown Eucaryotes" (e.g., plants, animals, fungi) make up only a small fraction of all the life out there. As you've been told before, bacteria are vastly more numerous than all multicellular life combined. The number of individual bacteria on the earth has been estimated as something like 10^30.

So yes, humans and guinea pigs are extremely closely related. Not as closely related as humans and chimps, but by comparison to, say, humans and insects, they're kissin' cousins.

You really need to get some perspective, Dave.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:14   

But.... what are we doing here my friends?

Dave is a YEC, a young Earth creationist. How can we convince a YEC with scientific facts?
13 pages of arguments to nothing. Do we really need to continue?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:38   

Quote
Do we really need to continue?


did anybody really need to even start?

look, it's easy enough to develop a search pattern for creationists.

If they bother to pose their posts as questions, the questions are already loaded with their presupositions.  So they aren't even questions.  They're mere strawman statements with question marks on the end.

usually quite obvious from the very first post.

I've perhaps seen one counter example to this in two years of luking on the thumb and ATBC, and i can't even remember the specifics now.

I assume you all do this for the humor factor, and to sharpen your knives on blunt stone.

am i wrong?

if not, why even bother to question why anybody here continues to argue with singularities like AFDAVE and Puff-Diddy?

you can get more thoughtful argument from the idiots over on ARN, and even the DI folks comment there sporadically.  Always fun to poke holes in their arguments, which actually ARE arguments (albeit readily recognizable as wrong), rather than the inanity continually posted by our resident trolls.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:38   

Quote (jeannot @ May 16 2006,16:14)
But.... what are we doing here my friends?

Dave is a YEC, a young Earth creationist. How can we convince a YEC with scientific facts?
13 pages of arguments to nothing. Do we really need to continue?

Agreed.  But then, tomorrow morning we'll get another drive-by daving.  And again, when the scattered shot of a barrel sawed off way too short by fundamentalist dogma backfires in a spray of ignorance, we'll scavenge the emptied casings and try to show him exactly what is wrong with his ammunition.  But jeannot is right -- his barrel will always be too short, his aim will always be off, and what few shots he gets away that manage to avoid his own face will always be woefully impotent.  Nevertheless, every morning he'll be here, squealing 'round the corner and enthusiastically pulling the trigger.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:39   

Quote
*It could be just me, but I'm pretty sure that earlier in the thread (i.e., before you shifted gears) you argued that they WERE designed that way for an unknown function.  Is my memory faulty, Dave?

No.  Your memory is not faulty.  I think the 2 scenarios I mentioned early today are possibilities.  You have not given me enough information to decide which one is correct.  All you have given me is that ape and human "broken" GULO is about 95% similar.  No one has confirmed for me if this "broken" GULO gene also occurs throughout the animal kingdom and may have some unknown function, as Argystokes suggested.

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:44   

Quote
his barrel will always be too short, his aim will always be off


well, he does have kids, doesn't he?

or am i confusing him with T-diddy?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:48   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 16 2006,16:38)
I assume you all do this for the humor factor, and to sharpen your knives on blunt stone.

For a moment, I thought that Dave could learn something. Some of his reactions were indeed quite amusing, but now I'm getting bored.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:51   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,16:39)
No.  Your memory is not faulty.  I think the 2 scenarios I mentioned early today are possibilities.  You have not given me enough information to decide which one is correct.

Er...with your open and honest inquisitiveness, I presume NEITHER still has an outside shot, right Dave?  Seeing as how it's the most parsimonious third explanation employed by tens of thousands of scientists who don't have to beg for spoonfed information that they can't digest?  When did "neither" fall off the table, Dave?

So GULO WAS designed that way?

Or it WAS designed that way until we provide you with genetic data (that you couldn't begin to interperet) for every species in the animal kingdom to demonstrate that the pseudo-GULO gene, whatever it produces at this point, does nothing more than make Vitamin C synthesis impossible?

At which point, it WAS NOT designed that way.  No creationist ever said it was.  Look, here's the AiG article which clearly states it is a broken gene.  How could it be otherwise?  

But big deal -- it became that way after the Fall, where it has mutated at a fantastic rate over the past six thousand years.  By chance, those independent mutations beautifully imitate the patterns of common descent predicted by evolution, even though, in this case, the Designer didn't do it -- non-random mutation did.  But look over here -- I have a guinea pig in my pocket...

This is what happens when you believe six impossible things before breakfast.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,12:02   

Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,16:39)
I think the 2 scenarios I mentioned early today are possibilities.  You have not given me enough information to decide which one is correct.  All you have given me is that ape and human "broken" GULO is about 95% similar.  No one has confirmed for me if this "broken" GULO gene also occurs throughout the animal kingdom and may have some unknown function, as Argystokes suggested.

Dave, Dave, Dave. It's not enough to just look at the percentage of similarity. You also have to look at specific mutations at specific loci. It's not just a matter of comparing the number of mutations. This is the part you're missing. The reason we know that guinea pigs diverged from primates before humans diverged from chimps is that we see not only fewer differences between the human and chimp genome; we also see more of the same exact mutations shared with chimps than we do with guinea pigs.

This seems to be the part you're not getting.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,12:04   

Quote
Humans are more closely related to starfish  than to 96% of organisms out there.


Be careful, the starfish will get uppity about that one. They are pretty darn proud of their own evolutionary successes.

Seriously Dave, you are trying to do rocket science when you don't have basic physics down. Before any of this works, you need to understand why scientists believe that the earth is around 4 1/2 billion years old.

So please, before you go on and on about genetics, let's establish the age of the earth, and the age of the universe. And what we can and can't know given current understanding. Like, it's ok to have your god hypothesis but you have to understand that 100% of the evidence so far pushes your understanding into the realm of provincial superstition. Sorry. Not kind words I suppose but you are wrong. And education could fix that.

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

   
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,12:08   

Okay, Dave, let's go traipsing through the animal kingdom...

Krasnov et al. (1998.) Expression of rat gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the key enzyme of L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis, in guinea pig cells and in teleost fish rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-GENERAL SUBJECTS 1381 (2): 241-248.

Abstract: The ability of rainbow trout liver and kidney preparations to produce L-ascorbic acid with an added source of L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO) and the absence of their own GLO activity suggested that the reason for the absence of L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis in fish and in guinea pig, a scurvy-prone mammal, can be similar. Nevertheless, results of rat GLO cDNA expression in guinea pig cells and in rainbow trout proved different. In guinea pig cells, rat GLO was expressed in a functional form. Regardless of recombinant GLO transcripts detected in rainbow trout embryos, alevins and in juvenile fish, neither GLO protein nor GLO activity were found. Furthermore, production of L-ascorbic acid in transgenic rainbow trout was not revealed in feeding tests with vitamin C-free diets or after direct administration of L-gulono-gamma-lactone. These results indicate that conditions required for translation or stability of rat GLO are absent in rainbow trout tissues.

Translation:

Neither trout nor guinea pigs can make Vitamin C on their own, but put the GLO protein in their diet and away they go.  This leads to the hypothesis that maybe trout and guinea pigs can't make Vitamin C for the same reason (i.e., the broken GULO).  So we put the GULO gene from a rat in both trout and guinea pig cells.  Guinea pig cells start making Vitamin C.  Fish don't.

Why did your designer do this, Dave?  Whatever this GULO thing is, it sure seems to be important for making Vitamin C in mammals, but not in fish.  Weird, eh?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,12:08   

Quote
And education could fix that.


doubtful at this point.

maybe his kids still have a chance though.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,12:14   

Back to humans for a second, and we even have a pretty good idea how the GULO gene got broken.  Not only that, but since free radicals are mutagens, and since Vitamin C scavenges free radicals, this little case study of ours might have accelerated primate evolution in general.


Challam, J., and T. Will. 1998. Retroviruses, Ascorbate, and Mutations, in the Evolution of Homo sapiens.  FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 25 (1): 130-132.

Abstract: Mutations, induced by free radicals, provide a rich molecular palette that other evolutionary forces can select for or against. A recent hypothesis proposed that large numbers of free radicals were produced when, millions of years ago, Anthropoidea lost the ability to produce endogenous ascorbate, increasing the frequency of mutations and accelerating the evolution of higher primates. Recognizing that retroviruses have been active throughout the period of primate evolution, we suggest that an endogenous retrovirus or other retroviral-like element may have been involved in mutating the gene coding for gulonolactone oxidase (GLO), the terminal step in ascorbate synthesis, approximately 45 million years ago. This possibility is supported by the presence of Aln elements (a common primate retroelement) adjacent to the site of a missing segment of the nonfunctional GLO gene. Although Homo sapiens and other higher primates produce other endogenous antioxidants, including superoxide dismutase and uric acid, they do not quench the same radicals as ascorbate and cannot fully compensate for a lack of endogenous ascorbate, As a consequence, a retrovirus may have played a pivotal role in primate and H. sapiens evolution, and the absence of endogenous ascorbate may be continuing to accelerate the rate of H. sapiens and primate evolution.

I'm sure you're finding this as fascinating as I am, Dave.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,12:20   

Well, I believe everyone deserves a fair shot. I also believe that it doesn't much matter in the long run.

I have a friend who has a masters in divinity from Yale. He has offered an opinion that some people absolutely need a simple religion with absolute black and white. He thinks that it is better that they have a simple religion than no religion.

This he says while we are at a meditation retreat run by a Thai Zen buddist and a morroccan Yoga master.

I just have such a different view of things.

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

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,12:24   

Quote
(Note for Faid:  I know you are trying very hard to get me to see that the AIG people are a bunch of liars, so I'll tell you what I'll do.  I'll agree with you that they are all a bunch of liars and we all know what a liar I am--I've been told this many times here--and I would add that the Talk Origins people are probably liars as well, and probably many of you are also liars, and of course, the President is a liar and all Republicans are liars.  So why don't we just agree that we are ALL a bunch of liars, then we can agree on something and get on with arguing.  What do you think?  :-)


Dave, liar is as liar does: People are deemed dishonest by careful evaluation of their words and actions, not by public consensus.
But right now, I could care less about AiG and what you think of them. Just about the only thing I want you to do is what I've asked you seven times already: Go back, read the links we posted, see how identical the broken parts of GULO between humans and other primates are, see how the slight differences diverge more with species of primates more distant to human...
Come on Dave, it's not an evilutionist site, it's the University of Indiana, for crying out loud.
If you still refuse to address them, I'll have no choice but to infer that:
a) either you're in some OCD state, where you think that checking the link is like "giving in to temptation", expressing doubt in the eyes of you-know-who, or
b) You have already checked the links, but don't want to address them- and that is dishonesty.
Either way, you lose.

 
Quote
Baloney.


You sure been reading a lot of this Woodmorappe dude, haven't you?  :p

--------------
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."

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,12:27   

Dave, I'm going to reproduce a schematic (using roman numerals to identify regions of the gene) from Ha et al. (2004) showing human and guinea pig GULO, relative to the functional version in rats.  Look at them carefully.  Do you get what we're saying yet?

Rat: |I|II|III|IV|V|VI|VII|VIII|IX|X|XI|XII|

Human:                                |VIII|IX|X|   |XII|

Guinea Pig:   |II|III|IV|   |VI|VII|VIII|IX|X|XI|XII|

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,14:52   

Quote (incorygible @ May 16 2006,17:27)
Look at them carefully.  Do you get what we're saying yet?

Rat: |I|II|III|IV|V|VI|VII|VIII|IX|X|XI|XII|

Human:                                |VIII|IX|X|   |XII|

Guinea Pig:   |II|III|IV|   |VI|VII|VIII|IX|X|XI|XII|

If he ever does...


  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,16:34   

Quote
Sir_toejam on AFDave's progeny:...maybe his kids still have a chance though.


     
Quote
AFDave:My 1st grader can easily grasp the truth that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans and that they probably HAVE ALWAYS BEEN just that, and probably WILL ALWAYS BE just that.
 

Seems highly unlikely, given the mind numbing ignorance and arrogance of their old man. Depends on how far the apple falls from the tree I guess.  Still, having Missionary Dave home school his kids on science is not all a bad thing though. It will statistically increase the likelihood of my children winning a competitive job that requires critical thinking.  As far as Dave's kids' employment outlook - the country will always need janitors and fry cooks.

--------------
"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: May 16 2006,16:53   

Keep trying to insult me, Aftershave.  It might work yet if you just keep it up long enough!  I like the new angle of insult ... very innovative.  Maybe you could insult my wife next.

You go right ahead and send your kids after those "competitive jobs" so they can spend their life working for someone else.  Mine already have their own business like their dad ... maybe my kids will hire some of your kids if they are smart and work real hard.  

:-)

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,17:24   

Quote
Keep trying to insult me, Aftershave.  It might work yet if you just keep it up long enough!  I like the new angle of insult ... very innovative.  Maybe you could insult my wife next.


No insult at all Dave, just stating the facts. You are one of the most ignorant and arrogant Bible pushers to come by in some time.  You lied about your reasons for coming here, you lied about all the data that was presented to you, you continue to lie about your desire for honest discussion.  I will support to the last your right to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose, but I can't stand liars.

I've got nothing against your kids - I sincerely hope they are all happy and successful in whatever they choose to do.  They're just going to have to learn intellectual honesty from somewhere else, because they sure won't learn by example from you.

Want to prove me wrong?  Then answer the tough questions that you keep cowardly avoiding:

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

Your T-38 just took an SA-20 SAM up the tailpipe Dave – what are you gonna do now?

--------------
"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.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,17:42   

Dave, at the beginning of this thread you mentioned how we supposedly don't know anything about the genetic "language" involved in GULO and vitamin C synthesis.  Based on this ignorance (since shown to be yours alone), you whined that your creationist assertions were just as good.

Since then, you have been shown what we know. You have been shown how common descent predicts a shared pseudogene between humans and other primates.  Not only does your "theory" not predict this, but you have to do a lot of dancing to make it even accomodate this strange similarity across different "kinds". What do you know, Dave?

If a new species of primate were discovered tomorrow, how does your "theory" inform us?  What predictions does it make?  Do you have to know if it is in the monkey-kind or ape-kind first?  Shouldn't that be important informantion in developing your predictions?  Might you not want to nail that down?

Mine says that this primate, if deprived of vitamin C in its diet, will develop scurvy.  Yours (is it independent mutations sometime after the Fall? is it special but unknown independent function of the GULO?) has no reason to predict this.

Mine says that its inability to synthesize vitamin C would be a result of it being unable to produce active GLO protein (which is just one of MANY proteins involved in ascorbate synthesis, and thus one of many places where things could "break").  Yours has no reason to predict this.

Mine says that the mutations in this GULO gene would be in specific regions, in a specific appearance common to primates.  These differ in recognizable ways and degree from the mutations in guinea pigs.  Yours cannot predict this.

Mine says that you will not find a functional GULO region in this primate.  Yours has no reason to predict this.  Note that despite argystoke's interesting proposed experiment, we have no reason to expect the converse.  That is, we might well expect to find additional broken GULO regions in rats and other animals that still have functioning GULO and can synthesize vitamin C.  This would indicate duplication (similar to that found in hemoglobin genes and many others).  It would not indicate some vital and as-yet unknown function of the pseudo-GULO.  So, while it's an interesting idea, it wouldn't provide any magic bullet to decide between your "scenarios".  I notice that you didn't have enough understanding of the question to realize this.

Mine says that if we spliced a rat or mouse GULO gene into the primate's liver cells (as we have done for humans), it would be able to synthesize vitamin C.  Yours has no reason to predict this.  Mine says we couldn't do the same for a fish.  Yours?

Mine says that this pseudogene is likely the result of a retrovirus, and that the mutation occurred about 40 million years ago, in the shared ancestors of that primate and us.  Yours?

What does your "theory" predict for our newfound primate, Dave?

Or let's leave the hypothetical primate.  Let's look at a hamster, Dave.  What does your "theory" predict for hamster GULO?  Is a hamster part of the guinea pig kind?  The rat kind?  Its own kind?  Does it matter?  Can you -- without peeking at those hocus-pocus evolutionary phylogenies tracing ancestry -- predict anything about hamster GULO and vitamin C production?  Can you test your predictions on your own?

Who doesn't know the language here, Dave?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,17:53   

Quote
Keep trying to insult me, Aftershave.  It might work yet if you just keep it up long enough!  


really?  will it only work for him, or can the rest of us pile on?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,03:51   

Where to start?  Probably the best place would be to float a reminder to you about "The Big Picture of This Thread" and "Your Role" vs. "My Role" and how this little discussion of GULO fits into the big picture.

(1)  One reason I am here at PT is to see if there really is anything substantive to evolutionary arguments.  Seems like a good place to find out would be a forum where evolutionary scientists hang out.
(2)  Notice that on this thread, it is not my primary goal to prove to you something positive about the Creationist view of Apes and Humans.  It is to see if YOU have some positive, convincing proof that would make me rethink my position that Apes and Humans are separately created kinds.
(3)  Someone has pointed out that I just want everyone else to run around chasing data and I myself don't want to do any "real scientific work."  Well, in this case, YES.  The burden is upon you to try to convince me.  I have always felt sorry for evolutionists in a way, because I have always thought it would be a huge undertaking to try to defend many aspects of it, and so many arguments have crashed and burned in the past when new information is known.  I'm finding this to be true with Ape/Human issues in general and with the GULO issue in particular.  Sorry if this observation frustrates you, but it's an honest observation.
(4)  Someone has correctly observed that I am an apologist for YEC.  I'm glad someone has figured this out because it is true.  I have said many times that I don't want to become a specialized scientist in a particular field--we have many of those already.  But I am being honest when I say that I would abandon the YEC position if given some convincing evidence for NOT being a YEC.  It's just that no one has yet.

Now that we have that "role review" under our belts, let's dive in.

Just so Faid is not insulted that I never look at his links, I'll post something from one of his links ...
 
Quote
B-1: The GULO Gene as an Example of Shared Deletions:
Given below is the alignment for the same part of the GULO gene that we examined in lesson A on Vitamin C,
along with the corresponding sequences from 3 primate species that are incapable of synthesizing Vitamin C, the
chimpanzee, the orangutan, and the crab-eating macaque.
Human TACCTGGTGGGGGTACGCTTCACCTGGAG-GATGACATCCTACTGAGCCCC
Chimpanzee TACCTGGTGGGGCTACGCTTCACCTGGAG-GATGACATCCTACTGAGCCCC
Orangutan TACCCGGTGGGGGTGCGCTTCACCCAGAG-GATGACGTCCTACTGAGCCCC
Macaque TAACCGGTGGGGGTGCGCTTCACCCAAGG-GATGACATCATACTGAGCCCC
Rat TACCCCGTAGAGGTGCGCTTCACCCGAGGCGATGACATTCTGCTGAGCCCC
Link to article


Oh, by the way ... maybe I should have clarified this earlier ... YECs have no problem with the idea of Apes and Monkeys having a common ancestor.  We actually agree that they did.  I think Noah took a pair of genetically rich "ape/monkeys" on the ark and these diversified into the many varieties we see today.

So the only thing I care about here is the Ape-Human thing ... the supposed shared ancestry.  

Now let's analyze this.   As I have found in so many areas, you make many assumptions:

1)  You assume that the ONLY reason human and ape GULO does not work is because of this single deletion.  Am I correct?
2)  You are assuming that pseudo-GULO is in fact "broken GULO".  Argystokes has not yet demonstrated that to me.  To me it is a possibility that "pseudo-GULO" has some as yet undiscovered function.  Remember the good old "vestigial" organs that turned out to have function after all?  Why wouldn't "vestigial" GULO turn out the same way?
3)  You are assuming that this "deletion" is in fact a deletion.  The word deletion implies that it was there at one time in history and now is not due to a mutation.  I think you base your idea that it is a deletion by comparing it to rat GULO.  A tempting comparison and I do see your logic, but how is this conclusive?  An interesting experiment in this regard would be to delete the "C" in question in the rat GULO, then see if rat Vitamin C production ceases.  Has this been done?  Is it even possible?  How about inserting a "C" into some ape GULO, then seeing if Vitamin C production commences?  I did read the Rat/GP/Trout experiment and it is interesting, but does this prove that the "C deletion" is definitely the cause of non-functionality?  
4)  You assume that this "C deletion" occurring independently in apes and humans is a highly unlikely event.  Why is it so unlikely?  After all, there are many identical substitutions in an unrelated ... er ... *cough* ... distantly related (yes, yes, I forgot my head yesterday for a moment ... it is still a challenge for me to remember that you all think ALL organisms are related through common ancestry), i.e. our furry friend, the guinea pig.


 
Quote
Dave, this is the part you're not getting: Creationism predicts everything. Creationism is an ad hoc hypothesis that can always fall back on the proposition that the Creator could always have done something in a particular way, and given we know almost nothing about the Creator, we cannot make assumptions about why it would do something.

Now, Dave. Tell me something you could in principle find in the natural world that Creationism would not predict. Can you do it?
 

Creationism does NOT predict everything.  Here are 5 things it does not predict. (but evolution does predict and has been proven wrong)

1) "Upward evolution" ... it predicts "downward"
2) "Seamless fossil record" ... it predicts ubiquitous gaps
3) "Hominid civilizations" (or half-human to make Norm happy on terminology) ... it predicts fully human civilizations and fully ape "civilizations."
4) "Millions of years coal production" ... it predicts rapid coal formation
5) "An infinite universe" ... it predicts a finite universe that had a beginning

How far do you want me to go on?  I could keep going a long time, but you get the idea.  So you are incorrect.  Creationism does not predict everything.  

Evolution, on the other hand is almost "God-like" (actually fairy-talish) in its supposed explanatory power.  If a guy like Michael Behe comes at you with an irreducibly complex biological system like the flagellum, the "Evo Fairy Tale Machine" goes into high gear cranking out stacks of "just so" stories about how you all wish it might have happened.  None of this can be tested experimentally, of course, and no one has ever observed such an innovation happening in nature, and we all know what happens to fruit flies when you "speed up" evolution, but who cares about all of that.  On they go creating large volumes of "scholarly articles" which in reality are nothing more than "Alice-in-Wonderland" tales without the "fun story appeal."  Have you ever waded through one of those "How a Flagellum Evolved" technical papers?  I don't blame you if you haven't.  You would no doubt have headache afterwards if you did.


 
Quote
Also, as a side note, does Creationism make any predictions as to the number of "kinds" there are out there? Or does Creationism even have an estimate of the number of "kinds"? Because evolution does. It has a nice little diagram of the organizational structure of life on earth. Does Creationism have its own diagram, or does it just plagiarize the one created by real scientists?

I think they do somewhere.  I can find out pretty easily from AIG or ICR or someplace.  I just threw out that 1000 number.  I have no idea what a good number might be.  The actual number was not important to my argument yesterday, so I just picked one out of the air.


 
Quote
Seriously Dave, you are trying to do rocket science when you don't have basic physics down. Before any of this works, you need to understand why scientists believe that the earth is around 4 1/2 billion years old.
Yes.  The magic potion of evolution ... millions and billions of years.  I hate to be so unkind as to tell you that you might need to pay attention, but if you read this thread, millions of years doesn't have anything to do with the questions I have raised on this thread.

 
Quote
If you still refuse to address them, I'll have no choice but to infer that:
a) either you're in some OCD state, where you think that checking the link is like "giving in to temptation", expressing doubt in the eyes of you-know-who, or
b) You have already checked the links, but don't want to address them- and that is dishonesty.
Whew! I cut and pasted Faid's quotes.  Now he won't think I'm in an OCD state!

 
Quote
Mine says that you will not find a functional GULO region in this primate.  Yours has no reason to predict this.  Note that despite argystoke's interesting proposed experiment, we have no reason to expect the converse.  That is, we might well expect to find additional broken GULO regions in rats and other animals that still have functioning GULO and can synthesize vitamin C.  This would indicate duplication (similar to that found in hemoglobin genes and many others).  It would not indicate some vital and as-yet unknown function of the pseudo-GULO.  So, while it's an interesting idea, it wouldn't provide any magic bullet to decide between your "scenarios".  I notice that you didn't have enough understanding of the question to realize this.

Mine says that if we spliced a rat or mouse GULO gene into the primate's liver cells (as we have done for humans), it would be able to synthesize vitamin C.  Yours has no reason to predict this.  Mine says we couldn't do the same for a fish.  Yours?

Mine says that this pseudogene is likely the result of a retrovirus, and that the mutation occurred about 40 million years ago, in the shared ancestors of that primate and us.  Yours?

What does your "theory" predict for our newfound primate, Dave?

Or let's leave the hypothetical primate.  Let's look at a hamster, Dave.  What does your "theory" predict for hamster GULO?  Is a hamster part of the guinea pig kind?  The rat kind?  Its own kind?  Does it matter?  Can you -- without peeking at those hocus-pocus evolutionary phylogenies tracing ancestry -- predict anything about hamster GULO and vitamin C production?  Can you test your predictions on your own?

Who doesn't know the language here, Dave?
You are the biology expert.  I am the apologist.  Remember the role discussion above?  By the way, I am very impressed with some of the technical knowledge displayed here.  I don't want to trivialize that.  I am just pointing out some items which appear to be logical fallacies to me.

OK.  Over to you ...

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

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,03:57   

Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,09:51)
(1)  One reason I am here at PT is to see if there really is anything substantive to evolutionary arguments.  
(4)  Someone has correctly observed that I am an apologist for YEC.  I'm glad someone has figured this out because it is true.

Do you fail to see the inherent contradiction in these two?

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,04:03   

Quote
Oh, by the way ... maybe I should have clarified this earlier ... YECs have no problem with the idea of Apes and Monkeys having a common ancestor.  We actually agree that they did.  I think Noah took a pair of genetically rich "ape/monkeys" on the ark and these diversified into the many varieties we see today.


You believe in the diversification of hundreds of primate species in just the last few thousand years?  My friend, you're a bigger believer in macroevolution than anyone else here!

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,04:08   

OA asks AFDave for the fourth time
 
Quote
Want to prove me wrong?  Then answer the tough questions that you keep cowardly avoiding:

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?


AFDave's reply
 
Quote
....(cricket chirping)......(wind blowing through the grass)......


(cue the theme from Top Gun)

"Maverick!  Goose!  This is Viper.  What's going on up there?!"

"It's AFDave sir, he won't engage.  AFDave won't engage!"

--------------
"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.

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,04:11   

Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,08:51)
I have always felt sorry for evolutionists in a way, because I have always thought it would be a huge undertaking to try to defend many aspects of it, and so many arguments have crashed and burned in the past when new information is known.

.... which is exactly how science is conducted. Hypotheses are proposed, experiments conducted to test those hypotheses, conclusions and predictions drawn, all through the rigorous process of peer-review. As new information comes to light, as you so rightly say, some of these hypotheses become redundant, or "crash and burn" if you will.

This happens all the time in all fields of science, and evolution is certainly no different. As has been said so many times, there is lots of discussion and many hypotheses proposed to explain various mechanisms within the evolutionary process, some of which are re-enforced as new data comes to light, and some of which are made redundant by new data, and are thus discarded.

As time goes by, hypotheses are tested and tested again as new data comes to the fore all the time. The better the hypothesis, the better it stands up over time to any new data used to test it.

This is science.

And you "feel sorry" for scientists who do science this way, as science has been done ever since the scientific method was first adhered to?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,04:22   

Quote
OA asks AFDave for the fourth time

New thread, my friend, new thread.  This one is about "Ape Questions" as you might find out by scientifically analyzing the title.

Go start a new one if Wesley will let you and I'll see if I can find time to come over and visit ...

Cheers!

(I did enjoy "Top Gun" ... glad to see you did too!;)

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,04:24   

Missionary AFDave says
 
Quote
Someone has pointed out that I just want everyone else to run around chasing data and I myself don't want to do any "real scientific work."  Well, in this case, YES.  The burden is upon you to try to convince me.


ROFLMAO!!  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Dave, you crack me up!  So now the onus is on us to cure you of your desire to be a willfully ignorant dumbass.  That's priceless.

Tell us Dave, what incentive would anyone have in doing hours and hours of research and writing just so a disingenuous knucklehead like you can reject the data with a few flip sentences?

Give us a bigger laugh Dave.  Tell us what possible evidence you would accept that shows Human-Chimp common ancestry?

--------------
"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.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,04:31   

Quote
4)  You assume that this "C deletion" occurring independently in apes and humans is a highly unlikely event.  Why is it so unlikely?  After all, there are many identical substitutions in an unrelated ... er ... *cough* ... distantly related (yes, yes, I forgot my head yesterday for a moment ... it is still a challenge for me to remember that you all think ALL organisms are related through common ancestry), i.e. our furry friend, the guinea pig.
You still don't seem to understand. If a gene is inactivated it is not subject to selection, therefore it will accumulate many mutations, so if the gene broke in the common ancestor of all primates there will be a time when other mutations occur and these should be passed to chimps and humans and indeed they are. Remeber were not just talking about point mutations here.

Quote
Also, as a side note, does Creationism make any predictions as to the number of "kinds" there are out there?
I've heard Kent Hovind say 10,000.

Quote
millions of years doesn't have anything to do with the questions I have raised on this thread.
If were talking about shared ancestry between humans and apes it kind of does.

Quote
YECs have no problem with the idea of Apes and Monkeys having a common ancestor.  We actually agree that they did.
You guys should really think that through. I guess then you think there is a smaller difference between monkeys and apes, and your concern is that humans have developed these things such as morality etc. What then if all these things are proved to be a product of us having larger and more complex brains? Also, I assume you don't believe that humans once had a tail although you think that the monkape kind either evolved one or lost one.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,04:54   

Quote
Someone has pointed out that I just want everyone else to run around chasing data and I myself don't want to do any "real scientific work."  Well, in this case, YES.  The burden is upon you to try to convince me.
I'm not going to waste any time on this today, because I've got an actual job in actual science to do... the kind of work that would be literally impossible if I bought afdave's concept of logic.

I'll just take a moment to point out that there is no "burden" on the science side. If we choose to do afdave a favor and give him a peek at how science is actually done, he should be grateful. The progress of science continues apace whether he understands it or not.

Secondly, despite this convenient definition of roles, until afdave faces the question I and others have put more times than I can count, namely:

How does the "common design" explain anything at all about what to expect in the DNA sequences we've discussed here?

he's just demonstrating that he's either not honest with us or with himself, and that further efforts to educate him are a waste of time.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,05:31   

Quote
Tell us Dave, what incentive would anyone have in doing hours and hours of research and writing just so a disingenuous knucklehead like you can reject the data with a few flip sentences?

Dunno.  A lot have done it so far though.  Why would they not continue?  Maybe they have an insane fascination with 'brain damage' ??

(As someone here put forward)

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,05:35   

Or maybe it's the 'sharpening knives on dull stones' idea.

Who knows!

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,05:36   

Well well well. The time has come.

Dave, you are an idiot. Your vacant mind is incapable of synthesizing information into understanding.

I sincerely hope that your children do not end up as misguided as you. Not for them but for me.

Your head is crammed securely up your ass and you have nothing valuable to say. Your god is a pathetic little provincial bigman who can't even say boo to my god because my god is so much stronger and braver than your god. And my god makes better things than your god.

Also, I can run faster, jump higher and screw better than you can.

Your friends don't really like you; they are just pretending.

:)

Wesley, your other thread was precient in that you don't really want to have a poster who is simply an object of ridicule. Is this correct?

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

   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,05:41   

Quote (Russell @ May 17 2006,09:54)
How does the "common design" explain anything at all about what to expect in the DNA sequences we've discussed here?

William Dembski actually did suggest a line of research:
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idprospects.htm

Scroll down to “Steganography” and see that Dembski seeme to think some junk DNA might be a kind of “operating manual,” of no use to the organism as such but of use to scientists investigating the organism.

