RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Prescribed Evo. Hypothesis Boosting, Cheerleading for PEH goes here.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,03:07   

Quote (stevestory @ May 31 2006,07:24)
For the most part, creationists fall into two camps. Slightly daffy Old Earth Creationists (Dembski, Behe) and batshit crazy Young Earth Creationists (Salvador, AFDave). An exception to the rule is Paul Nelson, a YEC who can actually string two coherent sentences together (one of them may be a lie, but that's beside the point). I don't care how Salvador and AFDave justify their beliefs, they're idiots. But Paul Nelson is not as dumb as they are. I'd like to know how he justifies being a YEC despite all the evidence. I haven't had much luck finding where he defends this. Can anyone point me to where he explains how he can be a YEC?

I would disagree with what you said. You stated that  " For the most part, creationists fall into two camps"? Do you think that is a truthful statement? I would say no. You act like it's a conspiracy against the Darwin faction and that isn't the case.
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. I would even say from what we know the Genome might hold some of those answers.
 Believe it or not the "Flat Earth Theory" is based on the best scientific technology available of THAT day and that was direct observation.  
Sorry to disappoint you in your post but I don't buy it.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:08   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,01:07)
Quote (stevestory @ May 31 2006,07:24)
For the most part, creationists fall into two camps. Slightly daffy Old Earth Creationists (Dembski, Behe) and batshit crazy Young Earth Creationists (Salvador, AFDave). An exception to the rule is Paul Nelson, a YEC who can actually string two coherent sentences together (one of them may be a lie, but that's beside the point). I don't care how Salvador and AFDave justify their beliefs, they're idiots. But Paul Nelson is not as dumb as they are. I'd like to know how he justifies being a YEC despite all the evidence. I haven't had much luck finding where he defends this. Can anyone point me to where he explains how he can be a YEC?

I would disagree with what you said. You stated that  " For the most part, creationists fall into two camps"? Do you think that is a truthful statement? I would say no. You act like it's a conspiracy against the Darwin faction and that isn't the case.
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. I would even say from what we know the Genome might hold some of those answers.
 Believe it or not the "Flat Earth Theory" is based on the best scientific technology available of THAT day and that was direct observation.  
Sorry to disappoint you in your post but I don't buy it.

Hi DaEvans. Are you familiar with the theories of Nathan Poe?.

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

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:08   

Also your all forgetting about "Professor John A. Davison's work", he is definitely not in either "camps". furthermore the unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell.
 We need a more scientifically fulfilling mechanism, one that takes in account advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology. The present model simply doesn't meet that standard however a "preexisting genomic mechanism" could.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:09   

Hi Have you heard from Alan Fox lately?

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

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:13   

Are you referring to http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Nathan+Poe

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:17   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:08)
Also your all forgetting about "Professor John A. Davison's work", he is definitely not in either "camps". furthermore the unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell.
 We need a more scientifically fulfilling mechanism, one that takes in account advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology. The present model simply doesn't meet that standard however a "preexisting genomic mechanism" could.

You seem like you might have some scientific background.  There are a lot of scientists in a variety of disciplines on this site. It might be helpful to understand what your specific background is, so that information about various subjects can be tailored to your level of familiarity.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:18   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:13)
Are you referring to http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Nathan+Poe

yep.

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

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:30   

Hello, sorry I didn't see post. Biology.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:35   

Alan Fox would be Professor Davison.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:37   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:30)
Hello, sorry I didn't see post. Biology.

Okay.  Could you be a little more specific as to what focus areas within biology and at what level you studied them?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:43   

I am a med student.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:43   

We have to realize what is at stake here:
Isn’t it as simple as (IIRC) Kurt Wise says, "The Bible says it, that settles it"?

The Gordian knot:

The Bible is the Word of God.
Jesus saved us from our sins by dying on the cross.
He arose from the dead and became Christ.
The Gospels are evidence, are they not?
His resurrection is evidence we shall be resurrected.
That is all evidence that there is an afterlife in Heaven for the faithful.

Who wants to sacrifice all that on the altar of science? No hope, just a more or less miserable
fourscore years here, and that’s’ that. No harp, no reunion with our loved ones, they’re all gone forever, as we ourselves will be when our time is up.

Why should we be good, why not rape, steal and murder? Fuck morals, be a beast.

Evolution doesn’t stand much of chance against that.

Its’ like you have a $100 million lotto coupon in your pocket and the moment you say RM&NS did it, the ticket is gone.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:46   

Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it?

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:15   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,00:46)
Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it?

You mentioned John Davison; that's almost the same thing. John is one true christian, don't you know!

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:27   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46)
Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it?

You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this:

Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me?

Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that.

Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is.

Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3.

Step 5.  The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship.

Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery.

Step 7.  LOLCats!



Step 8.  The anti-evolutionist says "You guys are mean!", throws out some version of Pascal's Wager, and flounces out.

So far, my friend, you have successfully gotten through Step 1 and 2.  And I am trying to help you through Step 3, but you are being rather vague.

So, in answer to your question, you didn't mention God.......yet.  And maybe you won't.   But you would be the first.





Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 21 2010,18:19

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:32   

boy, that's a cop out.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:34   

I just saw your reply carlsonjok I will reply on Monday I have to get some sleep.

Thanks

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:38   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:32)
boy, that's a cop out.

You'll need to learn how to use the quote button in the upper right hand corner of the comment you are responding to. Because I have no idea who you are responding to, me or Alan.

EDIT:  The rest of my comment was purged because I though our new friend was responding to me.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:43   

carlsonjok, To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible. I will continue this with you on Monday.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:44   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,06:38)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:32)
boy, that's a cop out.

You'll need to learn how to use the quote button in the upper right hand corner of the comment you are responding to. Because I have no idea who you are responding to, me or Alan.

EDIT:  The rest of my comment was purged because I though our new friend was responding to me.

Sorry my first day posting.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:47   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 21 2010,06:15)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,00:46)
Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it?

You mentioned John Davison; that's almost the same thing. John is one true christian, don't you know!

boy, that's a cop out.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:49   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:51   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:43)
carlsonjok, To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible. I will continue this with you on Monday.

Actually, I am just your humble tour guide to navigate you through the building. The restrooms are over there ----->

There will be real scientists to explain the exhibits to you.  Don't forget to visit the gift shop on the way out.  BTW, when you see words underlined. That is a hyperlink. Follow it.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:54   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

I read your post. You comments have so much straw you could play the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:55   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

Giving up so early, Albie?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:55   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,06:51)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:43)
carlsonjok, To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible. I will continue this with you on Monday.

Actually, I am just your humble tour guide to navigate you through the building. The restrooms are over there ----->

There will be real scientists to explain the exhibits to you.  Don't forget to visit the gift shop on the way out.  BTW, when you see words underlined. That is a hyperlink. Follow it.

Thanks for being such a gracious host.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:58   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:54)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

I read your post. You comments have so much straw you could play the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz.



Ooo, bad form. You have skipped ahead to Step 4 and we haven't even started step 3.   Gonna have to walk you back 10 yards for illegal procedure.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:59   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:54)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

I read your post. You comments have so much straw you could play the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz.

Right.

So support your assertion that one side claims that "evolution is a complete picture" or that "evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained".

Evidence, please.

thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:00   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26858.php

"And no reputable scientist would assert that."

p

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:02   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,07:00)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26858.php

"And no reputable scientist would assert that."

p

That's odd.

I didn't find any statement in that link about evolutionary theory being complete.

How surprising.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:09   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,07:02)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,07:00)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
 
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26858.php

"And no reputable scientist would assert that."

p

That's odd.

I didn't find any statement in that link about evolutionary theory being complete.

How surprising.

Aww, come on guys!  You're not even trying here. Daevans skips step 3 and charges into 4. Then Albie skips 5 and rushes into 6.



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:12   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,07:09)
Aww, come on guys!  You're not even trying here. Daevans skips step 3 and charges into 4. Then Albie skips 5 and rushes into 6.

Well, you shouldn't have posted that timeline. It just gives people bad ideas.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:17   

Looks like a new chewing toy has arrived.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:18   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 21 2010,07:17)
Looks like a new chewing toy has arrived.

And already departed.

So I'm skipping to step 7!



--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:52   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 21 2010,05:17)
Looks like a new chewing toy has arrived.

I'm gonna have to go with an old chew toy has returned looking half a century younger and at the beginning of a long series of let-downs rather than the end of 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

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,08:11   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,11:08)
Also your all forgetting about "Professor John A. Davison's work", he is definitely not in either "camps". furthermore the unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell.
 We need a more scientifically fulfilling mechanism, one that takes in account advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology. The present model simply doesn't meet that standard however a "preexisting genomic mechanism" could.

So, you're a med student. Then you might've heard about something called antibodies. Our immune system can produce antibodies against almost everything that invades the body although our genome doesn't code for every possible antibody. Instead, during the maturation of B cells (the antibody producing cells) in each B cell precursor the antibody-coding gene is randomly assembled from some gene segments. There're about 10000 possible combinations, plus variations in the binding regions between segments.
Whichever B cell binds however weakly to a specific invader (= an antigen) gets a signal through that binding to start proliferating. The progeny inherits of course the newly assembled antibody gene but in addition a gene that's also activated in the proliferating B cell introduces random mutations in the antibody gene so that each progeny cell gets a slightly modified version. This new version can bind better or worse to the antigen than the original version. The better the binding the stronger the survival signal for the daughter cell - so, if the binding is more efficient in one cell than the other, the cell with the better antibody will produce more offspring than the other. With each proliferation cycle this step is repeated until in the end only B cells survive* that produce high-affinity antibodies against the antigen.

At which point did the intelligent antibody designer inject the information about how to produce high-affinity antibodies against this antigen? Since this information isn't contained in the genome it must be new information that according to you can't come about by mutation and selection. So, where did it come from in your opinion?


* Or more specific, B cells with high-affinity antibodies outcompete the rest.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,08:17   

Just to make it clear, what I had in mind was Paul Nelson.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,08:33   

Daevans,

I hope you have an ample supply of KY handy

(Oh boy!...this is goona be great!...sitting back with a large popcorn....)

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,10:40   

DAEvans:

 
Quote

You act like it's a conspiracy against the Darwin faction and that isn't the case.


Two words: cdesign proponentsists.

ETA: corrected spelling.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 23 2010,13:54

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,11:17   

Quote (Steverino @ Feb. 21 2010,08:33)
(Oh boy!...this is goona be great!...sitting back with a large popcorn....)

I think this is another hit-n-run troll from Dr Dr D's spring class barrel o' monkeys.

Dale got the 10 post minimum, but I don't think he made it to the required 3000 words. So perhaps he'll be back.

Just in case Dr. Dr. D. ever checks the URLs that his monkeys turn in, perhaps he can answer a question I've had ever since I first clapped eyes on one of his syllabi.

Is that epigram at the top ("What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.") supposed to be deep, ironic, or WTF?

thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,11:38   

Quote
Dale got the 10 post minimum, but I don't think he made it to the required 3000 words. So perhaps he'll be back.


