AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Mike PSS

form_srcid: Mike PSS

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.215.209

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Mike PSS

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Mike PSS%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/09/17 23:58:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!

It's taken a while but AFDave has finally blown my cloaking device.  I invested heavily in time and money to protect my lurker status but all previous protections are now null and void.

As a long time lurker since page 1 of this thread (and the previous related topics in April06) I've laughed (and almost cried) at the antics to prove the present Hypothesis under question.  The latest Isochron set-up by AFDave went over the top for me.

I was reading the initial Isochron post (and JonF and Tracy Hamilton response) and glanced over to my bookshelf full of my undergrad chemical engineering textbooks to see where AFDave had gone wrong (again).  I didn't have to get further than my freshman math texts, not even the vector calc or matrix algebra is needed for this argument.  I guess AFDave's EE degree never went into variance over time (d/dt) or how this relation could be extracted from Isochron evidence to derive the ratios in question.  I can almost predict AFDave's argument without knowing the details of Isochron dating since the math is fairly straight forward BUT can be misrepresented by hand-waving and jargon to those without a graphical interpretation skill in there head (something I'm blessed/cursed with).  

If AFDave wants to misrepresent mathematical arguments as it relates to raw data then he should choose reaction rate chemistry or IR plots of mixed organic compounds.  Those data sets are tough to interpret except by skilled or experienced technicians.

I look forward to the mathematical gymnastics that AFDave will have to display in this topic.  Let the mathematically challenged special olympics begin.

And..... thanks for all the patience and time of all the regular posters on this thread.  It's good reading on plane trips.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/18 15:35:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 18 2006,13:34)
[snip] So here's where we are in our study of the Isochron Method of dating rocks ... we have looked at a hypothetical set of charts which are very good because they really help you understand the logic.  And yes, they are from the RATE books.  (But don't buy them ... they might destroy your comfy worldview)  We are looking at whole rock isochrons first, then we will look at mineral isochrons.  Jon is correct that (at least from this real world example) the assumed Initial Daughter Ratio is closer to 0.7 for the Rb/Sr analyses.



We might just as well continue our discussion with this real world example. [snip]

AFDave, I have a couple questions.  You brought up a graph showing the Isochron of chondritic meteorites.

If this data was from whole rock Isochron analysis, why do we get a linear relationship instead of a scatter of single points?

Why are there no data points between the Rb/Sr ratios of (approx.) 1.0 to 1.3? ???

This graph doesn't seem to jive with what Overn and Arndts are arguing.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/19 13:55:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 19 2006,09:01)
   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 18 2006,21:35)
If this data was from whole rock Isochron analysis, why do we get a linear relationship instead of a scatter of single points?

Why are there no data points between the Rb/Sr ratios of (approx.) 1.0 to 1.3? ???

This graph doesn't seem to jive with what Overn and Arndts are arguing.

The data in that graph may be consistent with Arndts and Overn's hypothesis; it isn't prima facie inconsistent.

They hypothesize that all whole-rock isochrons are the result of mixing of two isotopically inhomogeneous sources, which is physically possible.  Imagine that there's a mass of well-mixed magma, magma A, that happens to have an 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.81 and an 87Rb/86Sr ratio of 1.7.  Imagine another mass of well-mixed magma, magma B, that happens to have an 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.708 and an 87Rb/86Sr ratio of 0.15.  Now imagine that magmas A and B come together, mix somewhat but don't mix thoroughly, and erupt and solidify.  Your friendly local geologist comes along a few thousand years later (before any significant amount of Rb has decayed in the rocks) and collects samples for an isochron analysis.  One of his samples just happens to be all from magma A, and plots as the upper right data point on the graph.  Another one of his samples happens to be all from magma B, and plots as the lower left data point on the graph. The other samples are made up of varying proportions of the two magmas, and plot as points between the two extremes but on a straight line connecting the extremes.  This is as expected, and this sort of thing does happen occasionally.

I agree fully with your analysis.  However, the graph represents 23 seperate meteorite samples that are extra-terrestrial in origin but still consistent (and concordant with Pb-Pb) in their dates on the Isochron graph.  Plus, AFDave intends on using thisgraph to continue his discussion on invalidating Isochrons.

How can AFDave argue "mixing" problems with the extra-terrestrial origin of the samples?  I think this graph and deadman's argument are similar in nature in regards to the origins of the samples.

AFDave, any answers on this data you yourself have held up as evidence of your argument?

Mike PSS

PSS = Professer Steve Sibling.  My brother is on the list.

Date: 2006/09/19 17:42:53, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
You yourself stated that we should "...continue our discussion with this real world example."  (quote from right below the Minster graph near the top of your verbose message)

All I want to know is how your interpretation of this data supports your assertion against whole-rock Isochron methods.  And in this vernacular I mean the data showing a linear relation of the data set, not the age determination that is quoted (this age of course being the interpretation of the data by Minster).

You posted the graph and should have a reference somewhere, why ask the audience for further reference, just post a link to where you got the graph. :(

If we get to questions that require further reference then we can query further, but this plot creates a number of anomolies by itself.....
1)  How can whole-rock analysis of 23 independent samples from extra-terrestrial objects create a linear relation that is similar/same in relation to terrestrial plots that follow the same Isochron technique?
2)  Why is there no data points between a Rb/Sr ratio of 1.0 to 1.3?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/20 05:12:04, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,07:23)


Mike PSS--  

Here is my guess of what we might have if we analyzed MANY meteorites.  With this data set, you can have MANY lines with all different slopes ... if this is the real situation, then of course, there is no age significance at all.  

But I would like to see the paper and find out more.

AFDave,
Just as one person would say to another person "Your fly is undone."  I say to you...
"Your cognitive dissonance is showing!!" :)

I asked you to interpret the data that you presented, that I now find out was from RATE 1.  What is your interpretation of the data presented.  Wild guesses reflecting your imagination aren't part of the discussion of the data set that you brought to the table.

Looking at the above graph with my red filter glasses on I now only see measured and verified data in a linear relation of MANY meteorite samples.  In my vernacular MANY has a meaning related to counting...  e.g.  "One..... Two..... MANY...." ;)   Since there are 23 independent meteorites than this fits my definition of MANY.  I'll assume you agree with me on this definition and carry on. :)  {AFDave, please don't quibble about this definition since you have argued in the past about parts of your hypothesis based upon One data point, namely your KJV-v3.8.25}

AFDave, I will admit to you that I am not revealing all that I know on this subject.  I am certainly no expert in radiometric dating however I have some experience in radio-nucleides (on-stream density measurement of fluid flow in a pipe for example), chemistry, engineering and material science.  In other words I know enough to be dangerous (to myself or others remains to be seen).  If I'm wrong in my interpretations of the data that you brought to the table and someone calls me on it then I will admit my error and accept the correction.

So...........
Accepting that we have MANY meteorites already sampled and putting your red filter glasses on and looking at the above graph, what is your interpretation of the data set presented and why does the data result in a linear relation? *

I'll drop my second question about the Rb/Sr ratio gap since JonF has already argued this point in the past.  I'll give you extra credit if you can state how my question relates to one of JonF's previous arguments that you didn't agree with (may be tough, you disagree with JonF quite a bit so there are MANY  :O arguments to choose from).

Mike PSS

* Why do I get the feeling that AFDave will put on his black filter glasses instead of his red ones? :D

Date: 2006/09/20 16:13:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Your Isochron arguments made me decloak because I knew you didn't know what you were getting into when you started this little bit of "street theater".

Then you presented REAL data on p.194 and stated that this was a point of discussion we should continue for your argument.  I think this was a first for you since the start of your hypothesising to actually present REAL data so I challanged you to interpret the data.  I even gave you an out and said you didn't have to commit to the age published in the graph, just the reasoning behind the linearity of the data.  SIMPLE. :(

You said the graph came from RATE Book 1.  So...  what do they say about the graph and do you support the RATE group interpretation of the data?

Stop playing with crayons and start using your grey matter a little bit more.  I predicted that you would put on your black filter glasses in my last post and you did just that.

And finally you stated:
Quote
Mike PSS-- I have explained to you already why I posted the Minster plot. I could have posted ANY plot from the literature and it would have looked similar.  What I am saying, though, is that this plot is a SELECTION of data.  (It's not even 23 meteorites I see)

Of course, if this was a random sampling of all the meteorites out there, and no data was discarded as "erroneous" for whatever reason, then this would be interesting and possibly indicate Deep Time.


So we have come to an interesting point in your discussion of your hypothesis.  We have REAL data on the table (not your genital wart plot creation) and we have a statement of falsifiability for your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis from yourself.

Also,
How many is MANY (let's put this goalpost in concrete right now)?
I gave you an out once with Minster's assumed age but you didn't take it.  So...Why do you think the linear plot would indicate Deep Time if it met your falsifiability statement (think about this one, you yourself stated it above)?  

I think you are now seeing that this circular room has no corners to hide in.  There are multi-layer, multi-discipline, multi-connected reasons for a single data point on that graph (and that graph has 38 points, and there are thousands of these graphs) and I am beginning to detect that you aren't seeing enough of these connections.

That's enough to get you thinking for now.
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/21 02:42:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
I see in your reply to my previous post you missed (avoided) the questions I asked.  Let me be more precise.

If you ever accepted the data in the graph from RATE Book 1, how does this indicate Deep Time?

I never said this was MY evidence (or Eric's evidence or JonF's evidence) for Deep Time.  I never said you had to accept Minster's quoted age on the graph.  All I wanted to know was why you think this linear Isochron data set would indicate Deep Time?  SIMPLE ???

Date: 2006/09/21 03:00:39, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
I'm keeping my messages more concise.  I see that you are overworked with absorbing the multiple blows from the others on this thread.
So.......
   
Quote
Mike PSS...    
Quote
 
So we have come to an interesting point in your discussion of your hypothesis.  We have REAL data on the table (not your genital wart plot creation) and we have a statement of falsifiability for your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis from yourself.

Mike, my friend, IF it somehow turns out that all meteorites plot on the Minster line and NOT in some pattern like my red dots, then you will have ONE shred of evidence supporting Deep Time.  But even this piece of evidence can still be explained in other ways besides Deep Time.  

You are not even CLOSE to falsifying a 6000 year old earth.

You ALMOST have an answer in that statement.  Also, I'm not calling it evidence for anything.  Just a collection of data.  I want to know...
What is your interpretation of the data explaining why the data set is linear?
No age commitment, no zircon interpretation, no Portuguese word comparison.  Just tell me what you see and why you see it that way. :(

Finally, you can see in my quote that I'm not trying to falsify your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis.  I only said that you yourself have established a test of falsifiability to your hypothesis.  From a logical standpoint this is good.  Why can't you see this? :O

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/21 03:53:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 21 2006,09:06)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 21 2006,09:00)
What is your interpretation of the data explaining why the data set is linear?

Dave thinks it's cherry picking.

[Yoda] AFDave, don't think..... DO!  Or don't do.  Feel the force around you and act upon it. [/Yoda] (mis-quoted I'm sure)

Like chess, I think everyone but AFDave sees three moves ahead and understands why I ask this question first.  AFDave is playing tiddly-winks on the chess board.

Date: 2006/09/21 04:52:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Improvious,
No surprise ruined because there are no surprises in the data involved.  Anyone who learns this stuff can understand how the data is put together.  AFDave has indicated that he DOESN"T understand the subject (and JonF and ericmurphy both have pointed this out).  I'm just trying to get an answer out of him showing me what level of education I can reasonably engage him at.  I started with an BSc, EE degree basis but am now backing up to freshman level.  It will be high school level very soon......  Wait a minute....

AFDave, Have you found the fountain of youth????

Date: 2006/09/21 09:30:03, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
I begin to understand why people call you names on this board.  However, I have patience to engage in your present rambling explanations.  But first you have to show some knowledge of the material that you presented.

What you (and Arndts and Overn) are not recognizing is the actual formation of crystaline structures from a homogenous melt.  The melt may have 5 (or 7 or 9 or more) different elements that form a crystal structure.  With these elements, you may have preferrential crystallization of one type of crystal in one zone and another type of crystal in another zone of the solidification front as the melt cools.  Since there are MANY crystals in any rock there can be areas between the actual crystals that are amorphous in nature.  A granite countertop would be pretty bland if this were not the case.

To carry on with the technical side of this discussion you have to understand some terms.  
Face-Centered-Cubic, Body-Centered-Cubic, Hexagonal-Close-Packed.  These are unit cells of a crystal.
The unit cells can combine into different geometries like, Cubic, Hexagonal, Tetragonal, Rhombohedral, Orthorhombic, Monoclinic, Triclinic.
Depending on the unit cell AND the lattice geometry, an impurity may be substituted either interstitially (between crystal atoms) or substitutuinally (replacing atoms in the crystal matrix) depending on the impurities atomic size and the crystal structure.
Also, impurities may be present at the crystal boundries because of linear defects or grain boundries in the crystalline mass.

OK? Are you still with me?

To summerize into usefull bullet points.

*WHOLE ROCK ANALYSIS CAN CONTAIN IMPURITIES FROM INTERSTITIAL, SUBSTITUTIONAL, LINEAR BOUNDRY, OR GRAIN BOUNDRY DEFECTS ALONG WITH AMORPHOUS AREAS OF THE ROCK.
*THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF THESE DEFECTS IS RANDOM. which means...
*THE NUMBER OF Rb AND Sr ATOMS IN ANY ONE WHOLE ROCK SAMPLES IS SOMEWHAT RANDOMIZED.
*A WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRON ANALYSIS WILL SHOW DIFFERENT POINTS ON A LINEAR LINE RELATIONSHIP.
*ALL OF THIS VARIABILITY WAS FROM AN INITIAL, HOMOGENEOUS MELT.