That's the kind of thing I'd expect if I believed we were designed. Afdave doesn't actually  have any expectations about DNA because he's too ignorant of the genomic science.

You and I can laugh at Dembski's expectations, but if he really could demonstrate such an “operating manual” existing in junk DNA with real scientific evidence then ID would become a real theory.

Science itself is evolutionary and a thousand wrong ideas are tested before we hit on ideas that work. So, if there were an ID research program I wouldn't object. What I object to is the fact that they're faking having any  research program and instead spending millions on PR and lawyers and think tanks that  invent ways to lie and distort.

Dembski is forced to accept evolutionary computation:
Quote
Increasingly it is becoming evident that organisms employ evolutionary computation to solve many of the tasks of living. But does this show that organisms originate through some form of evolutionary computation (as through a Darwinian evolutionary process)? It seems that the immune system, for instance, is a general purpose genetic algorithm that targets an interloper, sets up a gradient that tracks the interloper, and then runs a genetic algorithm specifically adapted to that gradient whose output is a molecular assemblage that vanquishes the interloper. All of this sounds very high-tech and programmed. Are GPGAs (General Purpose Genetic Algorithms) like this actually designed or themselves the result of evolutionary computation. Evolutionary computation occurs in the behavioral repertoire of organisms but is also used to account for the origination of certain features of organisms. It would be helpful to explore the relationship between these two types of evolutionary computation as well as any design intrinsic to them. My work in chapter 4 of No Free Lunch lays out some of the theoretical groundwork here. Besides theoretical work in this area, we need a large contingent of ID computer programmers who can write and run computational simulations that investigate the scope and limits of evolutionary computation. One such simulation is the  MESA program (Monotonic Evolutionary Simulation Algorithm) due to Micah Sparacio, John Bracht, and me. It is available on the ISCID website (http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=3Dget_top= ic;f=3D6;t=3D000054).


So, he would seem to accept the Vitamin C story as we present it, but then say it can't be the whole story.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,05:43   

Quote
(1)  One reason I am here at PT is to see if there really is anything substantive to evolutionary arguments.  Seems like a good place to find out would be a forum where evolutionary scientists hang out.


Yes, Dave, it is.  Here, you have access to dozens of evolutionary biologists, other scientists, and educated sorts who are masochistically willing to donate their time to answering your questions.  You know, normally I get paid very well to share my understanding of biology with a room full of 30 students who have paid thousands of dollars to sit in.  Glad you appreciate the effort.

Quote
(2)  Notice that on this thread, it is not my primary goal to prove to you something positive about the Creationist view of Apes and Humans.  It is to see if YOU have some positive, convincing proof that would make me rethink my position that Apes and Humans are separately created kinds.


You're an arrogant SOB, you know that, Dave?  From whence this audacity to dictate OUR roles in educating YOU in the absolute absence of any effort on your part?  See above.

Quote
(3)  Someone has pointed out that I just want everyone else to run around chasing data and I myself don't want to do any "real scientific work."  Well, in this case, YES.  The burden is upon you to try to convince me.  I have always felt sorry for evolutionists in a way, because I have always thought it would be a huge undertaking to try to defend many aspects of it, and so many arguments have crashed and burned in the past when new information is known.  I'm finding this to be true with Ape/Human issues in general and with the GULO issue in particular.  Sorry if this observation frustrates you, but it's an honest observation.


It is a "huge undertaking" to understand volume upon volume, journal upon journal, paper upon paper of published, peer-reviewed science, Dave.  Takes decades of full-time devotion.  In light of that, your observation, your opinion of "burdens", and the roles you have set out are anything but "honest".

Quote
(4)  Someone has correctly observed that I am an apologist for YEC.  I'm glad someone has figured this out because it is true.  I have said many times that I don't want to become a specialized scientist in a particular field--we have many of those already.  But I am being honest when I say that I would abandon the YEC position if given some convincing evidence for NOT being a YEC.  It's just that no one has yet.


So you recognize the huge undertaking to become knowledgeable in this subject, but think you can have it for free.  I would have suspected you'd have come across the term "no free lunch" in your IDiot meanderings, Dave.  In this case, however, it actually applies.

Quote
1)  You assume that the ONLY reason human and ape GULO does not work is because of this single deletion.  Am I correct?


No.  You are looking at one small region of the gene.  The deletion may have broken the gene.  It may not have.  Other mutations could have occurred before, and others since.  We've shown you the exact nature of the mutations that we see now.  We've pointed you in the direction of references where you can find out more.

Quote
2)  You are assuming that pseudo-GULO is in fact "broken GULO".  Argystokes has not yet demonstrated that to me.  To me it is a possibility that "pseudo-GULO" has some as yet undiscovered function.  Remember the good old "vestigial" organs that turned out to have function after all?  Why wouldn't "vestigial" GULO turn out the same way?


You just don't get it.  Read the thread, Dave.  Functioning GULO produces a known active protein that is vital to endognenous vitamin C production.  That is the product of this gene.  We understand how this biochemical pathway works very well, Dave.  When mammals can't synthesize vitamin C, it tends to be because this gene is broken and the protein (required for one of the last steps in manufacturing vitamin C) is not made.  Fish, on the other hand, are missing more than just GULO (as shown in that study I pointed out).  It doesn't have to be this way, but it is, and why this is so is explained nicely by the phylogenies we have already developed.  Furthermore, pseudo-GULO may have some other function.  Doesn't look like it at the moment.  Maybe it creates a fantastic new protein for humans and monkeys and guinea pigs to exploit.  Maybe it helps in the structure of DNA.  Doubtful at this point (hence the whole "pseudogene" label), but maybe.  This doesn't change anything at all.
Quote
3)  You are assuming that this "deletion" is in fact a deletion.  The word deletion implies that it was there at one time in history and now is not due to a mutation.  I think you base your idea that it is a deletion by comparing it to rat GULO.  A tempting comparison and I do see your logic, but how is this conclusive?  An interesting experiment in this regard would be to delete the "C" in question in the rat GULO, then see if rat Vitamin C production ceases.  Has this been done?  Is it even possible?  How about inserting a "C" into some ape GULO, then seeing if Vitamin C production commences?  I did read the Rat/GP/Trout experiment and it is interesting, but does this prove that the "C deletion" is definitely the cause of non-functionality?


Yes, Dave, it's all been done.  We can easily knock out vitamin C production by breaking rat GULO in any way you desire.  No functioning gene -> no functioning protein -> no vitamin C synthesis.  This is basic.  Look at the medical literature.  That Ha et al. (2004) paper I referenced earlier is titled "Functional rescue of vitamin C synthesis deficiency in human cells using adenoviral-based expression of murine L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase" (Genomics 83:483-492).  They took murine (rat/mouse) GULO, spliced it into human liver cells via a virus (we do this all the time, Dave), and those cells began synthesizing Vitamin C.  I've already told you this.

Quote
(4)  You assume that this "C deletion" occurring independently in apes and humans is a highly unlikely event.  Why is it so unlikely?  After all, there are many identical substitutions in an unrelated ... er ... *cough* ... distantly related (yes, yes, I forgot my head yesterday for a moment ... it is still a challenge for me to remember that you all think ALL organisms are related through common ancestry), i.e. our furry friend, the guinea pig.


We've been over this.  The information is right in front of you.  Base-pair substitutions have, at worst, a 25% chance of being identical.  Add in hotspots and other factors and this increases (maybe reaching, horror of horrors, 36%).  Deletions are not substitutions, Dave.  Substitutions are much more common in (surviving) organisms.  Base pair substitutions (expecially in the third position) tend to be the least "damaging" mutations, not strongly selected against.   A substituted base pair can easily be substituted again and again.  Stretches of DNA that get deleted do not reappear.  They easily break gene functions.  They are rarer.  Why is it unlikely?  It should be clear by now why shared deletions (deleted stretches of DNA that rarely occur, often kill, and could have occurred anywhere, but happen in the same place) very strongly suggests something to us, Dave.  Close your eyes and cover your ears.

Quote
"Also, as a side note, does Creationism make any predictions as to the number of "kinds" there are out there? Or does Creationism even have an estimate of the number of "kinds"? Because evolution does. It has a nice little diagram of the organizational structure of life on earth. Does Creationism have its own diagram, or does it just plagiarize the one created by real scientists?"

I think they do somewhere.  I can find out pretty easily from AIG or ICR or someplace.


No, Dave, they don't.  Prove me wrong.

Quote
I just threw out that 1000 number.  I have no idea what a good number might be.  The actual number was not important to my argument yesterday, so I just picked one out of the air.


Glad you hold yourself to the same evidentiary standards to which you hold us.

Quote
Yes.  The magic potion of evolution ... millions and billions of years.  I hate to be so unkind as to tell you that you might need to pay attention, but if you read this thread, millions of years doesn't have anything to do with the questions I have raised on this thread.


It most certainly does.  Timescales are inherent in what we predict about the shared/divergent evolution of primates, guinea pigs, and everything else.  Your ignorance is showing again, Dave.

Quote
You are the biology expert.  I am the apologist.  Remember the role discussion above?  By the way, I am very impressed with some of the technical knowledge displayed here.  I don't want to trivialize that.  I am just pointing out some items which appear to be logical fallacies to me.


"It is not my job to match your pathetic level of detail," screeches yet another IDiot.  Sorry, Dave -- NO FREE LUNCH.  In whatever roles you have dictated to us, you have (VERY erroneously) put yourself in the position of someone capable of understanding biology to the point of evaluating evidence and determining what is convincing.  As an apologist, you have advanced the assertion that your "theories" are just as good.  You have gone into great deal in your apologetics, and have certainly invited a relative comparison of the knowledge to be gleaned from these competing ideas.  If your "theory" can't say anything definitive about the hamster, or apes and monkeys, or anything else (apart from being saved by Jesus), that's really too bad, Dave.

Dave, you don't have to tell us what our respective roles are.  You have demonstrated that you are arrogant, ignorant, unreasonable, lazy and intellectually dishonest.  The posters who have replied to you have shown patience (for the most part), knowledge (and a desire to share it), reason, effort and honesty.  We've seriously considered your ideas about God and creation and ETs (though most of us have already considered similar arguments long before).  We've read your articles, and even attempted to answer questions that YOU should be answering (like where exactly the author at AiG went wrong, what creation "theory" might predict about life on this planet, etc.).  We served you free lunch after free lunch, even as you puked on the carpet over and over and over...  Our respective roles as apologist and scientists are readily apparent.

See ya 'round, Dave.  And please, at some point, pick up a bloody book, learn a little bit about the things you claim to have a capability to evaluate, and really think about the things others tell you and the questions they ask of you.  It never hurt anybody.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,05:45   

Quote

Dunno.  A lot have done it so far though.  Why would they not continue?
Oh they will, never fear. Numbnuts who don't know anything and yet want to lecture experts are just too fascinating to some of them.

If someone wanted to tell you how wrong you are about how to fly planes, and they didn't even know basic things about lift, stalls, air pressure, and when you tried to explain the basics they just kept telling you how wrong you were, wouldn't you be a little intrigued?

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,05:53   

Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,08:51)
(1)  One reason I am here at PT is to see if there really is anything substantive to evolutionary arguments.  Seems like a good place to find out would be a forum where evolutionary scientists hang out.
(2)  Notice that on this thread, it is not my primary goal to prove to you something positive about the Creationist view of Apes and Humans.  It is to see if YOU have some positive, convincing proof that would make me rethink my position that Apes and Humans are separately created kinds.

Sorry, Dave—the burden is on you. The evidence in favor of evolution is crushing, overwhelming. Don't you think there's some reason why virtually every single one of the tens of thousands of scientists out there worldwide has no doubts about it? How many people (many are non-scientists) are on the DI list? A few hundred?

And besides, if it's not your goal to present positive evidence about the Creationist view, why did you waste several hundred words on your "Creator God Hypothesis" (which, let the record show, you have not yet supported with any positive evidence)? If you weren't going to support it, why did you even bring it up, and waste our time waiting under the misapprehension that you were going to try to support it?

Dave, you're simply not equipped to evaluate the evidence in favor of evolution. That's been pointed out to you innumerable times. No one here is under the slightest obligation to educate you on that evidence. If you think you're justified in dismissing that evidence without even understanding it, well, it's a free country. So far.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,06:00   

Quote
Well well well. The time has come.

Dave, you are an idiot. Your vacant mind is incapable of synthesizing information into understanding.

I sincerely hope that your children do not end up as misguided as you. Not for them but for me.

Your head is crammed securely up your ass and you have nothing valuable to say. Your god is a pathetic little provincial bigman who can't even say boo to my god because my god is so much stronger and braver than your god. And my god makes better things than your god.

Also, I can run faster, jump higher and screw better than you can.

Your friends don't really like you; they are just pretending.

:)


Oh yeah, I forgot one thing. You harbor deep feelings of regret over your homosexual experimenting in flight school but I don't think any less of you. :)

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

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,06:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,08:51)
Creationism does NOT predict everything.  Here are 5 things it does not predict. (but evolution does predict and has been proven wrong)

1) "Upward evolution" ... it predicts "downward"
2) "Seamless fossil record" ... it predicts ubiquitous gaps
3) "Hominid civilizations" (or half-human to make Norm happy on terminology) ... it predicts fully human civilizations and fully ape "civilizations."
4) "Millions of years coal production" ... it predicts rapid coal formation
5) "An infinite universe" ... it predicts a finite universe that had a beginning

How far do you want me to go on?  I could keep going a long time, but you get the idea.  So you are incorrect.  Creationism does not predict everything.


Evolution's been proven wrong about any of these things, Dave? Sorry; you're delusional.

But in a way, you're right. Creationism at the same time predicts everything and predicts nothing. For the things you listed, Dave, Creationism has almost nothing to say. Explain to me why "downward evolution" is predicted by Creationism. How does this follow from the idea that God created everything? Is his creation so defective that everything eventually breaks down and collapses?

But even if it does predict "downward evolution," to the extent the term means anything it's been falsified. Which have been around longer, humans or bacteria? Which appears first in the fossil record? Of course, Creationism presumably predicts both were created at the same time (another prediction that's been falsified, to the extent it was ever made in the first place.)

A simple understanding of the conditions under which fossils form predicts ubiquitous gaps in the fossil record. Now, tell me how do "gaps" (meaning not every single organism that ever lived left a fossil?) follow naturally from Creationist beliefs?

Evolution does not predict hominid civilizations either. It took anatomically modern humans something like 190,000 years to produce civilization. What part of evolution predicts that hominids less intelligent than modern humans would produce a civilization? So how does one distinguish between Creationism (under which anything is possible) and evolution (where only some things are possible)?

Creationism has nothing to say about coal production, other than that it must take less than a few hundred years (since there's evidence of coal burning early in human civilization). To the extent that Creationism has predicted the time for coal production, that prediction has been falsified.

Creationism may think the universe had a beginning, but how does it follow that God's creation is anything less than inifinite?

Dave, none of these claims (which are almost all wrong anyway) is in any way "predicted" by Creationism. They don't follow naturally from Creationism's assertions. They're ad-hoc guesses.

But even if they were predicted, every single one of them has been disproven. The fact that you're unable to admit that is indicative of the level of intellectual dishonesty you're applying to the whole enteprize.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,06:41   

Re "Fish, on the other hand, are missing more than just GULO (as shown in that study I pointed out). "

Is that all fish, or just some of them?

Henry

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,06:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,08:51)
Here are 5 things it does not predict. (but evolution does predict and has been proven wrong)

1) "Upward evolution" ... it predicts "downward"
2) "Seamless fossil record" ... it predicts ubiquitous gaps
3) "Hominid civilizations" (or half-human to make Norm happy on terminology) ... it predicts fully human civilizations and fully ape "civilizations."
4) "Millions of years coal production" ... it predicts rapid coal formation
5) "An infinite universe" ... it predicts a finite universe that had a beginning

1) There is no "upward evolution" or "downward." There are more directions to travel than you are aware of. What there is -- is a branching tree-like structure with branches growing through an abstract and hyper-multi-dimensional realm called "search space" that finds the best survivors and reproducers in every niche it encounters.

2) To talk about a "seamless fossil record" versus ubiquitous gaps is a demonstration of  your ignorance of what the fossil record is. Fossils happen rarely and not all fossils have been found. What you don't believe in here is  called a "transitional fossil."

This link explains:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

3) You predict fully human civilizations and fully ape "civilizations." On that the actual evidence proves you wrong. Fully human here includes those humans who lived in caves and whose only technologies to start with were stone chipping, carving, fire and paint pigments versus some more ape-like species that didn't make tools as well and had no art. We have a deeper history than your Bible tells us. This is something you've chosen to remain ignorant of.

4) "Millions of years coal production" versus rapid coal formation? Well, Dave, there's a lot of chemistry and geology behind the million years idea. Can you support rapid coal with  any evidence from chemistry and geology?

5) Evolution does not need or predict "an infinite universe." It merely needs a few billion years -- maybe even less, like a hundred million.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,07:02   

Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2006,11:41)
Re "Fish, on the other hand, are missing more than just GULO (as shown in that study I pointed out). "

Is that all fish, or just some of them?

Henry

Good question.  Only stuff I've seen on ascorbate in fish pertains to transgenic salmon, and suggests that an inability to synthesize vitamin C endogenously is common to all teleost fish (their dietary requirements are also far lower than mammals, and deficiency is not as severe).  Non-dietary GLO has, however, been found in lower fish.  Looking into it a little further, it appears that there is a bit of controversy as to whether any teleosts can synthesize vitamin C, and one interesting study suggests mullet may be able to biosynthesize GLO seasonally.  The Krasnov et al. (1998) paper began with the hypothesis that GLO is the only thing missing in vitamin C synthesis (since biochemical precursors to GLO are present in tissues).  However, they concluded that:

Quote
Probably, the conditions required for the efficient translation, posttranslational modification and compartmentalization of GLO, which have been conserved in guinea pigs after loss of their own gene, are absent from rainbow trout cells. However, considering the long evolutionary distance between mammals and fish, it is possible that transfer of a GLO gene from lower fish could be more probable for correction of L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis.


(Hey, Dave, did you catch that useful, practical evolutionary prediction at the end there?)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,07:03   

Quote
1)  You assume that the ONLY reason human and ape GULO does not work is because of this single deletion.  Am I correct?
2)  You are assuming that pseudo-GULO is in fact "broken GULO".  Argystokes has not yet demonstrated that to me.  To me it is a possibility that "pseudo-GULO" has some as yet undiscovered function.  Remember the good old "vestigial" organs that turned out to have function after all?  Why wouldn't "vestigial" GULO turn out the same way?
Dave, scientists can demonstrate that a gene has lost its function. GULO lacks many portions (exons) in primates, it has STOP codons a different loci (signals that stop the translation) and the fast accumulation of mutations confirms this.      
Quote

4)  You assume that this "C deletion" occurring independently in apes and humans is a highly unlikely event.  Why is it so unlikely?  
The convergence for this deletion may not be unlikely, but primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance. Would you drop this argument?  
Quote

Creationism does NOT predict everything.  Here are 5 things it does not predict. (but evolution does predict and has been proven wrong)

1) "Upward evolution" ... it predicts "downward"
2) "Seamless fossil record" ... it predicts ubiquitous gaps
3) "Hominid civilizations" (or half-human to make Norm happy on terminology) ... it predicts fully human civilizations and fully ape "civilizations."
4) "Millions of years coal production" ... it predicts rapid coal formation
5) "An infinite universe" ... it predicts a finite universe that had a beginning

You're completely wrong. The theory of evolution predicts nothing of the sort. You're confusing biology with astronomy and geology. And what does "upward evolution mean"?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,07:30   

Hey Davey-dog,

When Noah got drunk and his sons made fun of him, what was the lesson in that? What happened to the Dinosaurs again? Oh yeah, your too freakin' stupid to tie your shoes, that's right.

If it was good enough for the hebrew children, it's good enough for me. *hic!*
:)

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,11:35   

Quote (incorygible @ May 17 2006,12:02)
Good question.  Only stuff I've seen on ascorbate in fish pertains to transgenic salmon, and suggests that an inability to synthesize vitamin C endogenously is common to all teleost fish (their dietary requirements are also far lower than mammals, and deficiency is not as severe). [...]

I had another thought on my question. Since tetrapods are (cladistically speaking) an offshoot of one type of fish, it likely couldn't be all fish that had this gene broken (else no tetrapod would make its own vitamin C). So I predict that the fish that are the closest relatives to tetrapods will most likely have the gene intact.

Henry

P.S. I see from http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843 that teleosts are a separate branch from the group that includes tetrapods.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,11:54   

Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,08:51)
Creationism does NOT predict everything.  Here are 5 things it does not predict. (but evolution does predict and has been proven wrong)

1) "Upward evolution" ... it predicts "downward"
2) "Seamless fossil record" ... it predicts ubiquitous gaps
3) "Hominid civilizations" (or half-human to make Norm happy on terminology) ... it predicts fully human civilizations and fully ape "civilizations."
4) "Millions of years coal production" ... it predicts rapid coal formation
5) "An infinite universe" ... it predicts a finite universe that had a beginning

How far do you want me to go on?  I could keep going a long time, but you get the idea.  So you are incorrect.  Creationism does not predict everything.

Just in case there are any lurkers out there who think this is persuasive, I'll point out that none of these are predictions of evolution. I will also ask afdave: if we observe any of these things, do you agree that it's evidence against Creationism?

1) Evolution predicts that there is no "up" or "down" in the sense you mean. Even so, bacteria have developed the ability to digest nylon. They didn't have that ability in the past. It's new. We can identify the pre-existing genes that were co-opted to achieve this. Isn't this "upward" evolution by your definition? Does it disprove Creationism?

2) Evolution doesn't predict a seamless fossil record. Given that fossils occur, evolution does make predictions about what those fossils should look like. But evolution does not predict that every creature that ever lived must have left a fossil for us to find. Even so, every time a new fossil is discovered, the size of the gap between its nearest neighbors gets smaller. Your "ubiquitous gaps" are gradually disappearing. Isn't that evidence against Creationism?

3) Evolution doesn't predict that "half-human" civilizations should exist today. Even so, evolution does predict that early hominids should probably have exhibit primitive cultures. Guess what? The evidence shows they did. Does that disprove Creationism?

4) Evolution makes no predictions about coal formation. That aside, if we can prove that coal typically forms over millions of years, does that disprove Creationism?

5) Yet again - not a prediction of evolution. That aside, if astrophysicists find strong evidence that the universe did not have a beginning, or will not have an end, would that disprove Creationism?

Let's simplify. Is there any conceivable objective observation (or combination thereof) that could disprove Creationism? If so, please explain.

And before you ask, yes there are observations that could disprove evolution. You've probably heard the one about rabbit fossils from the pre-Cambrian already. I can list others. But, you first.

P.S. If you want a much better demonstration of why we accept evolution, and why it's so useful, please read incorygible's post on May 16 at 22:42 in this thread. (Minor quibble for incorygible - should you have used "ape" in place of "primate?" Is gulo broken in all primates, or just the apes? That aside, great post!;))

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,11:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,08:51)
(3)  Someone has pointed out that I just want everyone else to run around chasing data and I myself don't want to do any "real scientific work."  Well, in this case, YES.  The burden is upon you to try to convince me.

That's rather like going to a gym and asking other people to lift weights for you; YOU will get no fitter without doing the exercises yourself; similarly, you will get no smarter or better informed without actually thinking and learning.

It's nobody's fault but yours if you can't follow the arguments, or understand the data. And until you learn something about evolution, so that you can follow the arguments and understand the data, then nothing you have to say on the subject is important, because you're not qualified to have an opinion. That may hurt your pride, but humility is a virtue.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,13:58   

Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2006,16:35)
I had another thought on my question. Since tetrapods are (cladistically speaking) an offshoot of one type of fish, it likely couldn't be all fish that had this gene broken (else no tetrapod would make its own vitamin C). So I predict that the fish that are the closest relatives to tetrapods will most likely have the gene intact.

Henry

P.S. I see from http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843 that teleosts are a separate branch from the group that includes tetrapods.

I'm really not sure.  An early Science article by Chaterjee (1973) has a pretty tree and suggests that the ability to biosynthesize ascorbate originally arose in the amphibians (since the ability, at that time, appeared to be lacking in fish, insects and invertebrates).  Amphibians and reptiles make GLO in their kidneys, whereas mammals and "higher order" birds synthesize it in the liver.  I suspect the current reality is a little fuzzier than Chaterjee's tree, and your hypothesis is an interesting one.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,14:05   

Quote (qetzal @ May 17 2006,16:54)
P.S. If you want a much better demonstration of why we accept evolution, and why it's so useful, please read incorygible's post on May 16 at 22:42 in this thread. (Minor quibble for incorygible - should you have used "ape" in place of "primate?" Is gulo broken in all primates, or just the apes? That aside, great post!;))

All primates (that we know of), as well as some flying mammals, going back about 40 million years, as far as I can tell.  And thanks!

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,14:16   

Quote
flying mammals


not flying monkeys.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,14:29   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 17 2006,19:16)
not flying monkeys.

You're right.  Those flying monkeys definitely make ass-sore-a-bit.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,14:32   

Quote (incorygible @ May 17 2006,19:29)
You're right.  Those flying monkeys definitely make ass-sore-a-bit.

ass-sore-a-bit?

Ugg. That was bad -- why would you -- no! I  won't ask-it.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,15:03   

LOL

  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,16:36   

Re "All primates (that we know of), as well as some flying mammals, going back about 40 million years, as far as I can tell."

Are the bats broken in the same place as in primates?

Henry

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,16:53   

Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2006,21:36)
Are the bats broken in the same place as in primates?

Henry

Don't think so.

Unfortunately, at the moment I can't find the reference that mentioned the flying mammals, so I don't know exactly what flying mammals we're talking about here nor how their GLO gene is broken (if we've even looked at it yet).  However, from  Challem and Taylor (1998):

Quote
Inactivation of the simian GLO gene must have occurred following the divergence from prosimians (ascorbate producers), but before the divergence of New World monkeys (GLO deficient): thus, between 55 and 35 million years ago.


This would seem to exclude bats.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,16:56   

Quote (normdoering @ May 17 2006,19:32)


Ugg. That was bad -- why would you -- no! I  won't ask-it.

Sorry.  And thanks for making it worse.  Took me a second, since I was going for ascorbATE, but yours is just as good.

Ugh is right.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,17:06   

AF Dave  said ...
Quote
Creationism does NOT predict everything.  Here are 5 things it does not predict. (but evolution does predict and has been proven wrong)

1) "Upward evolution" ... it predicts "downward"
2) "Seamless fossil record" ... it predicts ubiquitous gaps
3) "Hominid civilizations" (or half-human to make Norm happy on terminology) ... it predicts fully human civilizations and fully ape "civilizations."
4) "Millions of years coal production" ... it predicts rapid coal formation
5) "An infinite universe" ... it predicts a finite universe that had a beginning

How far do you want me to go on?  I could keep going a long time, but you get the idea.  So you are incorrect.  Creationism does not predict everything.


qetzal said ...  
Quote
Just in case there are any lurkers out there who think this is persuasive, I'll point out that none of these are predictions of evolution. I will also ask afdave: if we observe any of these things, do you agree that it's evidence against Creationism?


*Ahem* ... sorry ... I should have said these used to be predictions of evolution ...

Until they were disproven ...

Now, of course they are no longer predictions of evolution.

********************************

More ape fun tomorrow morning!  See you then!

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,17:23   

Quote
*Ahem* ... sorry ... I should have said these used to be predictions of evolution ...


oh?

do please point us to the volume(s) where an evolutionary biologist published these "predictions"?

no Dave, these were never predictions of ANY theory, ever.

they're lying to you again.

wake up, would ya?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,17:25   

Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,22:06)
*Ahem* ... sorry ... I should have said these used to be predictions of evolution ...

Until they were disproven ...

Now, of course they are no longer predictions of evolution.

More evidence of your sorry lack of understanding of science, Dave.

Aside from being completely wrong about these bullet points being "predictions" of evolution…all scientific theories are subject to revision in order to more accurately describe experience. The General Theory of relativity is essentially a relatively minor revision of Newtonian Gravitational Theory. Minor in the sense that the predictions of the two theories are basically identical at low masses and velocities.

Quantum theory today is a revision of the original theory developed in the 1930s. The theories are similar, but as time goes on, quantum theory has become increasingly refined in order to more accurately account for experimental observation.

One of the more amusing traits of Creationists like yourself is their criticism of 100-year old evolutionary hypotheses, usually followed by hostile laughter. But how much has the Bible changed to reflect more recent observation, Dave? Has it changed much in the last thousand years?

Science gets better all the time. Religion stays the same, getting left further and further behind every year.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,17:28   

AF Dave, once again, your stupidity, ignorance, pathetic excuses for ideas, intellectual self imolation and utter ridiculousness defy the imagination. Well, only if you have the imagination of someone as stupid as, say, you.

I'm sorry to anyone here who thinks Dave is merely dilusional. I would say that you have made an incorrect assessment.

Dave, you are really stupid. I'm sorry but the best advise  you could get is to stop thinking entirely. Just pick someone to believe, believe them and keep your mouth shut. Smile. It will keep you from showing just how far on the left side of the bell curve you really are.

Don't feel bad. Lots of nice people are as fantastically stupid as you. It's not a bad thing. But if you are concerned about things like, whether people make fun of you, or whether you need to make a toast at a wedding or something, it'd be better to say less.

Tell me about magnetic reversals on the seafloor Davey-dildohead. Go ahead, ... let me guess, GodDidIt! Right? HaHahahahahahahah!!! Jesus you are stupid. You make the animals you insult look smart in human terms. Oh  moron of the flying kind, doest thou insist on burying your head so deeply within your nether regions?

Idiot.

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

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,17:32   

I will put money on Dave thinking he is "winning" because we insult him so.

takers?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,17:47   

He's too stupid to know he's stupid. Now I am simply entertaining myself by coming up with creative ways to call him stupid. He's stupid the same way that Everest is big or the Mariana Trench is deep. I want a moron's view of plate techtonics though. Maybe dumbsh!t Dave will forgive me (turn the other cheek and all) and give me his biblical , hahahahahah, slap, heave, hahahahahah, biblically derived view of plate tectonics.

Go ahead Davey-dog, What do everest and mariana trench have to do with tectonics? How many freakin angels does it take to save a poor sot like me. Hahahahaha... I'm cryin, your so stupid. Jesus Chrimeny, you're so stupid you waited for the stop sign to say "go". you're so stupid you sit on the tv and watch the couch.

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

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,17:53   

sounds like you're pushing for a top-ten list of reasons 'ol Dave makes a box of hammers look smart...

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,18:37   

yee haw! let's see what you got

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

   
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,18:40   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 17 2006,23:32)
I will put money on Dave thinking he is "winning" because we insult him so.

takers?

He's already basically stated such, if I recall.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,18:40   

tommorrow... princess bride is on and it interests me far more than zombie dave.

Quote
He's already basically stated such, if I recall.


oh, i must have missed that.

shocker.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,23:02   

Afdave is showing off his amazing faith. Since I feel that he just waisted our time, asking to be educated and then revealing he is just here to preach, I feel we need to test Dave on the claim that he is indeed a Christian and not just someone who is fooling us.

I am also fedup with his arrogance.

My test, from the very Book that Dave adores.

"Luke 6:30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."

Dave, send me all your money please. Thanks.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,03:14   

Chimps and Humans

This is interesting. Now the fundies are REALLY going to fume.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,03:23   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 17 2006,22:32)
I will put money on Dave thinking he is "winning" because we insult him so.

takers?