Based on the honesty and integrity traditions established by the actions of Paul Nelson, WAD and "Dr." Kent Hovind, I'm guessing that our Newest Christian Clown will be counting what we typed as part of "his" 3,000 words.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:01   

As soon as I read something as moronic as this

Quote
unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell.


I jump directly to stage 6.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:22   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,04:27)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46)
Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it?

You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this:

Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me?

......

I nominate this for a double post of the moment award with clusters!!!11!!eleven

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:25   

AtBC posse: "King to bishop six, check."

Cryptocreo: (flaps wings, craps on K4, flies away to collect Dembski-credits)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,14:16   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,11:17)
Quote (Steverino @ Feb. 21 2010,08:33)
(Oh boy!...this is goona be great!...sitting back with a large popcorn....)

I think this is another hit-n-run troll from Dr Dr D's spring class barrel o' monkeys.

Dale got the 10 post minimum, but I don't think he made it to the required 3000 words. So perhaps he'll be back.

Just in case Dr. Dr. D. ever checks the URLs that his monkeys turn in, perhaps he can answer a question I've had ever since I first clapped eyes on one of his syllabi.

Is that epigram at the top ("What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.") supposed to be deep, ironic, or WTF?

thanks

Darn!....It's been a while since I have seen you guys disembowel a CreoTard or IDiot.

It's like driving by a really nasty car crash...you know you shouldn't look....but, you just can't help yourself.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,14:28   

These creatobots seem to be leaving very quickly.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,14:38   

Seriously, could I get points towards a ThD by dropping into a science discussion group, type "Jon Davison" and bugger off?

Sorry, Professor Jon Davison.

I've always wanted to be Rev Bill.  Or maybe just The Rev.  I could marry people in bars and that would be cool.  "I now pronounce you trouble and strife."  

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,15:04   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:00)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
   
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26858.php

"And no reputable scientist would assert that."

p

You are a malpractice lawyer's wet-dream. How can your ability to read be so pathetic that you really think that the linked news item from 2005 asserted that "everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained?"

Read this from the news item: (Sound out the words if needed)
Quote
Batzer explained that the exact purpose or function of these elements is still debated, but understanding their basic behavior and history could be crucial to finding answers in the future.


Now compare with, "everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained." I am worried for your future patients.

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 21 2010,13:05

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:09   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. I would even say from what we know the Genome might hold some of those answers.

Like What?

Feel free to Be as Technical as you like, 'medical Student'.

Do you think Alu elements are Evidences for Creation?

Are you a moron?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:19   

Ooo, ERV's here.

This should be good.  

As in Olympic women's hockey, Canada vs. Slovakia 'good'.

(fnxtr butters popcorn, sits back to watch)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:31   

I felt a disturbance in The Force... as if a million mobile elements cried out in horror...

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:36   

fuck carlson that is spectacular.

and you broke it already.

mebbe

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,22:19   

dembski's class comes here? Where's the dembski wall of shame thread?

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,04:00   

Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2010,02:09)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. I would even say from what we know the Genome might hold some of those answers.

Like What?

Feel free to Be as Technical as you like, 'medical Student'.

Do you think Alu elements are Evidences for Creation?

Are you a moron?

LOL "Be as technical as you like". Tee hee hee. Oh I'll take Ł100 on no technical ability beyond "cut and paste" or maybe "slight reword of cut and paste".

Ah, my cynicism, it's acting up again. Maybe this new chum really is the one with the oft touted-never seen "Fallacy Free Creationist Argument". After all, asking about increasing genomic information is really rare. I've never heard that one before. No, really. I'll also bet that a consistent definition of "information" from our new chum will take some time to come forth. I'll bet that even when it does emerge the standard equivocation with woolly terms like "meaning" accompany it.

I am also tickled pink by the sanctimonious instruction that a theory of such import needs examining because otherwise accepting it with all its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible. Wow. This is such a novel concept. I'll run off and tell all my colleagues about it immediately. No other scientist I've ever talked to has ever thought of examining current theories with a sceptical eye and some intellectual rigour. This will revolutionise the world! I predict we scientists will get right on this.

Louis

ETA Because this cannot be used enough:



--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,07:18   

ahhhh, now it makes sense to me.

ashamed of his 5000th post, Louis has created a sock with which to troll the ATBC board.

should be fun!  at least his sock has TWO eyebrows!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,07:48   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 22 2010,08:18)
ahhhh, now it makes sense to me.

ashamed of his 5000th post, Louis has created a sock with which to troll the ATBC board.

should be fun!  at least his sock has TWO eyebrows!

I have to agree on sock - his avatar is one of the captains of the TARDis.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,07:58   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 22 2010,12:18)
ahhhh, now it makes sense to me.

ashamed of his 5000th post, Louis has created a sock with which to troll the ATBC board.

should be fun!  at least his sock has TWO eyebrows!

Sock? I don't have a) that much time or b) the inclination. I can make crappy arguments under my own name thanks!

Louis

ETA P.S. Also, "Evans" is a Welsh surname. No. Just no. I'd at least pretend to be American if I was going to bother. Spelling things wrong would amuse me for starters.

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,09:54   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2010,07:58)
Spelling things wrong would amuse me for starters.

Like this?

Spelling things wroung would amouse me for starters.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,11:36   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 22 2010,14:54)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2010,07:58)
Spelling things wrong would amuse me for starters.

Like this?

Spelling things wroung would amouse me for starters.

Ouh absouloutely.

Lououis

--------------
Bye.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,11:41   

My money's on "DNA is like computer code".

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,12:25   

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 22 2010,09:41)
My money's on "DNA is like computer code".

So----

There must be a programer!!!!1!!!1!!!!!111!!!!!!one

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,12:40   

I love the gradual creationist retreat

"God did it"  

to

"designer did it"

to

"evolution can't do that"

to

"okay evolution can do that, but..."

to

"evolution was fine tuned"

to

"initial environment was fine tuned"

..

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,12:40   

There is no way that DrDrD would give credit for such weak performances. Why, that would be pandering to students.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,12:56   

Weak?

Looked better than average to me.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:19   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 22 2010,10:40)
Why, that would be pandering to students.

Pander.  Is that British for Panda?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,20:10   

How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:29   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)
 I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

And no reputable scientist would assert that.

So it's a strawman.

Good luck with med school.



Your Straw man comments are most revealing;
Wallace (1856)-"Naturalists are too apt to imagine, when they cannot discover, a use for everything in nature: they are not even content to let "beauty" be a sufficient use, but hunt after some purpose to which even that can be applied by the animal itself, as if one of the noblest and most refining parts of man's nature, the love of beauty for its own sake, would not be perceptible also in the works of a Supreme Creator. The separate species of which the organic world consists being parts of a whole, we must suppose some dependence of each upon all; some general design which has determined the details, quite independently of individual necessities. We look upon the anomalies, the eccentricities, the exaggerated or diminished development of certain parts, as indications of a general system of nature, by a careful study of which we may learn much that is at present hidden from us..."

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:32   

Way to stay focussed, there, D. Very cogent arguments.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:40   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,21:29)
Your Straw man comments are most revealing;
Wallace (1856)-"Naturalists ...blah,blah,blahst...Supreme Creator... blah, blah blahations of a general system of nature, by a careful study of which we may learn much that is at present hidden from us..."

WTF? Total non-sequiter, as far as I can discern.  Enlighten me, please.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:44   

He's building up to his theo-blurt. There will be bible references too, if we're "lucky".

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:46   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,04:27)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46)
Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it?

You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this:

Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me?

Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that.

Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is.

Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3.

Step 5.  The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship.

Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery.

Step 7.  LOLCats!



Step 8.  The anti-evolutionist says "You guys are mean!", throws out some version of Pascal's Wager, and flounces out.

So far, my friend, you have successfully gotten through Step 1 and 2.  And I am trying to help you through Step 3, but you are being rather vague.

So, in answer to your question, you didn't mention God.......yet.  And maybe you won't.   But you would be the first.




Carlson, where does a Wallace quote fit in there?

DAEvans, are you just padding your word count? Why are you going on about your conception of people rather than your ideas about science?  I'm quite sure that if you ask honest questions you will get honest answers around here. It's actually not a bad opportunity to learn or teach because there are a lot of bright and informed people who visit often enough that you could bounce ideas around pretty quickly with a wide variety of people.

Faith isn't usually much of an idea for debate though. If you want to talk about whether faith and science are incompatible, there is an excellent thread from a couple of years back (now but I bumped it last fall so it might not be too far back) started by a guy named louis titled, "No reason for a rift between faith and science? A chance for skeptic to prove his claims." If memory serves.

It is amazing in terns of the content. Maybe you want to resurrect it?

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

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:47   

Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:48   

Ha. I beat you to it. :) ^^^

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

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:55   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2010,21:48)
Ha. I beat you to it. :) ^^^

Gotta be quick around here. Snooze, u lose.
Those of us in the west coast time zone often get the last word, after everybody else has gone beddy-bye, and before the eurofolk have inhaled that first cup.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:16   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,21:29)
Your Straw man comments are most revealing;
Wallace (1856)-"Naturalists are too apt to imagine, when they cannot discover, a use for everything in nature: they are not even content to let "beauty" be a sufficient use, but hunt after some purpose to which even that can be applied by the animal itself, as if one of the noblest and most refining parts of man's nature, the love of beauty for its own sake, would not be perceptible also in the works of a Supreme Creator. The separate species of which the organic world consists being parts of a whole, we must suppose some dependence of each upon all; some general design which has determined the details, quite independently of individual necessities. We look upon the anomalies, the eccentricities, the exaggerated or diminished development of certain parts, as indications of a general system of nature, by a careful study of which we may learn much that is at present hidden from us..."

That is all you got?

All fucking day, and that is it???

I don't think that anyone with a pea brain and a decent education would insist that every quirk and twist of morphology must have had a direct positive selection.

In fact, there cannot be such a person. There are hundreds of articles on the effect of negative selection. There are hundreds of papers on neutral, or genetic drift- genome changes not selected for anything, anyway.


Wallace would probably have freaked-out at abstract expressionism as an exhibit of "the love of beauty for its own sake, ... perceptible also in the works of a Supreme Creator."

But, from a theistic evolutionary perspective, that very random yet controlled patterning is near the core of faith in God. And what would not contradict Wallace is that various expressions of the Mandelbrot set are considered beauty.



That is some random variation filtered by selection, Baby!

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 22 2010,22:19

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:38   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,06:27)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46)
Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it?

You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this:

Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me?

Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that.

Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is.

Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3.

Step 5.  The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship.

Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery.

Step 7.  LOLCats!



Step 8.  The anti-evolutionist says "You guys are mean!", throws out some version of Pascal's Wager, and flounces out.

So far, my friend, you have successfully gotten through Step 1 and 2.  And I am trying to help you through Step 3, but you are being rather vague.

So, in answer to your question, you didn't mention God.......yet.  And maybe you won't.   But you would be the first.




http://homebuyersadvocate.files.wordpress.com/2008....4&h=374

I thought this pic best described most of the people who responded in this forum. So I edited your nonsense and put down what you really meant.