Dalrymple probably didn't engage Arndts and Overn because the argument they used against Dalrymple was so basically flawed why should he respond to such simpleton accusations.

Back to you AFDave.

Mike PSS

****This information from my sophmore MatSci text.  It fits since AFDave's arguments are very sophmoric in nature.****

Date: 2006/09/21 11:23:38, Link
Author: Mike PSS
JonF,
     
Quote
     
Quote
(Mike PSS @ Sep. 21 2006,15:30)
Depending on the unit cell AND the lattice geometry, an impurity may be substituted either interstitially (between crystal atoms) or substitutuinally (replacing atoms in the crystal matrix) depending on the impurities atomic size and the crystal structure.


And, especially for substitutions, the electrochemical properties of the impurity atom.
     
Quote

*WHOLE ROCK ANALYSIS CAN CONTAIN IMPURITIES FROM INTERSTITIAL, SUBSTITUTIONAL, LINEAR BOUNDRY, OR GRAIN BOUNDRY DEFECTS ALONG WITH AMORPHOUS AREAS OF THE ROCK.
*THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF THESE DEFECTS IS RANDOM. which means...
*THE NUMBER OF Rb AND Sr ATOMS IN ANY ONE WHOLE ROCK SAMPLES IS SOMEWHAT RANDOMIZED.


I don't quite agree; many of the ways impurities are incorporated are indeed random, but substitution typically is not.  But the chemical effects, of course, lead to enrichment or depletion in the melt as various crystals form from it, and inhomogeneous temperature effects contribute too, and all sorts of things show up that complicate the picture far beyond Davie's "it all freezes at once" level of understanding ... eventualy leading to initial spatial inhomogeneity in the solidified rocks as well as the minerals, and therefore, as you wrote:{snip}
(my bold)

Thanks for the clarification.  I had thought of saying something similar to the bolded comment at first but thought a bit of explanation of how spatial inhomogenaity could be structurally formed.  I left the selection issue out of the discussion because I knew you were trying to hammer it into AFDave already.  I was then going to carry-on about the material balance and mass transfer issues at the solidification front of the melt but thought I would end the message with what I had.  Your summary above states it pretty well.
 
AFDave,
Do you agree with the structural mechanisms I presented?  Do they exist in your hypothesis?  If not, why not?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/21 12:22:06, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Is this your data interpretation filter? (found here)
     
Quote
Implications of the Old Earth Position
It is obvious that belief in a 4.6 billion-year-old earth and a 15 billion-year-old universe did not come from the Bible, for there is not a hint of evolution or long geological ages anywhere in the Bible. My book, Biblical Creationism, for example, examines every relevant verse in every book of the Bible, and there is no suggestion anywhere of the geological or astronomical ages that are widely assumed today. The concepts of evolution and an infinitely old cosmos are often found in the ancient pagan religions, but never in the original Judaeo-Christian literature.

Therefore, Christians who want to harmonize the standard geological/astronomical age system with Scripture must use eisegesis, not exegesis, to do so. That is, they have to try to interpret Scripture in such a way as to make it fit modern scientism. We believe on the other hand, that the only way we can really honor the Bible as God's inspired Word is to assume it as authoritative on all subjects with which it deals. That means we must use the Bible to interpret scientific data, not use naturalistic presuppositions to direct our Bible interpretations.

Those who choose the latter course, however, embark on a very slippery slope that ends in a precipice. For if the long geological ages really took place, that means there were at least a billion years of suffering and death in the animal kingdom before the arrival of men and women in the world. Each geological "age" is identified by the types of dead organisms now preserved as fossils in the rocks of that age, and there are literally billions of such fossils buried in the earth's crust. This fact leads to the following very disturbing chain of conclusions, as follows:


    [1]God is not really a God of grace and mercy after all, for He seems to have created a world filled with animals suffering and dying for a billion years, and He did so for no apparent reason whatever, assuming that His ultimate goal was to create human beings for fellowship with Himself.
    [2]The Bible is not really an au thoritative guide, for if it is wrong in these important matters of science and history, which we supposedly can check for ourselves, using the usual criteria of scientific and historical investigation, then how can we trust it in matters of salvation, heaven, and everlasting life, which we have no means of verifying scientifically?
    (and on and on and on and on.........)

Date: 2006/09/21 17:13:41, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Russell @ Sep. 18 2006,17:58)
I don't have the graphics to go with it, but I've always thought one of the most compelling arguments for ID was that there are holes in a cat's skin and fur exactly where its eyes are!

Random chance? I think not!

(One "yellow fatty bean", I think, offered this nugget on PT a couple of years ago. I chuckle every time I think of it. Anyone have an earlier citation?)


You talkin' bout me?

Date: 2006/09/22 08:30:51, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
I was going to put a lengthy explanation of how crystal structure selection and formation was related to the limiting element in the melt front.  And if the limiting element was depleted then the structure of the crystal would change in that area.

However, as I walk up and see JonF's response this is what I find:

{EDIT: First Image didn't load properly. Link to first image is http://www.tellmewhereonearth.com/Images6/Nelson-plane_crash.jpg}
Not much left there for me to pick-apart.  Good Job JonF.

AND AFDave said
   
Quote
Hey, Jon ... what would I get if I plotted this on a "normal" graph?

Pretty near a horizontal line, my friend!  See what the range is?  

0.0057 !!!!!!!!!!!
Is an order of magnitude greater than what JonF said
   
Quote
The range of Snelling's 87Sr/86Sr values is 0.000507.  

See what you get when you miss the decimal place.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/22 10:50:09, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 22 2006,16:27)
And the x axis is another two orders of magnitude!  :p

Your right Tracy.  In that case, we'll find AFDave's plane here.

Date: 2006/09/22 13:10:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
stevestory,
I think MidnightVoice had a good idea in the "Broken Thread" discussion.
Quote
Try locking the old thread and leaving a link to the new one as the last post.


Still Possible?

Date: 2006/09/23 03:15:43, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
As a preamble, I'm a chemical engineer and have worked in the chemical/agricultural process industry for ten years.  Lucky for me I'm still in a position where I can use skills and knowledge that were taught in university.  Also, PSS stands for Project Steve Sibling since my brother is on the list.  Before university I was enlisted in the Air Force fixing jets (F-4G, F-4E, F-16, A-10, and others) and teaching pilots how to properly use new avionics technology on the planes.
I've worked and trained Air Force pilots before and know that their egos get in the way of there brains sometimes.  I found that the only way some of them accept a fact is to make them think they discovered it themselves (as opposed to having someone else pound it into their thick skulls).

My presentation of Material Science facts regarding crystal structure and formation (and JonF's additional and detailed information) are based upon measured values of observed phenomena.  These values have nothing to do with age of the earth.

So when you respond with  
Quote
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!
I wonder what you actually know about any of the basic sciences like physics, chemistry, math, statistics, etc.... being discussed.  At some point AFDave you'll have to take your Isochron argument back to the basic math and science of the method because your present line of arguments lead directly back to these facts.

AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?


Your lost in this argument and getting more desperate by the day.  Either learn some basics, accept some basics, or accept defeat of your argument and move on.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/23 03:36:04, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I'm always impressed with the amount of bibliography and reference that a creationist paper will use.  A two-page presentation about the age of the earth may have over thirty references posted.  I think this is supposed to give an air of respectability to the paper to show that the author is well read and done full research into the subject (that they are butcherring).  

My 10 year old is making bibliographies in her reports at school.  Can she file a report with AIG or ICR because of the breadth and depth of her referencing? ;)

Date: 2006/09/23 06:21:17, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,11:41)
ericmurphy:

     
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

Touché GoP.  Touché.

Date: 2006/09/23 07:27:26, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:29)
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.

I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

JonF or ericmurphy have already pummelled him with Ar-Ar dating techniques (which are self-correcting to original daughter isotopes) but Dave has ignored this MANY times.

AFDave,
Don't hold back.  State what you truly believe about crystal formation and radioisotopic half-lives.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/23 09:09:04, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,15:01)
   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

Oops!  Looks like he already has:

     
Quote
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.

I stand humbly corrected in awe of your search prowess.

AFDave,
You missed (at least) one:    
Quote
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

21) You have been shown that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish.  (i.e. Portuguese = French + Spanish  and you didn't think I knew math!!!;))

Date: 2006/09/24 03:59:43, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

       
Quote
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?


Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

************************

Details please, Jeannot?

Thank you AFDave for admitting that the science of crystal formation is valid in your worldview.  The question wasn't meant to be "STUPID", only to establish a baseline that we both can agree upon.

My point in asking this (and other) questions goes back to your arguments in p.194 - p.202 of the 1st thread.  You (and Arndts and Overn) say you can't have a whole rock Isochron sample vary it's Rb/Sr ratio but the science of crystal formation directly contradicts your claim.

If you wish to carry on with your "ALL ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES" claim then you have to show how the science of crystal formation supports your claim.

MANY (remember that definition) people warned you that you probably didn't know enough information to argue about Isochrons.  There are enough knowledgable people here to reveal what learning is required to understand this stuff.  However, your latest diatribe against "millionofyearsism" is troubling for this idea....
 
Quote
Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.

I'll leave this for another day.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/24 12:32:19, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I notice that AFDave's posts are a bit more shrill and contain a bit less truthiness.  I think this little exchange is going on in the background (a la Top Gun).
Quote
Kids4Truth: “WHAT? WHERE'RE YOU--HEY, WHY THE HECK DON’T YOU POST?”

AFDave: “MY ARGUMENT DIDN'T ... AHHH...LOOK GOOD.”

Kids4Truth: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT DOESN'T GET TO LOOK MUCH BETTER THAN THAT?”

AFDave: “NO. NO GOOD.”


{Later at the water cooler…}
Ken Ham walks up to Andrew Snelling who waits near a Piltdown Man replica.

A. Snelling: “He just won't engage. He can't do it, Skipper. He can't get back on the horse.”

K. Ham: “It's only been a day. Keep sending him our reports.”

A. Snelling: “I've seen this before.”

K. Ham: “So have I.”

A. Snelling: “Some guys never get their cognitive dissonance back.”

Date: 2006/09/24 17:13:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Let's kick it up a notch and start putting some of the pieces of the sciences together to get a clearer picture of what is going on in Isochrons.

You accept the science of crystalization.  
Quote
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably,{snip}
I asked this question because I wanted a baseline of agreement for our discussion.

I'm going to use an example at University of Wisconsin-River Falls Dept. of Planet and Earth Sciences.  Nothing special about this selection, just near the top of the Google search for "Olivine mineral formation".  One member of the faculty is a PhD of geology in the department.  Who he is doesn't matter for my point, BUT he has co-authored an article about the subject we are talking about, BUT we won't discuss ages or time just yet.  I'm just showing that this particular reference is valid to our discussion.              
Quote
{snip}, 1976, "Rb-Sr Geochronology of Granite Gneiss from Horse Creek, Tobacco Root Mountains of Montana", Geochron West, Summer, p. 49.

The department has catalogued a lot of Wisconsin minerals but I want to point to Olivine specifically since this mineral is found in magmas AND in chondritic meteorites (remember the Minster graph?).  The Olivine page lists the identified locations of Olivine found in Wisconsin.  The entries are by county and indicate platte map references for location so any other geologist who is searching for this particular mineral can "find it quite easily" (a relative statement I'm sure). Notice that the Olivine page (and the other mineral pages) don't mention age or time, only location and geographic structure.  The site also has a bibliography of numerous references here, here, and here.

The Olivine page also has this heading: OLIVINE (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 Orthorhombic.  Ignore the chemical formulae for now, we can get to that later.  However, notice the "Orthorhomibic" entry because this describes the crystal structure of Olivine.  In fact, almost all the entries in the list of minerals have a heading with a specified crystal structure of the mineral.

So.... Olivine is a crystaline mineral with orthorhombic structure found in numerous places in Wisconsin and catalogued extensively.  Nothing hypothetical about this information that I can see.  I'm going to end my boring entry right now since there is enough corroberrated information above to ask a NOT-SO-STUPID question.

AFDave,
Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?


If we can agree on the structural mechanics of Olivine then we can start on the chemistry.  Are you still game to continue with discussing Isochrons?
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/25 02:45:05, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,00:38)
   
Quote
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?

What I have found so interesting in this thread is how our resident YEC has tried to use the "paragons of YEC" at AIG and ICR to support his arguments yet someone like myself with an undergrad education and some time in my field can overcome these arguments with LITTLE effort.  Some critical analysis of the YEC papers is all you need to shoot down their claims.

In AFDave's present train wreck called Isochrons I'm not even trying hard to find references or facts to support my claims, yet what little I find and use is damning to AFDave's argument.

C'mon Dave!
Give us something tough!
Your wrong about Isochrons!
Post some more evidence from many different disciplines!


Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/25 10:50:20, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Totally OT.  But maybe Robert O'Brian will see this.

I can install Latin signatures too.  At least be clear on your signature block.  Maybe we should argue an "English language, Christian West" instead.

Or maybe these: :O  
Quote

Caeci caecos ducentes
Cur etiam hic es
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare
De asini vmbra disceptare


Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/25 11:15:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I'm a chemical engineer working in industry.  No lab experiance and no biology tasks in my work (or in my past).