Easy bet - I'm in for $20. After all, it's abundantly clear that afdave isn't thinking at all.

You can donate my winnings to Panda's Thumb. ;)

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,03:46   

Well Dave, I'm glad my last remark got you worked up enough to finally do what you should have done all that time: Check the links we provide.
Although I don't think it did you any good... You copy-pasted it alright, but as for actually reading it (let alone addressing it), well...
First, an irrelevant and unwarranted assumption (that that specific deletion was that broke the gene) you think is important- much like the 100% simillarity demand you made earlier- to establish common descent, then the usual beating about the bush, failing to address what the lesson demonstrates and we repeatedly explained you: the overall striking resemblance between the broken parts of the GULO gene among primates, that clearly point to a single breaking event in the past.
Oh, and a nice display of argument shifting: First you claim that the pseudogene might not be broken, but have an as yet unknown function. When we show to you how this is not possible, you start claiming that the gene broke independently in primates like in guinea pigs: And when we show you how this is an illogical assumption, you start claiming it's not broken again, as if it was never refuted.

But... I see that others have had the patience to explain all this to you, in detail, all over again. Not that that will stop you from ignoring the explanations again, I s'pose.

Dave, you pretty much lost my attention when you admitted that you're here as an apologetic (and complimented us for "figuring it out"!)- it was then that I fully realized the obvious: You are not here to have a scientific discussion; you don't even know (or care) what science is: For you, the idea of these debates is like something out of the chick tracts you give your children to read. You as the calm voice of Faith and Righteousness, your opponent a screaming blabbering caricature, and everyone around gaping in awe as the Truth™ is finally revealed to them through your overwhelming words (with god's help of course, we're not arrogant, no sir, arrogance is a sin). Every notion, every argument, every word that does not fit into this pattern is immediately filtered out; you disregard it as irrelevant, or simply ignore it. Like all the evidence for an old earth you are about to deny out of existence, it just cannot be.

Now, of course, is the time for your textbook comeback: "It's not me, it's you evilutionists that do this, because so and so"... Nevermind, Dave. We both know that it's you who tries to interpret every part of reality according to his beliefs. You will never admit it (on this forum, at least), but you are fully aware of that little soothing voice inside your head that keeps whispering "don't think, believe". And you accept it as a good thing. Just remember that we know about it, too. So, if prosyletizin' is your thing, like you admitted, go find an audience more "worthy" of it- and leave us poor sinners alone. We are beyond your "salvation".
If you persist on remaining, however, please feel free to use my post as quoting material, to be able to answer again while avoiding to address all the explanations given to you so far. Consider this a parting gift on my behalf.
As a matter of fact, here's some more:

What was this thread about again? Oh right, humans and chimps... Well, dave, you may be happy to know that it seems there are many facts about the human-primate divergence that us Nazi evilutionists havent gotten straighten outen yet. That's what this new study from MIT might suggest. Emphasis on "might", though, because the data and conclusions are already disputed (and I mean actual scientific dispute, not creo mumbo-jumbo), but there's a chance scientists have got a few things wrong here...


...Just not wrong in the way you'd like.

--------------
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."

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:05   

From Faid's article.

Voting booth:
How do you regard theories of hominid evolution?  
* 100970 responses

I think there's sufficient evidence tracing the evolutionary family tree of primates and humans.
67%

I don't accept any evidence that humans arose through evolution.
22%

Neither of the above.
11%

Just interesting. Science is not about voting.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:16   

BWE said ... [quote] Also, I can run faster, jump higher and screw better than you can. [/quote]

Eric, Chris, Jeannot, Incorygible, Norm, Qetzal (others also)... I truly admire all of you for your knowledge of your field and your ability to express your thoughts matter-of-factly (even though I disagree with you).  (End serious comment, begin sarcasm) I also wanted to highlite some of the abilities of one of your team members.  These abilities may come in handy in a future debate.  Just kidding.  Don't worry.  I really don't lump you in with anyone else, and my judgment of your character has nothing to do with my judgment of anyone else's ... I just saw a chance for a joke.  I wouldn't want people lumping me in with certain other YECs.  As for BWE, I congratulate you.  I have been insulted a lot of different ways, some creative, some boring.  I have to say that this one takes the cake as the most innovative I have ever heard.  If you tell me your mailing address, I would like to send you a certificate for "Most Creative Insult of All Time."  I will be interested to see if you or anyone else can top this one in the future :-)

[quote]Also, I assume you don't believe that humans once had a tail although you think that the monkape kind either evolved one or lost one. [/quote]

If it was one original kind, then there would originally have been a tail and it would have been lost over time.  Creationism predicts the loss of function, not gain.  There may, however, have been a separate monkey kind and an ape kind.

 
Quote
Science itself is evolutionary and a thousand wrong ideas are tested before we hit on ideas that work. So, if there were an ID research program I wouldn't object. What I object to is the fact that they're faking having any  research program and instead spending millions on PR and lawyers and think tanks that  invent ways to lie and distort.
Science is not evolutionary because it is directed by intelligence.  I am glad that you would support an ID Research Program.  ID has to spend millions on PR to even get any research off the ground to see if there is support for this promising theory.  

     
Quote
You're an arrogant SOB, you know that, Dave?  From whence this audacity to dictate OUR roles in educating YOU in the absolute absence of any effort on your part?  See above.
Look, Incorygible.  I'm a businessman with a science/engineeering background and a financial contributor to causes, I'm politically involved, I'm an apologist for YEC, and I'm a little bit like an investigative reporter at the moment.  If you don't want to accept the role of "Evolution Apologist" and jump on the opportunity to make your theory look plausible to an outsider, then don't.  No one is making you.   The ape/human questions and the Creation/Evolution controversy are absolutely to vital to society.  I'm spending 4+ hours a day on this effort. You can't say I'm not putting in any effort.  Now, if you don't like your role, then you don't have to assume it.  On the other hand, if you want to stick around and not get mad, you might have some fun. Others have said they are having fun.  You can too.  By the way, I have encountered scientists who seem very resentful of businessmen in general because they feel that businessmen "use" them for their own purposes.  Do you feel this way?  The truth is that both businessmen and scientists are necessary.  Businessmen need scientists to invent and discover new things.  Scientists need businessmen to market their innovations.   And by the way, apologists and politicians are necessary too.  Your side has a famous apologist in Richard Dawkins.  Why shouldn't our side have some too?

     
Quote
It is a "huge undertaking" to understand volume upon volume, journal upon journal, paper upon paper of published, peer-reviewed science, Dave.  Takes decades of full-time devotion.  In light of that, your observation, your opinion of "burdens", and the roles you have set out are anything but "honest".
Again, scientists do much wonderful work.  Where they go wrong is when they write volume after volume of speculation about how the immune system might have evolved and similar things.  They would be much more productive if they hypothesized that it was designed and studied it from that perspective.

     
Quote
So you recognize the huge undertaking to become knowledgeable in this subject, but think you can have it for free.  I would have suspected you'd have come across the term "no free lunch" in your IDiot meanderings, Dave.  In this case, however, it actually applies.
I understand there is no free lunch.  I was born in poverty and have worked very hard to be where I am now.  No one asked you for a free lunch.  Some of you act as if I am asking you to give me a biology degree for free or something. Again, I am basically a YEC apologist and an investigative reporter asking for a convincing story.  If you don't want to give it, then you don't have to.  If I were in your shoes, though, I would want to try to give a convincing one.

     
Quote
No.  You are looking at one small region of the gene.  The deletion may have broken the gene.  It may not have.  Other mutations could have occurred before, and others since.  We've shown you the exact nature of the mutations that we see now.  We've pointed you in the direction of references where you can find out more.
 Exactly.  So Faid was making an assumption when he told me that the deletion in his article is the cause of broken GULO.

AF Dave said ...        
Quote
3)  You are assuming that this "deletion" is in fact a deletion.  The word deletion implies that it was there at one time in history and now is not due to a mutation.  I think you base your idea that it is a deletion by comparing it to rat GULO.  A tempting comparison and I do see your logic, but how is this conclusive?  An interesting experiment in this regard would be to delete the "C" in question in the rat GULO, then see if rat Vitamin C production ceases.  Has this been done?  Is it even possible?  How about inserting a "C" into some ape GULO, then seeing if Vitamin C production commences?  I did read the Rat/GP/Trout experiment and it is interesting, but does this prove that the "C deletion" is definitely the cause of non-functionality?


Incorygible said ...        
Quote
Yes, Dave, it's all been done.  We can easily knock out vitamin C production by breaking rat GULO in any way you desire.  No functioning gene -> no functioning protein -> no vitamin C synthesis.  This is basic.  Look at the medical literature.  That Ha et al. (2004) paper I referenced earlier is titled "Functional rescue of vitamin C synthesis deficiency in human cells using adenoviral-based expression of murine L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase" (Genomics 83:483-492).  They took murine (rat/mouse) GULO, spliced it into human liver cells via a virus (we do this all the time, Dave), and those cells began synthesizing Vitamin C.  I've already told you this.


Incorygible, that's not the same thing ... read my quote again.  I asked if anyone has knocked out the "C" in rat GULO at the position indicated in Faid's article which I quoted.  You responded by saying "Yes, we spliced rat GULO into a human and it worked."  Hello?  That wasn't what I asked.  It's not the same thing.

     
Quote
If someone wanted to tell you how wrong you are about how to fly planes, and they didn't even know basic things about lift, stalls, air pressure, and when you tried to explain the basics they just kept telling you how wrong you were, wouldn't you be a little intrigued?
Yes.  But I wouldn't get mad.  I'd just think it was funny.  The fact that people get mad about this stuff is interesting to me.  Why do they?  Oh, I know all the superficial reasons ... I'm thick headed, etc.  But it seems like there must be a more basic reason for the frustration.

     
Quote
And besides, if it's not your goal to present positive evidence about the Creationist view, why did you waste several hundred words on your "Creator God Hypothesis" (which, let the record show, you have not yet supported with any positive evidence)? If you weren't going to support it, why did you even bring it up, and waste our time waiting under the misapprehension that you were going to try to support it?
Absolutely.  On that thread, not this one.  This thread is all about "Ape Questions" and seeing what your answers are to those questions.  I have given excellent positive evidence on my other thread for the existence of God, and will over time give much evidence for all the things I said I would.  I know some don't accept my evidence so far, but I cannot help that. All I can do is give it.

     
Quote
Dave, you're simply not equipped to evaluate the evidence in favor of evolution. That's been pointed out to you innumerable times. No one here is under the slightest obligation to educate you on that evidence.
I agree with you.  I am not equipped.  This is why I am giving evolutionary biologists the chance to speak for themselves and explain why their theory is plausible.  If they cannot do this, who can?  I understand that no one is under any obligations here.  There are certain roles, though, and I can tell you that I am certainly not going to assume the role of 'Evolution Apologist.'  So that leaves the job to either you guys or else no one at all. I think people here rightly want to try to answer these questions as best they can because they truly believe in their theory.  And it is important to them for others to understand and agree with this theory.  We all want people to agree with out theories.

     
Quote
Explain to me why "downward evolution" is predicted by Creationism. How does this follow from the idea that God created everything? Is his creation so defective that everything eventually breaks down and collapses?
It is predicted in Genesis and is known as the "Curse."  Yes.  Everything in this world has been cursed because of sin, and God will RE-create the world at some point in the future.  Of course, I cannot prove this last piece to you scientifically, but I can show you that the Bible is both reliable and supernaturally originated.  Then it is but a small step of faith to believe the unverifiable stuff.

     
Quote
2) To talk about a "seamless fossil record" versus ubiquitous gaps is a demonstration of  your ignorance of what the fossil record is. Fossils happen rarely and not all fossils have been found. What you don't believe in here is  called a "transitional fossil."
OK.  Fair enough.  Let's use your term.  Evolution predicted many transitional fossils and now that the evidence is coming in, there have been only a handful of equivocal ones.

     
Quote
The convergence for this deletion may not be unlikely, but primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance. Would you drop this argument?
Why would I drop the argument if you agree with me that the deletion is not unlikely?

     
Quote
And what does "upward evolution mean"?
The evidence shows that there is no such thing, but Evolutionists wish there were.  To me it means addition of wings where there were no wings before, addition of eyes where there were no eyes before, etc.  The reverse happens a lot, however.  Organisms lose function quite often and Creationists predict that this will continue until the time that the Creator RE-creates all things.

     
Quote
Even so, bacteria have developed the ability to digest nylon. They didn't have that ability in the past. It's new. We can identify the pre-existing genes that were co-opted to achieve this. Isn't this "upward" evolution by your definition? Does it disprove Creationism?
I do know there are a few mutations that could be construed as "upward" or "increased or new function."  Do you know of many like this?  To disprove Creationism, it would take a multitude of  mutations like this.  And by multitude, I mean thousands or even millions.

     
Quote
Your "ubiquitous gaps" are gradually disappearing. Isn't that evidence against Creationism?
To say that the gaps are disappearing is sort of like saying that you are well on your way to emptying Lake Superior because you have removed 10 buckets full of water.

     
Quote
Let's simplify. Is there any conceivable objective observation (or combination thereof) that could disprove Creationism? If so, please explain.
Yes.  There are many possible ways to disprove Creationism, and evolutionists have been hoping for years that just such evidences would come to light as more is known.  They just haven't yet.  The opposite is actually happening.

     
Quote
But how much has the Bible changed to reflect more recent observation, Dave? Has it changed much in the last thousand years? Science gets better all the time. Religion stays the same, getting left further and further behind every year.
It hasn't changed, unless you are talking about the equivocal "Apocrypha."  Or maybe you are referring to modern Bible translations?  Translations are not changes.  The translators typically work from the original Greek and Hebrew to make their translations.  I don't know about religion.  I'm not a religionist.  I'm interested in truthful science of which the Bible and a God Hypothesis are a legitimate part.

Renier said ...        
Quote
Afdave is showing off his amazing faith. Since I feel that he just waisted our time, asking to be educated and then revealing he is just here to preach, I feel we need to test Dave on the claim that he is indeed a Christian and not just someone who is fooling us.  Chimps and Humans -- This is interesting. Now the fundies are REALLY going to fume.


Renier, my friend, you're back!  You were the one (I think) that gave me the idea to start this thread.  Wasn't it you that said you used to be a YEC, but abandoned the position because of the Vitamin C issue?  Well, as I hope you have seen, there are many assumptions here and I think you were too quick to abandon your position.  I read your new article about Chimps and Humans, but it does not look as interesting as the Vitamin C issue.

***************************************************************

So there you have it.  We're on page 16 of this thread, and there has been some very good discussion.  After all of this, of the two possible scenarios that I mentioned ...
     
Quote
Scenario 1-The GULO gene could have broken independently in apes and in humans. The Inai article shows that it did indeed break independently in guinea pigs, so why should it not break independently in apes and humans?       OR ..

Scenario 2-The "broken" GULO gene was never a functional GULO gene in either apes or humans.  It always has had some unknown function and still does to this day.  Argystokes called this possibility "pseudo-GLO" and rightly asserted that we should be able to find this gene's homologue throughout the animal kingdom--even in animals that do have a functional GULO gene.

it seems that Scenario 1 is the most likely, although who knows what will turn up as more is known about "pseudo-genes."

I have confirmed my suspicion that Dr. Max's assumptions are not necessarily warranted, although I would not go so far as to say they are wild assumptions.

It is clear to me that the theory that apes and humans had a common ancestor, while it has some apparent support, is by no means a closed case, and there is plenty of evidence supporting Common Design Theory as well.  I don't think we can 'prove' either one of them.  And if I were in Renier's shoes, I certainly would not have abandoned the YEC position because of this issue.

So, as you probably expected would happen, my position remains that Apes are Apes, and Humans are Humans, and as far as anyone really knows for sure, it's always been that way.

Thanks for your participation!  I have nothing further to add on this thread.  If anyone wants to keep going, by all means, go ahead.  But I have completed what I set out to do.

I will now spend all my time presenting evidence for a Creator God, a Young Earth, the Global Flood, the accuracy of the Bible, etc. etc. on my other thread.

Thanks again.

AF Dave.

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:32   

Quote
Exactly.  So Faid was making an assumption when he told me that the deletion in his article is the cause of broken GULO.


afdave, please point me to the post in which I claimed that that particular C deletion was the cause of the loss of the gene's function.

Otherwise, please retract your claim and all assumptions derived from it.

Thanks in advance.

--------------
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."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:32   

Quote
Look, Incorygible.  I'm a businessman with a science/engineeering background
Translation: I have an engineering degree.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:39   

Quote
ID has to spend millions on PR to even get any research off the ground to see if there is support for this promising theory.


How is PR a requirement for starting research?

--------------
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.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:40   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
If it was one original kind, then there would originally have been a tail and it would have been lost over time.  Creationism predicts the loss of function, not gain.  There may, however, have been a separate monkey kind and an ape kind.

Okay...we're pretty much in agreement here.  So since we have the EXACT same evidence (and note that the "prediction" of loss of function isn't it) that humans lost their tails in the same way as apes, then might we predict that Adam and Eve had a tail?  (If not, why not?)  Furthermore, given that whole "in His image" thing, might this imply that God has a tail?  Cool!

(Might be better to invoke your ambiguity and fall back on that separate monkey-kind thing!;)

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:47   

One of the PTers calculated one time how much research the Discovery Institute could do if they put their PR money into research, and actually had a scientific program which produced results at the rate ordinary science does. IIRC, it was enough to fund about 40 grad students/postdocs, and from that you'd expect to see around 100 peer-reviewed papers per year. What's the DI do instead? Dozens of press releases and no scientific papers per year. Why hasn't the Discovery Institute done the science? They can't. ID is not science.

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:50   

Quote
How is PR a requirement for starting research?
PR raises money for doing research.

Quote
afdave, please point me to the post in which I claimed that that particular C deletion was the cause for the loss of the gene's function.

Otherwise, please retract your claim and all assumptions derived from it.

You probably told me five times to go look at your link which supposedly proves Dr. Max's assertions.  I did so, as you asked me to.  What else am I to conclude from that article?

If you really don't believe what I thought you believe, fine.  I'll retract my statement.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:58   

Quote
PR raises money for doing research.


But as you said, they already have MILLIONS.  And you cannot name one specific research project for which they are trying to raise money.  In the case of ID, the PR is the end, not the means.

--------------
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.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:10   

The Templeton Foundation even wanted to give them money for research, and the Discovery Institute couldn't come up with any research to do.

Quote
The Templeton Foundation, who provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, later asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. [7]

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:32   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:50)
Quote
How is PR a requirement for starting research?
PR raises money for doing research.

 
Quote
afdave, please point me to the post in which I claimed that that particular C deletion was the cause for the loss of the gene's function.

Otherwise, please retract your claim and all assumptions derived from it.

You probably told me five times to go look at your link which supposedly proves Dr. Max's assertions.  I did so, as you asked me to.  What else am I to conclude from that article?

If you really don't believe what I thought you believe, fine.  I'll retract my statement.

I'm sorry... What part of what we told you a dozen times, that the extraordinary simillarity between the broken parts of the gene in humans and primates can only be explained by common descent (and not independent breaking, as in guinea pigs) did you misunderstand as "we have found the specific deletion that caused the gene to lose function"? I'm curious.

...Actually, no I'm not. Forget it. It doesn't take a genius to understand that you're not even paying attention to what we say. You're probably reading all the data and research we provide wearing your best "poor deluded sinners" condescending smile, and then you skim through it, trying to find a juicy bit you can answer to with a complex and sciency-looking version of "I don't get it, and I don't care".

Whatever, Dave.

--------------
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."

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:35   

Quote
Look, Incorygible.  I'm a businessman with a science/engineeering background and a financial contributor to causes, I'm politically involved, I'm an apologist for YEC, and I'm a little bit like an investigative reporter at the moment.  If you don't want to accept the role of "Evolution Apologist" and jump on the opportunity to make your theory look plausible to an outsider, then don't.  No one is making you.   The ape/human questions and the Creation/Evolution controversy are absolutely to vital to society.  I'm spending 4+ hours a day on this effort. You can't say I'm not putting in any effort.  Now, if you don't like your role, then you don't have to assume it.  On the other hand, if you want to stick around and not get mad, you might have some fun. Others have said they are having fun.  You can too.

Dave, I'm in science.  (I wouldn't say I'm a "scientist", because I don't have the PhD membership card.)  I don't deal with apes, humans, vitamin C synthesis, or microbiology.  I work with fish and trying to save the buggers from going extinct.  But the stuff we've been spending hours a day on is rather elementary biology.  Now, I have enough memory of evolutionary basics to help people (including undrgrads) understand them.  And I think you'll agree that I HAVE assumed that role in answering your questions.  I have been no more snippy with you than I would have been with a sanctimonious student.  But you're right -- I'm not having fun anymore.  That's because I don't think you've fulfilled your stated role.  When I asked you some pretty direct questions (take the hamster one, for example), you pled that it wasn't your role to answer them.  I didn't need the answers, Dave.  I knew them.  They were there for your consideration and education (consider it a take-home exam).  When you don't reply, if not directly, at least in a way that shows some absorbance of the material, well, then I have to believe you didn't consider them at all.  Which means I can't perform the free-education role you've given me.
 
Quote
By the way, I have encountered scientists who seem very resentful of businessmen in general because they feel that businessmen "use" them for their own purposes.  Do you feel this way?  The truth is that both businessmen and scientists are necessary.  Businessmen need scientists to invent and discover new things.  Scientists need businessmen to market their innovations.   And by the way, apologists and politicians are necessary too.  Your side has a famous apologist in Richard Dawkins.  Why shouldn't our side have some too?

No, Dave, I don't feel this way.  But if somebody with an MBA tried to tell me how science works, he'd get the same response that I would if I tried to tell him how to manage a corporation.  I work with anglers, aquaculture industry, government agencies, politicians, NGOs, the general public, and a whole suite of others.  But at the end of the day, I live in the economy of ideas, and I can market those myself.  Nobody goes into evolutionary biology for the money, Dave (though the fame and women are nice).  And even Richard Dawkins didn't go into it for the apologetics.
 
Quote
Again, scientists do much wonderful work.  Where they go wrong is when they write volume after volume of speculation about how the immune system might have evolved and similar things.  They would be much more productive if they hypothesized that it was designed and studied it from that perspective.

Again, Dave, why do you think you know where scientists go wrong?  You've admitted you're not on their level in their respective fields.  I would never presume to tell you where pilots go wrong.  Do you honestly believe those volumes and volumes to be nothing more than fevered imaginings of the delusional? Do you honestly believe that this "perspective" you offer can lend anything to their investigations?  Because if you truly believe this, and if you are a businessman, you should be ALL OVER this easy way to money.  After all, the current crop of scientists aren't doing anything worthwhile, and you seem to know how to correct that, given your science/engineering/religious background.  Why not cure cancer with your "design perspective"? As a politically active businessman who wishes to contribute to humanity and help the YEC cause, would there be anything better?
 
Quote
I understand there is no free lunch.  I was born in poverty and have worked very hard to be where I am now.  No one asked you for a free lunch.  Some of you act as if I am asking you to give me a biology degree for free or something. Again, I am basically a YEC apologist and an investigative reporter asking for a convincing story.  If you don't want to give it, then you don't have to.  If I were in your shoes, though, I would want to try to give a convincing one.

So was I.  So did I.  I have tens of thousands of dollars to pay off in order to earn my understanding of science.  I have a decade of sleepless nights, (relative) social obscurity, failed relationships and poor health to shake off for it.  It was a good investment.  You think you know what you would want if you were in my shoes, but this shows the same presumption.  You are not the first YEC to demand convincing, Dave.  I got interested in this whole affair (I used to not care, just do what I did and let other people believe whatever they wanted) when a YEC (in similar shoes to yours?) sent me a scary fire-and-brimstone e-mail because may name appeared on a university website for teaching a course in evolution.  I'm not here to apologize, Dave.  I'm not here to evangelize (I still believe people can believe whatever they want).  I'm here to defend the boundaries of our separate magisteria.
 
Quote
Incorygible, that's not the same thing ... read my quote again.  I asked if anyone has knocked out the "C" in rat GULO at the position indicated in Faid's article which I quoted.  You responded by saying "Yes, we spliced rat GULO into a human and it worked."  Hello?  That wasn't what I asked.  It's not the same thing.

Faid has already responded to this and where the misunderstanding lies.  And even if he hadn't, I am sorry that I assumed you were asking a question that had some actual over-arching relevance to the discussion.  I assumed you had learned enough by now to realize that "the missing C" was not the deletion we have been talking about (not even close). But yes, I assumed to much, with the proverbial consequences -- you just wanted to go down yet another rabit hole leading to a meaningless detail and pedagogical semantics.
 
Quote
Yes.  But I wouldn't get mad.  I'd just think it was funny.  The fact that people get mad about this stuff is interesting to me.  Why do they?  Oh, I know all the superficial reasons ... I'm thick headed, etc.  But it seems like there must be a more basic reason for the frustration.

The first time, Dave.  The first time.  After explaining it ad nauseum, the humor would begin to lose its effect.  After hearing (and being hounded) about how your life and work is a delusional (or conspiratorial) lie for a few years on end, it might get a bit frustrating.  After one too many shrieks of "racism", misanthropy, genocide, Hitler, etc., etc., etc., you might start to actually get offended.  After a call to Homeland Security, you might be a little appalled (thankfully that one hasn't happened to me -- yet).  And I think you (of all people), might be a little offended by being accused of being in league with the devil and on a fast-track to ####.
 
Quote
"Dave, you're simply not equipped to evaluate the evidence in favour of evolution."
I agree with you.  I am not equipped.  This is why I am giving evolutionary biologists the chance to speak for themselves and explain why their theory is plausible.  If they cannot do this, who can?  I understand that no one is under any obligations here.  There are certain roles, though, and I can tell you that I am certainly not going to assume the role of 'Evolution Apologist.'  So that leaves the job to either you guys or else no one at all. I think people here rightly want to try to answer these questions as best they can because they truly believe in their theory.  And it is important to them for others to understand and agree with this theory.  We all want people to agree with out theories.

Dave, you accuse others of being unable to comprehend what you write, then come back with this?  We know you admit you cannot EXPLAIN (much less investigate and produce) the evidence for evolution.  The post you quote (like others) stated you cannot even EVALUATE it.  If you are here to be "convinced", then you don't agree with this.  I don't give a flying monkey whether or not you agree with what I "believe".  I didn't go to all this effort for your affirmation, Dave.  I'm a researcher and a teacher -- I value education over ignorance.  And even though I long ago gave up on educating you, there are the lurkers (I was one for a long time) who might be getting something out of all this.  Plus, there are the interesting discussions with people who actually do know what they're talking about (many more than I).  I don't care what they "believe", either.  Affirmation and consensus with the norm is not a high priority for me.  Did I not mention I'm in science?  We THRIVE on DISagreement, Dave.

 
Quote
"The convergence for this deletion may not be unlikely, but primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance. Would you drop this argument?"
Why would I drop the argument if you agree with me that the deletion is not unlikely?

Honestly, do you even read, Dave?  This reply, with the actual quote right above it, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are illiterate, dumb as a brick, and/or disingenuous.
 
Quote
I do know there are a few mutations that could be construed as "upward" or "increased or new function."  Do you know of many like this?  To disprove Creationism, it would take a multitude of  mutations like this.  And by multitude, I mean thousands or even millions.

Er, no Dave, it wouldn't.  You YECs make the claim that this is absolutely impossible.  In the freaking paragraph above this quote, you claim that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING" as "upward evolution".  That means it takes ONE occurrence to disprove this claim, and this claim IS the root of Creationism.  Your lack of logic, not to mention consistency, is astounding.
 
Quote
"Let's simplify. Is there any conceivable objective observation (or combination thereof) that could disprove Creationism? If so, please explain."
Yes.  There are many possible ways to disprove Creationism, and evolutionists have been hoping for years that just such evidences would come to light as more is known.  They just haven't yet.  The opposite is actually happening.

Nice answer, Dave.  And you wonder why we call you intellectually dishonest.
 
Quote
So there you have it.  We're on page 16 of this thread, and there has been some very good discussion.  After all of this, of the two possible scenarios that I mentioned ...
   
Quote
Scenario 1-The GULO gene could have broken independently in apes and in humans. The Inai article shows that it did indeed break independently in guinea pigs, so why should it not break independently in apes and humans?       OR ..

Scenario 2-The "broken" GULO gene was never a functional GULO gene in either apes or humans.  It always has had some unknown function and still does to this day.  Argystokes called this possibility "pseudo-GLO" and rightly asserted that we should be able to find this gene's homologue throughout the animal kingdom--even in animals that do have a functional GULO gene.

it seems that Scenario 1 is the most likely, although who knows what will turn up as more is known about "pseudo-genes."

I have confirmed my suspicion that Dr. Max's assumptions are not necessarily warranted, although I would not go so far as to say they are wild assumptions.

It is clear to me that the theory that apes and humans had a common ancestor, while it has some apparent support, is by no means a closed case, and there is plenty of evidence supporting Common Design Theory as well.  I don't think we can 'prove' either one of them.  And if I were in Renier's shoes, I certainly would not have abandoned the YEC position because of this issue.

So, as you probably expected would happen, my position remains that Apes are Apes, and Humans are Humans, and as far as anyone really knows for sure, it's always been that way.

Thanks for your participation!  I have nothing further to add on this thread.  If anyone wants to keep going, by all means, go ahead.  But I have completed what I set out to do.

I will now spend all my time presenting evidence for a Creator God, a Young Earth, the Global Flood, the accuracy of the Bible, etc. etc. on my other thread.

Thanks again.

AF Dave.


See no evil.  Hear no evil.  Speak no evil.  And for gawd's sake, never, ever learn a freaking thing.

*edited to include a few additional quotes for clarity

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
Quote
Science itself is evolutionary and a thousand wrong ideas are tested before we hit on ideas that work. ....


Science is not evolutionary because it is directed by intelligence.

There's a key error in the way you've conceptualized intelligence.  You seem to think evolution and intelligence are mutually exclusive. They're not.

We use both evolutionary trial and error and "thinking" in science. What science is engaged in is a kind of trial and error testing of theories (it's called the experimental method) and that's how evolution works, by trial and error.

But it goes even deeper than that. Genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming are used in Artificial Intelligence research. If you want to know what the #### you're talking about you better read these sites carefully:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci....rd.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_ar....biotech

http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-03/departments/feattech/

http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/ga.shtml

In fact, neural net theories and evolutionary algorithms share a lot of mathematics. Neural nets are selectionist algorithms too, working on the principal of reward and punishment and that is similar to natural selection.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
 I'm spending 4+ hours a day on this effort. You can't say I'm not putting in any effort.

You're spending four hours a day on this stuff? Dave, with that amount of time, you could probably get a graduate degree in evolutionary biology in under two years! In which case, most if not all of your questions would be answered, and you would no longer have to rely on a collection of 2000+ year old myths for your worldview! Why are you wasting your time here?

           
Quote
 
Quote
And besides, if it's not your goal to present positive evidence about the Creationist view, why did you waste several hundred words on your "Creator God Hypothesis" (which, let the record show, you have not yet supported with any positive evidence)? If you weren't going to support it, why did you even bring it up, and waste our time waiting under the misapprehension that you were going to try to support it?
Absolutely.  On that thread, not this one.  This thread is all about "Ape Questions" and seeing what your answers are to those questions.  I have given excellent positive evidence on my other thread for the existence of God, and will over time give much evidence for all the things I said I would.  I know some don't accept my evidence so far, but I cannot help that. All I can do is give it.