We saw what you wrote but what you really meant.

Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me?
(I never asked that I made a statement that I knew what it was)

Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that.

( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)


Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is

( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here  from the adolescent attacks,  the rest you wrote is just crap. What is even more remarkable is that man being the result of undirected causes believes himself capable of defining a reality that is unpredictable if undirected. Why you want to remain ignorant is of coarse your own business not mine).

Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3.
( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. I would say you miss understand my attention... again. I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer,  your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. The Darwinist attempts to deny that intelligent causes do not exist when all one needs do is imagine the progress and advancements of civilization without intelligence. The view of the metaphysical naturalist that wholly undirected natural causes govern the universe is patently false. Believing so is based on superstition and misguided faith. Darwinist depend on a "dumb public" for support and of coarse forums like this were numerous people can ambush anyone who question Darwin)


Step 5.  The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship.

( First let's be honest  you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". The same thing happened in the 60's with another religious movement which taught the same rebellious doctrine.)
( I would further state  Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. Let's not forget that when Darwin first theorized evolution, he had no method for inheritance and no rigorous predictive capacity.)

Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery.

( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. On another level Scientist do disagree on this. Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?.What we see is  that mankind is anywhere near as close to explaining and defining origins let alone the workings of the universe , but what we do need is better and more in depth methods of observation.Darwin is definitely being exposed and will suffer more blows to it's shaky foundation. If that angers the atheist in these forums so what. Science is about being popular it's about searching for real answers all which have taken a back seat to a ideology which is now beginning to suffer major set backs.

Step 7.  LOLCats!
(I don't need "LOL" I have the beauty of real science and the truth Darwin is a failed model.Who can ask for more??)

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:48   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 22 2010,23:47)
Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing.

Well, with his last post, he's a bit closer.  Always amusing how creotards think they know how "Darwinism" works - of course, since they made up that word, they can say anything the like about it.  Now, if he had started claiming that he understands how Darwinian evolution works, he might be closer to reality.

I also laugh at the "unfounded believe [sic] in Atheism" - I got my lack of belief in a deity after researching multiple religions, looking at philosophy, theology (what a waste), archaeology, history, higher criticism (of the bible), biology, paleontology, physics...a whole lot of stuff, using skepticism and critical thinking and a commitment to believing in things for which there is evidence (no matter what I might want to believe, or what I "felt" about my discoveries).

But since I'm trying to get a couple of students ready for graduation, I'll just sit back and let the rest of you play with the chew toy.  Got no popcorn, so maybe I'll have a bacon narwhal.

edited the quote to what he wrote.  I'll also wait for the scientists here to come by.  Obviously, he knows none if he thinks scientists don't use insults or act like human beings.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:50   

Wow, fucktard just scored a perfect 7!!11!111111!!!!!!!

And you guys didn't think he could do a double head-insert-in-ass-backflip.

Oh you of little faith.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:51   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10)
How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with.

I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell?
it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:51   

Ah, we've reached step 4.  All pretenses dropped.  Unsupported assertions spewed with abandon. Atheism is religion.  Evolution is false and evil.  Mockery ensues (step 6). Anything else?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:59   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 23 2010,00:50)
Wow, fucktard just scored a perfect 7!!11!111111!!!!!!!

And you guys didn't think he could do a double head-insert-in-ass-backflip.

Oh you of little faith.

Oh, those are your subconscious thoughts. I shouldn't listen to them too hard if I were you. If your dog tells you to kill someone, unless it's your own suicide I would stay away from voices in your head.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,01:03   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 23 2010,00:51)
Ah, we've reached step 4.  All pretenses dropped.  Unsupported assertions spewed with abandon. Atheism is religion.  Evolution is false and evil.  Mockery ensues (step 6). Anything else?

yes step 4, your pretenses are quite delightful. There's no point in being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,01:22   

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 23 2010,00:48)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 22 2010,23:47)
Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing.

Well, with his last post, he's a bit closer.  Always amusing how creotards think they know how "Darwinism" works - of course, since they made up that word, they can say anything the like about it.  Now, if he had started claiming that he understands how Darwinian evolution works, he might be closer to reality.

I also laugh at the "unfounded believe [sic] in Atheism" - I got my lack of belief in a deity after researching multiple religions, looking at philosophy, theology (what a waste), archaeology, history, higher criticism (of the bible), biology, paleontology, physics...a whole lot of stuff, using skepticism and critical thinking and a commitment to believing in things for which there is evidence (no matter what I might want to believe, or what I "felt" about my discoveries).

But since I'm trying to get a couple of students ready for graduation, I'll just sit back and let the rest of you play with the chew toy.  Got no popcorn, so maybe I'll have a bacon narwhal.

edited the quote to what he wrote.  I'll also wait for the scientists here to come by.  Obviously, he knows none if he thinks scientists don't use insults or act like human beings.

Never guess, unless you have to; there's enough uncertainty in the universe as it is.

I stand by the great words of Professor Davison-Atheists in science should not only be antagonized; they should be thoroughly despised, ridiculed and exposed. Unless, of course, you happen to be one yourself!

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,01:23   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,01:22)
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 23 2010,00:48)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 22 2010,23:47)
Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing.

Well, with his last post, he's a bit closer.  Always amusing how creotards think they know how "Darwinism" works - of course, since they made up that word, they can say anything the like about it.  Now, if he had started claiming that he understands how Darwinian evolution works, he might be closer to reality.

I also laugh at the "unfounded believe [sic] in Atheism" - I got my lack of belief in a deity after researching multiple religions, looking at philosophy, theology (what a waste), archaeology, history, higher criticism (of the bible), biology, paleontology, physics...a whole lot of stuff, using skepticism and critical thinking and a commitment to believing in things for which there is evidence (no matter what I might want to believe, or what I "felt" about my discoveries).

But since I'm trying to get a couple of students ready for graduation, I'll just sit back and let the rest of you play with the chew toy.  Got no popcorn, so maybe I'll have a bacon narwhal.

edited the quote to what he wrote.  I'll also wait for the scientists here to come by.  Obviously, he knows none if he thinks scientists don't use insults or act like human beings.

Never guess, unless you have to; there's enough uncertainty in the universe as it is.

I stand by the great words of Professor Davison-Atheists in science should not only be antagonized; they should be thoroughly despised, ridiculed and exposed. Unless, of course, you happen to be one yourself!

well I guess no one want to play anymore. Goodnight.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,02:36   

I don't feel like playing, you seem to have realized that there isn't anything to be learned here that you didn't already know. Dembski's place would suit you better. I believe Dembski would be proud of you, you seem to have all the qualities required to be a contributor and moderator there.

I suppose I do not need point you to AiG, CMI and all the other excellent anti-atheistic forums out there, they most certainly will provide much better answers that you may get here. Evolution fairytale is another place I think might suit your taste.

But by all means, do come back here whenever you think you have learned something we haven't heard before. Don't expect to learn anything here that you didn't learn in kindergarten.

BTW, there is something called books. In lack of education and schooling, that's what I've been using the past 65 years and I am not finished yet. Just in case you'd want to learn something you don't want to know.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,03:03   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)
Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?

ROFL. Yes indeed.

But can you actually name them?

If not, retract your claim.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,03:18   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,22:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10)
How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with.

I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell?
it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.

BTW, Totally agree with this point^

Not this quite as much:
Quote
( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)
As a strangely coincidental matter of fact, I just powsted a monstrous post on that exact subject in the thread just below this one. I think it would be neat if you offered commentary on it.


But regardless, I'm your man regarding the learning alternate viewpoints. Please teach me. I assist the world's greatest middle school science teacher  with an integrated 3 year curricculum and I'm always looking for new stuff. If you have it, I'll learn it and you might even get your ideas into a middle school curriculum. I live in Portland, OR so religion in science class in terms of theories about the physical world isn't much of a problem as long as they teach science honestly. And they do. We have mostly educated people around here so religion is vanishingly thin. Part of our integrated curriculum on physical science year as a matter of fact coincides with ancient civilizations year and we do a science of ancient civilizations unit where the teachers split 4 classrooms up into 5 groups and they have to learn about the civilization. Up to a quarter of the kids don't know the difference between Hinu, Islam and christianity. They have simply never considered the question.

So please, I am your eager pupil. I await information.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,03:31   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,01:03)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)
Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?

ROFL. Yes indeed.

But can you actually name them?

If not, retract your claim.

The Rhode Island school is a front. Don't trust them. :)

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

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,04:55   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 23 2010,02:36)
I don't feel like playing, you seem to have realized that there isn't anything to be learned here that you didn't already know. Dembski's place would suit you better. I believe Dembski would be proud of you, you seem to have all the qualities required to be a contributor and moderator there.

I suppose I do not need point you to AiG, CMI and all the other excellent anti-atheistic forums out there, they most certainly will provide much better answers that you may get here. Evolution fairytale is another place I think might suit your taste.

But by all means, do come back here whenever you think you have learned something we haven't heard before. Don't expect to learn anything here that you didn't learn in kindergarten.

BTW, there is something called books. In lack of education and schooling, that's what I've been using the past 65 years and I am not finished yet. Just in case you'd want to learn something you don't want to know.

What Darwin followers will never admit. Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:04   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,04:55)

What Darwin followers will never admit.

It's really about what you have evidence for, not what people will "admit".
 
Quote
Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario

Citation please.
 
Quote
just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed.

Argument from authority? To be expected I suppose.
Quote
subsequent history of life

Please explain cancer, HIV etc in the light of a planned scenario.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:05   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,03:18)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,22:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10)
How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with.

I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell?
it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.

BTW, Totally agree with this point^

Not this quite as much:
Quote
( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)
As a strangely coincidental matter of fact, I just powsted a monstrous post on that exact subject in the thread just below this one. I think it would be neat if you offered commentary on it.


But regardless, I'm your man regarding the learning alternate viewpoints. Please teach me. I assist the world's greatest middle school science teacher  with an integrated 3 year curricculum and I'm always looking for new stuff. If you have it, I'll learn it and you might even get your ideas into a middle school curriculum. I live in Portland, OR so religion in science class in terms of theories about the physical world isn't much of a problem as long as they teach science honestly. And they do. We have mostly educated people around here so religion is vanishingly thin. Part of our integrated curriculum on physical science year as a matter of fact coincides with ancient civilizations year and we do a science of ancient civilizations unit where the teachers split 4 classrooms up into 5 groups and they have to learn about the civilization. Up to a quarter of the kids don't know the difference between Hinu, Islam and christianity. They have simply never considered the question.

So please, I am your eager pupil. I await information.

BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf .

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:05   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,03:03)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)
Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?

ROFL. Yes indeed.

But can you actually name them?

If not, retract your claim.

Did you miss this? Providing evidence for your claims is the first step to breaking out of the prison you've allowed yourself to get comfortable in.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:06   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:05)
BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf .

What "pro-Darwinian" literature have you read Daniel?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:07   

Or should I say JAD?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:11   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:04)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,04:55)

What Darwin followers will never admit.

It's really about what you have evidence for, not what people will "admit".
   
Quote
Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario

Citation please.
   