However, Rude makes a simple point here in response to Chris Hyland (comment #17).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1645#comment-64540
 
Quote
Chris Hyland: “The burden of proof is indeed on the Darwinist to prove Darwinism. However it is also the burden of proof of the IDist to prove design. ” But is it? Design has always been self evident which is what Darwin and his followers have tried to counter.  We could just let them come up with some evidence first, but after a century and a half of siliness it has fallen to ID to show us quite precisely how to detect design.

Is he saying that since Paley published first then "proof" lies in the pants of everyone else? ???
Or.... Darwin doesn't prove design so ID steps in to save the day? :(
Or.... He is still waiting for evidence from Darwin's followers????
Or....  Um....  Ahhh.....

More evidence of cranial-rectal insertion at UD.
That thread is GREAT!
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/26 05:49:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Your assertion that        
Quote (afdave @ Posted on Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?  We cannot claim to truly know the history of ANY rock.
is funny in the extreme.  I know that you tried this argument in the past and were smacked down.  Are you now changing your Rb/Sr Isochron argument to the above position instead of what you argued three days ago?      
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 23 2006,09:16)
20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.
.
My verbose prose on crystallization was only the beginning of the science lesson in showing you how Rb/Sr Isochron methods are valid.  You haven't responded to my last question regarding Olivine and crystallization.  Here it is again.

Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?

We have a basis in understanding that we can agree upon and I'm trying to build upon this basis.  
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.

From this beginning I intend on showing you how electrochemical selection will vary the Rb uptake in a crystal formed in an olivine melt and how this uptake variability results in the linear relation found on the Isochron graph.

Your cherry picking argument can only be applied to the global scale, not the local scale.  You have to show that cherry picking a sample to fit the Rb/Sr testing method (remember, the rocks are chosen BEFORE they are tested so no age bias is introduced to the rock selection) somehow invalidates the results of the test.

AFDave, eventually the ony argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.  Here's the initial counter argument you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.
I look forward to another smack-down.
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/26 09:12:57, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 26 2006,14:55)
     
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
Eric...            
Quote
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."

ericmurphy,
AFDave only applies this method of argument to obfuscate matters.  When I try to engage him by explaining all the relevant facts needed to understand ONE aspect of crystal formation.... he ignores the facts and the questions posed.

incorygible,
Good third-person paragraph.  How many mistakes before you clicked your brain into third-person typing? :)
 
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 26 2006,13:40)
Incorygible has spent over a decade of his life, tens of thousands of his dollars, and a good chunk of his day EARNING his education in evolutionary biology. Over that time, Incorygible has forgotten more about what evidence "convinced" him than AFDave will learn here, even if AFDave suddenly became intellectually honest. Nevertheless, plenty of "convincing" stuff remains, which Incorygible has gone to great efforts to show AFDave. Incorygible also knows that, {snip}

Date: 2006/09/26 09:24:26, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Sep. 26 2006,14:16)
It's not the stuff for DI propaganda, though, hence is unlikely to show up on a UD blog.
They'll certainly report the mass audiences that attended Nelsons tour to high schools and churches.  They'll make sure to count everyone fairly (all registered students and staff, school janitor, contract lunchroom assistant, the guy fixing the lights in the parking lot, etc.)
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/26 09:46:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote
Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.

AFDave,
This is where you go wrong.  The point isn't concise, or containable in an executive summary.  I'm trying to lead you down the primrose path of knowledge here in bite size pieces.  Each bite size piece is an executive summary of a whole body of knowledge.  There are at numerous seperate professional disciplines involved just to understand radiometric dating.  You have to understand what olivine is (geology), how the crystals formed (material science, chemistry, chemical and mechanical engineering), how isotopes and radioactivity work (nuclear physics), how radioisotope testing equipment works (mechanical engineering, physics, electronic engineering), and that's just off the top of my head.

When your argument is about "all Isochrons are mixing lines" then you are arguing DEEP into the basic knowledge base of the method (radiometric testing).  To support that argument you need to comprehend and understand ALL of the knowledge base listed above.
However, you don't have to be an expert in all the fields listed above.  You could purchase the radiometric testing machine and TRUST that the people that designed it and put it together knew what they were doing.  You could install the machine and calibrate it according to the instruction sheet that comes with the equipment.  You could then follow all the instructions (like proper sample selection) and test your materials.  The instructions probably have some checks and balances for your data to make sure the machine is working properly.  Voila, a valid data point.  Rinse and repeat.  That wasn't hard.

If you want an executive summary then talk to me about the economic viability of investing in an alternative fuels plant (ethanol or biodiesel).  I'm involved in the operation, modification, testing, and optimization of these things.  Landfill Gas?  No problem.  Wood Combustion?  Bring it on.  Executive summaries work in business, not always in science.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/26 10:41:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
OK Dave,  Here's an executive summary for you.

Bible - Goddidit.
Your arguments - Wrong
My arguments - Right.

Is that what you wanted?  Be concise in your requests.

I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/26 13:25:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Mike PSS--        
Quote
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!

Ad Hominum Ad Nausium from AFDave.

Can I call "shenanigans" and get AFDave back on track?

Dave,
Nowhere in your quoted reply do you address the pertinent information regarding Olivine crystal formation.  Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/27 09:26:43, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Mike PSS...              
Quote
Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.  I'm quite sure you do.  But that is an entirely different thing than being able to defend it reasonably and convince me that the "dates" obtained are real.  And I don't think you have made any mistakes in your arguments other than the fact that I really don't know what your argument is or what your point is.  But I am happy to hear it.  Now ... I do know what olivine is and I understand crystal formation somewhat.  What does this have to do with RM Dating being a valid indicator of true age.
So AFDave.  When you said something like this but only 15hours 12minutes before you said this...          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.  {my bolding in both blocks}
what was your point?  Ad Hominums are easier than addressing the issues.  AND what does Eric have to do with this?  Those are totally your words and quotes?  

Moving on.... I'll work with you on your request.  I'll try and summarize the following statement.  BUT first we have to agree upon the statement.  Do you agree to address the issues behind my summary of:

How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
My summary will serve as my attempt to refute your claims of:
  • Whole rock Isochrons result in only single points from a sample (argued by Arndts and Overn also).
  • All whole rock Isochrons are better described as mixing lines.
After my summary you can review and respond to my summary as you see fit.  But first....

Do you agree to the above statement?
WARNING TO AFDAVE:  I am not indicating ages, time, or half-lives in my argument so any counter-arguments about time are not allowed.  I'm only trying to show the natural, physical processes for crystal formation as it relates to Rb/Sr testing and how these processes form the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graph.  My only contention is that Rb87 atoms decay to Sr87 atoms following published nuclear physical processes over some unspecified time (OR you can think of this numerically, some quantity of Rb decays to Sr after crystal formation but the quantity has no relation to the time involved if you want to bend your mind this way).  I can elaborate on this warning more if you don't understand ALL the implications related to this warning.

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave, remember you can accept ALL Isochron graphs right now.  Just admit your argument against the Isochron testing was wrong (you can even say MISTAKEN).  You can STILL argue about time scales while accepting that the METHOD of whole rock Isochron testing is valid (in other words the data and graphs are correct but those funky time stamps on the side are wrong).  I'll stop pummelling you with this boring crystal stuff if you move your arguments to half-lives and accellerated nuclear decay rates.  Don't say I didn't warn you though  
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,11:49)
AFDave, eventually the only argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.

Date: 2006/09/27 16:29:13, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave got me thinking (note to self; check expiration date of my medication) and one of his primary arguments has one more hole {glaring inconsistency, logical gap, sucking chest wound, whatever}.

One of his primary (there's that word again) arguments against RM dating is:      
Quote
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?


JonF, deadman, ericmurphy and others have said quite clearly that proper sample selection for testing counters this argument.  Another counter used is how does AFDave explain the date ranges that DO result from the proper samples.

But Dave's argument is ALSO against the METHOD of RM testing along with the results.  From his statement, he believes that ALL samples, no matter what their position or origin should give concordant results otherwise the technique of RM testing is somehow not worth anything.  I can hear AFDave saying right now; "Unless and until RM testing can atain this level of performance, I can't believe it."

I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D

AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines.

Date: 2006/09/28 04:27:13, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2006,23:52)
Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D"

You'll have to find it, first. ;)

Henry

But in AFDave's mind, he has produced at least two pieces of evidence.

1) MASSIVE amounts of water-laid sediment.
2) A book.

Everyone else on this board has ripped this evidence to shreds.  I'm just saying that if AFDave wants to present these (and other) items that he terms as evidence for his arguments that he hold it to the same standards he holds for RM dating.

I'm purposefully avoiding any direct attacks on Dave's character.  I know this leads to (what I think are) boring posts, and I could cut loose any minute, but it doesn't serve MY purpose here. ;)   His last bit of theater, accusing me of "pretending to know this stuff" caused me to walk away from the keyboard and think before I typed.  I don't want AFDave to have any "outs" in my present discussion about crystal formation and Isochrons.  The evidence is rock solid  :p and everyone knows that AFDave has only one option, to argue against the actual age results.  If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly.

Date: 2006/09/28 07:33:14, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 28 2006,11:48)
   
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37)
For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.

…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too.

Wriggle around.   AFDave tried both barrels of a shotgun approach.  But thanks to stevestory's disarming reply that turned into a slapstick comedy moment.  Cue clown car and circus music.


Ahhhhhh....   Good times....

Date: 2006/09/28 10:15:59, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Where's Janiebell and her green pen.

(leans back to open door behind and yells)

LOUIS!!!  FIRE UP THAT OLD SITE AGAIN!!!

Date: 2006/09/29 08:04:31, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
I see you restate your case about mixing lines about Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graphs.          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance.  Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.  Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have?  Well, you have ...

a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine.  Be my guest.  

And at the end of your post.  
Quote

Mike PSS...            
Quote
How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
No disagreement here.  I just don't think it proves Deep Time.  As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong.  Now ... convince me of something if you can.

Dave,
I'm not talking about time or ages or "millionofyearsism", only the Isochron sample data in a linear relationship.  I even posted a warning to you but you ignored it.  Please review this  again.  Especially the WARNING.

Since you agree to the statement then I can begin my "executive summary" in another post.

ALSO, since you said one of my claims was almost right but the other was wrong, please reply and correct my claims to correctly reflect your stance on this issue.  Fill in the claims that reflect YOUR stance on the Rb/Sr Isochron method.  It won't change my stance but may change some of the examples I use.
1) Dave and mixing (please elaborate)
2) Dave and whole rock data linearity (please elaborate)

Thanks,
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/09/30 10:03:21, Link
Author: Mike PSS
OK AFDave,  Here comes the summary....

Ready????

I'm going summarize "How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation."

First let's find out what Olivine really is.  I think the 72nd Edition of my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has some mineral tables.  I won that book in freshman chemistry with the highest grade in the class.  Chapter 4 - Page 4-150 - Physical Constants of Minerals.
Olivine has a chemical formula of (Mg,Fe)SiO4.  It must be a polymetalic mineral with an SiO4 crystal backbone.
The X-Ray Crystallographic Data of Minerals on pg. 4-157 lists all the different chemically pure crystaline minerals, but the geologic mineral olivine is made up of numerous different crystaline minerals.  Starting on pg 4-167 we have the following crystals that ALL are classified as Olivine since they ALL have an (xx)SiO4 chemical make-up.
Forsterite  Mg2SiO4
Fayalite    Fe2SiO4
Tephroite  Mn2SiO4
Lime Olivine  Ca2SiO4
Nickel Olivine Ni2SiO4
Cobalt Olivine  Co2SiO4
Monticellite  CaMgSiO4
Kerchsteinite  CaFeSiO4
Knebelite  MnFeSiO4
Glauchroite  CaMnSiO4

A chemically mixed homogenous melt that contains, say, Mg Fe and Ni (and Rb and Sr of course) will solidify with a crystal structure that is not only uneven in crystal size but also crystal distribution.  I won't go into the mechanics of this right now.  It is easier to show you a pertinent example of this.  Review this advertisement for an elemental analysis machine.  The pictures on page 2 clearly indicate        
Quote
XGT-5000 analysis of a 4x3 cm² section of kimberlite quickly allowed the rock’s mineral distribution to be visualised. The rock contains abundant crystals of olivine (Mg,Fe,Ni)2SiO4 and one zoned, partially altered crystal of garnet. The garnet crystal is immediately identified by its alteration rim comprised of potassium rich mica. High potassium content also shows the locations of mica crystals within the matrix.

The olivine crystals are black in the potassium and calcium images but have various shades in the iron and nickel images. These variations indicate the remarkable extent to which the compositions of these elements vary from crystal to crystal. In the Fe image, the olivine grains are seen to have thin Fe-rich rims. Notice also the additional information on physical structure provided by the transmission x-ray imaging.
Since the crystal distribution is somewhat randomized, and the Rb and Sr atoms are substitued in different quantities depending on if the crystal is Forsterite, Fayelite, or Nickel Olivine then we can clearly see how even a whole rock sample can give various Rb/Sr ratios if tested.  There is no part of that 4x3cm sample that has the same crystal distribution as any other part (unless you gerrymander the sample like congressional districts, which geologists don't do).  Also, I feel confident in stating that another 4x3cm sample will have a different crystal distribution and compisition that would give a different Rb/Sr ratio if tested.

There's my summary.  Pick it apart if you can OR drop your statements about mixing.  I think the above summary is enough to counteract Arndts and Overns argument that  
Quote
What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy .
 I don't think they, or you, were looking critically on how crystal formation is actually done.