Sorry, Dave, you have not presented a single scrap of evidence, let alone "excellent positive evidence" for any of the assertions in your "Creator God Hypothesis." I'm not sure what your definition of "evidence" is, but believe me, you have yet to present a single scintilla of evidence for any of your assertions, on this thread or any other. You've made wild-ass speculations, but those speculations aren't "evidence" of anything. We can't "accept" evidence that you haven't presented.

And I was really looking forward to your "evidence" that the earth is only a few thousand years old…

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

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,06:03   

I would really like to separate and preserve for posterity the following afdave doublethink.  Two comments, in the same post, appearing adjacently:

Quote
The evidence shows that there is no such thing [as "upward" evolution], but Evolutionists wish there were.  To me it means addition of wings where there were no wings before, addition of eyes where there were no eyes before, etc.  The reverse happens a lot, however.  Organisms lose function quite often and Creationists predict that this will continue until the time that the Creator RE-creates all things.


Quote
I do know there are a few mutations that could be construed as "upward" or "increased or new function."  Do you know of many like this?  To disprove Creationism, it would take a multitude of  mutations like this.  And by multitude, I mean thousands or even millions.


Furthermore, this is from the man that kicked off (and concluded) this thread by arguing that, if the GULO gene broke once, it could break all the time, in the same manner, in "independent" kinds, and thus we should throw common descent out the window. He referenced an AIG article that argued:

Quote
"If a strong pattern of pseudogenic ‘shared mistakes’ can happen even once in an evolutionarily impossible manner, it can also happen again and again in an evolutionarily consistent manner. Now, more than ever, Occam’s razor dictates that ‘shared mistakes’ be approached in terms of parallel mutations rather than common evolutionary ancestry."


It's so beautiful, I think I'm going to cry.  Good news, Dave -- I'm having fun again!  ;)

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,06:09   

Quote
As for BWE, I congratulate you.  I have been insulted a lot of different ways, some creative, some boring.  I have to say that this one takes the cake as the most innovative I have ever heard.  If you tell me your mailing address, I would like to send you a certificate for "Most Creative Insult of All Time."  I will be interested to see if you or anyone else can top this one in the future :-)


The guantlet has been thrown.

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

   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,06:15   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
Let's use your term.  Evolution predicted many transitional fossils and now that the evidence is coming in, there have been only a handful of equivocal ones.

I don't think you grasp the incredible numbers of fossils we do have and the story they tell. People here could probably dig up several transitional fossils for any existing species you could name. Some are more problematic than others, small creatures like bats don't fossilize well because of small bones and not hanging around near water where sedimentary rock forms.

However, some species fossilized better - and one of the best examples of a good fossil record can be found in trilobite evolution.

http://www.trilobites.info/

They're the most diverse group of extinct animals preserved in the fossil record.  There are over 15,000 species of them and probably hundreds of thousands of available fossils. You can see the way they gradually changed form.

I suspect you've been lied to quite a lot about what's in that fossil record.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,06:27   

Quote

I don't think you grasp the incredible numbers of fossils we do have and the story they tell.
How can he? He dosen't know anything about biology.

You want to have some real fun. Ask him what kind of experiments he'd do with a million dollars from Templeton, to prove Intelligent Design.

   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,07:17   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
To me it [upward evolution] means addition of wings where there were no wings before, ...

If we look at  the fossil evidence of bird evolution we can see how wings got added by evolution.

Fluffy dinosaur 'is an early bird'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....s26.xml

Bird clue to flight of dinosaur
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....o17.xml

Gliding dinosaur 'is missing link' :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....a23.xml

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020214080242.htm

No creature is one day born with functional wings if their parents didn't have them. Evolution does not plan ahead, it only selects for traits that are benefitial at the moment, so you argue that wings and eyes never could have evolved by natural selection. How good is half a wing? How good is half an eye?

Turns out, those things are more useful that you think.

Ever seen a flying squirrel. It jumps from tree to tree with an almost wing-like flap of skin. It glides. They can't fly, but it's not hard to imagine a gradual evolution where the gliding ability increased slowly until one day one of them could fly. That's indeed what the fossils noted above suggest.

Young birds with only partially formed wings are aided by them when in increasing running speed. Small improvements will, as it mostly does in evolution, mean the difference between life and death.

Half a wing is half as good as a whole wing, and often better than no wings. Same with eyes. You just have to figure out what those halves really are.

It would seem, Dave, that you've never read Richard Dawkins.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,07:40   

Quote
[afdave:] Again, scientists do much wonderful work.  Where they go wrong is when they write volume after volume of speculation about how the immune system might have evolved and similar things.  They would be much more productive if they hypothesized that it was designed and studied it from that perspective.
Quote
[incorygible:] Again, Dave, why do you think you know where scientists go wrong?  You've admitted you're not on their level in their respective fields.  I would never presume to tell you where pilots go wrong...
This is why I'm done here. It might be fun to watch a non-scientist experience the "aha!" experience  as he learns how scientists know what they know, but the impenetrable arrogance of this guy - the certainty that it's the scholars, teachers, practitioners of the field that need to learn from him "where they go wrong"

Have a nice life, afdave.

(I strongly recommend you find some other use for your spare 4 hours a day; it's clear that you're not going to learn anything.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,09:15   

Quote
As for BWE, I congratulate you.  I have been insulted a lot of different ways, some creative, some boring.  I have to say that this one takes the cake as the most innovative I have ever heard.  If you tell me your mailing address, I would like to send you a certificate for "Most Creative Insult of All Time."  I will be interested to see if you or anyone else can top this one in the future :-)


I'll just note that the sum total of AFDave's scientific knowledge and integrity would comfortably fit inside a thimble, with plenty of room left for his genitalia.

--------------
"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.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,09:19   

Quote (normdoering @ May 18 2006,12:17)
It would seem, Dave, that you've never read Richard Dawkins.

How could he? He got to the part he quoted, and then figured out it was ok to finally do the obligatory "loud laughter + throw book away" ritual he had to perform, to maintain face in his circle.

--------------
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."

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,09:32   

Quote (Faid @ May 18 2006,14:19)
He got to the part he quoted, ...

I doubt even that. I think he stole the quote from a  creationist site and never really read Dawkins.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,09:42   

*sigh*
I suppose you're right. I guess I'm still giving him too much credit... what can you do.

--------------
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."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,10:20   

Aftershave said ...
Quote
I'll just note that the sum total of AFDave's scientific knowledge and integrity would comfortably fit inside a thimble, with plenty of room left for his genitalia.


BWE's was funnier. He's still in first place.  But keep trying.  You might pull off a good one yet.

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,10:22   

Quote
I would never presume to tell you where pilots go wrong


this got me thinking...

90% of AF personal are NOT pilots.  Why did we conclude Dave ever flew a plane again?

did he say he was a pilot somewhere?  Did I miss that?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,10:27   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,15:20)
Aftershave said ...  
Quote
I'll just note that the sum total of AFDave's scientific knowledge and integrity would comfortably fit inside a thimble, with plenty of room left for his genitalia.


BWE's was funnier. He's still in first place.  But keep trying.  You might pull off a good one yet.

Dave, I note that you are ignoring the various points made by the posters in favor of letting your personal and petty anger through.  You should work on that anger management - it's unbecoming to a Christian to lie.

Now, about your other lies....

Where is the evidence?  Why do you use logical fallacies as a form of argument?  Why are you unable to learn from the excellent cheap education you're getting?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,10:42   

Don't let the Darwinist bullies get to you. All of their claims, when examined with courage and conviction, fail to support their case. Here's a sample. Note that the Master demonstrates superior command in optical theory than Nilsson and Pelger do!
 
Quote
The vertebrate eye, Nilsson and Pelger claim, emerged from a patch of light-sensitive cells. Climbing up evolution’s greasy pole, or adaptive peak, those cells got to where they were going by invagination, aperture constriction, and lens formation. In explaining the evolution of the eye in terms of such global geometrical processes, Nilsson and Pelger rather resemble an art historian prepared to explain the emergence of the Mona Lisa in terms of preparing the wood, mixing the paint, and filling in the details. The conclusion—that Leonardo completed his masterpiece in more than a minute and less than a lifetime—while based squarely on the facts, seems rather less than a contribution to understanding.

It is hardly surprising, then, that while theoretical optics serves qualitatively to justify the overall connection Nilsson and Pelger draw between morphology and visual acuity, nothing in their paper and nothing in their references justifies the quantitative relationships they employ to reach their quantitative conclusion. To be sure, Mr. Nilsson denies that this is so. “Contrary to Mr. Berlinski’s claim,” he writes,

we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye-evolution sequence, and the results are displayed in figure 1 of our paper. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important equation 1 and a reference to Warrant & McIntyre (1993), where this theory is derived.

In fact, no underlying theory whatsoever is explained in Nilsson and Pelger’s main text, or in the legend to figure 1; and while they do assert that calculations were made, they do not say where they were made or how they were carried out. The burden of Mr. Nilsson’s denials is conveyed entirely by equation 1 and by his references.

Let us start with equation 1, and with figure 1b that this equation is said to control. It is in figure 1b that aperture constriction takes over from invagination in getting an imaginary eye to see better. The graph juxtaposes aperture size against detectable spatial resolution. Having dimpled itself in figure 1a, Nilsson and Pelger’s blob is now busy puckering its topmost surface to form a pinhole in figure 1b.* In a general way, the curve they present is unremarkable. No one doubts that spatial resolution is improved in an eye when its aperture is constricted. But why is it improved in just the way that Nilsson and Pelger’s graph indicates?

Equation 1 is of scant help in this regard, despite Nilsson’s insistence that it is important. Drawing a connection among visual acuity, focal length, light intensity, and noise, the equation specifies the local maximum of a curve, the place where it stops rising. In other words, it specifies a point; and it does nothing more. “We can now use this relationship,” Nilsson and Pelger nevertheless declare, “to plot resolution against aperture diameter.” They can do nothing of the sort, at least not in my calculus class. Knowing that a man has reached the summit of Mt. Everest, we still know nothing about the route he has taken to get there. What is needed if Nilsson and Pelger are to justify their graph is the equation from which equation 1 has been derived by differentiation. It is not there, just where I said it would not be.

Similarly with Nilsson and Pelger’s references, which do nothing to support their argument. Quite the contrary. Three papers are at issue: (1) A.W. Snyder, S. Laughlin, and D. Stavenga, “Information Capacity of the Eyes” (Vision Research, vol. 17, 1163-1175, 1977); (2) A.W. Snyder, “Physics of Vision in Compound Eyes” (in Vision in Invertebrates, Handbook of Sensory Physiology, edited by H. Autrum, vol. VII/6A, pp. 225-313, 1979); and (3) E. J. Warrant & P.D. McIntyre, “Arthropod Eye Design and the Physical Limits to Spatial Resolving Power” (Progress in Neurobiology, vol. 40, pp. 413-461, 1993). Of these papers, the first is recapitulated (and corrected) in the second, and the second is summarized in the third. In what follows, references to Snyder are always to the Snyder of his second paper.

As their titles might suggest, both “Physics of Vision in Compound Eyes” and “Arthropod Eye Design and the Physical Limits to Spatial Resolving Power” deal with compound invertebrate eyes. Nilsson and Pelger’s work is devoted to the evolution of the camera eye characteristic of fish and cephalopods. Theoretical considerations that apply to bugs do not necessarily apply to fish or octopuses, the more so since their eyes are structurally different, as are their evolutionary histories. Writing about the compound eye, Nilsson himself has remarked that “it is only a small exaggeration to say that evolution seems to be fighting a desperate battle to improve a basically disastrous design” (Dan-E. Nilsson, “Optics and Evolution of the Compound Eye,” in Facets of Vision, edited by D.G. Stavenga & R.C. Hardie, p. 3075, 1989). Whatever the desperate battle going on among the arthropods, there is no battle at all taking place among the vertebrates or the cephalopods. Nilsson and Pelger’s eye moves from triumph to triumph with serene and remarkable celerity.

If the papers by Snyder and Warrant & McIntyre say nothing about fish or octopuses, neither do they say anything about evolution. No mention there of Darwin’s theory, no discussion of morphology, not a word about invagination, aperture constriction, or lens formation, and nothing about the time required to form an eye, whether simple, compound, or camera-like.

The purpose of these three papers is otherwise. No less than any other system of communication, the eye represents a balance struck between signal and noise. There is the object out there in the real world—whether a point source like a star, or an extended source like a grating of light and dark lines—and there is its image trembling on the tips of the retina’s budded nerve cells. Slippage arises between what the object is and how it is seen. Noise occurs in the visual system as the result of the random nature of photon emission, and it also occurs as the result of inherent imperfections in the eye’s optical system. The theoretical optician abbreviates these limitations in one mathematical instrument.

Imagine one of Nilsson and Pelger’s plucky light-sensitive cells, and then extend two flanking lines from the cell up past the constricted aperture and out into space, so that the cell and those two flanking lines form a cone with a flat top. In the center of the cone, where a cherry would sit atop the ice cream, there is a light source. The cherry moves to the sides of the cone in angular steps; the cell dutifully responds. The correlation between moving cherry and twitching cell constitutes the optician’s “angular-sensitivity function.”

Equation B15 (p. 238) in Snyder’s “Physics of Vision in Compound Eyes” defines the signal-to-noise ratio of a hypothetical eye in terms of noise, modulation contrast (the difference in intensity between black and white stripes in a grating), and the modulation-transfer function, which is simply a mathematical transformation of the eye’s angular-sensitivity function (its Fourier transform). Lumbering in Snyder’s footsteps, Warrant & McIntyre split his equation into two of their own (equations 10 and 11 in Warrant & McIntyre, p. 430), the one describing the signal, the other the noise in a hypothetical visual system. They observe what is in any case obvious: whatever the parameters affecting visual acuity, signal and noise will always reach a point where the first is drowned out by the second and the system fails, a point evident enough to anyone trying to see in the dark.

These equations lead by primogeniture to Nilsson and Pelger’s equation 1, which, as it happens, does not appear anywhere in their sources in the form in which they express it. But neither Snyder’s original equation nor Warrant & McIntyre’s bright bursting clones in any way suggest that the tipping point between signal and noise is unique. The ratio of signal to noise in an optical system depends on a host of factors, including head size and eye movement, most of which Nilsson and Pelger ignore. Nor, for that matter, do these equations taken in isolation justify any particular quantitative conclusions. Until the angular-sensitivity function is specified, whether theoretically or experimentally, its role is ceremonial.

Such specification is no easy business. Determining the shape of the angular-sensitivity function is a little like trying to guess an astronaut’s weight in space. Scales are not likely to be of use. In an early paper dealing with this subject and devoted experimentally to flies, K.G. Götz noted that the angular-sensitivity function in Drosophila seemed to follow what is known mathematically as a Gaussian probability distribution (K.G. Götz, “Die optischen Übertragungseigenschaften der Komplexaugen von Drosophila,” Kybernetik, 2, pp. 215-221, 1965). It was an interesting idea, but one that led to very considerable computational difficulties.

Looking Götz-ward, and understandably recoiling, Snyder adopted a different strategy. In assessing the weight of an astronaut in space, it is simpler to count the calories he consumes and the exercise he undergoes than to try to measure his weight directly. His weight, although unmeasured, follows inferential-ly. In just the same way, Snyder thought to consider the angular-sensitivity function indirectly by considering the structures that determined its shape. These, he assumed, were the eye’s retinal receptive field—the area of the retina responding to signals—and its optical “blur spot”—the smeared image represented on the retina corresponding to the sharp object being seen. Let them both, he declared, be identically Gaussian. Why not? Both parameters had simple mathematical natures. The retinal receptive field is given as the ratio of the rhabdom’s diameter to its posterior nodal distance, the optical blur as the ratio of the wavelength of stimulating light to the eye’s aperture. From this the shape of the angular-sensitivity function followed.

The result is known as the Snyder model. “The great beauty of this model,” Warrant & McIntyre remark (in words that they have italicized), “is that if one knows some very simple anatomical information about the eye”—i.e., the nature of its optical blur spot and retinal receptive field—“one has the ability to predict . . . the approximate shape of the angular-sensitivity function” (p. 434). In referring to Warrant & McIntyre, Nilsson and Pelger are, in fact, appealing to Snyder, the maître behind their masters—for, like Snyder, they, too, assume that retinal receptive fields and optical blur spots are identically Gaussian (p. 54).

But theory is one thing, and living flesh another. Staking their all on Snyder’s model, Nilsson and Pelger must live with its consequences. “Having considered the physical limitations to resolving power,” Snyder wrote, “in addition to the absolute sensitivity of eyes, we now apply our concepts to real compound eyes.” This is something that Nilsson and Pelger never do. And no wonder. For Snyder then added the rather important caveat that bringing theory to bear on life “requires precise knowledge [of various optical parameters] in the various regions of the eye” (Snyder, p. 276, emphasis in the original).

If precise knowledge is needed in applying Snyder’s model, precise detail is what is lacking in Nilsson and Pelger’s paper. Precise detail? Any detail whatsoever.

And for obvious reasons. When tested, Snyder’s model turns out to be false across a wide range of arthropods. As Warrant & McIntyre note glumly, “The model, on the whole, works best for those eyes for which it was originally formulated—apposition compound eyes functioning according to geometrical optics—but recent careful and sensitive measurements of angular sensitivity reveal that even in these types of eye, the model often performs poorly.” Readers may consult figure 34 (p. 441) of Warrant & McIntyre’s paper to see how poorly the Snyder model does. In studies of the locust Locustia, real and predicted angular-sensitivity functions do not even share the same qualitative shape.

Responding to my observation that no quantitative argument supports their quantitative conclusions—no argument at all, in fact—Mr. Nilsson has thus (1) offered a mathematically incoherent appeal to his only equation; (2) cited references that make no mention of any morphological or evolutionary process; (3) defended a theory intended to describe the evolution of vertebrate camera eyes by referring to a theory describing the theoretical optics of compound invertebrate eyes; (4) failed to explain why his own work has neglected to specify any relevant biological parameter precisely; and (5) championed his results by means of assumptions that his own sources indicate are false across a wide range of organisms.

In acknowledgments to their paper, Nilsson & Pelger thank E. J. Warrant for help with their computations; in the acknowledgments to their paper, Warrant & McIntyre thank Mr. Nilsson for critically reading what they have written.

Schnapps all around, I am sure.

Ahhhh....if only Dawkins could write like this... :)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,10:56   

and how would you know how dawkins writes, gawp?

you wouldn't understand half of his popular works, let alone any of his research articles.

I'll give you one thing:

you actually DO read things more than Dave does.

not that it apparently helps you with that horrid mental constipation you suffer from.

But, you're not helping Dave.  He can't understand even the less-than-subtle nuances of what you posted.

or haven't you actually read Dave's posts?

random psychophantery isn't going to help Dave understand anything there, gawp.

Here, let me rewrite what you wrote so it becomes a bit clearer what you really mean:

Quote
Don't let those big meanies get to you. All of their claims, when examined with blind eyes and numb brain, fail to support their case. Here's a random quote from the guy whose ass I'm not fit to lick because I can't understand a single word he says. Note that because this guy talks down to the authors of the paper he mistakenly attacks, he comes off with an aura of authority I personally find sexually appealling, and you will too!


there, now it's clear what you meant.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:01   

Sure, if Dawkins wrote that kind of papers, nobody would know him and you'd be a happy man, Paley.

What is this quote supposed to demonstrate?

And out of curiosity, what's your position on the evolution of GULO in primates?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:05   

aw c'mon Jean, only one psycho per thread.

it's tiresome enough as it is, and gawp already has his hands full in other threads.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:06   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 18 2006,15:42)
Don't let the Darwinist bullies get to you. All of their claims, when examined with courage and conviction, fail to support their case. Here's a sample. Note that the Master demonstrates superior command in optical theory than Nilsson and Pelger do!

Bill, what does optical theory have to do with Nilsson & Pelger's paper? They could have chosen any evolutionary pathway: from fins to limbs, from limbs to wings, from scales to feathers, from scales to hairs.

The optical theory is a red herring the last time we discussed this on the LUCA thread, and it's just as much of a red herring now. Nilsson & Pelger's paper has to do with how many generations it takes to develop a complex anatomical structure, and nothing whatsoever to do with optics.

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:08   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 18 2006,15:42)
Ahhhh....if only Dawkins could write like this... :)

Thank goodness he writes like this:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins....s.shtml

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:13   

(to Sir_toejam) Well, I gave up trying to convince Davey so I don't mind.

Come on Paley, tell us what you think. Did some primate eat a guinea pig and transfered the broken GULO to its progeny, or the contrary?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:29   

Quote
letting your personal and petty anger through

I was? Hello??  McFly?  

Toejam-- Could you use some of that straight talkin' of yours and tell Mrs. Rilke what planet we're on ...

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:37   

sorry, Dave, she has a long way to go before she makes as many mistakes in a month as you do in a single post.

I agree with the others here; get on with presenting your evidence, or change gears and get on with presenting more humor.

but don't pretend one is the other.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:41   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 18 2006,16:37)
I agree with the others here; get on with presenting your evidence, or change gears and get on with presenting more humor.

but don't pretend one is the other.

Indeed.  The "evidence" is much, much funnier.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,11:47   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 18 2006,16:06)
The optical theory is a red herring the last time we discussed this on the LUCA thread, ...

It certainly muddies up the waters for Davey boy (as well as Paley in a white sheet). Berlinski is making a charge of fraud or incompetence against Nilsson and Pelger. Unless Davey is sharp enough to evaluate that paper he won't know what's true and can assume what he wants.

There is no escaping the fact that you have to understand these things yourself, or else you just might trust someone who wants to lie to you, or someone who just can't face the truth.

That, Davey boy, is what they're spending their PR money on, bashing biologists so they can confuse people like you.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,13:17   

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 18 2006,15:27)
 
Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,15:20)
Aftershave said ...    
Quote
I'll just note that the sum total of AFDave's scientific knowledge and integrity would comfortably fit inside a thimble, with plenty of room left for his genitalia.


BWE's was funnier. He's still in first place.  But keep trying.  You might pull off a good one yet.



If it's an insult post you're looking for,
I present to you, the SteveStory InsultPost.

I mean, GOD####, that is magnificently retarded. I mean, that post is standing at the pinnacle of a mountain, it's cape flapping in a breeze, sunset casting a golden glow across it's chiseled features, gloriously retarded. It is the ne plus ultra of tard. It is to other retarded posts as Michael Jordan was to Craig Ehlo, on a distinct plane above even the world's best.

This is legendary here, and the IT guys photocopy enlarged it and hung it over a workstation.  It is one of the funniest posts I have read in any bulletin board.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,13:21   



Aww shucks.


What was I replying to in that post, was it that unbelievable DougMoron post?

   
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,13:38   

SteveStory, I honestly don't remember because I saved it instead of linking it.  But I do remember the horrific feeling of iced coffee spraying out of my nose when I read it.  Dang it Steve, you owe me an iced coffee.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,13:50   

Don't thank me, thank DougMoron. His post was inspiring. It was as impressive an effort as babe ruth calling that home run in 1932.

and since what made it so funny was the unintentional irony due to the subject Doug was writing about, I should point out that your praise of me is appropriately ironic, given that earlier today I emailed somebody and asked him/her to tone down the insults he/she was making. :-)

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,14:15   

awww, don't tell me you chastized BWE?

he was just warming up.  I was hoping he would end up producing a "top ten reasons Dave is a moron" type post sometime in the near future.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,14:23   

No, but I won't say who it was. It wasn't for something that happened today, I just didn't get around to the email til today.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,14:25   

*whew*

;)

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,15:19   

Quote (siretoejam @ on the last page, hey this is a fun place to type)
this got me thinking...

90% of AF personal are NOT pilots.  Why did we conclude Dave ever flew a plane again?

did he say he was a pilot somewhere?  Did I miss that?

Tsk tsk Sir Toe. Yes, Dave is a pilot. I know it was probably easy to miss in the mess of the last 35 combined pages of Dave topics, but yeah he really is a smart capable guy. You are, Dave. Honestly I think it's pretty xxxx cool that you were a navy pilot. That's a unique experience that I've fantasized about many times.

The problem is not with intelligence at all, it doesn't matter how smart or stupid you are, you're always smart enough to outwit yourself.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,15:24   

A F Dave was a Navy pilot?

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,15:32   

yup. now I'm really confused.

...and i still don't buy the guy's a pilot.

did he go the academy in colorado, oh wait that's for AF, where's the naval flyboy academy?

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,15:39   

Why was I thinking navy? Must be Air Force. I swore I saw a picture of him with a jet in an old link. At any rate, he does currently fly, he donates service with his plane to missionaries. My grandparents were missionaries in Ziare, so I, understand...    ???

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,15:46   

You're lettin me down, Sir Terriblename. AirForceDave was not a Navy pilot.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,15:54   


  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,16:13   

sure that's not a picture of GW during his reserve days?

Steve- sorry, thought i'd play along and see where this was going.

you mean it's not as obvious as it looks?

Ved... oh do please continue your story.  it was just gettin good.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,16:22   

btw, it's not Davey's intelligence i question so much as his intractability and ability to think rationally at all.

I can't see him making it through the AF academy.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,16:32   

Quote
Quote
Don't let those big meanies get to you. All of their claims, when examined with blind eyes and numb brain, fail to support their case. Here's a random quote from the guy whose ass I'm not fit to lick because I can't understand a single word he says. Note that because this guy talks down to the authors of the paper he mistakenly attacks, he comes off with an aura of authority I personally find sexually appealling, and you will too!


My vote for Best post award.

Steve, chastize me? Me,? Well, I never. Have I done anything to upset anyone? Would I do anything to upset anyone? I mean, I stick to the highest moral code.

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

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,16:36   

my first nomination!

I'd like to thank the academy, my mother, apple pie...

*sniff*

god bless america!

(hooked off stage)

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,16:42   

That's all the story I've got. I'm not sure where you think I'm going with this. I only brought up the intelligence business because it seemed to me that some of the arguments recently were getting sloppy and basically just calling Dave stupid.(edit: though, the really funny ones were well worthwhile) I know we've been over the point before, but what point hasn't been beaten to death already in any of these afdave threads? Ah well. I only posted a pic that he posted on his blog...

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,16:46   

Quote

I can't see him making it through the AF academy.


Because you only know him as loony creationist AFDave. Like I've said before, intelligence is compartmentalized. A person can have a fully functioning brain, be intelligent in some areas, and crazy in others. Intelligence can be very inhomogeneous. Jonathan Wells can have a PhD from a good school on one hand, and be a Moonie on the other.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:09   

and like i said before, there's more at work here than a mere difference in intelligence.

you simply CANNOT attribute Dave's reactions to the evidence presented to him as simple ignorance.

as to where he claimed to be a pilot, i had to look in another post, but he did say he WAS an air force pilot, so unbelievable as it is to me, I guess I'll just have to take his word for it:

 
Quote
Who said anything about me being neutral?  I'm an active Creationist and very involved politically.  I am also an Electrical Engineer, former AF jet pilot, very successful business man, and a large contributor to various causes ... maybe yours if you're nice to me and convince me why I should.  But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.


remember that thread?

that was April 18th

exactly one month ago.

literally HUNDREDS of posts later, and Davey seems to be getting WORSE instead of better.

sorry, that ain't got nutin' to do wit smarts.

Here's the difference:

for example, even tho I suspected he was not an actual air force pilot, if he had provided evidence that he was (a picture isn't sufficient evidence, actually), I would have accepted that and moved on.   I seem to be the only doubter, which also points out the fact that most here seem ready and willing to accept Dave's claim he IS an air force pilot.  based on what, exactly?  a picture of him in a flight suit?  Is GW a Navy man because he has a picture of him in a flightsuit on an aircraft carrier?

On the plus side, it shows that most here are more than willing to accept arguments with even the slightest shred of evidence to support them.

Unfortunately for Dave, the picture of him in a flightsuit is about the only evidence he has presented, of ANYTHING.

we have presented far more convincing evidence to Dave about ToE, and his intractability has only grown.

so is it about intelligence?

nope.

edit:

Quote
Jonathan Wells can have a PhD from a good school on one hand, and be a Moonie on the other.


so does JAD.

insanity can strike anybody.  not a matter of intelligence, per sae, but when a broken mental function is pointed out over and over and over again, one does have to wonder if the damage has affected intelligence overall.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:16   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,16:29)
Quote
letting your personal and petty anger through

I was? Hello??  McFly?  

Toejam-- Could you use some of that straight talkin' of yours and tell Mrs. Rilke what planet we're on ...

Well, Dave, whatever planet you're currently occupying seems to be related to Colney Hatch.  And I'm sorry that you find us so disturbing to you that you resort to lies, obfuscation, deliberate misinterpretation, and general stupidity.

But then, you're a creationist.  We would expect that!  :p

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:38   

hey, I have an idea.  You think Dave has redeeming qualities, and an ability to exhibit rational thought outside of this arena?

OK, this is for Dave then:

You've thoroughly trashed your rep here because you haven't been able to produce a rational argument backed with evidence.

face it Dave, you failed this course.

Prove to me that you at least do have the ability to think rationally.

Show us something, somewhere, where you can demonstrate a clear, rational, logical, thought process based on evidence.

somewhere, anywhere.

really.

Do you have some copies of discussions you have had with others on totally different topics, like jets, or business, or whatever?

pick something you have discussed that you really know your stuff on.  things you know you would get an "A" on if given a test in college, or high school, even.

You wanted to come off as a reasonable guy.

prove that you are, at least somewhere.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:48   

Quote
Prove to me that you at least do have the ability to think rationally.

Show us something, somewhere, where you can demonstrate a clear, rational, logical, thought process based on evidence.

somewhere, anywhere.

really.


Sir Terriblename, we've been around each other enough that I can criticise you without you getting offended, so let me say, this is a bad question. We know AFDave has a BSEE, so there are some topics he can talk intelligently about. He can probably explain to you Thevenin's Theorem, or the basics of dealing with Complex Inductance. It's not a matter of AFDave having no brains at all; we know he's got some brains somewhere. The problem is the religious craziness.

edit: Impedence. Complex Impedence. #### you, Sam Adams Summer Ale!

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:59   

yes, i know this.

don't you want to see Dave argue electrical engineering or some similar topic in a rational fashion?

look, it goes to exactly what you are saying.

you want to humanize Dave?

let him show he actually IS rational on anything first.

I don't say he should start a topic on a subject in electrical engineering here, but rather simply point us to a place where he has discussed a topic (any topic) in a rational fashion.

I do have my doubts.

again i bring up the spectre of JAD.

if you could have had a discussion with him prior to 1980, i bet it would have been rational and stimulating.

now look at him.

complete gibbering idiot.

All I'm asking is...

Is Dave like JAD, or does he maintain a level of rational thought somewhere?

I'm trying to broaden my own horizons here.  I think there is pathology behind creationism.  

I think that pathology becomes pervasive in all areas of thought, not just on the religious front.

Dave can shoot this down quite readily (er, pun unintentional).

chalk it up to the scientific curiosity in me that keeps wondering what it is exactly that produces the kind of creationist represented by Davescott, AFDave, T-diddy, etc.

it's not just religion, otherwise there would be no scientists, just religious aplogetics (and Wes wouldn't have made this board)

it's not just intelligence or strict ignorance.  That's become quite clear to me over the last 2 years here.

it's not just pure trolling.  nobody has that kind of endurance.

so it seems likely, based on the tremendous amount of projection and denial that can be consistently read into their canned responses, that there is some psychology to this.

It could be compartmentalized abberations, but i seriously doubt it.