Quote
just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed.

Argument from authority? To be expected I suppose.
Quote
subsequent history of life

Please explain cancer, HIV etc in the light of a planned scenario.

One of the best Ant-Darwinian's today is Professor John A. Davison. His work is by far the best to date.From what we know we can eliminate  both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models,I am sorry boys they both failed. But there is hope.  Professor Davison's has postulate the only conceivable explanation summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). The only real issue has always been the MECHANISM for phylogeny. The PEH along with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) provide that mechanism which is now for all time next to the works of the great biologists whose common and largely independent findings permit of no other satisfactory explanation for the great mystery of organic evolution.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:15   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,03:05)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,03:18)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,22:51)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10)
How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with.

I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell?
it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.

BTW, Totally agree with this point^

Not this quite as much:  
Quote
( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)
As a strangely coincidental matter of fact, I just powsted a monstrous post on that exact subject in the thread just below this one. I think it would be neat if you offered commentary on it.


But regardless, I'm your man regarding the learning alternate viewpoints. Please teach me. I assist the world's greatest middle school science teacher  with an integrated 3 year curricculum and I'm always looking for new stuff. If you have it, I'll learn it and you might even get your ideas into a middle school curriculum. I live in Portland, OR so religion in science class in terms of theories about the physical world isn't much of a problem as long as they teach science honestly. And they do. We have mostly educated people around here so religion is vanishingly thin. Part of our integrated curriculum on physical science year as a matter of fact coincides with ancient civilizations year and we do a science of ancient civilizations unit where the teachers split 4 classrooms up into 5 groups and they have to learn about the civilization. Up to a quarter of the kids don't know the difference between Hinu, Islam and christianity. They have simply never considered the question.

So please, I am your eager pupil. I await information.

BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf .

???  :(

Oh. Well. My reading list is already backlogged some. Maybe you could simply give me a little bit of evidence that I could work into something? Critical thinking is an important skill and it's always good to give kids a few bits of data which conflict and see what they do with them.

Can you offer me maybe a general outline of a model which we can use but which conflicts with evolutionary theory? I was hoping you could explain it. I have high hopes since you're a med student. It sounds like maybe you've had more formal science training then I have and I love to learn from people who look at systems in non-traditional ways.

Cool avater BTW. Does alan fox still post at that blog?

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

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:17   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:07)
Or should I say JAD?

Thank You. I think that would be a privileged to be called that. But let's expose the real fantasy hear "Darwins" Like St George Jackson Mivart  who was one of the first (1871) to expose the myth of natural selection when he asked the simple question - How can natural selection be involved in a structure which has not yet appeared? Or natural selection nor allelic mutation ever had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. Both have been determined entirely internally with no role for the environment except that of allowing those transformations to take place. Only in a total dumbed down educational system could such a fantasy be even possible.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:24   

jon, I like the cut of your jib but you are just here to whine. Can you at least take a time out at being mad at other people because they don't want to hear your ideas any more?

Try to be decent for a day or 2 and see haw it is. Y'now, baby steps, 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

   
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:26   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,05:15)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,03:05)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,03:18)
 
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,22:51)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10)
How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with.

I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell?
it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.

BTW, Totally agree with this point^

Not this quite as much:  
Quote
( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)
As a strangely coincidental matter of fact, I just powsted a monstrous post on that exact subject in the thread just below this one. I think it would be neat if you offered commentary on it.


But regardless, I'm your man regarding the learning alternate viewpoints. Please teach me. I assist the world's greatest middle school science teacher  with an integrated 3 year curricculum and I'm always looking for new stuff. If you have it, I'll learn it and you might even get your ideas into a middle school curriculum. I live in Portland, OR so religion in science class in terms of theories about the physical world isn't much of a problem as long as they teach science honestly. And they do. We have mostly educated people around here so religion is vanishingly thin. Part of our integrated curriculum on physical science year as a matter of fact coincides with ancient civilizations year and we do a science of ancient civilizations unit where the teachers split 4 classrooms up into 5 groups and they have to learn about the civilization. Up to a quarter of the kids don't know the difference between Hinu, Islam and christianity. They have simply never considered the question.

So please, I am your eager pupil. I await information.

BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf .

???  :(

Oh. Well. My reading list is already backlogged some. Maybe you could simply give me a little bit of evidence that I could work into something? Critical thinking is an important skill and it's always good to give kids a few bits of data which conflict and see what they do with them.

Can you offer me maybe a general outline of a model which we can use but which conflicts with evolutionary theory? I was hoping you could explain it. I have high hopes since you're a med student. It sounds like maybe you've had more formal science training then I have and I love to learn from people who look at systems in non-traditional ways.

Cool avater BTW. Does alan fox still post at that blog?

The evidence for internal factors affecting evolution cannot be denied as both Berg and Grasse independently claimed. Professor Davison spells it out much better than I, but basically all we see today is extinction without a single replacement. he insists that Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny. The death of the individual is the model for the extinction of the species. In his papers he also recognizes that all living organism that will ever become anything substantially different from what it is right now.There is no question evolution within the taxonominc level of family can be accounted for by the restructuring of existing chromosomal information to explain that process. You may see his paper on jadavidson.wordpress.com

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:34   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:11)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:04)
 
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,04:55)

What Darwin followers will never admit.

It's really about what you have evidence for, not what people will "admit".
     
Quote
Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario

Citation please.
     
Quote
just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed.

Argument from authority? To be expected I suppose.
 
Quote
subsequent history of life

Please explain cancer, HIV etc in the light of a planned scenario.

One of the best Ant-Darwinian's today is Professor John A. Davison. His work is by far the best to date.From what we know we can eliminate  both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models,I am sorry boys they both failed. But there is hope.  Professor Davison's has postulate the only conceivable explanation summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). The only real issue has always been the MECHANISM for phylogeny. The PEH along with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) provide that mechanism which is now for all time next to the works of the great biologists whose common and largely independent findings permit of no other satisfactory explanation for the great mystery of organic evolution.

No, I'm afraid you did not explain HIV, cancer in light of your claim that life is a "determined, internally directed and planned scenario".

Please, try again, and try to focus on the question asked, not the question you want to be asked.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:34   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:06)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:05)
BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf .

What "pro-Darwinian" literature have you read Daniel?

We can argue the effects of Darwinian ideology as the foundational support for secular reasoning in the abortion controversies and geriatric concerns. The emphasis on youth oriented dictates from WHO and the UN Human Rights Commission and Global Initiatives have its principles in Darwinian sciences such as, linguistics, behavioral ism and social sciences.

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:35   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:31)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,05:24)
jon, I like the cut of your jib but you are just here to whine. Can you at least take a time out at being mad at other people because they don't want to hear your ideas any more?

Try to be decent for a day or 2 and see haw it is. Y'now, baby steps, right?

That is wonderful. I guess anyone who denies your failed hypothesis will be accused of being Professor Davison. The problem is staring you right in your eyes. The inability to accept the evidence. Hate it as much as you like but creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and, like ontogeny, was always emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment.

No, but people who make the same claims, in the same phrasings as JAD will reasonably be "accused" of actually being JAD.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:39   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)
I thought this pic best described most of the people who responded in this forum. So I edited your nonsense and put down what you really meant.

It is really meant as more of a guide rather than a literal life span of an anti-evolutionist.  You might say there is some random variation at work. However, I would suggest your quick transition to peevishness is a negative variation.  But let me address  several of your points.
     
Quote

We saw what you wrote but what you really meant.

We?  Let's put our cards on the table here, shall we?  Are you or are you not affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  You don't have to reveal anything other than that.  Just a simple yes or no.

     
Quote

Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that.

( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)


I am going to make a statement. I don't think you have the first clue about all the evidence supporting evolution. I think, at best, you have read something like "Signature in the Cell" or "Explore Evolution" and have accepted them as true.  Those books are filled with falsehoods and misrepresentations.  The participants here could help expose those for you if you were interested.  Which, you don't appear to be.

Given that you haven't actually asked a single question regarding science and, thus haven't, allowed the scientists here to share their knowledge, it seems pretty clear that you aren't interested in learning anything.  Further, given that you haven't even attempted to make anything of a scientific argument, you aren't here to test your beliefs either.  You appear to be here only to confront.

So, why are you here?
     
Quote

Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is

( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here  from the adolescent attacks,  the rest you wrote is just crap.


Actually, there are a number of working scientists and you have actually responded to them.  Albatrossity2, Dr. GH, olegt, and Wesley Elsberry to name just four.  But, you haven't given them the opportunity to respond or share any scientific information.
     
Quote

Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3.

( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate.

No, they educate. And you have given them no opportunity to do that by either asking an honest question or by advancing an idea for them to comment on.

     
Quote
I would say you miss understand my attention... again.

Then explain exactly why you are here.
     
Quote

I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer,  your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for.


Yesterday, you said "To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible.".  I would counter by saying that to reject any theory without examining it's supporting evidence is irresponsible.  And you have yet to share anything to indicate that your examination of evolution has extended beyond reading one of the various anti-evolution novels.  

Interestingly, Dr. GH has collected much of these books.  We were going to do something on the Explore Evolution thread where someone would pick a random page and several of the participants here would read the page and point out all the falsehoods on that page.  You game?  What book you got?

Here is where I get a little confused, daevans. You say:
     
Quote

( First let's be honest  you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory.

then you say later:
     
Quote
( I would further state  Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena.


I have two points of confusion. First, is evolution a theory or not.  In the first sentence, you say not. In the second sentence, you say it is.  Second, there are no "any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena," why exactly are you so sure it is true?
     
Quote

But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new".

I am not an atheist and there are a number of other people here, like Wes, who are theists.
     
Quote

Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery.

( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism.

To reiterate the point, not everyone here is an atheist.
     
Quote
You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are.

Umm.......
     
Quote

Step 7.  LOLCats!
(I don't need "LOL" I have the beauty of real science and the truth Darwin is a failed model.Who can ask for more??)



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:40   

I know this guy people call BWE at a couple of forums. He's so fucking-shit hot amazing that he can make a complex argument and then if he's wrong, he just figues it out and moves onto the next thing.This BWE character is a phenomenon of nature too. You know... (down there VV ) And it has a little tattoo right on the tip. No I'm just kidding. There's no tattoo. That would be pretty whack. You'd need a nutjob like davison to find some3thing that stupoid and unexpected.

I know you aren't Jon because Jon is totally off the deep end at this point. Since he doesn't come here though I can go ahead and let you know before you get too involved with his thinking to go back into realty... He's totally loony. Bonkers. Over the rainbow and even cuckoo. He can't really even string together coherent sentences any more and every once in a while I swear I hear sobbing through the Ethernet, wracked and horrible sobbing. It always seems to choke out the words, "I love it so."

It's actually tragic But, let it serve as a warning now before it's too late. :)

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:43   

Jad or Vmartin? I love it so. Our new friend is likely an old friend. Awwwwwwwww how sweet.

Like herpes, they come back.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:45   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:34)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:11)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:04)
 
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,04:55)

What Darwin followers will never admit.