We could actually use the analysis machine to identify and extract the seperate minerals and accomplish a mineral Isochron analysis too.  Neat!!!:D

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave,  Just say you were mistaken about the whole rock thingy and start arguing about radioactive decay.

Date: 2006/09/30 10:16:00, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 30 2006,15:04)
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?

I have a copy from The Church of Jebus Chrizt of Latter Day Saints.

Is this the one I should consider?

Date: 2006/09/30 17:14:44, Link
Author: Mike PSS
YEAH!!  AFDAVE WILL NO LONGER ARGUE THAT RB/SR WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES.  BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH MY SUMMARY.    
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.


O.K. Dave.  We can move on to what is really botherring you which is proving the actual TIME portion of the Isochron.  Now that you accept the METHOD of Isochron construction and sampling, and the resultant linearity of the data we can move on to the actual reason that anyone spends time and effort on these graphs which is to determine the AGE of the samples involved.

I'll assume you need another summary for this subject so I'll think about it for a little.  Off the top of my head I can come up with the following items to show you but I'll probably refine this list over time:
1)  The description of half-lives and how they affect the Isotopes in question.
2)  Measured values of half-lives of Isotopes.
3)  Significance of Rb87 decay to Sr87 decay reflected on the Isochron graph.
4)  Original melt daughter ratio Sr87 determination from the Isochron graph.

AFDave, you can help me out here.  I have one question that will reduce this list.

Here it comes....

Do you agree that measured half-live values of Isotopes are acurate?

This means that scientists have acurately measured the decay rate of Isotopes and that, for example, in 48.8billion years from today (or tomorrow, I'll give you that one) then half of the Rb87 found on earth will undergo decay.  I'm not saying anything (yet) about looking backward in time.

Mike PSS
**************************

ericmurphy,
For a "real" science question regarding the past.  You stated  
Quote
Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it.

If most of the elemental isotopes (stable and radioactive) were formed in the quark furnace of the supernovae in this region of space, How much time passed by between the supernovae and the measured formation of the earth?
I've never seen discussion of this subject.  However, if you want to trace back elemental origins of most of the elements of the earth you have to trace back to the actual supernovae event, not solar systems formation from the nebulae soup.  Earth's formation would reset the radionucleide clock of all elements occurring on the earth (just like the clock is reset slightly earlier with chondrite metorites).  But there may have been zero Pu-239 present in the nebulae when the earth formed since the supernovae happened earlier.

Date: 2006/09/30 17:22:53, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I'm no biologist, but I use these ladders to look at the evolutionary tree.  And it also has chutes to accomodate devolution.  This meets all the requirements for the evo/devo discipline.

Date: 2006/10/01 17:02:57, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Don't be distracted by those mean and nasty people calling you a liar.  Let's talk about real data and evidence.

I'm putting my summary together about the Isochron graph but first, just like a lawyer would do at a trial, I'll show you all my evidence up front.

I'll be refrencing this site for my arguments about time interpretation of the Isochron graph.  Pretty good site, found it on a Google search while looking for "abundance of elements on the earth".  It's written for high-school or freshman college level so I think it's in our ballpark for discussion.

But first, with all the other noise about lying going on I think you missed my question earlier.
Quote
Do you agree that measured half-live values of Isotopes are acurate?

This means that scientists have acurately measured the decay rate of Isotopes and that, for example, in 48.8billion years from today (or tomorrow, I'll give you that one) then half of the Rb87 found on earth will undergo decay.  I'm not saying anything (yet) about looking backward in time.


Thanks,
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/01 17:31:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,23:09)
Yes, all that nonsense makes the thread long to wade through to get to the substance.  Oh well.  Can a leopard change his spots?

Yes, I think the measured half-lives are accurate.  And remember, my only claim is that whole rock isochrons have the possibility (or likelihood) of being mixing diagrams.  I contend that Deep Timers cannot prove that they are not.

And I am hoping you are going to attempt to show me how mineral isochrons prove Deep Time.

WAIT AFDAVE.  YOU AGREED TO MY SUMMARY.    
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.
YOU DON'T GET TO ARGUE ABOUT MIXING LINES IF YOU AGREE TO MY SUMMARY.  THAT'S WHAT THE SUMMARY IS ADDRESSING.  IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY SUMMARY THEN PLEASE REREAD IT AND ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS.

Even Deadman liked my summary.  
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2006,17:29)
Mike : That was nicely done. Now watch Dave run. Run, Dave, run. Evilushuns are after you! Eeeeeeee...
Thank you Deadman.

AFDAVE,
What do you find wrong with my summary about whole rock Isochrons?
I can't begin to mention time until you address this issue.  Your assertions about mixing lines doesn't even need time or half-lives mentioned.  Only that the method of testing whole rock samples to create Isochron graphs is valid.

Please review and respond to the summary.  If you have any questions about it then ask.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/01 17:42:31, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 01 2006,23:34)
careful, mike, you're a hairbreadth away from calling AFdumbass a liar!

go figure.

Is that what I was doing?  :O
{faux innocence}
I thought I was pointing out to AFDave the inconsistant nature of his most recent statement when held next to a statement he made a day ago that totally contradicts his recent statement.
{/faux innocence}

Date: 2006/10/01 17:56:30, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Robert O'Brien Posted on Oct. 01 2006 @ 23:24 )
...avida appears to be much ado about nothing.

I think Robert should collect and save his quotes and open his own pro-ID chinese restaurant.  The quotes can be written in the fortune cookies and give all the diners a quick and fuzzy feeling at the end of the meal.  Just like here.

Date: 2006/10/02 03:17:08, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,00:41)
Mike, I noticed that in your summary which Dave claims he doesn't disagree with, you told him that since he doesn't disagree with your summary, he should instead argue radioactive decay rates. But now he's conceded that radioactive decay rates are accurate as well.

Seems like Dave's sealed off all his own escape routes. No doubt he'll try to unlock those doors, so I suggest you don't let him try the radioactive-decay-rates door unless and until he explains why he was wrong when he said he didn't have a problem with your isochron summary.

I can't compete with you, deadman, and JonF when it comes to radiometric dating methodologies, but at least I can try to keep Dave honest (or at least point out where he's being dishonest, which is most of the time).

I'm trying to give AFDave a little slack (enough rope to.... well... you get the picture).  He's not in a corner with his argument yet.  I see his "mixing lines/Deep Time" position this way,

Arguing about how "all Isochrons are (insert favorite non-commital phrase here) mixing lines..." doesn't say anything about time or ages or "millionofyearsism".  It only argues against the physical process of sampling and testing rocks.  All you have to show is that a properly identified sample (whole rock or mineral) can result in a linear data set.  I read the tripe from Arndts and Overn and saw through the logical flaws immediately without referencing talkorigins.  Reading other smackdowns of this argument just reinforces how banal is the "mixing" argument.
(Deadman, read through that smackdown, if you haven't already, since it also addresses Humphry's excess Helium halucinations).
Just a reminder, I'm not skilled or detailed with the geology, but the base science that the Isochron method is built upon are used in other areas I am familiar with.

For decay rates, he only agreed that the measured values of decay are accurate.  He didn't say or agree to anything about how to roll these values back in time so this isn't a Catch-22 statement yet.  In fact I don't want to argue that point yet because I need a clear understanding about the present physics before I can show the past.  I don't think Dave understands WHAT arguments are necessary to disprove how physics takes the present measured values of half-lives to validate past time measurements.  His present earth changing events, from initial creation through to the flud, are not the correct arguments against the data.  I don't think AIG or ICR are going to help him on this one with an easy C/P answer.  AFDave will have to fly solo, and we know how skilled he is when that happens. :p

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/02 09:35:50, Link
Author: Mike PSS
What the he** happened?  I go away to the dentist this morning and all Evo he** breaks loose.  We went from Isochrons to Eukaryotes pretty quick.
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:47)
EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME FOR THEIR THEORY TO WORK

**********************************

Mike PSS (Alias "Current Torch Bearer for Team Evo")--

I am waiting for you to show me how Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time.

AFDave,
Well I'm surprised at your attitude here.  I thought I was engaging you.  Instead I'm dealing with a someone that yells "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!" at people.

First Dave, you haven't indicated any comprehension about Isochrons, radionucleide decay, or anything else for that matter.  Now I'm the torch bearer for a team I never knew existed?  Nowhere in my statements do you find biology, evolution, or genotype arguments.  Just chemistry, physics, geology, mechanics, math, etc.  

So, One last chance to continue engaging in a debate style manner (which you have accused me of not wanting to participate.  i can get that quote if you want).  At present my summary is challanging your "...all Isochrons are best described as mixing lines..." assertion.  
Quote
AFDAVE,
What do you find wrong with my summary about whole rock Isochrons?

I can't begin to mention time until you address this issue.  Your assertions about mixing lines doesn't even need time or half-lives mentioned.  Only that the method of testing whole rock samples to create Isochron graphs is valid.

Please review and respond to the summary.  If you have any questions about it then ask.

You don't want people on this board to believe all the nasty things they're saying about you.

I'm engaging you intellectually and your ignoring this chance to raise your game.  I'm not name calling or impugning your character (SHAME k.e, SHAME).  I do use sarcasm and inuendo all the time, but it's not Ad Hominum.  In fact, my last post this morning I showed all my cards in how I would challange your assertions.  Pretty fair on my part wouldn't you say?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/02 10:41:41, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy Posted on Oct. 02 2006 @ 16:07)
You have my admiration for your restraint in dealing with Dave, Mike. But in others' (and, occasionally, my) defense, keep in mind that we've been listening to Dave's exasperating drivel for five months now, and endured his incredible, breathtaking intellectual dishonesty that whole time. Occasionally, tempers flare. Unless you're a person of preternatural patience, I predict that if you continue to engage Dave, you'll eventually reach the same state of ennervated impatience. Think of that the next time you find yourself asking Dave the same exact question twenty times in a row, and having him ignore it every single time, and then finally saying, "Mike, you're such a broken record. Why don't you ask me something new?"

Thanks Eric.  I learned some classic restraint a long time ago.  I was in Air Force maintenance overseas for 6 years before I got my chemEng degree.  The flightline was staffed at half levels so everyone chipped in to get all the jobs done to get to the bar sooner.  All work done on the planes needed documentation that was read and reviewed by all the base staff.  If a pilot consistently wrote up garbage problems on an aircraft you still had to carry out a full operational check which would take time and effort.  We didn't want to waste time with the garbage so for corrective actions we never attacked the idiot pilots name or character, just his intellectual capacity.  Honestly, I've written up a corrective action that says "Switched mode to O-N position, ops ck good."  Sooner, rather than later, the idiot pilot gets ridiculed by HIS peers and stops the garbage write-ups.  And the world regains is ethereal balance.

I've been viewing this thread since its inception.  And PT since before Dover.  I'm not an "evolutionist" or a scientist, but have a well educated family and have been around universities since I was young (stealing laughing gas in lung bags from my grandfathers lab at UW-Madison Hospital for instance).  I've learned a lot from being a lurker.  The one area I find woefully lacking in any ID/C argument is the lack of actual math or data.  Even for the stuff they claim supports their notions.  If AFDave cannot even address and defend basic rebuttals to his arguments then I get to declare victory and move on to counter his next point.  I'm fair and will give him a few chances in front of this forum (even though he doesn't do the same thing back).

At the end of the day, it's all about the beer.

Date: 2006/10/02 12:21:09, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Here's some subject areas.

Materialistic -
"String theory."

Ponderable -
"If a bear sh*ts in the woods, does it smell?"
(of course with this we could enter the linguistic ground just like "eats shoots and leaves")

Zen -
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Theological -
"Angels, Pin, you get it."

Date: 2006/10/02 12:51:42, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Are you dropping your argument about ". .all Isochrons are best described as mixing lines..."?

If you cede this point then Ipso facto, you agree with my summary that countered that claim.  I can then show you aging arguments.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/02 14:04:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,19:31)
Mike-- That wasn't what I said exactly, but no, I'm not dropping anything.  Whaddya got?

AFDave,
I got my summary (you can find it I'm sure) that addresses your "mixing" argument.  Nothing about time yet, just mixing.

What part of my summary do you disagree with?

Date: 2006/10/02 15:00:19, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
When I started explaining to you how your "Isochron's are mixing lines" argument was wrong you asked for an "executive summary" for you to review (I can find that quote if you want).  I complied with your request and formed an executive summary rebutting your mixing claim on page 6 of this thread.

Please read, comprehend, and comment on this summary.  If you have any questions please ask.  It doesn't bother me at all that you could disagree with the summary.  I need to know what part(s) you disagree with so we can discover further where you (or I) are wrong.

This is how a debate works in a civil environment.  Point, counter-point with supporting evidence.  Claim, counter-claim with supporting reasoning.  Or do you not want to debate this topic.  Your the one who said to me that you doubted I wanted to debate you (I can find that quote too).

Date: 2006/10/03 02:21:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.

AFDave,
This was your ORIGINAL claim BEFORE I posted my summary that REFUTED this claim.  Therefore you have to READ AND REVIEW my summary and address the points made in the summary.  Otherwise, my refutation of your claim is valid and you admit that your "mixing" argument is wrong.  That's how it works.

Now, I have a choice.  
EITHER I can create a detailed and cross-referenced post pointing to your past messages with proper time stamps that show the following chronological sequence
  • AFDave makes the above claim.
  • JonF and Mike PSS point out the inconsistencies of that claim and reference numerous sources.
  • AFDave holds his head in his hands and says "too much information" and asks for an "executive summary".
  • Mike PSS agrees to that under the condition that we start with the mixing claim first before we even talk about time.
  • Mike PSS posts his summary that refutes the "mixing" claim mentioned above.
  • AFDave repeats his original claim over and over and over.
  • Many people point out that AFDave has not addressed the information in the summary.