I think the pressure on their egos that reality causes the creationist worldview must affect more than just one part of their thinking processes; it would very likely spill over into other areas.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,18:11   

Well, he's already humanized to me (Personal history of Steve S: Lackland AFB 1994, DINFOS 1995 at Ft. Benjamin Harrison outside of Indianapolis, IN, before it was moved to Ft. Meade, 1995- Mysteriously Redacted with no evidence of service). He probably is fairly rational in day-to-day life, just nothing related to science w/r/t conflicts relavent to religion.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,18:17   

right, and so how many fellow military participants have you met that showed this kind of intractable behavior?

Do you?  not that you've exhibited on any topic i have seen you participate in.

I had the same reaction to scientists I have known that have exhibited this behavior as well, but it has less to do with ignorance than psychology.  I watched this very thing happen to a grad student at berkeley in the MCB department.  

Edit:  by "thing" i mean serious creationist leanings affecting his ability to think in other areas as well.  He was actually a close friend of mine at the time, and i watched him try to struggle with this stuff.  Part of him knew it made no sense, and yet...  he once stood up to give a lecture on it in the museum of Vertebrate Zoology.  It was a sad thing to watch, let me tell you.

I expect eventually someone will reference studies on brainwashing, or whatnot.  whatever.

surely you aren't objecting to a request for Dave to show us how he thinks on other issues, yes?

I can't think of any other way to suggest there to be any reason to continue responding to any of his posts here otherwise.

He might strike a cord with you, but he sure don't with most folks here.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,18:25   

No, I'm not objecting. AFDave was a pilot in the officer corps, and probably fairly normal as far as the people I knew (well, he was a pilot, which means his job was to drop PJ/CCs 2 miles off the drop zone, preferably into pine trees at night ;-) ), but it's all about religion. As I'm sure you've pointed out, people just don't make horses' asses of themselves like this without religious motivation. And that's what's going on here. AFDave is not an idiot, he's perfectly capable of reasoning when his religious commitments don't demand otherwise. IMHO.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,18:34   

again, I'm not saying he NEVER had the ability to think rationally, I just want him to show us he does NOW.

I thought the example of JAD i provided kind of made that point.

ooh,  this is exciting.  I see competing hypotheses developing that only Dave can answer for us!

here's your chance to participate in science Dave!

refute my hypothesis that your lack of ability to rationally argue in this topic will be reflected in other areas as well.

Just to be clear, Steve's is that your inability to process logic is compartmentalized to this one area.  Is this a correct rendition of your hypothesis Steve?

Isn't science fun?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,18:43   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 18 2006,22:09)
I seem to be the only doubter, which also points out the fact that most here seem ready and willing to accept Dave's claim he IS an air force pilot.  based on what, exactly?  a picture of him in a flight suit?  Is GW a Navy man because he has a picture of him in a flightsuit on an aircraft carrier?

On the plus side, it shows that most here are more than willing to accept arguments with even the slightest shred of evidence to support them.

Nah. Frankly, I just didn't care whether he was a pilot or not. Being a pilot doesn't make him understand anything about the scientific method. I suppose I could have tried to get him to prove he used to be a pilot, but actually I was more interested in how he was going to explain away the planet-sized mass of evidence for the earth's age. I've already been waiting way too long, and an interminable detour through Dave's service record wouldn't have helped.

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,19:05   

eric, just for kicks, could you put a number on the percentage expectation you realistically have of him ever addressing the evidence for the age of the earth?

if it were me, I'd put the figure somewhere around 4%, slightly below standard level of significance.

but, yes, the answers would be far more interesting than verification of his military record, I have to agree there.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,19:45   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 19 2006,00:05)
eric, just for kicks, could you put a number on the percentage expectation you realistically have of him ever addressing the evidence for the age of the earth?

if it were me, I'd put the figure somewhere around 4%, slightly below standard level of significance.

Hmm…I guess I didn't ever think he'd be able to provide affirmative evidence that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. So I'd have to give that the ol' goose egg.

But I was hoping at least to hear his arguments why that planet-sized mass of evidence (or maybe a bit of it, anyway) in favor of an earth billions of years old is wrong. That might have been entertaining. But now it looks like he's never even going to address the issue. So far he's spent all his time stumbling over his own penis talking about genetics (something he knows less about than even I do), and trying to persuade us all that god exists before he gets around to showing us what he thinks is evidence for anything else.

Given the pounding he's taken so far talking about evidence that's a good deal less conclusive, I'd have to say your estimate is probably on the high side. Maybe 2%, with a 2% margin or error?

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,20:37   

Quote
(I forgot who said this one)
I only brought up the intelligence business because it seemed to me that some of the arguments recently were getting sloppy and basically just calling Dave stupid.

stevestory:
He probably is fairly rational in day-to-day life, just nothing related to science w/r/t conflicts relavent to religion.


Well, steve, you certainly like to look on the bright side...er...

AFDave, I hope you know that I don't have any hard feelings about your stupidity problem. I could believe that you used to be able to think. You are probably a nice guy in that too dumb to tie your shoes kind of a way.

But you are an idiot. That is my hypothesis. And my hypothesis is easily disprovable. I challenge someone to prove me wrong. Show me three sentences strung together coherently.

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

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,03:18   

Quote
Nah. Frankly, I just didn't care whether he was a pilot or not. Being a pilot doesn't make him understand anything about the scientific method.


The way Missionary AFDave keeps shoveling the shit, I think of him as a pile-it.  :p

--------------
"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: May 19 2006,04:04   

Incorygible said ...  
Quote
Again, Dave, why do you think you know where scientists go wrong?  You've admitted you're not on their level in their respective fields.
I admit that I am not on their level, but there is a relatively small but rapidly growing group of scientists who are disillusioned with Darwinism ... Michael Denton, Michael Behe, Dr. John Baumgardner of Los Alamos to name just a few.  When top notch people like this stand up and say there's a problem, I at least investigate.  Now why is that so unreasonable?

Quote
After all, the current crop of scientists aren't doing anything worthwhile, and you seem to know how to correct that, given your science/engineering/religious background.  Why not cure cancer with your "design perspective"? As a politically active businessman who wishes to contribute to humanity and help the YEC cause, would there be anything better?
I have never said the current crop of scientists aren't doing anything worthwhile ... nothing of the sort.  I have consistently said they are doing many great things and I reap the benefits.  But their thinking on origins is highly questionable and the answer to this question has major implications on society.  And I agree that trying to cure cancer from a "design perspective" would be a very worthy goal.

Quote
I got interested in this whole affair (I used to not care, just do what I did and let other people believe whatever they wanted) when a YEC (in similar shoes to yours?) sent me a scary fire-and-brimstone e-mail because may name appeared on a university website for teaching a course in evolution.  
I know that some people who wear the YEC label do irresponsible things like this ... I am sorry for that, but I cannot stop them.  I can only do what I do and I for one do not say that you are 'evil' or that you should even quit teaching your views on evolution.  Go ahead and teach them.  Just don't shut out other views.  Honesty would dictate that your view is just that--a view.  The origin of life is not a thing you can 'prove.'  So just admit that and let others express their views as well.  That's all.

Quote
Faid has already responded to this and where the misunderstanding lies.  And even if he hadn't, I am sorry that I assumed you were asking a question that had some actual over-arching relevance to the discussion.  I assumed you had learned enough by now to realize that "the missing C" was not the deletion we have been talking about (not even close). But yes, I assumed to much, with the proverbial consequences -- you just wanted to go down yet another rabit hole leading to a meaningless detail and pedagogical semantics.
I was not intentionally leading you down a rabbit hole.  I was trying to summarize your collective position, then point out my view that it is inconclusive to me.

Quote
And I think you (of all people), might be a little offended by being accused of being in league with the devil and on a fast-track to ####.
Again, please don't get mad at me for the actions of others, and I will treat you with the same respect.

Quote
I don't care what they "believe", either.  Affirmation and consensus with the norm is not a high priority for me.  Did I not mention I'm in science?  We THRIVE on DISagreement, Dave.
OK.  Then you should be thriving.

Quote
"The convergence for this deletion may not be unlikely, but primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance. Would you drop this argument?"
Why would I drop the argument if you agree with me that the deletion is not unlikely?

Honestly, do you even read, Dave?  This reply, with the actual quote right above it, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are illiterate, dumb as a brick, and/or disingenuous.
She says the convergence may not be unlikely.  She says that primates share dozen mutations.  And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance.  

I don't understand the second sentence, but why is it so unusual to share "dozen mutations"?  Guinea pigs and humans share a lot of mutations too, right?

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:41   

Missionary AFDave says
   
Quote
I can only do what I do and I for one do not say that you are 'evil' or that you should even quit teaching your views on evolution.  Go ahead and teach them.  Just don't shut out other views.  


Well Dave, since you keep bringing up the topic of teaching other views, I'll ask these for the fifth time.  

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

And no, I won't waste board space on a separate thread for these questions.  You brought the topic up in this thread, answer the questions in this thread.  Why do you continue to be a coward and avoid them?

--------------
"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.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:55   

read this link Davey-dog and see how much you understand.

Your entire last post was simple appologies and defensive piles of horsesh!t Davey dog. Like all your other posts. Quit putting off and star4t putting up. You do know that you are desicively swaying those of us on the fence away from your brand of creationism? Who would want to say they were converted by someone as stupid as you?

Answer some questions.

I have to run off to work now. Would someone please make a short list of simple questions Davey  could answer? Or Davey-dog, why dont you go back and find one yourself.

Here's 2:
WHy are the Appalachians not high but the himalayas are high?

How come scientists think the can use DNA as a sort of a clock? (I think it's in the article above)

Don't write anything else until you have answered those 2 questions.

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

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,05:14   

Quote
You do know that you are desicively swaying those of us on the fence away from your brand of creationism?
You are on the fence?  Excellent!  There's hope!

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,05:24   

Quote
there is a relatively small but rapidly growing group of scientists who are disillusioned with Darwinism

Where's the data to demonstrate that the number of scientists who are 'disillusioned' with 'Darwinism' is 'rapidly growing?'  Can you show that this is the case or does it just suit your purposes to claim that this is so?  

I think what scientists are 'disillusioned' with is morons like you continuing to use the strawman of a 150-year-old body of work to attack a field of work which has progressed, well, 150 years since there was anything which could have been called Darwinism. But again, it suits your purposes to call it that, however dishonest it may be to do so, so as a dishonest creationist, you lie for Jesus.

What I don't understand is why the others here bother trying to teach you anything when you clearly have no desire to learn, and are primarily here to feed your own egotistical delusion that you are fighting a good fight against evolutionary theory.  You're every bit as dense, pedantic, and unable to learn as Larry Fafarman.  Come to think of it, PT was so willing to feed that troll that he'd still be the #1 OT blatherer there, if he had been able to control his egomania enough to keep himself from being banned.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,05:35   

Quote
What I don't understand is why the others here bother trying to teach you anything when you clearly have no desire to learn, and are primarily here to feed your own egotistical delusion that you are fighting a good fight against evolutionary theory.
Well, count me among those who have no illusions about teaching the unteachable.

I am curious about a side point, however. Afdave described Richard Dawkins as an "apologist" (as opposed to a scientist, I guess). What distinction is being drawn here? Who would be an example of a writer (about evolution) who is not an "apologist"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,05:55   

There are always people on the fence, somewhere. You're not very convincing though Dave, not to people who hang out here and have heard every single one of your canned arguments numerous times. If you'd listen for once, you might be able to figure out why your arguments are old and busted. We're open to new ideas though... got any?

I though apologetics were for religions. Evolution is not a religion. (what has it done that it needs to apologize for anyway, huh? :p )

Dave, if you want us to take you more seriously you're going to have to stop using religious terminology to describe people who understand the reality of evolution.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,06:10   

Occam's Toothbrush said
Quote
What I don't understand is why the others here bother trying to teach you anything when you clearly have no desire to learn, and are primarily here to feed your own egotistical delusion that you are fighting a good fight against evolutionary theory.  You're every bit as dense, pedantic, and unable to learn as Larry Fafarman.  Come to think of it, PT was so willing to feed that troll that he'd still be the #1 OT blatherer there, if he had been able to control his egomania enough to keep himself from being banned.
Because he's funny, that's why.  :p   We're not trying to teach him anything - he's made it clear that he's not here to learn, he's here to preach and feed his ego.  But there is entertainment to be found in watching the ignorant demonstrate their ignorance.  I know it's not nice, and it's certainly not polite.  But it's entertainment, the best of which is usually neither.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,06:51   

Quote
I admit that I am not on their level, but there is a relatively small but rapidly growing group of scientists who are disillusioned with Darwinism ... Michael Denton, Michael Behe, Dr. John Baumgardner of Los Alamos to name just a few.  When top notch people like this stand up and say there's a problem, I at least investigate.  Now why is that so unreasonable?


It isn't "unreasonable" to "investigate", though I'd question "rapidly growing" and "top notch".  Dave, I'm sure you'll find most posters here with whom you are arguing (myself included) are very familiar with the work of Denton, Behe et al., not to mention AiG, DI, etc.  We've investigated.  (Did I not walk you through such an investigation when it came to why Dr. Wieland's article was wrong, to the extent of hypothesizing as to where he went wrong in his thought process?)  We read and evaluate the literature, Dave -- in this case, even when it is not peer-reviewed and up to the usual standards we demand.  Every week, papers are published that challenge this aspect or that of current theory (this is the disagreement we thrive upon).  We certainly pay attention when someone "stands up and says there is a problem".  It happens ALL THE TIME.  Look at that new Nature paper others have mentioned, which seriously rewrites the timeline and process of human and chimp speciation.  It's our duty to read these claims critically to figure out whether they have merit.  That is how science stands or falls.  We are not ignorant of the arguments made by IDists and YECists.  We have patiently investigated, reviewed, and criticized them as we would real scientific papers.  Look back and you'll see that every time a Creationist such as yourself cries wolf, we grab our guns and go check it out, no matter how many times doing so invariably results in simply patting him on the head and telling him that the shadow he's wailing about is most definitely not a wolf.

 
Quote
I have never said the current crop of scientists aren't doing anything worthwhile ... nothing of the sort.  I have consistently said they are doing many great things and I reap the benefits.  But their thinking on origins is highly questionable and the answer to this question has major implications on society.  And I agree that trying to cure cancer from a "design perspective" would be a very worthy goal.


Fine.  You just say the current crop of evolutionary researchers (like me) are doing questionable science involving dubious thought processes.  You'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep, Dave, since you have demonstrated you don't have a clue as to what we're doing and why we're doing it.

 
Quote
I know that some people who wear the YEC label do irresponsible things like this ... I am sorry for that, but I cannot stop them.  I can only do what I do and I for one do not say that you are 'evil' or that you should even quit teaching your views on evolution.  Go ahead and teach them.  Just don't shut out other views.  Honesty would dictate that your view is just that--a view.  The origin of life is not a thing you can 'prove.'  So just admit that and let others express their views as well.  That's all.


If I applied your standards of "proof" to ANYTHING in science, we'd have nothing to teach at all.  If, by "origin" you're talking about abiogenesis, I don't teach it.  If you're talking about the origin of species, it hasn't been "just a view" for 150 years, and it would be a lie to teach it as such (Introduction to Postmodernist Theory is a whole different department and a long walk across campus for students who want all knowledge taught as "views").  And come back down off that cross, Dave.  I never made you guilty by association.  You asked why we seemed to be impatient, frustrated, offended, and maybe even angry with this argument.  Part of it has to do with trying to teach the unteachable.  Part of it has to do with a Groundhog-Day-like exasperation.  And part of it has to do with you referring us to sites like AiG, as a supposedly reliable source for science, where we also find ranting articles accusing "evolutionists" like ourselves of the same racism, Naziism, lack of morality, stupidity, damnation, etc. ad nauseum, contained in that original YEC email.  This is a tacit endorsement of those arguments, Dave, but I never held it against you.  Just trying to help you get a better idea of walking in our shoes.

 
Quote
She says the convergence may not be unlikely.  She says that primates share dozen mutations.  And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance.  

I don't understand the second sentence, but why is it so unusual to share "dozen mutations"?  Guinea pigs and humans share a lot of mutations too, right?


This is important, Dave.  It's something you might wish to rectify.  Because until you understand that sentence, it's 'round and 'round and 'round the mulberry bush with you.  However, since you plead ignorance (as opposed to laziness, disingenuity, or dishonesty), I will try one last time (though I have my suspicions that those other descriptions are playing a role here).

The mutation that prevents humans and guinea pigs from synthesizing vitamin C is in the same gene (i.e., the GULO pseudogene).  It is NOT the same mutation (different deletions).  In the time since that gene lost its function via those (different) deletions in humans and guinea pigs (tens of millions of years in each lineage), many base-pair substitutions have occurred in this selection-free pseudogene.  A somewhat greater than expected proportion of those substitutions (36% observed vs. 25% expected) are shared, suggesting the involvement of mutational hotspots.  This is interesting, but not relevant to the discussion at hand.  Saying that humans and guinea pigs "share the same mutation in GULO" is misleading.  Humans and guinea pigs both have mutations that make GULO non-functional.  They share a slightly higher percentage of substitutions since the original mutations occurred.

I happen to disagree that the "convergence" between human and guinea pig GULO is at all significant (you're not suggesting that loss of function is "convergent", are you?).    But even if it was, you are missing the fact that this is one gene in thousands, and two species in millions.  Thousands of genes and millions of species that line up to form an overwhelming pattern of common descent that matches the pattern inferred earlier from the fossil record.  If you want to question common descent, you can't discuss single genes outside of this context, Dave.

In other words, yes, guinea pigs and humans share "dozens" (much, much more!;) of genes and mutations.  Apes and humans share "dozens" (much, much more!;) of additional mutations beyond this.  And so on and so forth.  This is the reality of common descent.  Learn it before you tilt at windmills.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,07:23   

Quote
A somewhat greater than expected proportion of those substitutions (36% observed vs. 25% expected) are shared, suggesting the involvement of mutational hotspots.
If you refer back to the exchange Jeannot & I had on this, I think you'll see that you don't have to appeal to anything so esoteric as mutational hotspots. The high percentage of substitutions between* rat and guinea pig sequences shared with the substitutions between* rat and human probably reflects nothing more puzzling than the fact that the rat lineage evolved rat-lineage-specific mutations in the millions of years since it diverged from the guinea pig. Unless, of course, we're talking specifically about substitutions that would result in loss of function (like missense mutations) - but I don't think we are.

(Note the careful use "between X and Y" rather than "from X to Y", since it's this thinking that somehow the rat sequence == the ancestral sequence that generates all the confusion on this point.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,07:31   

Quote (Russell @ May 19 2006,12:23)
Quote
A somewhat greater than expected proportion of those substitutions (36% observed vs. 25% expected) are shared, suggesting the involvement of mutational hotspots.
If you refer back to the exchange Jeannot & I had on this, I think you'll see that you don't have to appeal to anything so esoteric as mutational hotspots. The high percentage of substitutions between* rat and guinea pig sequences shared with the substitutions between* rat and human probably reflects nothing more puzzling than the fact that the rat lineage evolved rat-lineage-specific mutations in the millions of years since it diverged from the guinea pig. Unless, of course, we're talking specifically about substitutions that would result in loss of function (like missense mutations) - but I don't think we are.

(Note the careful use "between X and Y" rather than "from X to Y", since it's this thinking that somehow the rat sequence == the ancestral sequence that generates all the confusion on this point.)

Good point -- I forgot about the rat GULO being used as the ancestral sequence.  So there you go, Dave -- many of these "shared" substitutions in human and rat aren't really "shared" at all.  That is, these mutations didn't happen twice (once in the human and once in the guinea pig lineage), but were present in the LCA of human, rat and guinea pig and mutated once in the rat lineage.  My (and Inai's?) bad.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:12   

Quote (Russell @ May 19 2006,12:23)
A somewhat greater than expected proportion of those substitutions (36% observed vs. 25% expected) ...

For a given couple of mutations occurring independently in two lineages at the same locus, the expected convergence is indeed 25%. But the overall probability of convergence is much lower, considering the probability of occurrence of two mutations at the same locus, which is far lower than 25% if mutations are rare (recent divergence).
25% is the expected convergence, only if mutations are so frequent that the homology between two diverging sequences cannot be detected. (ie : 100% chance of mutating at the same nucleotide).

(Is my English clear enough?)

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:28   

Quote (jeannot @ May 19 2006,13:12)
For a given couple of mutations occurring independently in two lineages at the same locus, the expected convergence is indeed 25%. But the overall probability of convergence is much lower, considering the probability of occurrence of two mutations at the same locus, which is far lower than 25% if mutations are rare (recent divergence).
25% is the expected convergence, only if mutations are so frequent that the homology between two diverging sequences cannot be detected. (ie : 100% chance of mutating at the same nucleotide).

(Is my English clear enough?)

Perfectly clear, jeannot.  And I suspected the 25% was a little simplistic.  So really, to say anything at all about human and guinea pig "convergence" in GULO as it relates to this discussion, we need to know the following:

1. What substitutions occurred independently in the rat lineage?  These are not "convergent" substitutions between humans and guinea pigs, and should be eliminated from the analysis.

2. Of the remainder, what overall degree of convergence do we expect for neutral substitutions in the 75-million-plus years since the LCA between humans, rats and guinea pigs, and non-neutral substitutions since the gene "broke" in humans (~40 mya) and guinea pigs (?unknown?)?  How does this compare statistically to our revised estimate of convergence (i.e., after we have removed the rat-only substitutions)?

3. How would mutational "hot-spots" at some of these loci, if they occur, change our expected convergence in (2).

Seems like this kind of leg-work should have been done by AiG before touting the guinea pig's "36%" convergence as an argument-killer, don't you think, Dave?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:33   

Dave, I really think you need to read, and understand (that means read it slowly and carefully and make sure you understand each paragraph before you go onto the next one) Douglas Theobald's superb article at Talk Origins setting forth the mountain of evidence supporting common descent with modification. If you honestly read and understand that one article, you will understand that common descent with modification is not an hypothesis in need of evidence; it's a fact in need of explanation.

Now, you can try to explain common descent by reference to some sort of designer, but you cannot deny that common descent is a fact. Therefore, there's absolutely no point in denying the common provenance of humans and chimps, or the interrelatedness of all life forms on the planet. We're past that, Dave, and you should be too.

Here's an interesting piece of evidence for you Dave: the phylogenetic tree for the 30 well-described taxa is exactly the same whether you support it with evidence from taxonomy, from gene or protein analysis, from reference to the fossil record, and from comparative anatomical studies. Would you care to estimate the probability of that convergence happening by chance, Dave? Well, you don't really have to, because Theobald does it for you. It turns out that for 30 different taxa, the number of different phylogenetic trees (i.e., the number of different "family trees") you can draw is in the neighborhood of 10^38. But every line of evidence biologists use for these 30 high-level taxa points to exactly the same tree.

This is why scientists believe that common descent has been demonstrated beyond all possibility of doubt, Dave. So you're wasting your time trying to disprove common descent. Now, if you can come up with an accounting for common descent that doesn't rely on pseudo-random mutation operated on by, among other things, natural selection, well, be our guest.

But please, for the love of god, don't waste any more of our time arguing that common descent is not a fact.

It's time to move on, brother.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:42   

Quote (incorygible @ May 19 2006,13:28)
2. Of the remainder, what overall degree of convergence do we expect for neutral substitutions in the 75-million-plus years since the LCA between humans, rats and guinea pigs, and non-neutral substitutions since the gene "broke" in humans (~40 mya) and guinea pigs (?unknown?)?  How does this compare statistically to our revised estimate of convergence (i.e., after we have removed the rat-only substitutions)?

3. How would mutational "hot-spots" at some of these loci, if they occur, change our expected convergence in (2).

These questions are difficult to answer precisely.
It depends on the percentage of mutations per locus, which could be estmitated by: the number of mutations from an ancestral sequence / the length of the considered sequence (I guess).
To estimate the number of mutation that have accumulated since an initial split, you have to build a phylogeny using parcimony or likelihood.

But hot spots, and the possibility for a nucleotide to mutate more than once, further complicate calculations.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:33   

Yeah, the 25% number is kind of irrelevant.  After all, if we're comparing mutations relative to the reference sequence, by definition it's one of the three nucleotides that the reference is not. So the baseline would be 33.33% (I.e. given that humans and guinea pigs both differ from rat at the following 1000 nucleotides, you expect about 333 of them to be the same nonreference nucleotide, just from chance alone, assuming %A=%C=%G=%T)

The more informative thing here is that, far more than you would expect from chance alone, you have substitutions in both human and guinea pig DNA at so many of the same positions.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,15:27   

Quote (Russell @ May 19 2006,16:33)
The more informative thing here is that, far more than you would expect from chance alone, you have substitutions in both human and guinea pig DNA at so many of the same positions.

Which according to Dave means common descent is in trouble.

It's the end of the theory as we know it, and I feel fine...

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,15:30   

Around Dave, Common Decency is in trouble. His combination of ignorance plus arrogance brings out the worst in people. Myself included. This aggression will not stand.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,19:48   

*sigh*

let me get this straight.

we spent an entire page of posts asking Dave to give us even a shred of evidence he is able to think rationally outside of this area, in any area of his choosing, and he ignores this request entirely.

now my feelings are hurt, Dave.

you big meanie.

oh, and Steve, to support my hypothesis go check out what Dave has to say about his theory that portugeuse is a mixture of french and spanish.

see anything similar there?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,06:06   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,00:48)
we spent an entire page of posts asking Dave to give us even a shred of evidence he is able to think rationally outside of this area, in any area of his choosing, and he ignores this request entirely.

Maybe language was the area of his choosing. He has alluded to some expertise in the field of linguistics. Wasn't his dad teaching God's English to the heathens?

Quote
oh, and Steve, to support my hypothesis go check out what Dave has to say about his theory that portugeuse is a mixture of french and spanish.

I think you might have your answer.

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,10:20   

well, I'm not sure he consciously "chose" that little "debate" to be representative of his ability to think rationally, but it is telling nevertheless.

What say you Stevestory?

Does  how Davey argued his position on the portugeuse language support my hypothesis or yours?

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,10:35   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,15:20)
Does  how Davey argued his position on the portugeuse language support my hypothesis or yours?

Neither. You're both wrong.

Are you guys missing afdave? Do you need someone to get  you boiling mad and laughing at the same time?

Try this:
http://floridajewishnews.com/articles/content/view/434/53/

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,10:47   

OK, I just started reading the article. I got to the part where they mention a quite accomplished serial killer... let me guess, he's was an athiest?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,10:48   

OMG, or rather,... OM(Not)G.

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

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,11:27   

HA!

If Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, the remorseless killer of hundreds, was an athiest, it's odd that he sent his kids to Catholic school.

Thanks norm, that article makes me want to say hurtful things about religion!  :(  :angry:  :p  :)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,11:44   

Quote
Neither. You're both wrong.


alternative hypotheses are welcome.  this IS a science forum in part, after all ;)

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,11:53   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,16:44)
alternative hypotheses are welcome.

afdave is evidence that our computer powered internet is getting signals from an alternate universe. In afdave's universe God exists and languages have different histories. Remember that old Twilight Zone episode where a boy gets calls from his dead grandmother -- at the end of the show they find phone lines going into her grave. If you try to track dave's ISP you'll follow these telephone lines that, in the end, disappear into thin air.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,11:53   

Quote
If Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, the remorseless killer of hundreds, was an athiest, it's odd that he sent his kids to Catholic school.


you're setting yourself up for an obvious creo answer.

should I?  of course :p

Obviously the reason that the Iceman sent his kids to Catholic school was so that they wouldn't turn out to be evil murdering atheists like himself.  It's just further proof that atheism causes mass murder.

duhhhh ;)

sorry, i just had to.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:00   

Norm, your hypothesis intrigues me, but I so far only see assumptions and correlative evidence.

I wonder if Wes could track the IP for us so we could see if one of your suppositions is correct?

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:15   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,17:00)
Norm, your hypothesis intrigues me, but I so far only see assumptions and correlative evidence.

Good! Because that's all I put in my post, assumptions and correlative evidence. It means we live in the same universe and when we look up into the sky we see the same three  moons.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:19   

Quote
well, I'm not sure he consciously "chose" that little "debate" to be representative of his ability to think rationally, but it is telling nevertheless.

What say you Stevestory?

Does  how Davey argued his position on the portugeuse language support my hypothesis or yours?
Maybe I was wrongly optimistic. Maybe he's cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:33   

3 moons.  1... 2... 3.  yup.  looks right to me.

do you have enough information to speculate how many moons circle Dave's version of Earth?

Quote
Maybe he's cuckoo for cocoa puffs.


Norm? any thoughts on that?

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:55   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,17:33)
Quote
Maybe he's cuckoo for cocoa puffs.


Norm? any thoughts on that?

Yea, my alternate hypothesis is that he is Freaky for Frankenberry.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:02   

awwww, Davey doesn't wanna play no more :(

Quote
I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.


oh yeah, i completely agree Dave has shown us all exactly what's what.

It's just not what he thought he was showing us.

Here, Dave, maybe this textbook will help you find your way:

Eggbert the Slightly Cracked Egg

http://www.amazon.com/gp....4845637

better hurry before that crack finishes its inevitable progess!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:02   

I think the girl in this story is related to AFDave: http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/05/20/this-is-my-truth-tell-me-yours/

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:13   

I have not had time to analyze Incorygible's latest response, but I will and then get back to you.

In the mean time, there is a good lesson on my "Prove Evolution to AF Dave" thread on the Bible's admonition that "Pride goeth before a fall."

It was nice knowing you Rilke ...

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:15   

Quote
"I’m not a Democrat! I don’t think I should have to listen to this stuff!”


LOL.

naw, that's sounds more like gawp than davey.  the difference is that Dave says he DID come here to listen to this stuff.

a lie of course.  he came here to preach, just like all the others.

dull stone, dull stone.

my knife is sharp enough.  now I'm pulling out the scalpel and forceps.

Quote
In the mean time, there is a good lesson on my "Prove Evolution to AF Dave" thread on the Bible's admonition that "Pride goeth before a fall."


If that's true, then you must be speaking from the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:45   

Davey-dog, AKA the bumbling baboon, AKA Alpo- now meatier than ever, I missed the part where you offered evidence. Would you please quote it in a post?

Why are the Appalachians not tall and the Himalayas very tall? I don't get that part. I prob'ly would have got it but God left our last conversation to go have gay sex with a sheep. He said he'd be right back. That was 30 years ago. I'm starting to think he's not coming back. :(

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

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,18:56   

hasn't come back in 30 years?

hmm, I have to re-examine what i thought about having gay sex with sheep.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,19:04   

I think this business with the Portuguese illustrates something quite important about AFDave's thinking...

He think's he's won, when in fact he already lost. Rather like the Disco Institute and their perpetual Waterloos.

He made  blatantly false statement about Portuguese. Everyone here who knows anything about languages, including me, corrected him immediately. Yet he's still happily claiming to have won, apparently because he found an article saying that Portuguese is _phonetically_ closer to French than Spanish is... a fact whose importance can be judged from the fact that Italian is _phonetically_ closer to Japanese than English.

Dave is the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Come back here! He'll bite your legs off!

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,20:19   

But he hasn't "Lost". He hasn't done anything more than outline his theory and give the base facts which he intended to build off of. And that is what he has done in all his other arguments too. not one shred of evidence and examination. Not one.

Hey Davey-dog, do you wear dark glasses so people think the guide dog is because your blind?
Idiot.
Why are the Appachians so low and smooth compared to the Cascades or the Himalayas?