It's really about what you have evidence for, not what people will "admit".
     
Quote
Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario

Citation please.
     
Quote
just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed.

Argument from authority? To be expected I suppose.
   
Quote
subsequent history of life

Please explain cancer, HIV etc in the light of a planned scenario.

One of the best Ant-Darwinian's today is Professor John A. Davison. His work is by far the best to date.From what we know we can eliminate  both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models,I am sorry boys they both failed. But there is hope.  Professor Davison's has postulate the only conceivable explanation summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). The only real issue has always been the MECHANISM for phylogeny. The PEH along with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) provide that mechanism which is now for all time next to the works of the great biologists whose common and largely independent findings permit of no other satisfactory explanation for the great mystery of organic evolution.

No, I'm afraid you did not explain HIV, cancer in light of your claim that life is a "determined, internally directed and planned scenario".

Please, try again, and try to focus on the question asked, not the question you want to be asked.

That would be a very good question to ask Professor Davison on his blog.

"The period of great fecundity is over: present biological evolution appears as a weakened process, declining or near its end. Aren't we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement?

Yes

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
Daevans



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:46   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 23 2010,05:39)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)
I thought this pic best described most of the people who responded in this forum. So I edited your nonsense and put down what you really meant.

It is really meant as more of a guide rather than a literal life span of an anti-evolutionist.  You might say there is some random variation at work. However, I would suggest your quick transition to peevishness is a negative variation.  But let me address  several of your points.
     
Quote

We saw what you wrote but what you really meant.

We?  Let's put our cards on the table here, shall we?  Are you or are you not affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  You don't have to reveal anything other than that.  Just a simple yes or no.

     
Quote

Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that.

( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)


I am going to make a statement. I don't think you have the first clue about all the evidence supporting evolution. I think, at best, you have read something like "Signature in the Cell" or "Explore Evolution" and have accepted them as true.  Those books are filled with falsehoods and misrepresentations.  The participants here could help expose those for you if you were interested.  Which, you don't appear to be.

Given that you haven't actually asked a single question regarding science and, thus haven't, allowed the scientists here to share their knowledge, it seems pretty clear that you aren't interested in learning anything.  Further, given that you haven't even attempted to make anything of a scientific argument, you aren't here to test your beliefs either.  You appear to be here only to confront.

So, why are you here?
     
Quote

Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is

( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here  from the adolescent attacks,  the rest you wrote is just crap.


Actually, there are a number of working scientists and you have actually responded to them.  Albatrossity2, Dr. GH, olegt, and Wesley Elsberry to name just four.  But, you haven't given them the opportunity to respond or share any scientific information.
     
Quote

Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3.

( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate.

No, they educate. And you have given them no opportunity to do that by either asking an honest question or by advancing an idea for them to comment on.

     
Quote
I would say you miss understand my attention... again.

Then explain exactly why you are here.
     
Quote

I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer,  your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for.


Yesterday, you said "To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible.".  I would counter by saying that to reject any theory without examining it's supporting evidence is irresponsible.  And you have yet to share anything to indicate that your examination of evolution has extended beyond reading one of the various anti-evolution novels.  

Interestingly, Dr. GH has collected much of these books.  We were going to do something on the Explore Evolution thread where someone would pick a random page and several of the participants here would read the page and point out all the falsehoods on that page.  You game?  What book you got?

Here is where I get a little confused, daevans. You say:
     
Quote

( First let's be honest  you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory.

then you say later:
     
Quote
( I would further state  Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena.


I have two points of confusion. First, is evolution a theory or not.  In the first sentence, you say not. In the second sentence, you say it is.  Second, there are no "any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena," why exactly are you so sure it is true?
     
Quote

But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new".

I am not an atheist and there are a number of other people here, like Wes, who are theists.
     
Quote

Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery.

( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism.

To reiterate the point, not everyone here is an atheist.
     
Quote
You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are.

Umm.......
     
Quote

Step 7.  LOLCats!
(I don't need "LOL" I have the beauty of real science and the truth Darwin is a failed model.Who can ask for more??)


A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zZL5um....139.JPG

--------------
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views."
— Tom Baker

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:47   

so... This is actually mildly disturbing. JAD, Why? Why do you do this?

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:48   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:45)
That would be a very good question to ask Professor Davison on his blog.

No, you made a claim.
Quote
everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario


We know about HIV and cancer. I asked you to explain their existence in light of a planned scenario.

You cop out.

How very unexpected.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:48   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:46)
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Coward.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:54   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,03:48)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:46)
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Coward.

I don't thing  daevans is a coward. I think he jumbled the letters in his name and now he doesn't know how to get home.

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,06:04   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,10:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,03:48)
 
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:46)
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Coward.

I don't thing  daevans is a coward. I think he jumbled the letters in his name and now he doesn't know how to get home. is severly mentally ill.

Fixed that for you.

Any serious mental illness is a horrible and tragic affliction. Especially when it warps a person's reality to the point of incoherence. I wouldn't wish it on someone I hated. Here's hoping treatment is available.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,06:07   

Hi, Dale

Welcome back. How's Buttermilk these days?

I read all your comments and failed to find an answer to my original (very simple) question. You wrote, in your first comment
Quote
I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained.

I asked you for evidence where a reputable scientist claimed either one or both of those things. You have yet to respond. A quote from Wallace dated three years before evolutionary theory was first described in print is not relevant to your claim. I'd appreciate it if you could support your assertion, or retract it if you can't.

And, BTW, I am a working biological scientist. There are others who have posted on this thread. So another of your claims seems to be untrue as well.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,06:11   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,11:31)
     
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,05:24)
jon, I like the cut of your jib but you are just here to whine. Can you at least take a time out at being mad at other people because they don't want to hear your ideas any more?

Try to be decent for a day or 2 and see haw it is. Y'now, baby steps, right?

That is wonderful. I guess anyone who denies your failed hypothesis will be accused of being Professor Davison. The problem is staring you right in your eyes. The inability to accept the evidence. Hate it as much as you like but creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and, like ontogeny, was always emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment.

Which evidence?

All I've read from you so far are unsubstantiated claims.
Take your last statement. What I'd refer to as evolutionary changes are in your opinion "emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment."
How do you explain then that, for example, sharks and dolphins do have a similar form while dolphins look different than land-living mammals if the environment doesn't have that much to do with it?
I assume you accept that dolphins are mammals and more closely related to land-living mammals than to sharks and are descendent from land-living mammals.

If you don't like my example, how about you provide a concrete example that shows how your hypothesis better predicts what we see than evolutionary theory?

BTW, I've asked you a question earlier. I'd be very interested in your answer.


ETA: I'm a working scientist, too.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,06:11   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,04:04)

thanks louis. You're 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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,08:50   

Of all the mean things I've said, and will say, about Paul Nelson, he deserves the most credit among all the IDiots for having the biggest pair of balls.  That's evolution for you!

At least Paul has the guts to come out here and mix it up once in a while.  Where are the rest of the creeps?  Safely behind their firewalls.

Over on Coyne's blog Nelson actually explained, at least superficially, how he can be a YEC and still present arguments about the Cambrian explosion accepting for the sake of argument a 500 million year timeframe.

It's not rational, but at least Nelson is sociable.

So, I for one vote to keep a chair by the fire for good old Paul.

p.s. as for the recent dialog, I can't believe that creotard brought up the UN.  Brilliant!

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,11:12   

From my limited exposure, JAD is marginally better with English than DAEvans. Unless JAD has deteriorated in the last little while.  Just sayin'.

JAD's blog? Didn't he say... what was it.. oh,yeah:

"I have no interest in having my 'own' blog. I do not want a fan club, either."

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,11:25   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,06:43)
Jad or Vmartin? I love it so. Our new friend is likely an old friend. Awwwwwwwww how sweet.

Like herpes, they come back.

Louis

VMartin came to my mind, too, though having dropped the here-today-gone-tomorrow fake accent.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,12:01   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,06:34)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:06)
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:05)
BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf .

What "pro-Darwinian" literature have you read Daniel?

We can argue the effects of Darwinian ideology as the foundational support for secular reasoning in the abortion controversies and geriatric concerns. The emphasis on youth oriented dictates from WHO and the UN Human Rights Commission and Global Initiatives have its principles in Darwinian sciences such as, linguistics, behavioral ism and social sciences.

Why am I not surprised that it's a fetus fucker?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,12:33   

OK, this topic was split off of the Paul Nelson one where things went off-topic. Pray continue this stuff here, and Paul Nelson stuff there.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,12:48   

I'm having to bounce back and forth between the two threads to delete stuff out of the "Paul Nelson" thread that doesn't belong there, since the "split" script did not do that for me. (I should apply to get my $0.00 back?) Well, I managed to delete a post out of the wrong thread, and it happens to be one from "DAEvans". So here's the text of it exactly as copied from the PN thread.

DAEvans:

Quote

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,05:24)
jon, I like the cut of your jib but you are just here to whine. Can you at least take a time out at being mad at other people because they don't want to hear your ideas any more?

Try to be decent for a day or 2 and see haw it is. Y'now, baby steps, right?

That is wonderful. I guess anyone who denies your failed hypothesis will be accused of being Professor Davison. The problem is staring you right in your eyes. The inability to accept the evidence. Hate it as much as you like but creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and, like ontogeny, was always emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment.


Please remember, the above text is written by DAEvans, not me.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,12:49   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:34)
We can argue the effects of Darwinian ideology as the foundational support for secular reasoning in the abortion controversies and geriatric concerns. The emphasis on youth oriented dictates from WHO and the UN Human Rights Commission and Global Initiatives have its principles in Darwinian sciences such as, linguistics, behavioral ism and social sciences.

We've gone full bore into conspiracy theories here.  I think this should be added to the list... at the very end.


Anywho... daevans, please tell me where you plan to practice medicine.  I need to make sure I and my family members are as far away as possible.

Do you have a single shred of evidence for anything that you have said*?


* Please note, blog posts don't count as scientific evidence, except in the sense of 'so-and-so did indeed say what I claim he said'.  It does not support the facts or evidence of the claim itself.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:14   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 23 2010,09:25)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,06:43)
Jad or Vmartin? I love it so. Our new friend is likely an old friend. Awwwwwwwww how sweet.

Like herpes, they come back.

Louis

VMartin came to my mind, too, though having dropped the here-today-gone-tomorrow fake accent.

A gentle shuffle of Daevans => Davasen.

Just sayin'.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:31   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

We saw what you wrote but what you really meant.


Who the fuck are you to decide what someone 'really meant'.  Normally, I'm a very nice person, but this pisses me off.

You do not have telepathy.
You do not have precognition.
You do not know me or anyone here.
You have no right to declare what SOMEONE ELSE said.

But that's OK, because you are under the same delusion that other creationists (excuse me 'IDists') are.  That is "You (somehow) know better than everyone else on the planet.

It is obvious from your posts that you barely understand the scientific method, but you still know more than thousands of real live scientists that bust ass day-in and day-out to provide YOU (Mr. med student) the tools that you must have to do your job (ever hear of anti-biotics, superbugs, or do you know where the most anti-bitoic resistant bacteria exist (hint, you'll be working there)).