OR, I can create a detailed and cross-referenced post that shows AFDave arguing with many other posters about the following point:
Dalrymple rebutted Arndts and Overns paper about Isochrons with five points.  Arndts and Overn replied to Dalrymples rebuttal point for point.  Since Dalrymple didn't respond to the counter-points then Arndts and Overn (and AFDave) claimed victory about the point.
Does that situation seem eerily similar to what is going on above, but just in reverse?

AFDave, just read my summary that refutes your ORIGINAL claim you so graciously repeated above and respond to it.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/03 02:28:25, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:50)
   
Quote
I patiently explained to you how the laws of physics and chemistry show that the meteorites mentioned could not have been the result of mixing.
And I patiently showed you in detail how you are wrong ... complete with pictures.

AFDave,
You have yet to post a proper rebuttal to the meteorite graph.  The only """"data"""" (extra scare quotes around that word in this context) you posted is below.  And we all know how that turned out.

Date: 2006/10/03 04:51:17, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
Don't get distracted by the culture warriors.  I'm offerring you real science.  Objective science.  Hard science.  Nothing political.  Just the facts type of science.

But the science I'm offerring has nothing to do with Darwinism or Darwinist Truth Searching.  Just physics and chemistry and math and geology and geography and cosmology.  You know, those areas of science that came before Darwin.

Date: 2006/10/03 06:29:06, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Russell @ Oct. 03 2006,12:14)
[snip]  I might want an all-knowing Big Daddy [snip]

Did someone mention Big Daddy?

Date: 2006/10/03 07:55:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:09)
EVOLUTIONISTS, AKA DARWINISTS, AKA THUMBSTERS NEED DEEP TIME (continued)

(Thus explaining why rocks are carefully selected for RM "Dating")
[snip]
How do they get the Deep Time they need?  Simple ... they have George the Geochronologist who doesn't mind ignoring pesky "little" details like "discordances are the rule, not the exception", excess Argon, Argon loss, isochrons can be mixing diagrams, Helium loss in zircons shows a young earth, etc. etc. etc.

It all makes perfect (non)sense!

AFDave,
Ignoring my summary again.  Your latest arguments with Denton had references and arguments and counter-points, but nothing about my summary.

Having trouble digging up some copy/paste counter-points to my summary that refutes your "mixing" argument?  Try reading it yourself and finding the flaws yourself.  It's an executive summary written for CEO-like characters like yourself.

Please review my summary.  (now I sound like the Video Professor)

Date: 2006/10/03 08:28:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,14:11)
Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.

Dave,
You show the efforts of a couch potato.  Click on the word summary to find my referenced permalink.

Not to say, however, that I think Eric and I linked my summary in our messages at least six times in the past few days.

Do you need instructions in the ikonboard tools?  I see you've masterred CAPS, BOLDING and image imprints.  An underlined word could be an underlined word OR a URL reference.

Date: 2006/10/04 03:34:24, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 04 2006,01:41)
Nota Bene : Obviously, I stole a bunch of that from online sources, but I feel uneasy about how I stated/framed things, and I'd like to know where I went wrong.

Deadman,
I've been enjoying the smackdown on the evolutionary biology front.  I don't have the knowledge or background to participate much in the biology field, but there is enough knowledge on the board for me to read and learn.  I'll stick my own neck out if I see an angle or aspect of the information that no one has presented yet.

In the mean time, kick my feet up, eat some popcorn, and enjoy the show.  AFDave's misinformed ideas are like this house in the video.

Date: 2006/10/04 05:46:06, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Oct. 04 2006,11:28)
 
Quote
He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.
I cant be bothered to read through the posts but has Dave admitted that this is a load of nonsense yet?

Is this what Dave is trying to do?

Date: 2006/10/04 06:44:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:38)
ALRIGHT, LET'S NAIL DOWN WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Mike PSS...   Mike, I think if you test single mineral within the rock, it is referred to as a mineral isochron, not a whole rock isochron.  The method of testing is the same as I understand it, it is just that they isolate the individual minerals first and test them separately.  With the whole rock method, I think they just crush the whole rock and analyze it.{explanation below}

What point of mine exactly are you attempting to refute?  The statement about "Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron charts are not merely mixing diagrams" ??  Is that the one?{yes, except I'm not saying anything about time, only your mixing falacy}

AFDave,
If you have an olivine sample, it's made up of numerous crystal forms as outlined in my summary.  A whole rock isochron test will grind up the various crystal forms while a mineral isochron test will seperate the crystal forms and test each seperately.  Even if you have a sample of olivine and grind it up, your sample will statistacally contain different quantities of the crystal forms present, thus giving you a spread of Rb/Sr data.

Plus you may get a mixture of minerals or even amorphous areas of the rock.  The mineral mix depends on the magma constituents, temperature, pressure, etc.  Look over these charts for example

Figure 10e-1: The classification of igneous rocks. This graphic model describes the difference between nine common igneous rocks based on texture of mineral grains, temperature of crystallization, relative amounts of typical rock forming elements, and relative proportions of silica and some common minerals.


Figure 10e-2: Bowen reaction series.

All this from a homogenous magma source.  The rock samples must be from a co-genetic source.

Now, the only card (canard??) you have left to play is to poo-poo every geologic sample ever taken and say it isn't co-genetic, because if only one geologic source is shown to be co-genetic then the Isochron testing becomes valid.  This becomes a game of whack-a-mole with the geologist.  If this is your stance then please state it right up front.  You've already accused all geochronologists of collusion in some underground cabal of "Evilutionists", why not all geologists too (except of course Humphreys, Snelling, Woodmorappe and Austin)

"How about them maggot filled stinkin' apples!"
JAD.... errr... Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/04 07:54:13, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 04 2006,12:52)
 
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 04 2006,10:44)
The funny thing is that even after his backpedaling, he's still wrong.  The difference between transistor-level and gate-level modelling is far more than a quibble.  Gate-level models deal with boolean logic, while transistor-level models deal with actual voltage levels.

Any junior-level engineer knows the difference, which is why it must be particularly painful to Dave to have his ignorance pointed out.  He's already sensitive about not having an engineering degree.  His misunderstanding of science has been pointed out many times.  Now his lack of basic engineering knowledge is being exposed.  No wonder he banned Tom and Karl.

Bingo on the Boolean.

I was taught this at the high school level in the '80s.  We had a process sheet full (more than 10) of transistors, resistors, capacitors and inductors and we had to derive the output voltage by sequencing the input voltage through all the bells and whistles of each transistor stage.  We could change the resistance or capacitance of different points to vary the output.  At the end of this lesson the instructor put up an AND, OR, NAND, and NOR gate in Boolean and showed us how all the detail work on the transistor process is simplified to single point statements.

The problem with comparing the two like Dave does is that the Boolean gate has set parameters on every transistor sequence because its output is fixed by the gate designation.  The transistor model can have a variety of voltage outputs depending on the configuration changes you make to each transistor system.  Modelling each is a totally seperate function.

Another DaveScott moment.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/04 12:27:56, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,17:54)
OK.  ONE LAST TRY TO GET YOU TO SEE HOW FOOLISH EVOLUTION IS FROM THE SEQUENCE DATA ANGLE.

Dave takes his raw material...

       
Quote
The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true.

Now do you get it?


Weaves a story with his hands....

       
Quote
To say otherwise means you have to take the ridiculous position of assuming that things like fossil lungfish (which look identical to modern lungfish) somehow have far different sequences.


And proceeds to vanquish his creation...


Ahhhhh.....  Tell me another story Dave.

Date: 2006/10/05 03:20:03, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Still waiting for your response to my reply to your questions.  I'm claiming victory soon if you can't come up with any challange to my summary and response.  So far you've countered with whinging and requests for restatements, but no actual counter points to the arguments presented.
**********************
I also remember that you wrote....  
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:38)
In case anyone is keeping track, we have now moved to Points C & D on AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis.  We have now covered A, B, G, H, K, L, & M (not that we won't periodically return to these points some).   You can see all the points at my blog site at http://airdave.blogspot.com, or on page 1 of this thread.

Ummmmmm....... We haven't "covered" all these points yet.  Here's my scorecard so far:
(A) is fine.  You can believe what you want.
(B) is fine.  Except for the fundamental goal statement.  We haven't covered that yet.
(C&D) MANY items left to hash out in these two points.  From whizzing continents to 900 year old men to genetically rich Adam and Eve.  And don't forget the incestual claims.  And can you at least give a definition of a "kind"?
(G&H) are DOA.  Da Flud.  No points for you, and we certainly haven't "covered" this topic.  MANY questions left for you on this one.
(K&L) aren't covered either.  The only thing you've done on this point is restate your original hypothesis.  We haven't "covered" this one at all.
(M) seems to be the basis for your 6000 year old earth claim.  You haven't covered how Graf-Wellhausen theory has been discredited either.  And RM dating can fit into this point so we haven't "covered" this yet, we are still in discussion.

AFDave,
Please define the term "covered" so we can come to terms with what your trying to state in the quote above.  My take on your claim runs counter to what your claiming.

Mike PSS
__
Edit: typo in first statement (add 'my';).  thx Grey Wolf c

Date: 2006/10/05 04:23:05, Link
Author: Mike PSS
That winking smilie is annoying.
It's triggered not only by 'semi-colon close parethesise' but also by 'single quote close parenthesise' like this:

;)
OR
';)

I've noticed it popping up in a lot of messages where the author never intended.

Date: 2006/10/05 05:20:24, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,11:04)
{big mondo snip, too much CD for me to wade through}
Too bad for him that he doesn't accept Creationism which actually does fit ALL the evidence and would solve his problems.

AFDave,
Are you implying that your brand of Creationism that you are presenting in this thread has answered ALL the evidence presented throughout the past ??221?? pages?

I don't see an answer to my refutation of mixing yet.  Maybe you should edit your statement to say "ALMOST ALL"  :O

Date: 2006/10/05 07:57:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Seeing as you cannot refute anything in my summary and reply to your questions I'm about to declare victory and state;
WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS FROM A CO-GENETIC SOURCE GIVE VALID DATA SETS AND ARE NOT, NOR EVER WERE, A RESULT OF MIXING.

Since you won't answer my questions I have a question about the Denton table.  You said...
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,13:24)
Speaking of showing the sensibleness of one's own theory, I intend to continue doing just that.  I rest my case on defending Denton and anyone that still thinks Denton didn't nail it is just a dim bulb.  No other way to put it.

Here's the table.

Now everything I've read from you, or referenced from Denton, argues AGAINST the ToE.  What I want to know is....
How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?

You yourself have said that the data here was not predicted by ToE (at least before the scheming PhD's changed the rules in the '70s).  So, what is the UCGH hypothesis to explain the table and what predictions can we make, test, and verify with the hypothesis.

Another chance for AFDave's UCGH to shine on this board and show up all these doubting thomas'.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/05 08:29:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 05 2006,13:36)
Finally, Dave, you are mixing two things. I have not yet tried to prove that ToE is correct, I'm only trying to explain to you what ToE claims. You may agree or disagree with ToE, but you're still misrepresenting it. ToE says that all fishes and humans are equally distant from bacteria, and that bacteria are equally distant from snails and worms and birds and humans.

You may think it is stupid, but you have brought to the discussion the evidence that it is right. And you have been told the reason why it is so, according to the ToE. And this has been part of the ToE since Darwin, and no amount of you saying that "The ToE says that fish are closer to bacteria than humans" is going to change the reality of what the ToE says - which is that humans and fishes are equally distant from bacteria.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

And this has been the strawman that AFDave has been flailing at since the start of this Denton fiasco.

I didn't post those straw pictures for nothing.

AFDave,
Calling your argument a strawman is not a denigration.  It only means that the argument isn't addressing the real target (in this case ToE) but some made-up target (Denton's interpretation of the ToE).  I wish you would address this mistake and refine your argument.  In fact, you should argue about what your UCGH says instead of what the ToE supposedly doesn't say.

Date: 2006/10/05 08:33:26, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 05 2006,14:10)
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 05 2006,12:57)
How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?

That's at least TWICE you've been asked this now, Dave.

Incorygible, you are incorrigible.

Wait....  Ohh......

I've learned my one new thing today.  Time for beer.

I humbly cede primacy of this question to incorygible.

Date: 2006/10/05 10:29:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Do these people get out at all?  OE seems to be attracting the dim-bulbs quite effectively.

In this case Patrick states
 
Quote
More on the subject of flagella:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602043103v1

“The propulsive efficiency, defined as the ratio of the propulsive power output to the rotary power input provided by the motors, is found to be ~ 2%, which is consistent with the efficiency predicted theoretically for a rigid helical coil.”

An engineer can’t get much more efficient than that, in other words, even in theory.


Is this a case where we can apply the design inference to real life?  Is venture capital available and a start-up company in the works????

Why would an engineer design a propulsion unit as a helical coil in real life?  :(  Quick call DoD and have them change their present submarine propellers (probably greater than 60% shaft efficient) for  a rigid helical coil.  The fact that a biological life form has optimized a function to a certain theoretical maximum has nothing to do with ID.

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/...comment-153

Date: 2006/10/05 10:34:06, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,16:25)
Bottom line?  ToE is impossible.  ID is the only possible alternative.  And Theism is the only sensible form of ID that is consistent with the facts.  And YEC is the most consistent theistic position with the evidence within Theism.