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

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,01:27   

Eric said ...  
Quote
Dave, I really think you need to read, and understand (that means read it slowly and carefully and make sure you understand each paragraph before you go onto the next one) Douglas Theobald's superb article at Talk Origins setting forth the mountain of evidence supporting common descent with modification. If you honestly read and understand that one article, you will understand that common descent with modification is not an hypothesis in need of evidence; it's a fact in need of explanation.

Eric ... you seem to misunderstand the Creationist position (it's OK, sometimes I misunderstand your position as well) ... I actually have no problem at all with "Common Descent with Modification" and I have said so here several times.  You are correct that there are mountains of evidence that there was just one original "Ape kind" and one original "Dog kind" and one original "Cat kind" and one original "Human kind" and so on.  And it is quite true that all the hundreds of variations within these kinds we see today are the result of Common Descent with Modification--modification meaning random mutation and controlled random mixing during reproduction.  No argument there at all.  I understand Natural Selection quite well (and artificial selection too) and agree that it is a proven fact.  It is also a Creationist prediction.  Where we differ is in the evolutionist idea that everything shares one common ancestor, with my most interest in this regard being on the Ape/Human question.  We also disagree that random mutation and natural selection can produce anything like an eye where there was no eye before, or a flagellum, or what have you.  No one has been successful in showing how new features like this could have evolved by random mutation.  In almost all cases, random mutation makes things worse or neutral.  And in the few cases that they make things "better", it's not because a flagellum was added or an eye was added.  The changes are extremely minor changes.  This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out.  And nothing simpler can be formed as a precursor, because it only would get selected for if it is complete and working.

AFD said ...  
Quote
She says the convergence may not be unlikely.  She says that primates share dozen mutations.  And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance.  

I don't understand the second sentence, but why is it so unusual to share "dozen mutations"?  Guinea pigs and humans share a lot of mutations too, right?

Oops ... sorry, Incorygyble (or Jeannot) ... I meant to say THIRD sentence, not second.  

What is Jeannot referring to when she says "And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance." ??  Is she switching back to apes and humans, or is she still talking about humans vs. guinea pigs?

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,01:34   

Quote
You are correct that there are mountains of evidence that there was just one original "Ape kind" and one original "Dog kind" and one original "Cat kind" and one original "Human kind" and so on.
Blatantly putting words into other peoples mouths an misrepresenting their arguments does not do you any favours.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,03:26   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,06:27)
What is Jeannot referring to when she says "And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance." ??  Is she switching back to apes and humans, or is she still talking about humans vs. guinea pigs?

I was referring to primates, but you could add every mammals. Most of the "shared mutations" between us and guinea pigs are not mutations, actually, but ancestral nucleotide states that have not mutated in primates and guinea pigs, but in rats only. Humans and guinea pigs inherited them from their common ancestor, without modification.
But that doesn't means guinea pigs are closer to us than to rats. They share more 'mutations' with rats. Thus, a phylogeny built with GULO won't put primates and guina pigs in the same clade (group).
For the last time, you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene.


And BTW, I'm not a female.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,03:55   

Quote
And BTW, I'm not a female.
You'd think, with davey's expertise in Romance languages, he would have figured that out.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,05:58   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 20 2006,16:53)
Quote
If Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, the remorseless killer of hundreds, was an athiest, it's odd that he sent his kids to Catholic school.


you're setting yourself up for an obvious creo answer.

should I?  of course :p

Obviously the reason that the Iceman sent his kids to Catholic school was so that they wouldn't turn out to be evil murdering atheists like himself.  It's just further proof that atheism causes mass murder.

duhhhh ;)

sorry, i just had to.

Or maybe Dave can revert to the standard "Catholics aren't really Christians" argument?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,07:49   

Quote
Where we differ is in the evolutionist idea that everything shares one common ancestor

We tell the creationists that this one ancestor is what they should call the "kind kind!" That God guy wouldn't have to be too smart to see that that's the easiest way to make "kinds!" :p

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,09:59   

Quote
Eric ... you seem to misunderstand the Creationist position


The MOMENT i read this, my first thought was...

Dave will now regale us with an exactly WRONG version of standard creationism.

which he promptly did.

at least he's consistent.

Dave-

you still don't get it.

We don't care if you disagree with us, it's WHY you disagree that is so ridiculous.

It's your presupposition that what you use in favor of your "arguments" actually constitutes evidence.

It doesn't.

as i said before, all it constitutes is projection.

Doesn't it puzzle you in the slightest that everybody here keeps asking you to provide evidence for your position, when I'm sure it seems obvious to you that you already have?

are you capable of analyzing yourself in the slightest bit?

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,18:01   

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,06:27)
You are correct that there are mountains of evidence that there was just one original "Ape kind" and one original "Dog kind" and one original "Cat kind" and one original "Human kind" and so on.

Just one? How did it breed? Asexually?

Was there also one original "Rabbit kind"? Or is Rabbit kind just part of rodent kind?
http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006....ts.html

Is there just one Kangaroo kind or are the Kangaroos part of  marsupial kind?

Is there a Penguin Kind?

Is there a dog kind, do wolves belong to it? Do bears belong to it?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,18:45   

No. No. No. Dave, you completely misunderstand what common descent with modification means (which, of course, means you completely disregarded my admonition that you carefully read the Theobald article, because if you had carefully read it, there's no way you could possibly have misconstrued it so thoroughly).
           
Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,06:27)
Eric ... you seem to misunderstand the Creationist position (it's OK, sometimes I misunderstand your position as well) ... I actually have no problem at all with "Common Descent with Modification" and I have said so here several times.  You are correct that there are mountains of evidence that there was just one original "Ape kind" and one original "Dog kind" and one original "Cat kind" and one original "Human kind" and so on.

No, there's no such evidence whatsoever of any such thing. What the evidence really shows (which you would know if you'd understood a fraction of what Theobald was saying) is that all life on earth can be traced back to one or a small number of very simple, unicellular or less, organisms. There's no ape "kind," or cat "kind" or human "kind." None of those "kinds" of organisms even existed until extremely recently (within the last few tens of millions of years, or slightly more than one percent of the age of the earth). For 75% of the time the earth has existed, there wasn't anything more complicated than a bacterium. If you could actually understand that the earth is six orders of magnitude older than your Bible tells you it is, you'd be wondering what God was doing with all that time while the earth was inhabited by nothing more complicated than a bacterium. What was he waiting for? Sweeps week?

In fact, if you really didn't have a problem with common descent with modification, there's no way you could believe in an earth 6,000 years old, because that's not remotely enough time for even your kinds to have diversified as much as you think they have.
         
Quote
And it is quite true that all the hundreds of variations within these kinds we see today are the result of Common Descent with Modification--modification meaning random mutation and controlled random mixing during reproduction.

Not hundreds, Dave. Millions. Millions. You're making the same mistake all creationists make; they think the bulk of the organisms on this planet are the ones they can see. You know, bunnies, kittens, blue jays, that sort of thing. Go to the tree of life home page, Dave.

         
Quote
Where we differ is in the evolutionist idea that everything shares one common ancestor, with my most interest in this regard being on the Ape/Human question.

And this is why you're a babe lost in the woods, Dave. This is where Creationism (whether of the Young Earth or the Old Earth or some subspecies of the Intelligent Design variety) get it completely wrong.
The evidence that all life on earth is descended from one or a small number of common ancestors, at least several billions of years ago, is what there's a mountain of evidence for. If you'd read Theobald closely, you'd get that. It's pretty clear you barely glanced at it.

         
Quote
 We also disagree that random mutation and natural selection can produce anything like an eye where there was no eye before, or a flagellum, or what have you.  No one has been successful in showing how new features like this could have evolved by random mutation.

Dave, it's been shown dozens of times. In many cases we know exactly which mutations in exactly which locations resulted in exactly which changes. The fact that no one has actually witnessed it happen (even those Old Testament guys with their weirdly prolonged lifespans didn't live nearly long enough to see evolution happen) doesn't change that fact.

         
Quote
The changes are extremely minor changes.  This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out.  And nothing simpler can be formed as a precursor, because it only would get selected for if it is complete and working.

Dave, if you'd even the most cursory reading anywhere other than at AiG, you'd see that this argument (irreducible complexity) has been completely blown out of the water. Behe couldn't make the argument stand, and Dembski couldn't make it stand. The argument has taken so many torpedoes below the waterline it looks more like Swiss cheese than an argument. I can't believe you would think you could come to a website inhabited by people who have read all the refutations of this argument and think you'd convince anyone.

So Dave, go back to Theobald, read it again, and see if you can figure out where you went off the rails. And then, after you've got that under your belt, let's try to come up with some evidence why the world is only 6,000 years old. Or, just admit that you cannot produce any. I've been waiting long enough.

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,19:20   

Quote
Is there a Penguin Kind?


that brings to mind an old addage an ornithologist once told me that's kind of a running joke with them:

there's only 4 kinds of birds:

hawks 'n eagles (any raptor or related)
little brown birds (sparrows and the like)
dickie birds (humming birds and the like? - not quite sure i remember exactly)
ducks 'n stuff (any bird that ever goes near water)

penguins would come under the "ducks 'n stuff" category.

;)

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,21:40   

Quote
This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out.
Dave could you please explain to me how you calculate the information content required to make the flagellum. Thanks.

Quote
Was there also one original "Rabbit kind"? Or is Rabbit kind just part of rodent kind?

Is there just one Kangaroo kind or are the Kangaroos part of  marsupial kind?

Is there a Penguin Kind?

Is there a dog kind, do wolves belong to it? Do bears belong to it?
My friend you have just discovered the exciting field of Baraminology!

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,00:42   

Quote
Doesn't it puzzle you in the slightest that everybody here keeps asking you to provide evidence for your position, when I'm sure it seems obvious to you that you already have?


Uh ... no, it doesn't puzzle me.  I did enough reading about the mindset of evolutionists before coming here that I was well prepared for what I would encounter.

Quote
We also disagree that random mutation and natural selection can produce anything like an eye where there was no eye before, or a flagellum, or what have you.  No one has been successful in showing how new features like this could have evolved by random mutation.

Dave, it's been shown dozens of times. In many cases we know exactly which mutations in exactly which locations resulted in exactly which changes.

Yes, of course ... you're talking about those wonderful 'Alice in Wonderland' descriptions of how the immune system evolved and such.  Have you ever read those?  If you did, you would see they are complete and total speculation of the highest order.

Quote
The changes are extremely minor changes.  This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out.  And nothing simpler can be formed as a precursor, because it only would get selected for if it is complete and working.

Dave, if you'd even the most cursory reading anywhere other than at AiG, you'd see that this argument (irreducible complexity) has been completely blown out of the water.
Yes, I've read all those articles that 'blow the arguments out of the water' at T.O.  They are quite lame.  

The most credible sounding one I've read yet is Dr. Max's article which is being discussed on this thread, but as it turns out, after much debating all around the mulberry bush, we are finally back to the following statement by Jeannot which proves my point and destroys Dr. Max's argument completely.  I'm going to put this in lights so that no one will miss it.

******************************************************************

Jeannot said ...
Quote
For the last time, you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene.
</b>

******************************************************************

One more time for emphasis ...

[b]For the last time, you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene.


Remember, this whole thing started because Renier said ... "I used to be a YEC, but the broken Vitamin C gene in primates caused me to abandon the YEC position."

OK.  What did Dr. Max say?  He said that an error in the GULO gene was copied from  the common ancestor of apes and humans to both humans and apes.  He compared this to a copyright case and said that this basically proves common descent of apes and humans.

Now Jeannot just said that "you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene," telling me that neither Dr. Max nor anyone else knows which mutation broke the gene in humans or which mutation broke the gene in apes.  Dr. Max was saying that his argument was that the 'error was identical,' but his argument was really just that 'apes and humans both have broken GULO.'  OK.  So they both have broken GULO.  Big deal.  It could have broken independently, just as it did in guinea pigs.  What does this have to do with Dr. Max's copyright case?  Absolutely nothing.  And you cannot consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent anyway, according to Jeannot.

So we see that whereas Faid complains all the time about AIG lying, the truth of the matter is that it is Talk Origins that is lying.  You guys have been taken in by many slick arguments ...

I have a cure for you ... www.dissentfromdarwin.org ... hundreds of good scientists are jumping ship ... you can too!

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,01:09   

Afdave, the VitC thing was "the last straw on the camel's back" for me. If you think it was the ONLY thing that caused me to think that the YEC position is full of cr_ap, then think again. It is not just the VitC gene that is broken and shared, is it? Have you read anything of Viral DNA (pseudo) that is shared? We don't even mention the working genes that are shared.

Jeannot is right of course. ONE broken gene is not enough evidence. But, that's not all the evidence we have, is it? You appear to be distorting Jeannot's position a bit there lad. You also fail to see the relation between the human/ape GULO and the one in Guinea Pigs.

Quote
Talk Origins that is lying


Step by step, in good argument format, please support this statement of yours.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,01:09   

Dave, primates don’t share just one error in GULO. They share many errors; and each one could have broken the gene. They all lack, for instance the same exons. Since mutations appear one at a time, one mutation broke the gene (we don’t know witch one I think), and others freely accumulated after that. Some occurred in the common ancestor of all primates, some occurred only in hominideae (human and chimp) for instance.
Thus, primates don’t share all these mutations. What is particularly sticking is that the primates that share more errors are precisely the ones that were already known to be the closest, i.e. chimps and humans. Then comes others apes and monkeys, who share fewer errors with humans and chimps, as predicted by previous phylogenies.

Man, how many times have we explained this?
???

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,01:34   

Quote
Step by step, in good argument format, please support this statement of yours. [that T.O. is lying]
I will be quite happy to do so the moment that Faid and others give me their step by step argument that AIG is lying, because they made their assertion first.  On the other hand, if they feel this is too much trouble, if they will retract their statement, I will also retract mine.

In any case, I have a feeling that you will continue to use T.O. despite what I say about it, and I feel sure I will keep using AIG despite what you say ... so what does it really matter?

Quote
Man, how many times have we explained this?
You've explained the 'apes and humans are similar' argument many times, and I have also many times argued that 'apes and humans are similar' argues just as easily for Common Design as it does for Common Descent.  'Apes and Humans are similar' is all well and good, but it is not deterministic between the two views.

Renier, if you stick with me long enough, I will be systematically dismantling all the basic underpinnings of evolution and establishing the credibility of the YEC position.  

I have dismantled Dr. Max's argument, and I will continue to dismantle many more.

Young Earth Creationism is the only view which not only is consistent with all the evidence from many disciplines, but also the only view which answers mankind's biggest questions in life.

My hope for you and for all the good people here is that you will come to a knowledge of the truth ... and that it will transform your life as it has mine.

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,01:51   

Quote
Renier, if you stick with me long enough, I will be systematically dismantling all the basic underpinnings of evolution and establishing the credibility of the YEC position.


*Snort*, just like you have been promising some evidence. So far, you seem like a dishonest liar that has been trashed in the face of logic. I know you don't see it this way Afdave, and won't take my word for it. You are however, not doing the cause of your "God" any good so far. Take my word for it... These people are not stupid, and have VALID REASONS to think the way they do. I have seen more honesty in the science camp than in the ID camp. So, why could/can I see it and not you? Tell my why Davey boy.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,02:24   

Quote
You've explained the 'apes and humans are similar' argument many times, and I have also many times argued that 'apes and humans are similar' argues just as easily for Common Design as it does for Common Descent.
Here we go again. Over and over, we have explained how common descent explains the particular similarities we're talking about, and for the nth time afdave tells us that common design could explain it just as easily. And, I predict, for the (n+1)th time, he will not get around to giving us that "easy" explanation.
Quote
Renier, if you stick with me long enough, I will be systematically dismantling all the basic underpinnings of evolution and establishing the credibility of the YEC position.  

I have dismantled Dr. Max's argument, and I will continue to dismantle many more.
We're talking, here, either serious Andy Kaufman style comedy, or seriously delusional thinking.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,02:31   

Serious question Dave,
Did you actually retire from the Air Force or did you resign your commission sooner than that?

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,02:38   

Quote
I have dismantled Dr. Max's argument, and I will continue to dismantle many more.


He REALLY believes this.... any votes vor hopeless?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,03:16   

Quote
I have dismantled Dr. Max's argument, and I will continue to dismantle many more.
You still seem to be missing the point, there are many mutations in the chimp and human sequences that are identical, and not just point mutations. If you are arguing that the genes could have broken independently in both you don't seem to have much of an understanding of biology. I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted the claim that the GULO gene does not support common descent you are sadly mistaken.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:00   

afdave,

Reality check: You have "dismantled" jack squat- except your last shreds of credibility.
Your previous post was an amazing dislay of your inability (or should I say unwillingness?) to even begin to understand anything we patiently (well, for the most part) tried to explain you in all these pages.
Also, this part
 
Quote
Dr. Max was saying that his argument was that the 'error was identical,' but his argument was really just that 'apes and humans both have broken GULO
Which shows that you seem to know darnn well what we're talking about, but still refuse to admit it and choose to distort it, demonstrates clearly how hopeless a debate with you is. So, I'll let others who may be more patient explain to you, for the umpteenth time, why it's not which mutation broke the gene, but the remarkable simillarities in the accumulated mutations in the broken part between humans and primates that matter- not that you'll understand it this time, of course.
 
Quote
I will be quite happy to do so the moment that Faid and others give me their step by step argument that AIG is lying, because they made their assertion first.
Dave, I have done just that. I don't even remember how many times I explained to you, in simple English (as far as I could), why arguing against something that is common textbook knowledge in genetics ("head to head" fusions) shows that the person is either carelessly making stuff up, or simply distorting them, which both qualify as a lie in my book. But, since you're so eager to protect your apologetic friends, I'll give you this: I'll say that this guy is either a liar, or a total ignoramus in genetics and, at the same time, an arrogant jerk who thinks he can argue about something he knows absolutely nothing about by simply pulling "arguments" out of his ####. Take your pick.

Now, feel free to explain your assertions...

--------------
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."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:13   

Imagine that about half the Portuguese vocabulary were identical to French, and half identical to Spanish. IF that were the case, would you have any reason to suspect that they shared a common origin, or could it be "just as easily explained" that the Portuguese independently just happened to pick the same words for the same things? After all, if the French picked a combination of phonemes to represent a particular thing, that shows that it can happen once, and there's no reason the same thing wouldn't happen in Portugal, too. And if it could happen once, there's no reason to doubt it would happen for half of the thousands of words that constitute the basic vocabulary. Anyone see anything wrong with this logic?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:33   

Quote
So, I'll let others who may be more patient explain to you...
Yeah, well. Count me out. I'll wait to see a glimmer of understanding, or willingness to understand, before spending any more time trying to explain to afdavy high school biology - or anything else that challenges his Sunday School world.  

But on the AiG gaffe about chromosome fusion: Lying? Lying-for-Jesus? Self-deception? Self-deception coupled with the mandate to spread the gospel? I don't see much point in trying to draw distinctions between these possible explanations. BUT here's an argument that is so clearly wrong that even afdavy has come to recognize it. Surely the error has been brought to AiG's attention - if not by dozens of AiG readers, at least by afdave - right? Is the essay still posted on their website? Has the error been acknowledged and corrected? If not, what are we to make of that?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:44   

Quote (Russell @ May 22 2006,09:13)
Anyone see anything wrong with this logic?

Nope, nothing at all.  I used it myself to try to claim the $500 in the "Prove Evolution" thread

Quote (Incorygible @ May 19 2006,09:02)
Are we allowed to use the same "arguments" and "logic" to establish the complete and utter independence of the Portuguese and French languages as you use in the apes/humans thread?

After all, while French and Portuguese share many, many letter combinations, I can show you that the word "idiot", common to both languages, is also common to German and English. Since no one in his right mind would argue that these languages are related to French and Portuguese, it is obvious that any and all shared letter combinations (and word meanings, grammar, etc.) could arise independently in each language, and there is absolutely no reason to infer common descent ("common design" theory is just as good!;).

When do I get my money?

 I assume the cheque is in the mail.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,04:56   

Quote (Russell @ May 22 2006,09:13)
Imagine that about half the Portuguese vocabulary were identical to French, and half identical to Spanish. IF that were the case, would you have any reason to suspect that they shared a common origin, or could it be "just as easily explained" that the Portuguese independently just happened to pick the same words for the same things? After all, if the French picked a combination of phonemes to represent a particular thing, that shows that it can happen once, and there's no reason the same thing wouldn't happen in Portugal, too. And if it could happen once, there's no reason to doubt it would happen for half of the thousands of words that constitute the basic vocabulary. Anyone see anything wrong with this logic?

Beautiful.

Half-a-Dave, please help me out here. you seem to think you have won some contest or argument or something. I missed that part. Could you point it out to me?

And, on the portuguese and french thing,
I took your bet (modified the wager). As far as I know, we haven't begun to debate yet.

It bothers me that you are claiming victory before I have been able to muster a counter-argument. Also, I guess I should let you state your case first. I trust that you would
elaborate on your burgundian theory.

It sounds like you are pretty sure of yourself. I, am not so sure of myself. I fear I might have taken your challenge too hastily. Ah well, I took you for a fool and now I will have to back that up.

I could start a new thread for just that if you want. Maybe on my blog or yours.

It is troubling to me though that you are claiming victory when neither of us have offered any detailed evidence yet.

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

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:24   

Quote
And, I predict, for the (n+1)th time, he will not get around to giving us that "easy" explanation.

OK, Russell, for the (n+1)th time ... 95% similarity between apes and humans supports common design in the same way as it does in house building or car building, for example.  A Ford Aerostar is 95% (?) similiar to a Ford Fiesta (do they still make those?) and this is because they have a common designer.  You see?  Again, this is not rocket science and does not require a PhD (or even a biology degree).

Quote
Serious question Dave,
Did you actually retire from the Air Force or did you resign your commission sooner than that?
Went on reserve status when I got out in 1996, then resigned my commission this year.

Quote
"This is a revolution dammit, we're going to have to offend somebody!"-John Adams

A great example of a great Christian "tough guy" !!

*****************************************

You guys just can't get used to the fact that you lost the Portuguese thing, can you ...

Quote
I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted the claim that the GULO gene does not support common descent you are sadly mistaken.
You haven't even read the article and yet you disagree with me when I say I have refuted it?

Whoa!   ... well, I was warned about this kind of stuff ...

Quote
why it's not which mutation broke the gene, but the remarkable simillarities in the accumulated mutations in the broken part between humans and primates that matter-
You guys cannot get your story straight.  You say it's the similarities in the broken part, Jeannot says "you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene."

Come on guys. Face it.  Apes and humans have some striking similarities, I agree.  Apes and humans both have what appears to be a broken GULO gene.  So what?  This does not prove Common Descent.

Quote
I'll give you this: I'll say that this guy is either a liar, or a total ignoramus in genetics and, at the same time, an arrogant jerk who thinks he can argue about something he knows absolutely nothing about by simply pulling "arguments" out of his ####. Take your pick.
 Great.  And I'll back off my "liar" claim for the T.O folks.  I will content myself to think they are just ignorant.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:32   

Quote
A great example of a great Christian "tough guy" !!

*****************************************

You guys just can't get used to the fact that you lost the Portuguese thing, can you ...


John Adams was a deist too. You are so stupid I'm beginning to think it's a miracle.

I haven't even begun to debate the portuguese thing yet. Are you taking my bet? Have you, in fact, shot your whole wad to prove that it is a mix of french and spanish? I can only assume that you have only given the briefest outline.

But, 1/2-a-Dave,
Duh. You are an idiot.

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

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:33   

Quote
You haven't even read the article and yet you disagree with me when I say I have refuted it?

Whoa!   ... well, I was warned about this kind of stuff ...
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said you haven't refuted the claim that the gene supports common descent. For you to be correct I would have had to have said "I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted his argument/article you are sadly mistaken." whereas I actually said "I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted the claim that the GULO gene does not support common descent you are sadly mistaken." Do you see the subtle but important difference.

Whoa!   ... well, I was warned about this kind of stuff ...

 
Quote
You guys cannot get your story straight.  You say it's the similarities in the broken part, Jeannot says "you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene."
The point is that the genes have broken in exactly the same way and share the same mutations. You can't just consider the loss of function as evidence, you have to consider both the loss of function and the resulting mutations.

Quote
This is because the information content required to make something as complex as a flagellum is so large (greater than 500 bits), that chance is ruled out.
Could you please tell me how this is calculated thanks.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:43   

Quote
OK, Russell, for the (n+1)th time ... 95% similarity between apes and humans supports common design in the same way as it does in house building or car building, for example.  A Ford Aerostar is 95% (?) similiar to a Ford Fiesta (do they still make those?) and this is because they have a common designer.
Nope. You've dodged the question again. But at least you acknowledged that there was a question. Perhaps that's progress.

The question is not just "why is there similarity?" The question is "why is the pattern of similarities organized just like a phylogeny? Presumably your common designer designed guinea pigs, rats, monkeys and humans, right? Why is there a nested hierarchy of similarities in DNA sequence?

Shall we go for (n+2)?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:45   

Quote (BWE @ May 22 2006,10:32)
Quote
A great example of a great Christian "tough guy" !!

*****************************************

You guys just can't get used to the fact that you lost the Portuguese thing, can you ...


John Adams was a deist too. You are so stupid I'm beginning to think it's a miracle.

I haven't even begun to debate the portuguese thing yet. Are you taking my bet? Have you, in fact, shot your whole wad to prove that it is a mix of french and spanish? I can only assume that you have only given the briefest outline.

But, 1/2-a-Dave,
Duh. You are an idiot.

You know, the funny thing is, if Dave had just backed down 3 days ago and said something like "Oh, whoops, my mistake, I guess Portuguese isn't really a mix of French and Spanish. It just sounds like French. Okay, I guess you guys are right", then this whole discussion would have evaporated and we would have held a slightly higher opinion of Dave's intellectual integrity.

But hey, if that happened, we wouldn't be talking about Dave then, now would we?

I think it's gotten to the point where Dave now thinks that if he admits a mistake on ANYTHING that his Christian arguments are all threatened. So he has to dig in his heels on every silly boneheaded mistake he makes, making his position MUCH worse in the process. So he has to declare all linguists and geologists and biologists 'irrelevant', and he certainly will never admit that the Founding Fathers weren't all a bunch of Fundies like him.

Sigh.

Oh, BTW, Dave? Being honest does not make one a wimp, whatever the Air Force and your pastor told you.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:50   

Quote
 
Quote

I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted the claim that the GULO gene does not support common descent you are sadly mistaken.

You haven't even read the article and yet you disagree with me when I say I have refuted it?

Whoa!   ... well, I was warned about this kind of stuff ...


And we have firsthand knowledge of this kind of dishonesty and puffed up claims to moral and intellectual superiority.  Despite the mistaken double negative ("refute" + "does not support"), it is clear to anyone with a modicum of literacy that Chris Hyland's claim is completely independent of the Max article.

 
Quote
You guys cannot get your story straight.  You say it's the similarities in the broken part, Jeannot says "you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene."

Come on guys. Face it.  Apes and humans have some striking similarities, I agree.  Apes and humans both have what appears to be a broken GULO gene.  So what?  This does not prove Common Descent.


Given the effort put into repeatedly correcting you on what evidence is at issue here (especially regarding the broken GULO gene), you are now either too dense or too dishonest to debate any further.  Please feel free to claim glorious victory over the army of strawmen you erected on our behalf -- the sheer might of your lack of comprehension and disassembly was indeed quite overwhelming.  Well done.

I'll now join the ranks of those too exasperated with your idiocy and disingenuity (which you'll no doubt interperet as the "strength" of your position) to take you at face value as someone capable of rational discourse.  You have demonstrated unequivocally that you are not.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:51   

It's giving me a bit of entertainment though.
On the "necessary education" thread someone names Leonides posted this:
Quote
Leonides Posted: May 22 2006,07:27
 
Hi there.
I'm a lurker of several months and have been fascinated by the ongoing 'argument'. I jump in at this point since my background is Psychology, (I have a degree from UCL my Masters in Applied Forensic Psychology temporarily on hold due to real life intruding).

>What if we actually do get somewhere in convincing a creobot that their thinking processes themselves are disfunctional?

The problem here is that the thought processes actually are dysfunctional. There is no real way to alter the thought processes through a medium like this. It would probably require intensive deprogramming like you would try on Cult members.

If someone is open to evidence and so on then they can be persuaded. A lot of these people aren't (and in some cases don't want to be). I often feel that looking at the creobot responses, it's like severe anterograde amnesia that is specifically tailored to remove any evidence that is contrary to their world view. They may read and process responses then ten minutes later it's gone, which is why you find the same idiots re-posting on T.O. about Haeckel charts, the gaps in the fossil record and the rest of the PRATTs, despite being given refutations, links to Journals or the fallacies in their logic being shown up. Continuing the anterograde amnesia theme, I think some sort of 'Memento' style tattooing system might be useful, so they can think ''Haeckel', oh, look, on my forearm, um Haeckel, ah can't use that one.'


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

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,05:59   

Quote
Despite the mistaken double negative ("refute" + "does not support")
Oops, well you wouldn't think I'd be able to speak English what with me coming from England would you?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:01   

Ed Brayton makes a similar (and as always, excellent observation):
Quote
There are some people who are so ridiculous that it would be impossible to invent them if they didn't actually exist. Larry Fafarman is one of them. A psychologist would have a field day with someone so utterly convinced of his own importance that he prefers to make a fool of himself for attention rather than risk non-existence.
 What difference, really, is there between Dave and Larry?  Has anybody noticed one?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:03   

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 22 2006,11:01)
Ed Brayton makes a similar (and as always, excellent observation):  
Quote
There are some people who are so ridiculous that it would be impossible to invent them if they didn't actually exist. Larry Fafarman is one of them. A psychologist would have a field day with someone so utterly convinced of his own importance that he prefers to make a fool of himself for attention rather than risk non-existence.
 What difference, really, is there between Dave and Larry?  Has anybody noticed one?

Their writing styles are pretty different. Plus, Larry almost never mentions Jesus. And Dave lacks Larry's obsession with lawyers.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:04   

Quote
I think it's gotten to the point where Dave now thinks that if he admits a mistake on ANYTHING that his Christian arguments are all threatened.
Oh really?  How do you explain my very forthright and honest concession that I was wrong about the AIG-chimp-chromosome thing?

Arden, precisely the REVERSE of what you say is true.  

YOU are the one that will never admit defeat no matter how looney you look.

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,10:24)
Come on guys. Face it.  Apes and humans have some striking similarities, I agree.  Apes and humans both have what appears to be a broken GULO gene.  So what?  This does not prove Common Descent.

All by itself, a broken GULO gene does not prove much of anything -- but it is one line of evidence.

Dave, lets get back to something you brought up earlier, the term "kinds."

According to you, a monkey or chimp is one "kind" and a human being another kind, right?

So, what exactly is a kind? Are horses, donkeys, mules and jackasses all part of one kind, or are they different kinds?

Are birds all a kind, including or excluding penguins?



Are dogs and wolves part of a single kind? Could bears be part of that kind?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:08   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,11:04)
Quote
I think it's gotten to the point where Dave now thinks that if he admits a mistake on ANYTHING that his Christian arguments are all threatened.
Oh really?  How do you explain my very forthright and honest concession that I was wrong about the AIG-chimp-chromosome thing?

Arden, precisely the REVERSE of what you say is true.  

YOU are the one that will never admit defeat no matter how looney you look.

Ah, I missed that. Sorry. And I'm glad you admitted it.