Oh, and who the fuck is 'We'?  Are you in a computer lab with your buddies?  Are you using the 'royal we', your highness?  Are the rest of your little club too scared to jump in here?

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

(I never asked that I made a statement that I knew what it was)

( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)


Bullshit.  First rule of Darwinism is there is no darwinism.  

The goal of evolutionary SCIENCE is to show how the great diversity of life came about... AND provide tools that can be used to help us (Mr. med student).

You claim that scientists are lying about evolutionary theory.  There are many people in this 'debate' that are liars, but they are not on the science side.

Ask Meyer about the lies in his book.
Ask Dembski about the Harvard video (hint: It's called theft)
Ask Behe about lying to a court of law in Dover.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here  from the adolescent attacks,  the rest you wrote is just crap. What is even more remarkable is that man being the result of undirected causes believes himself capable of defining a reality that is unpredictable if undirected. Why you want to remain ignorant is of coarse your own business not mine).


What would you know about working scientists?  What does belief have to do with science?  If you ask these questions, then you do not understand science.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. I would say you miss understand my attention... again. I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer,  your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. The Darwinist attempts to deny that intelligent causes do not exist when all one needs do is imagine the progress and advancements of civilization without intelligence. The view of the metaphysical naturalist that wholly undirected natural causes govern the universe is patently false. Believing so is based on superstition and misguided faith. Darwinist depend on a "dumb public" for support and of coarse forums like this were numerous people can ambush anyone who question Darwin)


There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start.

Let me ask you: Let's say there's a scientist.  He's a horrible rapist.  He beats his wife and children.  He's a true asshole.  

Does that automatically make any results, data, conclusions from his work wrong?

Of course it doesn't.  Therefore everything in your paragraph above is invalid.

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( First let's be honest  you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". The same thing happened in the 60's with another religious movement which taught the same rebellious doctrine.)


We speak from evidence.  You speak from a holy book.
We speak from 150 years of data.  You speak from 2000 years of myth.
We speak from decades of dealing with creationists/IDists.  You speak from regurgitating the same crap that we dealt with 20 years ago.

You claim that you don't discuss God.  Then why do the leaders of the ID movement specifically claim that God is the designer?  Dembski, Meyers, Wells, they all say this.  YOU may not speak of God, but all other ID proponents do.  But, hey, you know more than thousands of scientists... I guess you know more about ID than the people that invented the modern concept too.

Again, if had a clue about the scientific process, you would know what it's like to stand in a crowd of expert scientists who are intent on trashing your hard work.  You will never understand the pride that comes when, at the end of those proceedings, a truly notable scientist in your field comes to you and says, "Damn, you convinced me son.  Good work."

All you have is a bunch scyophants preaching to the choir (literally in most cases).  You've never had to defend yourself against people who know what they are talking about.  Good luck...

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( I would further state  Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. Let's not forget that when Darwin first theorized evolution, he had no method for inheritance and no rigorous predictive capacity.)


Please provide a single experiment that unambiguously (i.e. everyone agrees with that interpretation) that shows ID is true.

Please provide whatever evidence you have that ID is a fact.

Please provide the 'hypothesis' of ID.

Please explain why the leaders of ID (Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Behe, etc) have said "there is no ID theory"

I've been asking you people these questions for 15 years and no one can answer.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. On another level Scientist do disagree on this. Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?.What we see is  that mankind is anywhere near as close to explaining and defining origins let alone the workings of the universe , but what we do need is better and more in depth methods of observation.Darwin is definitely being exposed and will suffer more blows to it's shaky foundation. If that angers the atheist in these forums so what. Science is about being popular it's about searching for real answers all which have taken a back seat to a ideology which is now beginning to suffer major set backs.


The only debate is how people like you and your 'institutes' can infect the education of my kids.  Personally speaking, you guys can write a million books a year, but the second you try to pass of your shit as science, then you have to face up to real science.

I've been listening to the 'Darwin's on his last legs' arguement for at least a decade.  You know what... no one cares what you think.

You either provide evidence or go running home to Dembski about how people were mean to you.

You want to argue about science... fine, bring it.  You want to argue about ideologies... well that's what WE are doing.  You can't because you're trying to make a duck into a crocodile.  

Evolution is not ideology.  Why not, because it  
1) is falsifiable
2) is testable
3) provides tools that can predict the results of observations and experiments

Tell you what, if you think you have a chance, I've got two strings of numbers on my home computer.  (I'm at work now.)  If you are up to the challenge, I'll post them here and you can take Dembski's design filters or whatever the heck they are and tell me which one is designed (by me using very specific numbers) and which one is random (produced by atmospheric noise) and show the calculations that you used to arrive at that decision.

I triple dog dare you.  Hell, I dare Dembski, to.  Should be easy for a fact and a theory.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:32   

I doubt JAD is savvy enough to change his IP around..

Got that? Track it Down!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:34   

OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,13:34)
OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

No problem, I'll post them when I get home.  I'm about to head out for the day.  We've got about an inch of snow here.  That's somewhat unusual for central Texas.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,13:56   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2010,10:40)
DAEvans:

   
Quote

You act like it's a conspiracy against the Darwin faction and that isn't the case.


Two words: cdesign proponentsists.

ETA: corrected spelling.

Two more words: crickets chirping.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:08   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:51)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10)
How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with.

I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell?
it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.

Ah, I seem to have mixed up your recent arrival with that of someone else who explicitly claimed to be a "seeker after truth".

About the closest you got to that in your opening was, "Do you think that is a truthful statement?" BTW, the "report a post" mechanism is not a substitute for the Personal Message or PM capability.

I'm selling T-shirts, mugs, and other consumer items, but I don't think that really has much to do with this thread.

As for my understanding of evolutionary science, I think I've been forthcoming with my opinions for long enough that you really shouldn't simply assume something about that; look it up.

So strike the final sentence from the quote you responded to and pay more attention to the preceding interrogatives.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:16   

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:11)
One of the best Ant-Darwinian's today is Professor John A. Davison. His work is by far the best to date.From what we know we can eliminate  both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models,I am sorry boys they both failed. But there is hope.  Professor Davison's has postulate the only conceivable explanation summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). The only real issue has always been the MECHANISM for phylogeny. The PEH along with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) provide that mechanism which is now for all time next to the works of the great biologists whose common and largely independent findings permit of no other satisfactory explanation for the great mystery of organic evolution.

I read John Davison's PEH some years ago. I don't recal seing any evidence in it though. Now maybe I have forgoten it so could you please tell me if JAD provided evidence for his PEH and if so, what? What experiments did he perform to test his ideas?

As you are a med student, can you explain why it is important for a patient to complete their antibiotic course, even if the symptoms have been relieved before it is finished?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:19   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,13:34)
OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

A) 19372082339311710152086213620575697824755571720

B) 97565835082747442479890364189494781845201746854


one string is designed (by me)
one string is random (random.org)

which is which and why?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:26   

I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:30   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Cool! and strangely, with ID 'not by chance' implications.

LOUISE R A DESINE FEARIST.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:52   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2010,19:30)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Cool! and strangely, with ID 'not by chance' implications.

LOUISE R A DESINE FEARIST.

Shhhhh I has been maintaining mah cover all this time. I r really a mole. One day, I will expose the DarwinistatheistliberalUNlovingevolutionist hegemony for all its evils. One day. When all that tedious evidence has been safely burned of course.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,14:59   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Just to warn you...

one of my jobs (sort of) is assisting with statistical analysis of standardized tests for some of the state exit level tests.

In other words, this is high risk information (because a student may not graduate).  So I get beat in the head with statistical data and crap... a lot.

Anyone else?

You have a 50/50 shot, but why is the important bit.

;)

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:05   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,14:59)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Just to warn you...

one of my jobs (sort of) is assisting with statistical analysis of standardized tests for some of the state exit level tests.

In other words, this is high risk information (because a student may not graduate).  So I get beat in the head with statistical data and crap... a lot.

Anyone else?

You have a 50/50 shot, but why is the important bit.

;)

I think A is random because of the amount of repeat numbers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,19:59)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Just to warn you...

one of my jobs (sort of) is assisting with statistical analysis of standardized tests for some of the state exit level tests.

In other words, this is high risk information (because a student may not graduate).  So I get beat in the head with statistical data and crap... a lot.

Anyone else?

You have a 50/50 shot, but why is the important bit.

;)

In that case I predict that the right answer is the right answer. Why? Because it's the right answer.

Impeccable logic. Unshakable reasoning. Do I win a prize?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:13   

Ok, I'll take a shot.

I would have agreed with Stephen about the "555" indicating it is random.  But the even distribution is too...  even.

So with OgreMkV's hint and Louis' "Benford's Law", I will go with A being designed.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:15   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,15:06)
In that case I predict that the right answer is the right answer. Why? Because it's the right answer.

Impeccable logic. Unshakable reasoning. Do I win a prize?



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:20   



Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 23 2010,15:28

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:27   

String A as non-random, and String B as random.

Reason: The universal distribution. If one string is more compressible, it has a shorter program-input pair that explains it, and the more likely it is that it is due to a short computational process. In the case of the two strings given, there are only a few digits worth of compression difference between them, so the effect is not strong here. If I had more spare time, I could work out the relative probabilities, but I think I will leave that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:29   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 23 2010,15:13)
Ok, I'll take a shot.

I would have agreed with Stephen about the "555" indicating it is random.  But the even distribution is too...  even.

So with OgreMkV's hint and Louis' "Benford's Law", I will go with A being designed.

Bad math coming up!

the middle number is arbitrary, the odds of the preceding one matching it is 1/10 and the odds of the following one matching it is also 1/10, so cumulatively 1/100 for a triple digit sequence to be the same? We have 45 digits which gives us 43 opportunities.

So the odds of it happening at least once in 43 goes are..

(about a third?)

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:29   

When you google any nine digits, you get approximately the same number of results with either number.

Just sayin'

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,12:19)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,13:34)
OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

A) 19372082339311710152086213620575697824755571720

B) 97565835082747442479890364189494781845201746854


one string is designed (by me)
one string is random (random.org)

which is which and why?

String B has a 747. What are the odds of that happening by chance?

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:36   

Should we take a poll?  When shall I reveal the answer?  I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

BTW: You guys are waaaaaay smarter than any of the ID crowd.  They won't even try.  It's very funny.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:41   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:36)
Should we take a poll?  When shall I reveal the answer?  I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

[...]

Given that there are several people opting for B as random, and one for A as random, that's a safe statement. Given the phrasing, should we all congratulate Stephen Elliott?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:43   

Here is another 47 random digits...

9080277001561472452 311999086807361424001558253

Richardthughes, I wasn't sure whether or not you were agreeing the three digits in a row was evidence of it being random.

The fact it easily happens in random numbers is the point.  People have a tendancy to avoid repeating digits when creating their version of "random".  People also tend towards even distribution.

The above isn't very evenly distributed.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:47   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 23 2010,15:43)
Here is another 47 random digits...