Yes Dave we know you hold this view.  What were asking is:

How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?

Date: 2006/10/06 08:49:51, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
You still haven't replied to my summary (or a reply I gave you to questions you had).  I'm getting discouraged.  Is my summary one of the cases where
Quote
Anyone with any sense of ethics at all knows that "Unanswered Questions {not}= Unanswerable Questions."


All you have to do is let me know if/when/how you'll address these points.  You can even call "time-out" from this subject and we will freeze all discussion where it stood (i.e. that you were still trying to answer a valid refutation of your assertion so the present prevailing views on Isochrons are correct).  I don't declare your assertions invalid, just not supportable to any other point you make.  In other words you can't claim your "mixing" argument in any other posts unless you address the summary and reply I made.

I tried reading through your recent post but my mind started spinning a little with the amount of CD (cognitive distance in this case) present.  You do have a way of mixing your assertions all over the place.  I had an image of you speaking while doing this


Just a word of advice.  Keep your arguments a little more focused and not all over the map.  I have a good argument FOR your hypothesis that I think I'll share with you soon.

As you like to say... hopefully tomorrow. :D

Mike PSS

p.s.  You addressed a question in your last post to me.  It wasn't from me.

Date: 2006/10/06 09:27:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Yawnnn.... Saturday already?  I (hopefully) owe an answer to AFDave.

Dave, I asked you earlier
How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?

Then I remembered that you were asking for a list from Bacteria to Homo (cheap shot eric).  Here's a list (my bolding) from Grey Wolf (one shift, one space).  But I overlaid ericmurphys entries on animal forms.    
Quote
All Life - bacteria (it is alive)
Eukaryota - yeasts, plants (has complex cells)
Metazoa - triploblasts (has many cells)
Bilateria - insects (has two symetrical sides)
Deuterostomia - starfish (has mouth and anus)
Chordata - tunicates (has a notocord)
Craniata - Hyperotreti (has a skull)
Vertebrata - lamprey (has vertebra)
Gnathostomata - carp, bonito, tuna (has a jaw)
Sarcopterygii - ray-finned fishes (has four limbs)
Stegocephalia - Microsauria (has fingers)
Amniota - snapping turtle, birds (development of embrio in amniotic liquid)
Synapsida - Lyserophia (has fused arches)
Therapsida - Cynodonts (no scales?)
Mammalia - kangaroo (has mammary glands)
Eutheria - dog, horse (has placenta)
Primates - New World Monkeys
Catarrhini - Old World Monkeys (has a narrow nose)
Hominidae - Gorilla (doesn't have a tail?)
Homo - Dave
Oopsss.  I called Dave a Homo too. :O

I begin to see the connections.  As we move down the list the different animals are ADDING traits and characteristics to their morphology.  So... here's my hypothesis to maybe add some testable value to your UCGH.

**ahem....**  **cough**cough**cough** (cue Ann Elke)

As creature morphology becomes more complex, with Humans representing the pinnacle of complexity, the measured difference of sequence variations between the lesser complex and greater complex life-forms relates to the number and type of morphological additions are present between the greater and lesser life-forms.

So, my prediction from this hypothesis is that we can assign a score, or value, on each complexity step in the phylogeny sequence.  So the addition of a notochord (Chordata creatures) adds, say, 10 sequence variation points to a creatures complexity score.  We can go through the list and determine the score for each developmental trait present.  And since each creature below a point on the list has the combined score of every creature above it (all the traits present) plus the score of the next trait addition then the scores increase as you go down the list.

So, Denton shows a valid measurement test of cytochrome-c sequence variance.  And I'm sure that other measured genome sequences show a similar relationship.  So the theory fits the data and we past our first test.

Now, I think I can make other predictions with this hypothesis but I need to know if you agree with this rational idea or not.

Please let me know.  And you can use this idea freely, I don't hold any rights to it at all.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/06 09:37:40, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (slpage @ Oct. 06 2006,12:17)
I liked the first response to that post:

 
Quote
Thanks for a lot of interesting information. I think it's quite obvious that when we find a "machine" that is more efficient than anything man has made or we can even make theories about, than that has design written all over it. ..

I did a lot of sci-fi reading, role-playing and such as a teenager.  I never conflated this with real life though.  I've had to back away from that statement a few times after reading it over because, just like all statements of grand opinion, it says everything and nothing at once.

Is he referring to the monolith in "2001: A Space Odysey" or to some cellular/biologic process we have yet to discover or even theorize about?

Ughhh...  My brain hurts.  I rank this quote as containing a large level of CD (both types). :p

Date: 2006/10/06 17:24:43, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE.  READ THIS MESSAGE AND RESPOND OR ANSWER MY SUMMARY PLEASE.  
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,17:35)
GW...      
Quote
Your approach is to present "evidence" "against evolution" and then run away from the topic when you are shown to be wrong.
No running.  I stuck with RM dating until JonF got tired and left.  Mike PSS tried to take over for JonF with mineral isochrons, but can't seem to get in gear.  I'm quite ready for him if he ever comes up with anything.

Ha, Ha, Ha Dave.  I have an unanswered summary and a reply to your questions unanswered and unacknowledged by you.  I can get the quotes and reference links if you want.

Anyway, I see we will have to redefine the rules of engagement on these subjects.  I thought we had a point/counter-point agreement going but your recent bluster has dissuaded me from carrying on with this format.  In fact I think you have ignored BWE with this format for months now.

I thought of posting long, detailed explanations but you have said you don't like that format either.  And you even asked for an executive summary approach, which was tried and ultimately failed.

What have we left Dave, yelling at each other?  Calling names?  Anything I've tried to get you to discuss some straight-forward points that are on-topic in your thread have been met with silence or a request to repeat the original question.

What's it going to be Dave.  You obviously want me to present something to you, but for the life of me I don't know how you want it presented.

Make up your mind and stay to it please.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/07 15:36:44, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,23:40)
Mike PSS-- Let me help you out.  If you want a response from me, try this ...

"Dave, your claim that Deep Timers cannot prove that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams is false because _."  

You fill in the blank.

Or ...

"Dave, mineral isochrons and concordia-discordia methods are much better than Whole Rock isochrons because __."

Alright Dave, I'll bite.

However, the second statement in your quote happens to be one of your assertions, not one of my points.  You stated this assertion earlier but haven't followed up by discussing the difference between mineral Isochrons and whole rock Isochrons (or the concordia-discordia ramifications).  So I'll only be commenting ONLY on your first statement.
***************************
So.... Here we go.

Dave, your claim that whole rock isochrons are merely mixing diagrams is false because I STATED THIS IN MY SUMMARY ON PAGE 7 WHEN YOU ASKED ME FOR THIS INFORMATION!

Stop, stop ,stop.  Oh, sorry, you wanted another format.  Let's try again.

Dave, your claim that whole rock Isochrons are not merely mixing diagrams is false because a verified co-genetic sample of rock will have various minerals formed from the homogenous melt where each mineral has a different uptake of Rb so that testing a whole rock sample will give a statistically different set of minerals contained within the whole rock sample so that testing for Rb from each sample will give different Rb values from each whole rock sample.  AND, selective extraction of specific minerals from the same co-genetic source will add usable data on the existing sample data set.  A verified co-genetic source will result in a data set in a linear relation when plotted on an Rb/Sr vs. Sr/Sr graph with both the whole rock and mineral data points on the linear line.

Therefore a properly tested whole rock Isochron is not merely a mixing line but a data set of various Rb/Sr concentrations that originated from a homogenous source.

Dave, If I simplify this anymore then my response will look like  
Quote
Rock, hard, good data, bad Dave, straight line, it burns, your turn.


Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/08 03:41:41, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 08 2006,08:36)
THERE IS AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS MY ARGUMENT -- CHRIS HYLAND

For those that don't, I'll try one more time ...

1) Evolutionists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.  This heavily influences the selection of rocks for RM Dating and the judgment of "good" and "bad" dates.  Example:  the RM "dating" of a human skull at Koobi Fora http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

{snip}...

No one has ever observed these types of changes.  Therefore the "Macro" part of ToE is not empirically verifiable.

Dave,
I gave a response to the format you said would work for you.

And looking at point #1 above you still feel you need to discuss RM dating.  Although I think using Koobi Fora as an example against RM dating is a bit disingenuous since even the experts in RM dating say that evaluating the consistency and co-genetic nature of aglomerated free-fall ash deposits (as opposed to magmatic flows) is difficult and can lead to erroneous results if not investigated in detail (which was done with this sample).

Also Dave,
The last statement of your quote is revealing.  Are you now taking the stance of Ken Hamm with any evidence?  Will you argue with anyone that presents any evidence from the past whether there was eyewitness accounts?  Will every aspect of argument go through the filter of "were you there"?  Just wonderring.

Dave, can you answer my refutation of your mixing claim?  I can move on to physics if we address this issue.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/10 17:16:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,14:57)
AFDAVE DEFINES A 'CREATED KIND'
{big, mondo snip}
Mike PSS...          
Quote
Dave, your claim that whole rock Isochrons are not merely mixing diagrams is false because a verified co-genetic sample of rock will have various minerals formed from the homogenous melt where each mineral has a different uptake of Rb so that testing a whole rock sample will give a statistically different set of minerals contained within the whole rock sample so that testing for Rb from each sample will give different Rb values from each whole rock sample.  AND, selective extraction of specific minerals from the same co-genetic source will add usable data on the existing sample data set.  A verified co-genetic source will result in a data set in a linear relation when plotted on an Rb/Sr vs. Sr/Sr graph with both the whole rock and mineral data points on the linear line.

Therefore a properly tested whole rock Isochron is not merely a mixing line but a data set of various Rb/Sr concentrations that originated from a homogenous source.
Mike, first of all, you got my claim wrong.  Please go back and read my claim again and kindly requote me correctly.  Next, how do I know that a co-genetic source is the result of mixing?  Easy.  In order to obtain homogeneity, it HAS to be mixed.  Think about it.  Of course you will get a data spread if you do a MINERAL isochron test of minerals in this rock for the reasons you have so ably given.  But this has nothing to do with Arndts and Overn's claims.  Their claim is regarding the whole rock sample.

Dave,
Here's your original question that I answered in my response you quoted above.  Compare the bolded statements and tell me where I got your claim wrong WHEN I RETYPED YOUR RESPONSE QUESTION ALMOST WORD FOR WORD.  The only words missing are "Deep Timers cannot prove" and I've told you time and again that I'm not discussing time.  I've also avoided the words "prove/proven" and "truth/truthiness" because in my eyes they are loaded statements.    
Quote (afdave @ (Oct. 06 2006 @ 23:40))

Mike PSS-- Let me help you out.  If you want a response from me, try this ...

"Dave, your claim that Deep Timers cannot prove that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams is false because _."  

You fill in the blank.

Or ...

"Dave, mineral isochrons and concordia-discordia methods are much better than Whole Rock isochrons because __."


Moving on from another Portuguese moment.....

Before I made my summary on page 7 of this thread, I read ALL the references you cited with Arndts and Overn.  I then read Dalrymples five point rebuttal.  Then I read Arndts and Overns reply to Dalrymples rebuttal.  I then searched my textbooks, the web, and one other source (which I shall remain quite about for now) to find cross-referenced sources for both sides of the claim.  I then prepared my summary after researching ALL (both sides) of the information.

I answered Arndts and Overns mixing claim in my summary and expanded on this information with a reply to clarify some questions you had.  My summary and reply (click on those underlined words for the Permalink) are a DIRECT REFUTATION of Arndts and Overns WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRON CLAIMS.

Dave, I know this whole Isochron thing is WAYYYYYY in the past (started at least two weeks ago, long time on this thread) but the only response I've got from you is sidestep and obfuscation when I meet your stated format.

If you don't understand the material in my summary and replies then please ask directly.  I am answerring the claims of Arndts and Overn dealing with whole rock Isochrons, you just may not recognize it if you don't understand all the material I presented.

At least we are making progress and your positon with Mineral Isochrons is clear.  I think I can work with this, but give me a day or so.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/11 17:18:57, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDave,
Still waiting for you to address my post on whole rock Isochrons.

Let's prime the physics discussion a little.  I'm glad you agree (you stated this in a past post) that present measurements of radioactive decay are factual.  But did you know this about radioactive decay?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html    
Quote
The half-life is independent of the physical state (solid, liquid, gas), temperature, pressure, the chemical compound in which the nucleus finds itself, and essentially any other outside influence. It is independent of the chemistry of the atomic surface, and independent of the ordinary physical factors of the outside world. The only thing which can alter the half-life is direct nuclear interaction with a particle from outside, e.g., a high energy collision in an accelerator.
Even AIG admits this point but wants to argue about differences in electron capture decay rate as a problem for all types of radioactive decay rates.  There are other people who disagree with AIG in the radiometric field but who would probably be invited to an AIG Sunday brunch.

Anyway, on to your present Black Knight incident.
Dave, dive deeper into the "kinds" discussion.  Why don't you dive into Baramin Theory.  I noticed you gave a reference to Baraminology but when I read it the authors of that paper didn't answer many questions.  I searched the site and found they did agree on a number of items
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/bsg97/
The Baramin Study Group also had plans for the future including    
Quote
4)  We would like to initiate a pro-active attempt to teach
   baraminology methods to the larger community of creation
   biologists via a baraminology workshop in June or July
   of 1999.  The timetable for that workshop is as follows:

   a)  Pray for funding for at least the registration,
       materials, room, and board for their stay at the
       workshop and its follow-up.