So, now, in an attempt to prove to us that you're not 'looney', are you now willing to admit you were wrong on your linguistic statements, the founding fathers all being Christians, a Young Earth, Noah's flood, and scientists all 'jumping ship' on evolution? 'Cause none of those things are true, either...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:13   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 22 2006,11:08)
Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,11:04)
 
Quote
I think it's gotten to the point where Dave now thinks that if he admits a mistake on ANYTHING that his Christian arguments are all threatened.
Oh really?  How do you explain my very forthright and honest concession that I was wrong about the AIG-chimp-chromosome thing?

Arden, precisely the REVERSE of what you say is true.  

YOU are the one that will never admit defeat no matter how looney you look.

Ah, I missed that. Sorry. And I'm glad you admitted it.

So, now, in an attempt to prove to us that you're not 'looney', are you now willing to admit you were wrong on your linguistic statements, the founding fathers all being Christians, a Young Earth, Noah's flood, and scientists all 'jumping ship' on evolution? 'Cause none of those things are true, either...

Yes, but where did he admit it?  I can't seem to find any forthright and honest statements in any of Dave's posts.  :p

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:20   

Quote
All by itself, a broken GULO gene does not prove much of anything -- but it is one line of evidence.


Thank you, Norm.  Would you please explain this to your friends and to Dr. Max?  They don't seem to get this simple point.

As for kinds, we will be getting into them shortly.

Quote
Ah, I missed that. Sorry. And I'm glad you admitted it.

So, now, in an attempt to prove to us that you're not 'looney', are you now willing to admit you were wrong on your linguistic statements, the founding fathers all being Christians, a Young Earth, Noah's flood, and scientists all 'jumping ship' on evolution? 'Cause none of those things are true, either...


No.  I won the Portuguese thing thanks to Rilke's Wikipedia article, my Medieval Encyclopedia and your own admission.  You can go argue that one against me with Rilke until you are blue in the face if you want.  But you'll be talking to the wind.

As for the rest, you'll have to earn victory, point by point.  If you win a point, I will concede.  I hope you will be so honorable as well.

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:34   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,11:20)
As for kinds, we will be getting into them shortly.

When you do, explain this kind:


It is Thylacinus, an extinct marsupial wolf. Is is part of wolf/dog kind?

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:40   

Note to AFDave:

The GULO pseudogene is evidence for the common ancestry and recent divergence of humans and the other great apes. It is not "proof of" same, and not considered as such by careful scientists.

You're engaging in an intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic that Phil Johnson likes to use. He specializes in nibbling at the margins of specific pieces of evidence (never looking at the totality) and then pretending that he's "disproven" something. Or when it turns out that the evidence is correct, he diminishes its importance by pointing out that it's only one piece of evidence.

Pointing out that the GULO story does not by itself "prove" the ancestry of humans is a red herring: no-one claims that it is sufficient evidence. And you can get any biologist to "concede" this. But so what? It strongly supports a particular hypothesis. And thousands of other observations do too.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:42   

This is just priceless...

Quote

No.  I won the Portuguese thing thanks to Rilke's Wikipedia article, my Medieval Encyclopedia and your own admission.  You can go argue that one against me with Rilke until you are blue in the face if you want.  But you'll be talking to the wind.


Okay, Dave, please tell us why you 'won the Portuguese thing' because of the Wikipedia article, and how you have addressed the objections to your argument. I'm dying to hear it.

And also please tell us why the linguists are all wrong on this while you are right.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:43   

Ah, ye olde Thylacine.  Here are some videos of the last known survivor.

(Wipes tear)

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:52   

DDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRREEEEEE
YYYYYOOOOOUUUU
TTTTTTAAAAAAKIKKKIIIINNNNGG
MMMMMYYYYYYY
BBBBEEEEEEETTTTTT
???????????????

When do we start?

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

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,06:52   

Quote
All by itself, a broken GULO gene does not prove much of anything -- but it is one line of evidence.
Quote
Thank you, Norm.  Would you please explain this to your friends and to Dr. Max?  They don't seem to get this simple point.
Surely, davy, surely after pages and pages of discussion on this, you're not going to pretend that Max's only evidence is "a broken GULO gene". Surely you're not going to ignore the fact that the nature of the "breaks" in the gene reflects and was predicted by the common descent view, and not the common design view. Surely you're not going to do that, are you?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:01   

I'm just going to cross-post this, since apparently Dave is engaging in his usual (and unChristian) practice of ignoring threads or posts in which his position is demolished.
Quote
What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!


Dave, doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Wouldn't you like to be right occasionally?  Do you really like looking like a fool?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:02   

Quote
Oh really?  How do you explain my very forthright and honest concession that I was wrong about the AIG-chimp-chromosome thing?
I chalk it up to having absolutely no choice. But what was AiG's response when you confronted them on that? I'm really curious.
Quote
You can go argue that one against me with Rilke until you are blue in the face if you want.  But you'll be talking to the wind.
or a brick wall, as the case may be. But just for the record, it's not just one or two "holdouts" - so far as I can tell no one here other than you thinks you "won" that little dust-up.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:37   

Here's the problem, Dave.

Say I just stumbled on this site by accident (maybe I was looking for a Portuguese recipe for Paella or something). I kind of wandered around, couldn't find the recipe I was looking for, but got interested in the discussions anyway. Maybe I didn't know anything about science, or religion, but were able to critically weigh evidence and make credibility assessments (maybe I worked for a law firm). After catching up on all the various threads, and evaluating the evidence proffered (or failed to be proffered) for various positions, I came across a passage like this:

 
Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,05:42)
The most credible sounding one I've read yet is Dr. Max's article which is being discussed on this thread, but as it turns out, after much debating all around the mulberry bush, we are finally back to the following statement by Jeannot which proves my point and destroys Dr. Max's argument completely.  I'm going to put this in lights so that no one will miss it.

******************************************************************

[b]Jeannot said ...    
Quote
For the last time, you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene.
</b>

******************************************************************

One more time for emphasis ...

[b]For the last time, you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene.</b>


I'd be thinking, is this guy delusional? I have to say it's just astounding how you can have your positions annihilated, over and over again, and yet still think you're winning. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so capable of self-delusion.

Do you honestly think you've proved a single point you've raised? At this point it's pretty clear that you're never, ever going provide any actual evidence for any of your contentions. But to think you've actually disproven anyone else's positions…well, all I can say is that you're deeply delusional.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:47   

In my experience, when someone says something like this:
 
Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,05:42)
Yes, I've read all those articles that 'blow the arguments out of the water' at T.O.  They are quite lame.

…they clearly neither understood the article nor could think of any way to rebut it.

Oh, and Dave—word to the wise: there's more to the demolition of creationist arguments than Talk Origins. You might want to look at the top of this page for another good source for why Behe, Dembski, et. al. are clueless when it comes to evolution.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:57   

Quote
... the primates that share more errors are precisely the ones that were already known to be the closest, i.e. chimps and humans. Then comes others apes and monkeys, who share fewer errors with humans and chimps, as predicted by previous phylogenies.


Dave, either you don't understand what is written here, or you are dishonest
What is the part you don't understand?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,07:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,11:20)
   
Quote
All by itself, a broken GULO gene does not prove much of anything -- but it is one line of evidence.


Thank you, Norm.  Would you please explain this to your friends and to Dr. Max?  They don't seem to get this simple point.


Dave, at the risk of repeating what's already been repeated to you ad nauseum (is that retching I hear over there in the corner?) let me try to explain this to you again.

The fact that the GULO gene is broken in both humans and chimps does not prove much of anything.

The fact that the GULO gene in humans and chimps is broken in the same way is evidence of common descent.

The fact that there are many, many stretches of DNA in humans and chimps that are not subject to selective pressure that are identical is conclusive evidence of common ancestry.

Yeah, sure, common design could explain the same thing. Common design can explain anything, because it's unfalsifiable.

Presumably this will be the last time anyone explains this to you, because we're all sick and tired of repeating ourselves.

 
Quote
As for the rest, you'll have to earn victory, point by point.  If you win a point, I will concede.  I hope you will be so honorable as well.


Is this your concession that you have yet to win a point, Dave? Because you haven't.

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

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:00   

Quote
…well, all I can say is that you're deeply delusional.
I take it, then, you don't think much of my Andy Kaufman hypothesis?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:09   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 22 2006,12:58)
common design could explain the same thing.

Dave, are errors in broken genes part of a design?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:11   

Quote (Russell @ May 22 2006,13:00)
Quote
…well, all I can say is that you're deeply delusional.
I take it, then, you don't think much of my Andy Kaufman hypothesis?

Actually, a state of deep self-delusion probably is evidence in support of your Andy Kaufmann hypothesis.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:35   

Quote
DDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRREEEEEE
YYYYYOOOOOUUUU
TTTTTTAAAAAAKIKKKIIIINNNNGG
MMMMMYYYYYYY
BBBBEEEEEEETTTTTT
???

When do we start?
NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!  I won already ... now be a gentleman and go help Rilke crawl out from under that big branch I sawed off.  I think she hit her head when she fell because she's hallucinating now.

Quote
Surely, davy, surely after pages and pages of discussion on this, you're not going to pretend that Max's only evidence is "a broken GULO gene".
I'm sure he has many more reasons why he thinks he is related to chimps, but the item of discussion on this thread most recently is THIS piece of evidence.  And let me say again ... I agree, it's a piece of evidence.  But it argues equally well for both Common Descent and Common Design.  Remember the Aerostar and the Fiesta?

Quote
But just for the record, it's not just one or two "holdouts" - so far as I can tell no one here other than you thinks you "won" that little dust-up.
most of them probably do agree with me, but they wouldn't dare admit it and betray "the team."

Quote
For you to be correct I would have had to have said "I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted his argument/article you are sadly mistaken." whereas I actually said "I haven't read Dr Max's argument but if you think you have refuted the claim that the GULO gene does not support common descent you are sadly mistaken." Do you see the subtle but important difference.
Now that you point it out, yes.  I'll concede there was a subtle (very subtle) difference in the two statements.

Tom Ames ...  
Quote
The GULO pseudogene is evidence for the common ancestry and recent divergence of humans and the other great apes. It is not "proof of" same, and not considered as such by careful scientists.

You're engaging in an intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic that Phil Johnson likes to use. He specializes in nibbling at the margins of specific pieces of evidence (never looking at the totality) and then pretending that he's "disproven" something. Or when it turns out that the evidence is correct, he diminishes its importance by pointing out that it's only one piece of evidence.

Pointing out that the GULO story does not by itself "prove" the ancestry of humans is a red herring: no-one claims that it is sufficient evidence. And you can get any biologist to "concede" this. But so what? It strongly supports a particular hypothesis. And thousands of other observations do too.


Thank you Tom, for agreeing with me in your first paragraph.  As for your second paragraph, if you will read this whole thread, I have looked at the totality of the Ape/Human ancestor question on two separate occasions.  To review briefly, the problems are (1) Lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' existing today, (2) Completely unconvincing fossil record, and (3) Major non-physical differences between apes and humans.  I am not engaging in intellectual dishonesty.  I focused heavily on the GULO issue because several people kept throwing it in my face in several different threads.  I simply took the challenge ...

And won!

Now let's see how intellectually honest all of you are ...

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:55   

Now I remember why I paid no attention to most of AFDave's vanity threads. This person is an ignorant, delusional liar, and he's unteachable. Unless he says something flamboyantly stupid or dishonest about the linguistic arguments again, I'm not responding to him again.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,08:59   

For those of you here who are MPFC fans, Dave reminds me of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where a knight is blocking King Arthur's passage across a narrow bridge. He won't budge, so Art has to take a sword to him. In the battle, Art chops off the guy's arms and one of his legs, leaving the poor bastard standing there hopping on one foot.

Arthur shoves the guy out of the way and continues on his path. The amputated knight yells out, "He's running away!" King Arthur says, "What are you going to do, bleed on me?"

Somehow, that scene reminds me of Dave, who's standing there, armless and short of a leg, hemorrhaging onto the ground, still claiming he's "won."

He thinks the rest of us won't admit he's won because we're, like, ashamed or something.

Uh, Dave…? See those limbs lying on the ground over there?

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

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:00   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,13:35)
I have looked at the totality of the Ape/Human ancestor question on two separate occasions.  To review briefly, the problems are (1) Lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' existing today, ...

Dave, I totally annihilated that claim of yours. There were other tool using primates, and our first human ancestors didn't live much differently than they did.

Did you ever read those posts?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:01   

Quote
I agree, it's a piece of evidence.  But it argues equally well for both Common Descent and Common Design.


I thought he said, early on, that this single fact refutes common descent?

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:06   

Dave, I realize you have reading comprehension problems and you are a chronic liar.  (Naughty, that: Jesus is weeping for you right now).  So I'll repeat this for your benefit.

What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!

Dave, doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Wouldn't you like to be right occasionally?  Do you really like looking like a fool?

I mean, if you honestly enjoy looking stupid, we're more than happy to oblidge: you're fun to laugh at, I'll grant you that.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:44   

[quote=afdave,May 22 2006,10:24][/quote]
 
Quote
You guys cannot get your story straight.  You say it's the similarities in the broken part, Jeannot says "you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene."

Oh boy why do I even bother...

Dave, my tiny inadequate brain, deluded by Darwinism, Methodologicalnaturalismismsm, Atheism and, probably, Marxism-Leninism, simply cannot grasp the contradiction you find so obvious here. Care to enlighten me?
 
Quote
Great.  And I'll back off my "liar" claim for the T.O folks.  I will content myself to think they are just ignorant.

Sure, dave. As soon as you also demonstrate why.
Quote
I focused heavily on the GULO issue because several people kept throwing it in my face in several different threads.  I simply took the challenge ...

And won!

Now let's see how intellectually honest all of you are ...
:O

...Because, as we all saw, you just showed how intellectually honest you are.

--------------
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."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:58   

Quote
Dave, I totally annihilated that claim of yours. There were other tool using primates, and our first human ancestors didn't live much differently than they did.


Did you ever read those posts?[/quote] Of course I read your post.  I always read your posts.  You, Chris, Jeannot, Tom, Incorygible and several others say very coherent things and you don't get into the goofy name calling which just makes people look vacuous.  I can tell also that you are very sincere in what you believe.  I respect what you have to say even though I disagree with your conclusions.

I know you responded to my claim of 'no hominid civilizations' but I don't agree that some bones and cave writing is evidence for this.  My contention is that if apes and humans have a common ancestor, there should be lots of 'beetle brow civilizations' all over the earth with half ape-men who grunt a lot and have a simple language and are at some stage between chimps and humans.  These 'people' should be living today if evolution were true.

(Rilke-- I'm glad to see you believe in Jesus now ... maybe you could tell BWE about Him)

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

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:05   

Quote
most of them probably do agree with me, but they wouldn't dare admit it and betray "the team."


I will come out and say you have not convinced me at all. In fact, all the books I have read on the topic say that the only significant French influence on Portuguese came much later than the years you gave. My girlfriend who is a linguistics major also said you are wrong for the same reasons given by many in this thread (independent of reading this).

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:08   

Gene-Oh writes:

 
Quote
Come on Paley, tell us what you think. Did some primate eat a guinea pig and transfered the broken GULO to its progeny, or the contrary?


No Pepe, I do not believe this. You fail to understand my ground-breaking theory. I am not a crank. I do not believe organisms can pass on character traits to their progeny via food. I only maintain food confounds genetic testing results. Since both humans and apes--and guines pigs too--eat bananas, their alleged "similarities" are based on this. The anthropologist Jonathan Marks in this seminal paper* describes the great genetic similarities between humans and bananas. I wonder where this comes from? Other Creationists have noticed this too. My theory becomes very plausible once the morally and intellectually corrosive dogma is Darwinism is discarded!



*--Unfortunately, unless you have access to a University library or a subscription to this journal this article will cost money.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:12   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,14:58)
I know you responded to my claim of 'no hominid civilizations' but I don't agree that some bones and cave writing is evidence for this.  My contention is that if apes and humans have a common ancestor, there should be lots of 'beetle brow civilizations' all over the earth with half ape-men who grunt a lot and have a simple language and are at some stage between chimps and humans.  These 'people' should be living today if evolution were true.

Why should evolution lead to there being multiple hominid societies today? If they were out-competed by homo sapiens early on why do they need to be here today? This seems to have been what happened to the neanderthals.

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:19   

Dave, I realize you have reading comprehension problems and you are a chronic liar.

Now these are highly unChristian things (well, the lying part, anyway).  Why do them?  Why be so immoral?  Why be so stupid?  Why not actually try addressing an issue for a change?

For your benefit (and, of course, the benefit of the lurkers).

What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!

Dave, doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Wouldn't you like to be right occasionally?  Do you really like looking like a fool?

I mean, if you honestly enjoy looking stupid, we're more than happy to oblidge: you're fun to laugh at, I'll grant you that.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:19   

BWE writes:

Quote
DDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRREEEEEE
YYYYYOOOOOUUUU
TTTTTTAAAAAAKIKKKIIIINNNNGG
MMMMMYYYYYYY
BBBBEEEEEEETTTTTT


When do we start?


I was just wondering; did you get yo mamma a nice present for Mother's Day in appreciation for letting you use her photograph as an avatar?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:22   

Quote
Quote
DDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRREEEEEE
YYYYYOOOOOUUUU
TTTTTTAAAAAAKIKKKIIIINNNNGG
MMMMMYYYYYYY
BBBBEEEEEEETTTTTT
???

When do we start?

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!  I won already ... now be a gentleman and go help Rilke crawl out from under that big branch I sawed off.  I think she hit her head when she fell because she's hallucinating now.


No, you didn't win. I haven't even presented a case yet. How could you have won if I haven't even had my say yet?


Quote
I know you responded to my claim of 'no hominid civilizations' but I don't agree that some bones and cave writing is evidence for this.  My contention is that if apes and humans have a common ancestor, there should be lots of 'beetle brow civilizations' all over the earth with half ape-men who grunt a lot and have a simple language and are at some stage between chimps and humans.  These 'people' should be living today if evolution were true.

(Rilke-- I'm glad to see you believe in Jesus now ... maybe you could tell BWE about Him)



1/2-a-Dave,
three things:

1) What about evolution predicts the homonid societies? This is a point that merits some understanding of niches and ecosystems. And evolution. :(

2) Regarding Rilkes GD, Jesus, and Me: HAHAHAHAHAHA

3) Dave, it's not just because you are so stupid that I am making fun of you. It's because your stupidity is nearly equalled by your hubris in thinking that you are somehow making a case for anything.

-In the Portuguese/French thing: I could have let it go. I understand why you said what you said and I could coherently argue your case to some extent. But you have been so cosmically dense in all of your assertions that I was pointing out that you couldn't even support a nominally supportable claim if presented with an opposing side. I offered to provide that opposing side.

To prove my point, I suppose, you claimed victory instead of engaging in the debate. ???

which brings me to a fourth point. Anybody care to guess what that one is?

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

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:23   

Quote
Surely, davy, surely after pages and pages of discussion on this, you're not going to pretend that Max's only evidence is "a broken GULO gene".
D'oh! You are, aren't you!?
Quote
I'm sure he has many more reasons why he thinks he is related to chimps, but the item of discussion on this thread most recently is THIS piece of evidence.

Look. This is from his essay:  
Quote
4.1. Shared unitary pseudogenes. Many of the unitary pseudogenes in humans described previously are shared with other primates. By "shared" I mean more than simply that the same gene is inactive in two different species, since that situation could result if the corresponding genes of the two species were inactivated separately by independent mutations. Instead, in all the examples I describe, the pseudogenes in primates carry many of the same crippling mutations found in the corresponding human pseudogenes. Since independent random mutations would not be likely to be identical in two different species, the identically mutated pseudogenes are strong evidence that the mutations occurred in a common ancestral species.
So you see, as has been pointed out to you about a thousand times, it's not "A broken GULO gene", it's the pattern of breaks in it, and the fact that said pattern reflects, and is predicted by, common descent. Now, despite this being pointed out to you about a thousand times, in several different ways, by several different people, with several different modes of emphasis, you come back yet again with:    
Quote
And let me say again ... I agree, it's a piece of evidence.  But it argues equally well for both Common Descent and Common Design.  Remember the Aerostar and the Fiesta?

Remember my question in response?  
Quote
The question is not just "why is there similarity?" The question is "why is the pattern of similarities organized just like a phylogeny?" Presumably your common designer designed guinea pigs, rats, monkeys and humans, right? Why is there a nested hierarchy of similarities in DNA sequence?

 
Quote
But just for the record, it's not just one or two "holdouts" - so far as I can tell no one here other than you thinks you "won" that little dust-up.
 
Quote
most of them probably do agree with me, but they wouldn't dare admit it and betray "the team."
Ah, the old "the lurkers support me in e-mail" gambit. Pretty sad. Heck. Why not just be done with it, and claim that Max privately agrees with you?

This, again, looks to me like classic projection. Defeated six ways to Sunday, afdave will be damned (perhaps literally) if he's going to let down Team Jesus by admitting it!

You know, you're not going to convince anyone reading this discussion that you have made the slightest dent in evolution in general, or Max's essay in particular. But you are making a very negative advertisement for your version religion. If I were in the market for one, I'd steer as clear of yours as possible.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:31   

AFDave is certainly advertising for his religion. But I don't think he'd like what the ad says.

Join Young Earth Christianity today! Tell the experts you know better than them! Then refuse to understand, when they try a hundred times to correct you! Then say you won! All this and more can be yours, if you join Young Earth Christianity! Do it!

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:33   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,14:58)
I know you responded to my claim of 'no hominid civilizations' but I don't agree that some bones and cave writing is evidence for this.  My contention is that if apes and humans have a common ancestor, there should be lots of 'beetle brow civilizations' all over the earth with half ape-men who grunt a lot and have a simple language and are at some stage between chimps and humans.  These 'people' should be living today if evolution were true

Dave, Dave, Dave.

Taxonomically speaking, hominidae is an extremely sparse clade (compare it to, say, beetles, or ants). There are only half a dozen species of great apes. Humans aside, it's not a very successful group of organisms. Of the half-dozen great apes currently extant, only one has come up with a civilization (and it remains to be seen just how successful an experiment that turns out to have been). And in case you haven't noticed, all but one of the dozens of hominid species that have ever existed are now extinct. If they still existed, who knows? Maybe some of them might have been smart enough (or dumb enough) to come up with a civilization. Here in reality, they didn't get the chance.

Now, Dave, can you explain to us why evolution predicts lots of different hominid civilizations? Because I don't see how any civilization, anywhere, is a logical consequence of evolutionary thinking. It's probably entirely accidental that there's civilization, let alone multiple civilizations, here on earth.

Sure, there's evidence of some sort of primitive "civilizations" predating the appearance of H. sapiens. But even if there weren't, that wouldn't even be evidence against evolution, let alone a disproof of it. If space aliens had set down on Manhattan island a million years ago and noted the absence of evidence of civilization, would they have used that observation as evidence against evolution?

You have to do more than just make naked assertions around here, Dave. That might work at your Sunday Bible study meetings, but here you at least have to put together a coherent argument. And a little supporting evidence would help, too.

Speaking of which…young earth? Biblical inerrancy? Hello? Anyone out there?

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:34   

GoP, You're alright no matter what everyone says about you.:)

When do we get to hear about the scale-free network dealy-thingy?

--------------
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: May 22 2006,10:40   

Don't hold your breath waiting for that 'compelling' evidence. It ain't there.

   
jstockwell



Posts: 10
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:41   

Hi afdave,

I can see that you're not understanding the basics of phylogeny and the evidence that support common descent.  Before you can attempt to disprove something, you have to understand it first.

So last time, I think it helped you see clearer when direct illustrations of the evidence, instead of just quotations of experts, were presented.  So I'll do that again.  This is an example from Fukuyama 2005, if you want to look up the source yourself.

Let's look at the sequence of a gene across several primates.  From top to bottom, it will be Human, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Orangutan, Rhesus monkey.  The ... portions indicate stretches where all 5 are identical for 1000-2000 bases.

CACAATA...TGAGC...GAAGAGATG...GTGAAAG...A
CACAATA...GGAGC...GAAGAGACG...GTGAAAG...A
CACAATA...TGAGT...TAAGAGAGG...TTGAAAG...A
CACAATA...TGAGT...TAAGAGACG...TTGAAAC...A
CACACTG...TGAGT...TAAGAGACA...TTGAAAT...G

Hope that formats correctly.  So, what do we make of this data?  Clearly there are differences.  Interestingly, the differences are shared across some species.  Some are shared across multiple species.  Our analysis is complicated by the fact that DNA substitutions can hide previous substitutions, such as A --> C --> A.  But if we do the analysis based on parsimony, that is, the fewest substitutions needed to explain the data, we come up with a phylogeny.  

Now, as a solitary exercise, this isn't rock solid.  As explained, you make an assumption of parsimony, and the vagaries of chance could always throw that off.

But the key is that you then compare the phylogeny generated from analysing this stretch of DNA, to a completely independent stretch elsewhere.  And what we've found is that they are almost identical.  The vitamin C gene is just one example, and the sequence I posted above is another.  It's pretty hard to argue against that.  

Common design does not explain nested hierarchical relationships, unless you hypothesize that the designer did his design work by making modifications to a prototype, keeping that, using it as the next prototype, making successive modifications, etc.

At that point your hypothesis is indistinguishable from common descent, except for the intervention of the designer at every step.  Is that your hypothesis?

And lastly, I've been following the linguistic argument, and I've noticed that you haven't given any linguistic evidence for your position.  Your 2 pieces of evidence are historical and anecdotal.  Those aren't very compelling.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:45   

Jstockwell, you utterly failed to prove that the evidence is not a case of several million complete coincidences, which all originated in several miricles. So, AFDave wins. ;-)

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:46   

Perhaps this explains the afdave phenomenon:
Quote
"If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."
Antonin Scalia

Based, I guess, on this:  
Quote
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
(1 Corinthians 3:18-19 KJV)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:57   

Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,14:58)
My contention is that if apes and humans have a common ancestor, there should be lots of 'beetle brow civilizations' all over the earth with half ape-men who grunt a lot and have a simple language and are at some stage between chimps and humans.  These 'people' should be living today if evolution were true.

No they shouldn't. They lived in the same niche that modern humans started in. We wiped them out as we expanded even if we just competed for resources and didn't directly war with them.




http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
"Sinanthropus pekinensis" or "Peking Man", based on the finds from Zhoukoudian, China.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/weid2.htm
Reconstruction notes

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:00   

Gawp writes:

Quote
I am not a crank.


that sounds vaguely familiar somehow...

"I am not a crook."

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:07   

Dave-

Quote
Uh ... no, it doesn't puzzle me.  I did enough reading about the mindset of evolutionists before coming here that I was well prepared for what I would encounter.


here's a useful excercise for you.  Can you provide us with the references you used to prepare yourself for "the mindset of evolutionists" before you came here?

I'm genuinely curious as to what you used to innoculate yourself against plain evidence and logic.

You could say it would help defer all the time you've wasted here on this site if you could provide that list for us.

I wonder if alchoholics used to have source material to justify their disease as well.

You need an intervention, Dave, but it simply can't be done in an online forum.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:12   

Quote
This, again, looks to me like classic projection. Defeated six ways to Sunday, afdave will be damned (perhaps literally) if he's going to let down Team Jesus by admitting it!


actually, that's a much better description of the other psychological defense mechanism employed frequently by creobots.

Denial.

same underlying pathology you are pointing to though.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:16   

Dave's Denial:

 
Quote
Oh really?  How do you explain my very forthright and honest concession that I was wrong about the AIG-chimp-chromosome thing?


you did, and then essentially retracted it.  Or did you forget?

talk to AIG yet about how they lied to you?

Quote
Quote
 
All by itself, a broken GULO gene does not prove much of anything -- but it is one line of evidence.



Thank you, Norm.  Would you please explain this to your friends and to Dr. Max?  They don't seem to get this simple point.


more denial.  Your mind refused to actually see the point that was made in the original post, and instead selectively only saw "broken gulo gene does not prove" .

Can you actually even type what was said in the original post, or do you physically find it difficult to move your fingers to the proper keys on the keyboard?  It's beyond me asking if you even understand the point that was actually made in the post.  It is rampantly clear that not only do you not, you are mentally incapable of doing so.

and this, specifically argued ad naseum by the rest of us, simply to show HOW much you utilize denial in your arguments, is the topper:

Quote
No.  I won the Portuguese thing thanks to Rilke's Wikipedia article, my Medieval Encyclopedia and your own admission.


I really can't think of a better example to try to get you to recognize how badly your defense mechanisms have interfered with your perceptions of reality.

Did you go through some serious PTSD during your military career?  I'm betting you won't admit it, but your particular level of dissonance suggests severe trauma during at least one point in your history.

what could it hurt to see a psychologist and get an independent determination, Dave?  IIRC, the military even has financial support for that very thing, so you wouldn't even be out any bucks.

really, give it a shot.  You might learn something more there than you ever could, or are currently capable of, here.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:17   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 22 2006,15:08)
Gene-Oh writes:

 
Quote
Come on Paley, tell us what you think. Did some primate eat a guinea pig and transfered the broken GULO to its progeny, or the contrary?


No Pepe, I do not believe this. You fail to understand my ground-breaking theory. I am not a crank. I do not believe organisms can pass on character traits to their progeny via food. I only maintain food confounds genetic testing results. Since both humans and apes--and guines pigs too--eat bananas, their alleged "similarities" are based on this. The anthropologist Jonathan Marks in this seminal paper* describes the great genetic similarities between humans and bananas. I wonder where this comes from? Other Creationists have noticed this too. My theory becomes very plausible once the morally and intellectually corrosive dogma is Darwinism is discarded!

Are you serious, Ghost?
:D

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:28   

Quote
Are you serious, Ghost?


sorry, but that's a dumb question.

does it even matter?

He will of course, say he is, but that means nothing.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:35   

russel:

from the article on Scabia you referenced:

Quote
Recently Justice Antonin Scalia, running neck and neck with fellow justice Clarence Thomas to become chief justice...


you just ruined my dinner.  

Scalia and Thomas are the two top contenders?  that's like saying Beavis and Butthead are competing for a Nobel Prize.

*sigh*

I've gotta get my shit together faster and get outta here.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,14:22   

Quote (jeannot @ May 22 2006,18:17)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 22 2006,15:08)
Gene-Oh writes:

   
Quote
Come on Paley, tell us what you think. Did some primate eat a guinea pig and transfered the broken GULO to its progeny, or the contrary?


No Pepe, I do not believe this. You fail to understand my ground-breaking theory. I am not a crank. I do not believe organisms can pass on character traits to their progeny via food. I only maintain food confounds genetic testing results. Since both humans and apes--and guines pigs too--eat bananas, their alleged "similarities" are based on this. The anthropologist Jonathan Marks in this seminal paper* describes the great genetic similarities between humans and bananas. I wonder where this comes from? Other Creationists have noticed this too. My theory becomes very plausible once the morally and intellectually corrosive dogma is Darwinism is discarded!

Are you serious, Ghost?
:D

Something seems to have happened to Paley over the weekend. He seems to have lost his marbles in a big way, plus he seems angrier than ever.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,14:58   

naw, he just finally realized that compared to AFDave, he's the library of congress, and actually capable of providing rational argument (at least on rare occasions), so he better get started spewing his drivel out there.

and it's true, compared to the stuff that poor Dave spouts forth, his posts are sheer genius.

doesn't really make them cogent or supported, but hey, everything is relative to some extent.

That's right Dave, GoP is using you to further his own agenda.

How does that make you feel, Dave?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,16:30   

Well, I go away for a long weekend and what do I find?

Missionary AFDave still typing lies as fast as his little fingers can pick-and-peck.