9080277001561472452 311999086807361424001558253

Richardthughes, I wasn't sure whether or not you were agreeing the three digits in a row was evidence of it being random.

The fact it easily happens in random numbers is the point.  People have a tendancy to avoid repeating digits when creating their version of "random".  People also tend towards even distribution.

The above isn't very evenly distributed.

Not suffiently strange to suggest non-random.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,15:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:36)
Should we take a poll?  When shall I reveal the answer?  I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

[...]

Given that there are several people opting for B as random, and one for A as random, that's a safe statement. Given the phrasing, should we all congratulate Stephen Elliott?

heh, you've fallen for my trap!

No, 'A' is the non-random string.  It is a series of useful numbers to me (library ID, old school IDs, birthdays, etc) with '1' alternately added or subtracted from the number.  That is why the preponderance of '0'.

'B' is a random number generated from random.org using atmospheric noise.



Now, why won't IDists, who supposedly have the tool for this, ignore the challenge, when science does perfectly well in determining the correct answer.

I hope you lurkers are realizing something important from this.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,16:00   

Like I said to Salvador Cordova back in 2003,

Quote

As we note in section 5 and in the appendix, we believe that what CSI actually identifies, when it can be said to work at all, is the outcome of simple computational processes. That's why our "specified anti-information" (SAI) is a superior approach to "specification" than Dembski's methods. Given your obvious interest in algorithmic information theory, you should be able to confirm this for yourself briefly.


:-)

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,16:22   

If you turn TP's number upside down there's a 666 right in the middle.

That should tell you something.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,16:37   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:48)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:36)
Should we take a poll?  When shall I reveal the answer?  I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

[...]

Given that there are several people opting for B as random, and one for A as random, that's a safe statement. Given the phrasing, should we all congratulate Stephen Elliott?

heh, you've fallen for my trap!

No, 'A' is the non-random string.  It is a series of useful numbers to me (library ID, old school IDs, birthdays, etc) with '1' alternately added or subtracted from the number.  That is why the preponderance of '0'.

'B' is a random number generated from random.org using atmospheric noise.



Now, why won't IDists, who supposedly have the tool for this, ignore the challenge, when science does perfectly well in determining the correct answer.

I hope you lurkers are realizing something important from this.

Damn! Foiled again.

I just counted pairs and figured A was more likely than B to be random. The triple number I decided to just count as 2 doubles. Oh well. :(

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,16:44   

Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,16:48   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,20:48)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:36)
Should we take a poll?  When shall I reveal the answer?  I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

[...]

Given that there are several people opting for B as random, and one for A as random, that's a safe statement. Given the phrasing, should we all congratulate Stephen Elliott?

heh, you've fallen for my trap!

No, 'A' is the non-random string.  It is a series of useful numbers to me (library ID, old school IDs, birthdays, etc) with '1' alternately added or subtracted from the number.  That is why the preponderance of '0'.

'B' is a random number generated from random.org using atmospheric noise.



Now, why won't IDists, who supposedly have the tool for this, ignore the challenge, when science does perfectly well in determining the correct answer.

I hope you lurkers are realizing something important from this.

I WAS RIGHT! VINDICATION! IN YOUR FACE SUCKERS!!!! Etc.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,17:03   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,13:48)
No, 'A' is the non-random string.  It is a series of useful numbers to me (library ID, old school IDs, birthdays, etc) with '1' alternately added or subtracted from the number.  That is why the preponderance of '0'.

'B' is a random number generated from random.org using atmospheric noise.

apropos of nothing, but, um....

which part was your social security number again?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,17:32   

har har hardy har har

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,07:34   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:48)
I hope you lurkers are realizing something important from this.

Yes, Professor Ogre.  Thank you, Professor Ogre.

</singsong> </unison>

I can has GEV degree now?

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,13:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

The walls have eyes!!1!!11!!

I love it so!

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,13:37   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2010,13:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

The walls have eyes!!1!!11!!

I love it so!

What a coinkydink!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,14:07   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2010,11:25)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

The walls have eyes!!1!!11!!

I love it so!

Among the posters on Davison's blog are "Dan Smith" and "Dublin Evans". They all (with vmartin) think Davison is GREAT. It's hilarious. All the posts are nothing but fluffing of Davison and badmouthing those who point out his failings.

What a sad, insecure man it is who has to invent friends to tell him in public how great he is. You can tell he sees his legacy fading, fading into the eternal night. Give it up John--you had no legacy to begin with.

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,17:09   

It is rather pathetic.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,01:49   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,01:51   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,05:46   

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument.


You either aren't paying attention or don't have a grasp of the terms if you think that (endosymbiosis) == (PEH).

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)

Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


Nor is Margulis a closet IDC advocate. She isn't positing some great Endosmybiosis Designer as the agent behind those events.

What, exactly, are you trying to communicate? So far, it looks mostly like you want to say stuff that sounds portentous, but without having any substance behind it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,06:07   

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
Does it smell of ID?

Do you think it does?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,10:50   

I think that if genomic mergers were a routine factor, their results would have become obvious by now to geneticists studying the data.

Henry

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,10:59   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 09 2010,10:50)
I think that if genomic mergers were a routine factor, their results would have become obvious by now to geneticists studying the data.

Henry

Other than the ERV route, how would genomes of sexually reproducing organisms merge?

Other than the Ghostbuster route.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,11:20   

Quote
Other than the ERV route, how would genomes of sexually reproducing organisms merge?

I have no idea. The post above mentioned symbiosis as a factor; I gather that the genes from an internally held symbiont can sometimes migrate into the host genome, so could that be what it's talking about?

Quote
Other than the Ghostbuster route.

Who ya gonna call?

Henry

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,11:28   

Ahhhhhh!!!

Mitochondria, Where Art Thou?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,16:55   

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

 
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,16:59   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 09 2010,08:59)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 09 2010,10:50)
I think that if genomic mergers were a routine factor, their results would have become obvious by now to geneticists studying the data.

Henry

Other than the ERV route, how would genomes of sexually reproducing organisms merge?

Other than the Ghostbuster route.

? You mean the keymaster/gatekeeper routine?

Poor bugger, didn't even remember he banged Sigourney Weaver.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,21:17   

Quote
? You mean the keymaster/gatekeeper routine?

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,21:47   

Just remember to avoid crossing the streams...

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,23:51   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 09 2010,19:47)
Just remember to avoid crossing the streams...

HOMO.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,01:21   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

 
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

forgive me Dr.Elsberry,  I didn't understand what you were referencing to until I  reread my post which was suppose to be just a reference for the book I didn't realized the comments which I posted from Amazon's quotes did not paste in it's entirely(book and link) from Amazon, I haven't read either books nor can I offer any opinions on either theories. I was just curious on how her book was received. I am aware of how Davison and IDist are, that is what the origin of my question. I know she is a recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Yet I was told by a pupil of hers she considers herself Anti-Darwin? Panda's thumb opinion " http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html" yet at http://www.expelledexposed.com  she stated " Margulis strongly opposes the idea, widely held within the scientific community, that the driving force in evolution is competition, and thinks cooperative and symbiotic relationships are underemphasized by many evolutionary scientists. Despite holding views different from many in the scientific community, because of her research, she is well respected, and has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and awarded the National Medal of Science." So that is why I was asking clarification?

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,01:32   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

 
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....g-ideas

Here is a article from the opposing side.

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,01:45   

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,01:32)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

   
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/lynn-margulis-challenges-neo-darwinists-and-teaches-somewhere-now-but-she-has-interesting-

ideas/]http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....g-ideas[/URL]

Here is a article from the opposing side.

You have an awfully loose connotation of "article". It's a quotefest put together by Denyse O'Leary. Was there something that the "article" on UD was supposed to illuminate in the discussion? If so, I missed it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,01:55   

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,01:21)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
 
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

     
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

forgive me Dr.Elsberry,  I didn't understand what you were referencing to until I  reread my post which was suppose to be just a reference for the book I didn't realized the comments which I posted from Amazon's quotes did not paste in it's entirely(book and link) from Amazon, I haven't read either books nor can I offer any opinions on either theories. I was just curious on how her book was received. I am aware of how Davison and IDist are, that is what the origin of my question. I know she is a recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Yet I was told by a pupil of hers she considers herself Anti-Darwin? Panda's thumb opinion " http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html" yet at http://www.expelledexposed.com  she stated " Margulis strongly opposes the idea, widely held within the scientific community, that the driving force in evolution is competition, and thinks cooperative and symbiotic relationships are underemphasized by many evolutionary scientists. Despite holding views different from many in the scientific community, because of her research, she is well respected, and has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and awarded the National Medal of Science." So that is why I was asking clarification?

OK, I can see how an unsuccessful cut-and-paste job could botch the referent for "that argument". That just leaves the "smell of ID" thing, which I've already answered in the negative.

My two cents: Margulis, like Roughgarden, seems to have a narrow and critical opinion of what Darwin wrote that is not well-founded. That is, they both set up strawmen that they attribute to Darwin and merrily whack away at those. This is perhaps because they are more interested in lab work than actually reading what Darwin wrote. That's not a bad thing on its own, but coupled with expressing themselves hyperbolically on Darwin, it rather reduces my estimation of their scholarship. It takes nothing at all away from their contributions to science, but it is unseemly.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,02:57   

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,01:32)
Here is a article from the opposing side.

The opposing side to what? Reality?

EDIT: Patrick, if Margulis is right, does that make Darwin wrong?

And anyway, what difference does it make to you who's right and who's wrong. Nobody mentioned so far is proposing an "Intelligent Designer" so what difference does it make to you what happens? Whoever "wins" still does not provide any support, direct or indirect, for your position.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/luskin-lost.cfm
Quote
But in the land of cranks & ID/creationists, the Altenberg 16 meeting has become the latest bit of evidence that evolution is a theory in crisis. The primary person who got the crazy-train going was "journalist" Suzan Mazur, who has written a series of stories that mis-portray almost everyone and everything involved and, no matter what her interviewees tell her, end up with the inevitable conclusion that evolution is on its last legs. No one seriously informed would pay attention to this kind of schlock, but ID/creationists will jump on anything with a vestige of credibility (in this case an allegedly serious journalist -- is she a freelancer or what?). When meeting organizer Massimo Pigluicci got wind of the misinformation being passed around about the meeting, he wrote a great explanation of what it was actually about and why Mazur et al. were wrong.


EDIT EDIT: Not that it will make any difference, but here is a post by the organizer of the conference, Prof. Massimo Pigliucci:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008....ic.html
Quote
Now, did you see anything in the above that suggests that evolution is “a theory in crisis”? Did I say anything about intelligent designers, or the rejection of Darwinism, or any of the other nonsense that has filled the various uninformed and sometimes downright ridiculous commentaries that have appeared on the web about the Altenberg meeting? Didn’t think so. If next week’s workshop succeeds, what we will achieve is taking one more step in an ongoing discussion among scientists about how our theories account for biological phenomena, and how the discovery of new phenomena is to be matched by the elaboration of new theoretical constructs. This is how science works, folks, not a sign of “crisis.”