I'm adding this line item to all my project proposals from now on.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/12 16:16:42, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 12 2006,20:31)
 
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2006,19:02)
Here's what Dave thinks the creationist phylogenetic tree looks like:
         
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,14:03)
THE CREATIONIST VIEW OF SPECIATION



But as anyone can tell, it's completely wrong. For one thing, his diagram shows about 20 "created kinds," and only about 29 currently-existing species. Assume he's only drawn every thousandth "created kind" for clarity. Then he should have drawn in about ten thousand currently-existing species, rather than 29. He's understating the required pace of evolution by a factor of about 300.

[snip]

To be fair, it's not Dave's tree, it's AIG's tree http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/towering_change.asp, and it's actually a tree of language evolution after Babel (although they mention that it's just as applicable to evolution from created kinds), which explains the limited number of "created kind" and "species".

I know its a bit presumptuous, but I wonder if Arden would do a quick smackdown of this AIG article about languages.  I think an executive summary format would work since AFDave likes this so much.  I was reading through it and found so many erroneous statements and (what I think are) errors that a resident expert on this board could point out more of AIG's lies and deciet.  I've read Diamond's books and know that a lot of the AIG claims are egregiously false because they ignore any scientific investigation into languages.

I figure that every person commenting could take one AIG article that addresses a field they feel comfortable with and write-up a quick smackdown.  Our resident copy/paste expert would then have to address our smackdowns if he uses the articles for references in the future.  I'll look around for one in the engineering field (or chemistry or physics) and try my hand at a quick debunk soon.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/13 17:21:14, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 13 2006,11:56)
I don't normally look at this thread anymore, but Lou alerted me that my name had come up...

Yeesh, where to begin...

Thank you Arden.
It is enlightening to get commentary on a subject from one with proven knowledge and training.  You looked at the subject in ways I didn't even understand until I read your summary.

Like...  
Quote
THERE IS NO "Sino-Asiatic language family", and Chinese is NOT RELATED to Japanese and Korean.

An item like that gets lost in the word salad put up by AIG.  I can understand more and more the Gish Gallop that some of these authors use.

Mike PSS

p.s.  Conjugate the verb "to smote"
smote
smitten
smoted
smoting
smotes
???

Date: 2006/10/17 06:16:25, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 17 2006,08:05)

6. Is there anything unique about salmon life history that might make it particularly easy for them to become reproductively isolated? Would this make different populations detectably different?

In the 1980's my father took myself and my brother on a canoe trip of the Bowron Lakes circuit in central B.C.  Geologically parts of the Bowron Lakes were actually the main river channel of what is today the Fraser River.  However, many millions of years ago the river channel changed (and changed course from west-to-east into an east-to-west direction) and stranded some of the Bowron Lakes (and attached lakes draining to them) from fish access to the sea.

We fished some of these lakes and caught fresh-water salmon, still a pinkish-red meat and the shape of Chinnook (I think, could be wrong, Coho maybe?).  The salmon fry had been stranded in the lakes and for millions of years couldn't migrate to the ocean so they adapted to the fresh water lakes they could access.

So now to AFDave,
I guess his explanation would be that the "salmon" were stranded in the Bowron Lakes because as the water receded they found themselves in these lakes.  HOWEVER, we don't find fresh-water salmon in other lakes in the area, only certain lakes.
What's the UCGH say about this phenomena?

Mike PSS

p.s. DAVE, STILL WAITING ON YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT ISOCHRONS.  I'VE REBUTTED EVERYTHING YOU'VE POSTED SO YOU HAVE TO COMMENT ON MY REBUTTAL OR GIVE UP YOUR MIXING POSITION.  RESTATING YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT ISN'T A REBUTTAL.

Date: 2006/10/17 08:20:28, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,13:54)
Mike PSS--  Kindly repost your latest argument and my latest rebuttal so I will know where we are ... it's been a long time ago.

Dave,
You are precious.  Here's one of my latest posts.

On that post at the top click on the word 'post' and go to an earlier post.  In that post read through and click on 'summary' and 'reply' to other questions you had in the past.

Remember, the summary and reply (and information in the other posts) contain direct refutation of Ardnts and Overn and your claims of mixing (plus some extra special insight into mineral isochrons, and a bonus section introducing physics).

Please reply, or maybe start commenting on Baraminology.

I look forward to your further evasions and repetitive requests to repeat my requests :(

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/18 16:53:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,13:36)
"GENETICALLY RICH" EXPLAINED


AFDave,
So in your world Adam looks like HUGO CHAVEZs brother and Eve is the MONA LISA.

Mike PSS

p.s. You'll have to start doing some heavy duty Permalink clicking to backtrack my numerous requests to rebut my refutation of your mixing notions.  Here's my latest post that has links to earlier posts that link to earlier replies to your requests for information related to earlier posts that asked for your comments on my summary (Whewwww).

Date: 2006/10/18 17:41:00, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 18 2006,22:59)
I fail to see the fun and YEC will never be taught in public schools so again, what's the point?

I heard this on a radio show a while back:

"You have to constantly hit idiocy and stupidity in the face.  Otherwise, idiocy and stupidity think they are alright."

It's not a matter of the level of discussion, it's about revealing the facts in light of the idiocy (or stupidity).

Preach, pray, shout, dance, but don't mess with the facts.

Plus.... it's FUN

Date: 2006/10/18 18:08:14, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2006,14:52)
Quote (Ogee @ Oct. 18 2006,12:21)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2006,10:59)
I don't know why the aparent fine tuning of the Universe is dissmissed so casually by posters here. As far as I am aware this is an aspect of the Universe that bothers plenty of Astronomers/Cosmologists and Physicists.

There is no questioning the 'fine-tuning problem' (except to the extent that the term implies a tuner).  The issue is with the logic; the ID assertion that this is evidence of divine intervention in the creation of the universe(s) is a non-sequitur.

That is why I used the qualifier "aparent".

It does look tuned. Admitting/allowing a designer is unscientific. So lets look for naturalistic explanations.

Science should look only for naturalistic explanations. Otherwise it stops being science.

What I consider a problem is the denial shown here about the aparent fine tuning not looking like a problem in the first place.

The cosmic fine tuning argument is the fate versus chance argument.

Is it fate that the numbers work out for us to exist?
Is it chance that we exist at all?

Eventually you are led to either an endless OR repetitious string of IF-THEN-ELSE statements.

The only scientifically sound observation I've seen in the fine tuning argument is invoking the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and other QM "observation versus actual value" suppositions.  But science ends there and doesn't go further.

It's all philosophy after that.  Unless someone can give a specific scientific observation (no, not talking about Be[8] uncertainty) that encompasses a trend of ALL the constants.  Picking and choosing one constant at a time doesn't help support fine tuning since, like the scientific method states, you have to account for ALL the evidence.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/19 15:07:14, Link
Author: Mike PSS
skeptic,
It's not the person that's stupid or idiotic, it's the ideas that are put forward.  I can say "That's stupid!" to my doctor as well as to a creationist.  I'm not disparaging the person directly.  If a YEC argument says the earth is 6000 years old then "That's stupid AND idiotic." and the person should seek help to correct his/her/its misinformation.

It's not against the law to be ignorant, just annoying to many others.

Date: 2006/10/19 16:20:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 19 2006,14:55)
   
Quote (jujuquisp @ Oct. 19 2006,13:42)
Dave, I presented your problem to one of my colleagues here.  He agrees that your explanation of genetic richness fits into known scientific principles of genetics and it is very possible for a long-lived individual to accumulate enough mutations at a loci to breed offspring with every known allele we have today.

Especially if he lives to be 6,000 years old and walks around with a big chunk of weapons-grade uranium in his jock strap.

So, what do you think, Dave? 500 alleles due to mutation in 200 generations? How plausible does that sound?

Let's put some numbers on the table for these alleles in terms of Dave's UCGH.  I'm going to go for a bulletpoint timeline to make it brief.
  • Now, we have the flood at 4500 years ago.
  • But didn't Dave say the continents were moved during the flood?  So we have the present geographic configuration when the flood subsides (NO ERIC, DOWN, BAD ERIC, DON'T MENTION WHERE THE WATER CAME FROM AGAIN, BAD).
  • So the Ark landed in ?Turkey? and the animals and people frolicked for ?50? years.
  • Now it gets confusing because I'm not sure if the Tower of Babel happens before or after the ice age.  I think it has to happen before the ice age because the languages of North & South America are all Babelled.
  • The the ice age comes for ?200? years and the frolicking people then spread around the globe.  Here's where it gets interesting for the UCGH geneticist.
  • So 250 years after the flood we have the populations expanding around the globe with their new found languages.  But the then become ISOLATED in New Guinea, Australia, North & South America, and Madagascar (to name a few).
  • So we need to ask some questions about these ISOLATED populations, do they exhibit the same allele diversity in their population that the rest of humanity (Europe, Asia, Africa) have?
  • IF these ISOLATED populations have similar diversity in their alleles compared to all other populations on earth then they must have acquired this diversity BEFORE their ISOLATION.
  • This means the allele diversity must have appeared in the first 250 years after the flood.


So, let's narrow these dates down a little.  We aren't talking about 4500 years of mutation and selection, we are talking about 250 years of mutation and selection in the human population..........According to the UCGH timeline.  I'm too lazy at present to Permalink some of the above statements, but I can if pressed.

DAVE,
COULD YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS TIMELINE FOR US?  I THINK I HAVE IT NEAR TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BEFORE, BUT I MAY BE OFF BY A FACTOR OF 2 (3 AT MOST).

Mike PSS

p.s. Still waiting on your mixing response.

Date: 2006/10/20 03:06:45, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (lawman @ Oct. 20 2006,02:30)
sorry, this may have already been answered, but if the continents were zipping about and bashing each other during the Flood and the ark comes to rest in the Mid-East(?), how did the animals then disperse to the now widely separated continents?
thanks

lawman,
From AFDave's Hypothesis on Page 1.
   
Quote (afdave @ Original UCGH from May2006)
C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.
Obviously, in the UCGH world, the ice age lowered sea levels and created land bridges for migration of humans/animals during this time AND THIS TIME ONLY.  After the ice age the sea levels regained present levels and left ISOLATED populations of animals and humans until rediscovered during the recent age of exploration.

Got It!!! Write It Down!!!  :D

Get away JAD, this is AFDave's UCGH, not your theory.

Grey Wolf,  
Quote
Mike, I know that it is not comongly found outside Spanish, but can I introduce you to the opening question mark?
¿Turkey? ¿50? ¿250?
It might be just me, but I find it far more confortable to look at

What can I say, I'm lazy with syntax.  I can boot up the character map and insert the proper punctuation like ¿ or § or other stuff, but my MO is to get my point across with minimum effort.  It's because I fully express my procrastination gene (I'm homozygostic for that allele I'm sure). :p

Date: 2006/10/20 03:57:36, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,01:04)
Thats something I will have to ponder as I have never really been much concerned with the ignorance of others and it certainly doesn't annoy me.  Maybe I just don't have the free time to worry about such things.  Also, I'd like to see a show of hands from all those who believe ID will ever be taught in the public schools.  If you raised your hand then you live in a much different world than I and barring the chance that both these worlds exist simultaneously then one of us must be delusional.  Its not for me to decide who because I honestly don't care.  And finally, there is a huge difference between ID and YEC.  Just because certain individuals cling to both theories doesn't bring them any closer together.  It is equivilant to throwing something (in this case two somethings) against the wall to see what will stick.

skeptic,
I'm going to be critical here.

Do you always type in stream-of-consiousness?  I'm trying to piece together those bits of your reply that apply to my comments and others comments, BUT without any references, quotes, or distinct seperation of phrases the whole response seems to be so much mumbling on your part.

As for the bolded portion I think you are thinking in too broad a catagory for my statement about ignorance.  Let me put it into an analogy.
****
I'm almost positive you have in the past been concerned about the ignorance of your co-workers as it relates to getting your job done at some point in your career.  By this I mean that you know some facts/procedure/insight that are needed to get your job done but should be known by everyone involved in this job family.  If someone you work with expresses ignorance with these facts/procedures/insights then you have to take time and effort to correct the ignorance expressed.  This is what I find annoying because this co-worker should have come equiped with enough knowledge and training to already understand the facts/procedures/insights in their job.  It may be the company training program that failed them instead of the person not thinking.  It doesn't matter, it's still annoying (to me at least).

I use the same thinking when faced with knowledge that most high-schoolers should understand (age of earth, genetics, basic physics, etc.).  If someone displays ignorance of this knowledge then it's annoying that EITHER the system failed to teach them OR that someone chose not to learn the facts.  I will try and correct them with the facts so they can learn and understand.

The "idiocy and stupidity" come into play when someone ignores the factual evidence that contradicts the ignorance expressed.  I'm not referring to someone incapable to understand the concepts, but more to an AFDave who has the capacity to absorb the factual evidence but chooses not to.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/20 04:19:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,09:53)
A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today?

This article illustrates what I have been saying for some time now in my Creator God Hypothesis ... that all sexually reproducing animals and humans could have easily descended from two genetically rich parents, genetically rich meaning nothing more than "in the middle of the Punnet square" or "significant heterozygosity" or "average of their kind" and (in Adam and Eve's case) also free from mutations.

Different alleles of the various genes have simply arisen by mutation of EXISTING genes.  If one wants to be obtuse and call this "genetic richness" ... well, I guess you can call it what you want ... I call it deterioration, just as a 5th generation copy made on a Xerox copier would be of much lower quality than the original.