The rest of you guys still kicking the living crap out of AFDavey's posterior.

Arrogant Fundy Dave still being too stupid to realize he's getting the living sh*t kicked out of him.

Hey AFDave, I noticed that you avoided my questions about scientific peer-review for the fifth time.  That means you lost big time on that one.  How does it feel to be such a loser?  When you "flew" the T-38, were you sitting in the back seat or the front?

My $0.02 on Dave's mental state:  AFDave is not an idiot in the classical sense, but he does suffer from "military pilot's disease" - terminal arrogance and the most unwarranted belief that if he is competent in one area, then that makes him an expert in all areas.  I've spent my whole career in military aerospace and unfortunately have seen too many "AFDaves".  Usually they're the ones who end up crashing multimillion-dollar aircraft because they are too f*cking arrogant to ever admit they can be wrong, ever.

--------------
"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.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,17:05   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 22 2006,21:30)
Well, I go away for a long weekend and what do I find?

Missionary AFDave still typing lies as fast as his little fingers can pick-and-peck.

The rest of you guys still kicking the living crap out of AFDavey's posterior.

Arrogant Fundy Dave still being too stupid to realize he's getting the living sh*t kicked out of him.

Hey AFDave, I noticed that you avoided my questions about scientific peer-review for the fifth time.  That means you lost big time on that one.  How does it feel to be such a loser?  When you "flew" the T-38, were you sitting in the back seat or the front?

My $0.02 on Dave's mental state:  AFDave is not an idiot in the classical sense, but he does suffer from "military pilot's disease" - terminal arrogance and the most unwarranted belief that if he is competent in one area, then that makes him an expert in all areas.  I've spent my whole career in military aerospace and unfortunately have seen too many "AFDaves".  Usually they're the ones who end up crashing multimillion-dollar aircraft because they are too f*cking arrogant to ever admit they can be wrong, ever.

Given his other claims and his somewhat tenuous grasp of reality, I don't think we're dealing with an actual ex-pilot.  Second Lieutenant, perhaps, but that's about as high as his intelligence would seem to go.  :p

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,17:44   

Quote
Given his other claims and his somewhat tenuous grasp of reality, I don't think we're dealing with an actual ex-pilot.  Second Lieutenant, perhaps, but that's about as high as his intelligence would seem to go.   :p


My guess is he made it through UPT (undergraduate pilot training), then as far as flying T-38s (an advanced supersonic jet trainer for potential fighter/bomber pilots) as a student pilot.  I also guess he washed out at that stage; probably his arrogance caused him to make too many unacceptable errors.  That's why he ended up flying helos (according to his blog at least).

My limited knowledge of such things comes from having an ex-GF (many years ago) whose brother was a military pilot.  He followed the same career track but passed T-38 training, and was invited back to become a T-38 IP (Instructor Pilot) because at the time there were too few fighter slots available.  Tom (the brother) told many comical stories about the screw-ups of his students, and how they'd always end up whining "...but sirrrr...." :)  Eventually he ended up flying KC-10 tankers, the Mil version of the DC-10.

Edited to add: This is not meant to belittle what AFDave did achieve.  Just making it through UPT to get a ride in a T-38 is a major accomplishment, so props to him for that.  It's a pity that his arrogant and condescending attitude will keep him such a total dumbsh*t on some fascinating and amazing avenues of scientific knowledge.

--------------
"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.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,17:57   

maybe Davey kept correcting his instructor with the bible, and they bounced him.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,18:38   

what's the likelihood that we would get a straight answer out of "honest Dave" if we actually asked him?

not bloody likely given his reponses so far, but we could always give it a shot and see what happens.

Care to fill us in, Dave?

What was your actual flight training; did you actually fly missions or just training?

What made you leave the military?

You could actually provide something worth listening to here, if you wanted.

  
Eldin



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,18:44   

Just a minor note on linguistic discussion, like the abiogenesis theory that predates evolution, genesis of language is illdefined. We are not sure what facilitated the first spoken language and whether it was a gradual or sudden process. As most of you probably know, small children have a tendency to grammatise basically everything they hear, which gives rise to creole languages. Given that fact it is not implausible that a workable language of a few thousand words and sophisticated grammar appeared within 3 generations from earlier 'monkey' calls.

Always remember that learning language as a child is not like studying algebra in school. Learning to speak is like learning to walk and has to be actively discouraged for it not develop. Indeed, walking upright, fine manual motor functions and speaking are probably related, because all of these functions share a lot of the same brainspace.

Bah, I should not post when I haven't slept for 2 1/2 days.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,18:59   

Quote
Bah, I should not post when I haven't slept for 2 1/2 days.


i hear the price of eggs in outer mongolia went up 2 cents today.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,03:02   

Quote
Dave, are errors in broken genes part of a design?
No.  According to YEC theory, organisms were designed perfectly in the beginning.  The Creator then put a curse on all of nature to remind humans of sin and the need for a Saviour, and to remind us that this world is not our true home.  God will at a future time RE-create the heavens and the earth and they will once again be perfect.  Humans who choose to believe God will be with Him eternally in the newly created heavens and earth.  Those who do not will be eternally separated from Him.  Mutations are assumed by creationists to be a part of this "curse."

Drew Headley ...  
Quote
I will come out and say you have not convinced me at all. In fact, all the books I have read on the topic say that the only significant French influence on Portuguese came much later than the years you gave.
Drew, my friend, World Book and Brittanica and Wiki are not going to have enough detail to show you the enormous French influence on a tiny country such as Portugal during the 12th century.  Go to your local public library and look up Portugal in a Medieval Encyclopedia.  There you will find the "thousands of French knights" coming in, the intermarriage with French nobility, the conquest of Lisbon, and the subsequent adoption of the dialect of Lisbon as Standard Portuguese.  Now, if all that is unconvincing to you, then I can't help you.  I've accomplished my goal of refuting Rilke and that's good enough for me.  Maybe you and Arden and Rilke and Faid can start a whole thread to in effect prove me wrong when I say the sky is blue. I hope it's an enjoyable enterprise for you.

Quote
Why should evolution lead to there being multiple hominid societies today? If they were out-competed by homo sapiens early on why do they need to be here today? This seems to have been what happened to the neanderthals.
Not only should there be multiple hominid 'societies' in existence today, there should be many, many living 'transitional' species.  The fact that there is not throws all of 'macro-evolutionary theory' (as Theobald calls it) into huge doubt.

BWE ...  
Quote
-In the Portuguese/French thing: I could have let it go. I understand why you said what you said and I could coherently argue your case to some extent.
Thanks.  Would you tell this to Drew Headley?

Russell ...  
Quote
Ah, the old "the lurkers support me in e-mail" gambit. Pretty sad. Heck. Why not just be done with it, and claim that Max privately agrees with you?
Careful reading, Russell.  You got two things wrong.  I din't say lurkers and I wasn't talking about Dr. Max.  I was talking about the participants on these threads and I was talking about the Portuguese thing.  If you go look at that discussion, you see an embarrassing "changing of the subject" by many participants.  Even Steve Story didn't have the guts to challenge my statement after I shot Rilke down.  He chose rather to jump on a silly little side statement I made which had nothing to do with the main discussion.  It's funny how you guys admonish me to admit when I am wrong, which I do, but you guys never do, even though this one was so obvious its hilarious.

There was a good lesson in the little Portuguese dialog.  Namely, that some people are so committed to being right that they will dismiss mountains of evidence that is literally hitting them in the face.  I wonder what other areas there might be where people here are doing this same thing?  The whole origins question, maybe?  Michael Denton calls it "The Priority of the Paradigm."  Hmmmm .....

Jstockwell ...  
Quote
Now, as a solitary exercise, this isn't rock solid.  As explained, you make an assumption of parsimony, and the vagaries of chance could always throw that off.

But the key is that you then compare the phylogeny generated from analysing this stretch of DNA, to a completely independent stretch elsewhere.  And what we've found is that they are almost identical.  The vitamin C gene is just one example, and the sequence I posted above is another.  It's pretty hard to argue against that.

Common design does not explain nested hierarchical relationships, unless you hypothesize that the designer did his design work by making modifications to a prototype, keeping that, using it as the next prototype, making successive modifications, etc.

At that point your hypothesis is indistinguishable from common descent, except for the intervention of the designer at every step.  Is that your hypothesis?

And lastly, I've been following the linguistic argument, and I've noticed that you haven't given any linguistic evidence for your position.  Your 2 pieces of evidence are historical and anecdotal.  Those aren't very compelling.
I agree with you that they are very close, probably somewhere around 95% close.  But remember ... Dr. Max was arguing in his article that the broken GULO is sort of the "case maker" which favors common descent over common design.  He says ...  
Quote
Can "errors" in modern species be used as evidence of "copying" from ancient ancestors? In fact, the answer to this question appears to be "yes," since recent molecular genetics investigations have uncovered some examples of the same "errors" present in the genetic material of humans and apes.
He then goes into the GULO 'error' and other pseudogenes.  Apparently, people at this forum place heaviest weight on the GULO pseudogene judging from the numerous admonitions I received to investigate this particular one.

Where we are now is that you all are admitting that the GULO pseudogene is NOT in fact a "case maker" for common descent.  This is quite different than the impression I was given about this issue when we started.  You all are simply saying that it is one of many "pieces of evidence" which I agree with, but I would simply say "this gene is similar" and "all the genetic material is similar."

But the silly thing is that I already knew this before we started this exercise.  We did not need to go slogging through all the intricacies of the GULO gene to prove to me that Humans are genetically similar to Apes. I agree and this is perfectly consistent with Design Theory.  As I have said many time, the similarities between a Ford Aerostar and a Ford Fiesta point to common design, not common descent.

As for nested hierarchical relationships, my view is that Common Design explains them better that Common Descent.  As Denton has pointed out, the really striking fact about nested hierarchies is the separateness and non-sequential relationships of living things.  I'm sure you are already aware of Colin Patterson's statements such as  
Quote
In a way, I think we are merely rediscovering pre-evolutionary systematics: or if not rediscovering it, fleshing it out.
and  
Quote
that much of today's explanation of nature, in terms of neo-Darwinism, or the synthetic theory, may be empty rhetoric.
because you have all read Denton, right?

You also need to read Ashby Camp's response to Theobald regarding the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.  <a href=""http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp" target="_blank">Link to article</a> He says  
Quote
It is not a corollary of the hypothesis of common descent that organisms will have features by which they can be classified as groups within groups.  Common descent can explain or accommodate nested hierarchy (though not without difficulty in the specific case of Neo-Darwinism), but it does not predict it.  There are mechanisms of descent from a common ancestor that would yield a different pattern.  If common descent can yield either nested hierarchy or something else, then the presence of nested hierarchy does not count as evidence of common descent.
and points out what Biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter had to say ...  
Quote
It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan.  Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution.  Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern.  He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory.  To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution.  (Hunter, 108.)


My position is the same as Camp's when he says ...
Quote
It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness.  It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology.  (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.)  The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution.  Accordingly, “[i]t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.)


Once again, it is clear to me that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans, and as far as anyone really knows, that's the way it's always been.

Common Design explains nested hierarchies better than Common Descent and this is not to mention the innumerable difficulties that Common Descent theory encounters everywhere one looks.

I will now be abandoning this thread since I have established my point.  Please bring any further discussion of this issue over to the "Creator God Hypothesis" thread.

Thanks,

AFD

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,03:43   

Afdave, I don't get this "Common Design" thing. Back to the broken Vitamin C gene. Was it broken BEFORE the fall of man, or did it break AFTERWARDS?

If before, then humans were not made perfect, right? If after, then why the he11 did it break in much the same way as that of chimps, and then trace it back futher to other apes. BS laddy.

Let's say it broke afterwards (after the apple). Why so similar, and why in such a way as to look like common descent? You saw the nice little graphics that the people showed you about how the mutations are related.

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,03:56   

Quote
Drew, my friend, World Book and Brittanica and Wiki are not going to have enough detail to show you the enormous French influence on a tiny country such as Portugal during the 12th century.


Why don't you actually read the first reply I had on this matter. The source was The World's Major Languages, a standard linguistic text. Where did I mention going to encyclopedias like those listed above?

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,04:03   

Quote
But the silly thing is that I already knew this before we started this exercise.  We did not need to go slogging through all the intricacies of the GULO gene to prove to me that Humans are genetically similar to Apes.
No, it is the fact that the mutations are the same, which is evidence that we share a common ancestor. It isnt just based on sequence identity. It is the mutations that have occured that are the important part, but you seem to be ignoring this point.

Quote
because you have all read Denton, right?
No, but everyone who has claimed to base their arguments on Denton has ended up spouting nonsense. Read the old Shi thread for an example.

Quote
Not only should there be multiple hominid 'societies' in existence today
Im very curious as to why you think this.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,04:13   

afdave sends out two EMPs (Empty Myopic Projections) in rapid succession that knock out irony detectors around the globe:

Quote
Drew, my friend, World Book and Brittanica and Wiki are not going to have enough detail to show you the enormous French influence on a tiny country such as Portugal during the 12th century.  Go to your local public library and look up Portugal in a Medieval Encyclopedia.  There you will find the "thousands of French knights" coming in, the intermarriage with French nobility, the conquest of Lisbon, and the subsequent adoption of the dialect of Lisbon as Standard Portuguese.  Now, if all that is unconvincing to you, then I can't help you.


Quote
Namely, that some people are so committed to being right that they will dismiss mountains of evidence that is literally hitting them in the face.


This is followed by the afdave two-step, equivocating the nested hierarchies of shared functional genes (which he believes are commonly designed) with the same hierarchies in mutational errors (which he does not believe were designed at all).  Despite this claimed position, Dave nevertheless appeals to design to explain not shared function, but shared mutation:

Quote
Quote
Dave, are errors in broken genes part of a design?

No.  According to YEC theory, organisms were designed perfectly in the beginning.


Quote
You all are simply saying that it is one of many "pieces of evidence" which I agree with, but I would simply say "this gene is similar" and "all the genetic material is similar."

But the silly thing is that I already knew this before we started this exercise.  We did not need to go slogging through all the intricacies of the GULO gene to prove to me that Humans are genetically similar to Apes. I agree and this is perfectly consistent with Design Theory.  As I have said many time, the similarities between a Ford Aerostar and a Ford Fiesta point to common design, not common descent.


Quote
My position is the same as Camp's when he says ...
"It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness."


At this point, Dave knows full well we're not talking about making Fiestas and Aerostars, but about destroying them in a very obvious patterns of shared defects.  And we're not talking about "divine orderliness", but the disorderly "curse" that Dave believes followed the Fall.  Furthermore, Dave knows full well that, whatever the validity of "common design" as an explanation for nested hierarchies in DNA, it completely fails to account for admittedly non-designed errors.  He has provided no explanation for why those errors should follow the same pattern as his purported "common design" (Fiestas and Aerostars), and falls back on false equivocation to dodge this glaring shortcoming.  His obvious swapping of one phenomenon for the other (remember, where we see only the one phenomenon of common descent, he sees two: common design followed by random degeneration after that whole fruit thang) fools absolutely nobody, with the possible exception of himself (though I tend to suspect this is calculated dishonesty at this point).

Quote
Once again, it is clear to me that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans, and as far as anyone really knows, that's the way it's always been.


Dave, let's say for the sake of argument (this is very much a hypothetical from where I'm sitting!;) that you had actually successfully supported your claim that Portuguese = Spanish + French.  Let's say you had provided page upon page of explanation and evidence, references, sources, pedagogical techniques, etc., to demonstrate this.  Let's say it was clear, not only in your mind, but in every reader's , that you had torn Rilke a new one.  And yet, after all this (very hypothetical) effort, Rilke had concluded and ran from the thread with the following:

Once again, it is clear to me that Spanish is Spanish, French is French, Portuguese is Portuguese, and as far as anyone really knows, that's the way it's always been.

What would your opinion of your so-called opponent be then, Dave?  Liar?  Coward?  Ignoramus?  Blowhard?  Pissant?  Troll?  A$$hole?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,04:19   

Hey Dave, since you're completely ignoring 95% of our objections to your little theory on Portuguese, can you answer just this one question? If you're right, how come no linguistic experts agree with you?

Is this another one of those things like biology where you feel like anyone who's studied it at all must be wrong, and only amateurs can be right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,05:05   

Wow Dave,

It is hard for me to let this one go. Maybe I have a personal shortcoming here. (I try to give you one quoteable phrase with every post)

You just went back around to the beginning on the GULO gene. It broke after the fall because god cursed - everything?
So it broke identically in different creatures. Creatures of different "kinds"? At the same time? How many years ago?

On the Portuguese thing, like I said before, the only reason people argued this point is because you are making so many claims that show such an amazing lack of understanding that it was easy to jump on you for making an overly simplified claim. All your claims are overly simplified. As was the Portuguese thing. It turns out I was giving you too much credit. Apparently your argument was based on a small, incomplete bit of historical political circumstantial evidence. When folks here pointed that out, you did what you always do and gleefully shouted "game, set, match!" Rather than realize that there is a lot more subtlety to the issue than you gave it credit for. You made a bet, I took it, and you ignored me and claimed victory. If you are so sure, then have the debate with me. I'll start a thread for it. Remember the stakes. Otherwise, shut up and quit claiming victory.

I have to go back to my original point. You really need some background. Your understanding of natural processes is so fantastically lacking that genetics is a very poor place for you to start. You need to start with geologic time.

Plate techtonics, human anthropology and archaeology, carbon cycle, water cycle, ecosystems, &c.

Darwin wasn't working in a vacuum. And as time has advanced and the body of scientific knowledge has progressed, all of the evidence -all, you hardly ever get to use that word- has fallen in line with predictions of evolution. Just the same as all of the evidence has fallen (pun intended) in line with gravity. There are tweaks here and there but not problems with the principle.

Genetics too, isn't in being studied in a vacuum. The protiens and so on that perform specific functions are doing so in a world where these functions are adaptations to geography, climate &c. Every time. So why did god put citrus in the garden? Or was that the "fruit"? Did god put it there to provide the vit. c we would need once he broke the gene? Wierd that he would break the gene as punishment. I mean, ... oh nevermind.

Better go change, your christianity is on backward.

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

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,05:26   

Quote
[afdave] If you go look at that discussion [the Portuguese = French + Spanish discussion], you see an embarrassing "changing of the subject" by many participants.  Even Steve Story didn't have the guts to challenge my statement after I shot Rilke down.  He chose rather to jump on a silly little side statement I made which had nothing to do with the main discussion.  It's funny how you guys admonish me to admit when I am wrong, which I do, but you guys never do, even though this one was so obvious its hilarious.
Yes, apparently I'm so sure you're wrong I can't even see the hilariously obvious. For instance, I can't see - even though I'm sure it must be staring me in the face - where you've given any evidence at all about the language  (you know, "words", "grammar", stuff like that) and how there's any French in it. And I was fooled into thinking that your statement about Henry of Burgundy taking Portugal in 1143 was a key part of your case, based on this:
Quote
Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?
See, I thought that if you went to all the trouble to define the specific statement you're defending, that meant that that was, well, the specific statement you were defending. But hey, apparently I was wrong, and missed the whole point. So, do all of us poor blinded-by-Darwinism sods a favor and point out what you proved that anyone contested, and I for one will humbly acknowledge it.

By the way, could you give the specific reference to this "medieval encyclopedia" you rely on? I'm curious to learn how little Burgundy was able to spare thousands of knights for such a distant enterprise, and what language those knights were speaking.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,05:46   

Quote
Not only should there be multiple hominid 'societies' in existence today, there should be many, many living 'transitional' species.  The fact that there is not throws all of 'macro-evolutionary theory' (as Theobald calls it) into huge doubt.
This is your conclusion, but (a) you know squat about evolution and (b) no one who does know anything about evolution agrees with you. Any theories about why that might be?

But I have to say, you have finally addressed the question raised by the GULO story, the nested hierarchy of shared errors.

To sum up: the "Darwinist" position is that errors creep in if they're not pruned by selection, and are inherited down through the family tree, leaving an imprinted geneology. I think that's pretty understandable. There's no step in that argument that seems at odds with what we know about how physics, chemistry and biology work. And, at long last, the creationist position is:      
Quote
It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness.  It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology.  (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.)  The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution.  Accordingly, “[i]t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.)
I guess that's as close as we're going to get to that "how" question I keep raising. I.e., not very. And that's why you'll never understand science, davy.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,05:55   

Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,08:02)
I will now be abandoning this thread since I have established my point.  Please bring any further discussion of this issue over to the "Creator God Hypothesis" thread.

Thanks,

AFD

I'm really glad you're abandoning your anti-evolution argument, Dave, beacuse it's become incredibly tedious. You're definitely the black knight on this one, same as with the linguistic argument. You still believe you've "established" your point when you've done nothing of the kind. Do you think you've given a single one of us anything to think about? The only thing we're thinking about is how someone could have such a fatally flawed understanding of something as straightforward as the GULO gene argument, which after more than a week of instruction from people who know it backwards and forwards, you still don't get.

It's dumbfounding, really.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,05:57   

I'm noticing a pattern here. Everyone except AFD is doing research, discussing the issues, weighing the different possibilities, and asking questions. Every twentieth message, AFD comes in, ignores all the questions, declares that he's won, and snarls about Rilke's granddaughter 'admitting defeat'.

Oh yes, and every so often he says that he hopes we'll all come to Jesus.

I sorta don't see the point of responding to AFD anymore, tho some of the linguistic discussions are still interesting. The less they have to do with AFD, the more interesting they are.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,06:00   

Oh, goodie!  2nd Lt. Dave is back to provide amusement, entertainment, and a source of fun.

2nd Lt. Dave, shall we look at your statements again?  Sure we should.

2nd Lt. Dave said  
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).


This is, of course, utter nonsense.  By citing various sources (available on the internet so that 2nd Lt. Dave and the lurkers could check them for accuracy) we demonstrated this.

2nd Lt. Dave, embarrassed by his stupid remark, tried to change it to  
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.
Now this is even funnier, since it's easy to demonstrate (and we did, using easily available sources that 2nd Lt. Dave should have had easy access to) that this entire statement is a lie.  Henry was already dead; French was not the primary linguistic influence on the divergence, etc.

2nd Lt. Dave - continuing his usual unChristian behavior, then started bloviating, ranting, raving, and behaving like the four-year old that we have seen him to be.

He then tried to demonstrate that he was right (even though he was completely wrong) by offering the following wacko piece of nonsense:

1) Lots of French guys were present in Portugal around 1143.

2) French and Catalan had some influence on the phonetics of Portuguese.

3) 2nd Lt. Dave thinks the languages sound alike.

We pointed out (swiftly and accurately) that this did nothing to prove 2nd Lt. Dave's claim about the admixture of French and Spanish: the presence of a group of noblemen in a given area does not correlate to a linguistic change (and since French as we know it didn't exist then, 2nd Lt. Dave's original statement is still fewmets); in order for Portuguese to be French and Spanish mixed, 2nd Lt. Dave would have had to show that Spanish and French elements were both present (which his claim above does NOT show); and that 2nd Lt. Dave's personal opinion is worth as much as water-logged TP).

We also predicted that 2nd Lt. Dave's ego would be unable to bear the fact that he had shown himself to be

* ignorant
* stupid
* unChristian

I am happy to state that we have been proved correct on every point.  I am particularly interested in 2nd. Lt. Dave's extremely unChristian, immoral, dishonest, and deceitful behavior.  Puzzling, but explainable when we realize that YECs are not, after all Christians.

It has been a pleasure making you look like an idiot, 2nd. Lt. Dave, but I admit it was all too easy.  Is this the reason you never got to be even a full lieutenant?  General idiocy?

But I salute you sir, for your determination to be a public moron!  Power to you!

Stick up for your God-given right to be a moron!  You earned it, 2nd Lt. Dave!

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,06:24   

Wow, delusional projection there D/2 I expect you have looked up what projection is on wiki....(smirk)

Seriously still claiming victory on the French Portuguese thingy I see based on a book about medievil ku-nigits, how fitting , any tales of sorcery in them ? Derring do?, Fair Maidens? Any Swords OR DRAGONS... Any missionizing d/2? Rape and pillaging ?.hehehehehe

D/2 BWE is far too generous with you, you are talking out of your arse, a hole in your head, telling a porky pie, a big FAT LIE.

Now a question what was the Linguistic Lineage for todays French and what realtionship does it have to Bourguignon.

For a bonus point when did "French actually come into existance (hint is was several hundred years AFTER your stupid Kunigits of Burgundy or was it Burbons?

You have to give up quoting of bottles of liquor D/2) and for a bonus bonus point when was French first spoken widely in France  

(D/2 the following letters are upside down so you can't read them ...***French only became widely used in France of all places after world war one***)

Check this out bubble boy

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90061

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,06:46   

D/2 this should be up your alley

Fanatic right wing pundit takes down Paleontologist Ted Daeschler shows Stephen his fishapod

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,06:49   

Given the dates and the french thing, I was thinking "Song of Roland" (You know: Roland is fierce and Oliver is wise etc.) but it turns out I was on the wrong track, he was using Don Quixote as his history. And I bet we could have some fun with D/2's interpretation of the hero. Ouch. Hi Ho Rocinante! let us save this damsel from her cruel assailant!

Or is it E.B. White's version of the questing knight? I forget his name. The one that keeps losing his glasses and his faceplate keeps falling.... Pellinore, that's it.

*edit: I forgot the punchline-: Any way you slice it, it's fiction.

--------------
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: May 23 2006,06:50   

Quote
I know you responded to my claim of 'no hominid civilizations' but I don't agree that some bones and cave writing is evidence for this.  My contention is that if apes and humans have a common ancestor, there should be lots of 'beetle brow civilizations' all over the earth with half ape-men who grunt a lot and have a simple language and are at some stage between chimps and humans.


This is the exact opposite of "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" That's a creationist for you. Heads they win, tails you lose.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,07:38   

After that non-explanation, afd has the cluelessness to announce:  
Quote
Common Design explains nested hierarchies better than Common Descent
but of course, that raises the obvious question: "explains to whom?" Certainly not to anyone asking a "what happened? how did it work? what evidence can we use to verify it?" kind of question.  
Quote
and this is not to mention the innumerable difficulties that Common Descent theory encounters everywhere one looks.
Indeed. Let's not mention them, unless you're prepared to examine them in enough detail to see whether they really are "difficulties".  
Quote
I will now be abandoning this thread since I have established my point.  Please bring any further discussion of this issue over to the "Creator God Hypothesis" thread.
Translation: "lalalalala I can't hear you!"

You've established a point, all right. But I suspect it's not the one you think.

And, no, I don't think I'll be joining in the fun on your "Creator God Hypothesis" discussion. I couldn't care less about your religion, and I'm grateful that you've labeled the discussion in such a way that there's no confusion about what it is.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,08:00   

Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,08:02)
Quote
Dave, are errors in broken genes part of a design?
No.  According to YEC theory, organisms were designed perfectly in the beginning.  The Creator then put a curse on all of nature to remind humans of sin and the need for a Saviour, and to remind us that this world is not our true home.  God will at a future time RE-create the heavens and the earth and they will once again be perfect.  Humans who choose to believe God will be with Him eternally in the newly created heavens and earth.  Those who do not will be eternally separated from Him.  Mutations are assumed by creationists to be a part of this "curse."

Dave, you're going to surpass our friend paley.  :)

So god decided to break GULO in all primates, and produce a nested hierachy of shared errors in this peudo-gene, which matches the phylogenies of perfectly designed working genes? Or did it just happen by chance?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,08:06   

Quote (jeannot @ May 23 2006,13:00)
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,08:02)
Quote
Dave, are errors in broken genes part of a design?
No.  According to YEC theory, organisms were designed perfectly in the beginning.  The Creator then put a curse on all of nature to remind humans of sin and the need for a Saviour, and to remind us that this world is not our true home.  God will at a future time RE-create the heavens and the earth and they will once again be perfect.  Humans who choose to believe God will be with Him eternally in the newly created heavens and earth.  Those who do not will be eternally separated from Him.  Mutations are assumed by creationists to be a part of this "curse."

Dave, you're going to surpass our friend paley.  :)

So god decided to break GULO in all primates, and produce a nested hierachy of shared errors in this peudo-gene, which matches the phylogenies of perfectly designed working genes? Or did it just happen by chance?

Yes. God got way pissed at us for that Garden of Eden thing, so he took away our Vitamin C as punishment.

I'm, uh, not sure why all the other primates got their Vitamin C taken away, too. Hopefully AFD will explain that.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,09:05   

Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,08:02)
"thousands of French knights" coming in, the intermarriage with French nobility, the conquest of Lisbon, and the subsequent adoption of the dialect of Lisbon as Standard Portuguese.  Now, if all that is unconvincing to you, then I can't help you.

Oh man... I did some further reading, and it's amazing how many things Dave is simply pulling out of his ass at this point:

Which was really the dialect spoken in Lisbon (and the mother tongue of the majority) during the time of its Portugese conquest, Dave?

Which was really the official Portuguese
language after Latin, Dave? When did it become official, and by who?


If anyone's (still) interested, you can find the answers here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon#Moorish_Rule

http://libro.uca.edu/payne1/spainport1.htm

(Chapter 6- where you can also see who the "thousands of French Knights" were, and how much they really influenced Portugal culturally and linguistically...)

In short, Dave's "medieval encyclopedia" is probably some book about Templars and the Holy Grail.

Dave's "logic" here is the same as with evolution. He has an opinion he just has to prove, because he knows it's right, and tries to overemphasize details, undermine serious issues and ignore or deny (or hide) crucial facts to make reality twist according to his views.

One thing though... Dave, lying for Jesus is deplorable, but at least it's understandable in a way- "aim justifies the means" and all that.
In an issue such as this, who are you lying for, Dave?

--------------
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."

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,09:19   

Missionary AFDave sobs

 
Quote
I will now be abandoning this thread since I have established my point.  Please bring any further discussion of this issue over to the "Creator God Hypothesis" thread.


Once again we see AFDave the coward turn tail and run after getting his lies and pathetic attempts at "evidence" shredded into so much confetti.

Never fear dear readers.  Dave has "declared victory" in order to save a teeny bit of his dignity (didn't work though Dave, now did it?) and will soon deliver his next sermon, er, bit of YEC "evidence"

All together now - let's serenade Dave as he goes to his next battle with the evil atheist scientists:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.

BTW Dave, I was right about you washing out of T-38 training, wasn't I?   ;)

--------------
"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.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,10:12   

Quote
Maybe you and Arden and Rilke and Faid can start a whole thread to in effect prove me wrong when I say the sky is blue.


the problem is Dave, we are the ones saying the sky is blue, YOU are the one saying it isn't.

not only that, but we showed you WHY the sky is blue, in great detail, and you still can't fathom it.

Why are you here?

Quote
It isnt just based on sequence identity. It is the mutations that have occured that are the important part, but you seem to be ignoring this point.


ignoring it, willfully, because understanding any point we actually make here would deflate his argument, and in his mind, even that tiny bit of doubt is unacceptable.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,10:32   

Quote
I'm, uh, not sure why all the other primates got their Vitamin C taken away, too. Hopefully AFD will explain that.


meh, I'm sure god thought we all look alike.  Apes, humans; what's the diff?

and he probably even said:

"Whatever.  I'll sort it all out later"

;)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,10:42   

Quote
In short, Dave's "medieval encyclopedia" is probably some book about Templars and the Holy Grail.


Dave's encyclopedia is The Davinci Code?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,11:13   

Don Quixote.

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

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,12:10   

touche.

  
  685 replies since May 08 2006,03:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (23) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]