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,03:52   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 10 2010,01:55)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,01:21)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 09 2010,16:55)
   
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:49)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

I have read some of Davison's work, I really have no opinion to give. But I have recently have been cited a book to read called "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species"  by Lynn Margulis (Author), Dorion Sagan (Author) before I check it out anybody wants to add anything?

     
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:51)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,16:44)
Back in May 2000, someone asked about Davison's manifesto on the TalkOrigins Archive feedback, and I had a response there.

It still looks good to me.

comments; Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.) Does it smell of ID?


So in two minutes time, "Patrickarbuthnot" goes from having no familiarity with the Margulis and Sagan book and wanting feedback to being able to summarize its contents and link them to the PEH. Color me skeptical. BTW, reading the dust cover is not quite the same thing as reading the book.

Oh, and I missed it before, but there is a historical problem with characterizing Margulis as "extending" the PEH, since endosymbiosis comfortably predates PEH by decades.

forgive me Dr.Elsberry,  I didn't understand what you were referencing to until I  reread my post which was suppose to be just a reference for the book I didn't realized the comments which I posted from Amazon's quotes did not paste in it's entirely(book and link) from Amazon, I haven't read either books nor can I offer any opinions on either theories. I was just curious on how her book was received. I am aware of how Davison and IDist are, that is what the origin of my question. I know she is a recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Yet I was told by a pupil of hers she considers herself Anti-Darwin? Panda's thumb opinion " http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html" yet at http://www.expelledexposed.com  she stated " Margulis strongly opposes the idea, widely held within the scientific community, that the driving force in evolution is competition, and thinks cooperative and symbiotic relationships are underemphasized by many evolutionary scientists. Despite holding views different from many in the scientific community, because of her research, she is well respected, and has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and awarded the National Medal of Science." So that is why I was asking clarification?

OK, I can see how an unsuccessful cut-and-paste job could botch the referent for "that argument". That just leaves the "smell of ID" thing, which I've already answered in the negative.

My two cents: Margulis, like Roughgarden, seems to have a narrow and critical opinion of what Darwin wrote that is not well-founded. That is, they both set up strawmen that they attribute to Darwin and merrily whack away at those. This is perhaps because they are more interested in lab work than actually reading what Darwin wrote. That's not a bad thing on its own, but coupled with expressing themselves hyperbolically on Darwin, it rather reduces my estimation of their scholarship. It takes nothing at all away from their contributions to science, but it is unseemly.

Okay now I understand where your coming from.Thank you for explaining it. I will proceed to read her work then with precautions, thank you.

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,04:00   

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,03:52)
Okay now I understand where your coming from.Thank you for explaining it. I will proceed to read her work then with precautions, thank you.

Once you've read it perhaps you could comment on how you feel UncommonDescent has represented her work?

As you linked to them as an alternative viewpoint on this issue I'd be interested to see if you go along with them after actually reading what they are writing about.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,05:12   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 10 2010,04:00)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,03:52)
Okay now I understand where your coming from.Thank you for explaining it. I will proceed to read her work then with precautions, thank you.

Once you've read it perhaps you could comment on how you feel UncommonDescent has represented her work?

As you linked to them as an alternative viewpoint on this issue I'd be interested to see if you go along with them after actually reading what they are writing about.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit  I will,  but just so you know I pulled their article up when I put her name in the search engine. I don't read their articles unless they are pulled up while  looking subjects up by Google. :)

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,07:43   

Sorry I missed this thread (visiting sick mother with no internet connection!).

To those speculating on a JAD sock, John only managed to use a puppet a while ago (Dr Johnson, I think it was) because Dave Springer set it up for him and emailed him the login details. He just isn't that savvy!

@ Dublin Evans (if he hasn't flounced):

How does the PEH explain lockstep of organism to niche? I recall John Davison as fond of remarking " the environment had nothing to do with it".

ETA punctuation

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,17:10   

Quote
she stated " Margulis strongly opposes the idea, widely held within the scientific community, that the driving force in evolution is competition, and thinks cooperative and symbiotic relationships are underemphasized by many evolutionary scientists.

That sounds to me more like a quibble over details than a disagreement with basics. After all, if behavior evolves to become more cooperative, it seems like it would be because populations in which members are more cooperative are on average more successful than populations in which the members weren't as cooperative. (A similar thought would apply to symbiotic relationships.)

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,17:19   

(duplicate deleted)

  
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2010,23:24   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2010,07:43)
Sorry I missed this thread (visiting sick mother with no internet connection!).

To those speculating on a JAD sock, John only managed to use a puppet a while ago (Dr Johnson, I think it was) because Dave Springer set it up for him and emailed him the login details. He just isn't that savvy!

@ Dublin Evans (if he hasn't flounced):

How does the PEH explain lockstep of organism to niche? I recall John Davison as fond of remarking " the environment had nothing to do with it".

ETA punctuation

Sorry,  I think I inadvertently started  a PEH/Symbiosis debate.



[Banned user text deleted - WRE]

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 11 2010,06:36

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,06:37   

John A. Davison was banned for cause. Posting by proxy is not an option.

If you have your own thoughts about PEH, those would be fine to post.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,06:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 11 2010,06:37)
John A. Davison was banned for cause. Posting by proxy is not an option.

If you have your own thoughts about PEH, those would be fine to post.

Thank You Dr. Elsberry I do have a lot of reading ahead of me. :)

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,06:44   

"Patrickarbuthnot":

Quote

Sorry,  I think I inadvertently started  a PEH/Symbiosis debate.


You might occasionally check the thread title. It sometimes gives clues concerning what the thread topic is. This thread's title is "Prescribed Evo. Hypothesis Boosting", so one has an expectation that the comments entered within it have something to do with PEH. If you aren't meaning to comment on PEH, find a more appropriate thread for your comment. We only have a few thousand to choose from.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,07:17   

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,05:12)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 10 2010,04:00)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 10 2010,03:52)
Okay now I understand where your coming from.Thank you for explaining it. I will proceed to read her work then with precautions, thank you.

Once you've read it perhaps you could comment on how you feel UncommonDescent has represented her work?

As you linked to them as an alternative viewpoint on this issue I'd be interested to see if you go along with them after actually reading what they are writing about.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit  I will,  but just so you know I pulled their article up when I put her name in the search engine. I don't read their articles unless they are pulled up while  looking subjects up by Google. :)

Fair enough.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,08:08   

On Margulis: I have not read her book, but from reviews I can see here and there, I can only concur with her critics. Her view on speciation is not supported by studies on natural populations.

I may expand on this topic, which have been my area of research for the past 4 years. At best, it may inform our friend Patrickarbuthnot and clear some early misconceptions on speciation (for example, the view that speciation rarely involves natural selection).
Contrarily to Margulis' opinion, there is considerable evidence that speciation involves genetic changes (point mutations or other genomic rearrangements) and wherever these changes have been pinpointed, they appeared to have been subject to selection. In many cases divergent adaptation to distinct ecological niches has been shown to contribute to reproductive isolation. Geographical isolation will permit the fixation of these changes, though it is not an absolute requirement if divergent selection is strong.
On the other hand, there very little (or no) evidence that genetic drift and bottlenecks induce reproductive isolation (via the "genetic revolutions" proposed by Mayr, among other models). The various founder-effect speciation models have failed all laboratory tests. These were proposed to explain the frequent events of peripratric speciation (in founding populations), but in the end, it seems that natural selection in the new colonized habitat is the main driver of reproductive isolation (aided by geographical isolation).
Speciation by deleterious chromosomal rearrangements does not appear very common. The "stasipatric" model of speciation has recently been discredited in the biological model where it was first proposed (Australian grasshoppers or something). But chromosomal speciation requires more investigation. It could act in mammals, but the only studied case I know is the house mouse. There may be a couple of other candidate models though.
Speciation by polyploidization is frequent in plants (especially ferns), but less common than the classical model (selected genetic changes in isolated populations) and rare in animals.

Overall, it seems that Margulis gives too much importance to endosymbiosis. Although it certainly enabled the colonization of new niches (in insects in particular), thereby contributing to biodiversity, a direct link to speciation is not demonstrated.
It is sad that Margulis seems to embrace controversial hypotheses without looking carefully at the available data. I am not judging from her book (which I haven't read), but from the recent fiasco at PNAS, where she communicated this ridulous paper advocating the hypothesis that caterpillars came from velvet worms.  :(

  
Patrickarbuthnot



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,23:08   

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 11 2010,08:08)
On Margulis: I have not read her book, but from reviews I can see here and there, I can only concur with her critics. Her view on speciation is not supported by studies on natural populations.

I may expand on this topic, which have been my area of research for the past 4 years. At best, it may inform our friend Patrickarbuthnot and clear some early misconceptions on speciation (for example, the view that speciation rarely involves natural selection).
Contrarily to Margulis' opinion, there is considerable evidence that speciation involves genetic changes (point mutations or other genomic rearrangements) and wherever these changes have been pinpointed, they appeared to have been subject to selection. In many cases divergent adaptation to distinct ecological niches has been shown to contribute to reproductive isolation. Geographical isolation will permit the fixation of these changes, though it is not an absolute requirement if divergent selection is strong.
On the other hand, there very little (or no) evidence that genetic drift and bottlenecks induce reproductive isolation (via the "genetic revolutions" proposed by Mayr, among other models). The various founder-effect speciation models have failed all laboratory tests. These were proposed to explain the frequent events of peripratric speciation (in founding populations), but in the end, it seems that natural selection in the new colonized habitat is the main driver of reproductive isolation (aided by geographical isolation).
Speciation by deleterious chromosomal rearrangements does not appear very common. The "stasipatric" model of speciation has recently been discredited in the biological model where it was first proposed (Australian grasshoppers or something). But chromosomal speciation requires more investigation. It could act in mammals, but the only studied case I know is the house mouse. There may be a couple of other candidate models though.
Speciation by polyploidization is frequent in plants (especially ferns), but less common than the classical model (selected genetic changes in isolated populations) and rare in animals.

Overall, it seems that Margulis gives too much importance to endosymbiosis. Although it certainly enabled the colonization of new niches (in insects in particular), thereby contributing to biodiversity, a direct link to speciation is not demonstrated.
It is sad that Margulis seems to embrace controversial hypotheses without looking carefully at the available data. I am not judging from her book (which I haven't read), but from the recent fiasco at PNAS, where she communicated this ridulous paper advocating the hypothesis that caterpillars came from velvet worms.  :(

If you don't mind I will ask her that very thing in a e-mail and see what she says? I don't necessarily believe her hypothesis is correct I just am interested in her research.

--------------
Thomas Edison said: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,02:16   

Actually I am not that much interested in her view on speciation and I do not have much time to spend on this. Sorry.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread. I thought you were asking me to write her an email.

Well, do as you like.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,07:24   

"Patrickarbuthnot":

 
Quote

Sorry,  I think I inadvertently started  a PEH/Symbiosis debate.


Given that PEH is a frontloading conjecture and endosymbiosis is a hypothesis of contingent interaction, it ought to be a very short debate. I think I've pointed that out before.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  193 replies since Feb. 21 2010,03:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]