This article also illustrates the common MIS-understandings among evolutionary biologists regarding the origin and diversification of species.  Note Don Batten's bio at the bottom -- this utterly refutes the notion that creationist scientists cannot operate in the real world.  On the contrary, they are BETTER equippped to operate in the real world because their theories are more consistent with the evidence in the real world.

Evolutionary biologists are so blinded by the crippling views of Darwinism that a lowly Electrical Engineer like myself can refute many of their erroneous ideas with only a little study.

AFDave,
If the native americans have the same number and type of alleles expressed on the HLA gene (was it 500? for HLA-A) as south-asians, europeans, and africans (along with aboriginal australians) how did they acquire this number of mutations (490) in only 250 years (between the end of the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age) if you could only have 10 alleles from the survivors of the flood?

The native american population was ISOLATED from the rest of the world population from the end of the UCGH ice age to Columbus in 1492 (yeah, I know, Lief Ericsson in Labrador in 1100's but the geographic impact of that settlement has been measured and documented).

PLEASE ADDRESS THIS APPARENT DISCREPENCY IN YOUR ASSERTIONS.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/20 04:31:06, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 20 2006,10:22)
I'm SO glad I posted that little bit on "Dr." Don Batten today. Batten isn't a "professional biologist" he's a plant physiologist. Battens claims on "mutation cannot increase information" is a trivially-destroyed common claim of creationists who don't have the slightest grasp of information theory. Claiming that because wolves can interbreed with other wolves = "proof" that all canids are descended from a single Noah's Ark pair is remarkably dense, but expected from "Dr." Don Batten and AFDave. HAHAHAHAHA

deadman,
If you continue to preempt AFDave by discreditting his sources BEFORE he posts (in this case by 17 minutes) then I'm going to suspect collusion between you and AFDave.

However, I'll let it go in this case because you were destroying the dendro argument and AFDave presented the dog argument.

Maybe you have a secret code in this thread so that the coded message to you from AFDave said "I'm posting Batten's 'D' argument" and you thought dendro instead of dog.

I'm watching you and ready to push the shenanigans button. ;)

Date: 2006/10/20 05:24:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,10:52)
Deadman ... you have fallen into the same trap that so many skeptics of creationism have ... you are unable to answer my claims on the current topic ... so all you have left is to try to discredit me, Don Batten and others.  Your latest tactic is to jump topics to an area that you think you have an edge.

Dave,
**sniff** I answered your claim on your topic.
**gulp** But you haven't answered me yet.
**shudder** AND you haven't answered me about my refutation of your mixing argument either.

Boo Hoo Hoo.  Wo is me.

Date: 2006/10/20 06:10:21, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,11:49)
DM...    
Quote
So, were you asked to stop, Dave?
Could you quote yourself where you asked this?  And maybe take all this to the Bathroom Wall so we can keep this thread on my "Creator God Hypothesis"? (we're currently on Points C & D)

Dave,
From my account you are mentioning items on Points C, D, G, H, I, J, and K.  Because I've identified an issue with your allele distribution in the human population after the flood.

Please reply,  my lower lip is trembling and I will cry again if ignored.


Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/20 11:35:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,13:16)
Mike PSS...    
Quote
AFDave,
If the native americans have the same number and type of alleles expressed on the HLA gene (was it 500? for HLA-A) as south-asians, europeans, and africans (along with aboriginal australians) how did they acquire this number of mutations (490) in only 250 years (between the end of the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age) if you could only have 10 alleles from the survivors of the flood?

The native american population was ISOLATED from the rest of the world population from the end of the UCGH ice age to Columbus in 1492 (yeah, I know, Lief Ericsson in Labrador in 1100's but the geographic impact of that settlement has been measured and documented).

PLEASE ADDRESS THIS APPARENT DISCREPENCY IN YOUR ASSERTIONS.

Mike PSS
DO they have the same number and type? I am not very familiar with the HLA gene yet ... feel free to enlighten me.

Dave,
I'm not a geneticist or biologist, but I can use Google.  I highly reccomend it sometimes.

I searched for 'hla allele worldwide distribution' and started flipping through the pages.  The 8th entry was Allele Project AlleleFrequency.net and looked promising.  I clicked on the dbMCH Anthropology link and came to the front page I was looking for.  In fact the abstract states (my bold)...  
Quote
The goal of the Diversity/Anthropology Component is to determine HLA class I and class II allele and haplotype frequencies in various human populations.  Studies of allelic diversity in different populations can shed light on the evolution of HLA polymorphism as well as on the evolution and migration of human populations.  In a clinical context, a knowledge of the allele frequency distributions in various populations is critical to the strategy of establishing and searching bone marrow donor registries as well as in studies of HLA-associated disease susceptibility.

I clicked on the Pre-Defined Queries : Class I Allele Frequencies and lo-and-behold there is a table representing alleles and geographic distribution.  To make sure they are talking about native populations I clicked on the 'Citation' reference below the North American geography and found that the samples taken were from native populations.

Now, looking at the table I see that for the alleles tested (NOTE: THERE ARE MORE ALLELES FOR HLA THAN WERE TESTED FOR) there is ~90% commanality in the HLA-A,B,and C alleles between North America and Europe/Asia/Africa.

What can I derive from this information as it relates to your UCGH presented so far?  That the Native North American population acquired their HLA-A,B, and C allele variability BEFORE the ISOLATION of the North American population.  Since this ISOLATION happened after the flood and immediately after the end of the UCGH ice age then there is only ~250 years that this quantity of allelic mutation could have occured in the population.

DAVE, THIS IS A LOT OF MUTATION IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  HOW CAN WE ACCOUNT FOR THIS ALLELIC MUTATION RATE GIVEN THE ABOVE ALLELIC DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN POST-DILUVIAN POPULATIONS THAT WERE ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER AFTER THE UCGH ICE AGE.

Does that answer your query?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/20 14:00:08, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 20 2006,18:31)
Actually, it's much, much worse for Dave than that. He doesn't have 250 years for all this diversity to arrive. He has no time at all.

Here's the "continental drift" model Dave says he subscribes to.

Eric,
I'm kind and reasoned.  I'll give the UCGH the benefit of the doubt and say there is a time lag between the end of the flood and the population dispersal that's claimed.  I think the UCGH ice age would expose a land bridge to most areas (big IF but no miracle) and enable the populations to migrate.  HOWEVER, there will certainly be isolation afterwards.

Also, the timeline available for all this ice, babel tower, and migration is limited since Dave has admitted that written accounts start a few hundred years after the end of the flood (DOWN deadman, HEEL!... IT"S WHAT DAVE SAID AND IT'S FOR TRUTH, BAD deadman).  We have to account for these kingdoms to be settled and the heierarchal establishment of the noble families to take hold before the first true dyansties are documented in the written histories.  And we know that these written accounts don't mention the ice age so there is a definitive end point to the migration during the ice age.

Anyway,  I'm trying to piece together Dave's event timeline from his prior UCGH claims and relate that to the measured mutations on alleles in the human population.

I just have to put my head aside while I type.  Self-induced cognitive dissonance I guess.

Mike PSS

p.s.  DAVE, PLEASE CORRECT MY ABOVE ACCOUNTS TO FULLY ALIGN THEM WITH YOUR UCGH.  THIS IS YOUR HYPOTHESIS AFTER ALL AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO MISREPRESENT (OR PLAIGERIZE OR MISQUOTE) ANYTHING IN YOUR UCGH PRESENTATIONS SO FAR.

Date: 2006/10/20 16:56:02, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 20 2006,22:42)
Quote (Richardthughes Posted on Oct. 20 2006 @ 22:00 )
The Ned Flanders school of web design..


Did you hear about the spider sooo big he had a world wide web?

At least quote properly.

Richard,
If zero wants your cap so much, give it to him.  He's trying real hard to earn it.

Date: 2006/10/21 03:53:30, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2006,00:27)
Ahem. I used to vacation in Juarez about Eastertime, so I know the reference. And Mike, we gotta talk. This "kibbles and bits" crap sucks, I want steak.
Another thing: shouldn't you guys be charging for the tutorials you're giving this twa...errm...guy Dave?

No steak for you.  FISH.  AFDave begins with the small fish and you come out at the end to answer.  HAHAHA.

Also, for another Monty Python analogy watch THIS.
Think of the contenstants as creos trying to overcome the obstacles (scientific facts) to finally explain their positions.  I'm sure we could put creo names to Nigel, Vivian, Jervaise, Oliver and Simon. :)

Date: 2006/10/21 13:16:40, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 20 2006,17:35)
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,13:16)
Mike PSS...    
Quote
AFDave,
If the native americans have the same number and type of alleles expressed on the HLA gene (was it 500? for HLA-A) as south-asians, europeans, and africans (along with aboriginal australians) how did they acquire this number of mutations (490) in only 250 years (between the end of the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age) if you could only have 10 alleles from the survivors of the flood?

The native american population was ISOLATED from the rest of the world population from the end of the UCGH ice age to Columbus in 1492 (yeah, I know, Lief Ericsson in Labrador in 1100's but the geographic impact of that settlement has been measured and documented).

PLEASE ADDRESS THIS APPARENT DISCREPENCY IN YOUR ASSERTIONS.

Mike PSS
DO they have the same number and type? I am not very familiar with the HLA gene yet ... feel free to enlighten me.

Dave,
I'm not a geneticist or biologist, but I can use Google.  I highly reccomend it sometimes.

I searched for 'hla allele worldwide distribution' and started flipping through the pages.  The 8th entry was Allele Project AlleleFrequency.net and looked promising.  I clicked on the dbMCH Anthropology link and came to the front page I was looking for.  In fact the abstract states (my bold)...  
Quote
The goal of the Diversity/Anthropology Component is to determine HLA class I and class II allele and haplotype frequencies in various human populations.  Studies of allelic diversity in different populations can shed light on the evolution of HLA polymorphism as well as on the evolution and migration of human populations.  In a clinical context, a knowledge of the allele frequency distributions in various populations is critical to the strategy of establishing and searching bone marrow donor registries as well as in studies of HLA-associated disease susceptibility.

I clicked on the Pre-Defined Queries : Class I Allele Frequencies and lo-and-behold there is a table representing alleles and geographic distribution.  To make sure they are talking about native populations I clicked on the 'Citation' reference below the North American geography and found that the samples taken were from native populations.

Now, looking at the table I see that for the alleles tested (NOTE: THERE ARE MORE ALLELES FOR HLA THAN WERE TESTED FOR) there is ~90% commanality in the HLA-A,B,and C alleles between North America and Europe/Asia/Africa.

What can I derive from this information as it relates to your UCGH presented so far?  That the Native North American population acquired their HLA-A,B, and C allele variability BEFORE the ISOLATION of the North American population.  Since this ISOLATION happened after the flood and immediately after the end of the UCGH ice age then there is only ~250 years that this quantity of allelic mutation could have occured in the population.

DAVE, THIS IS A LOT OF MUTATION IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  HOW CAN WE ACCOUNT FOR THIS ALLELIC MUTATION RATE GIVEN THE ABOVE ALLELIC DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN POST-DILUVIAN POPULATIONS THAT WERE ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER AFTER THE UCGH ICE AGE.

Does that answer your query?

Mike PSS

Dave,
You have a nasty habit of ignoring substantive posts that you yourself requested for information.  I'm opening up the BOLD ALL CAPS marker from now on.  I hear that the squeaky wheel gets the grease so I'll have to be loud.

Anyway,  I think I answered a question you had in my post.  And Grey Wolf seems to have some questions on a similar line.

Are you game to enter the Octagon?  Or are you going to meekly observe this post from behind your cognitive dissonance.

Your play, Oh meek one.

Date: 2006/10/21 13:28:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
alicejohn,
Welcome to the active posting club.
If your Hypothesis is correct and this is AFDave 'School for AIG debaters' then I don't hold AIG's recruiting methods in high regard. :p

From what I see, maybe Dave would score some points in a one hour debate style, but he would still lose a lot of points (and credibility) for some arguments that are refuted or challanged within minutes of him posting.  Deadman even refuted an AFDave post 17 minutes BEFORE AFDave made the argument (I wonder what the quantum probability for that is?).  More points off for style and we would have Dave losing most one-on-one debates.

The item I see lacking in most of these posts is logic.  It seems that Dave can grab claims and throw them at this board to try and make them stick but the claims don't logically fit.

My two cents,
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/22 12:07:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I think Dave is trying to become a credible reference to the AIG/ICR crowd.  In light of the Dover trial he probably sent off an executive summary :O to the AIG folks with the idea that he would test the admittedly dated AIG website information against a well informed crowd.

He may have been in contact with some RATE guys before this thread and recognized that RATE II would fare less well unless some contraversial or convincing factoids could be included in the report (we are well past the promised date of publishing RATE II by the way).  Once Dave started rolling he hasn't stopped since our constant refutations of his ideas has made him dig deeper into the AIG cellar for information.  He has also become more particular on references (notice the recent APO-AIMilano) that seemingly support his case.  The fact that posters on this board blow away the arguments within minutes has to be disappointing to Dave.

Anyway, I think AIG may mildly appreciate his supply of information and treat Dave with a nod and wink, but I don't think they will be bothered to change their attitude too much.  Too much work to change or repaint your stripes.  A lot of their work is preaching to the same audience they have always preached to, so why change the message.
Quote (ScaryFacts Posted on Oct. 22 2006 @ 13:47)
His response made it obvious he didn't care about the facts.  Behe confirmed his faith and that's as far as he wanted to explore.

Date: 2006/10/23 04:43:50, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE CAN'T KEEP HIS OWN HYPOTHESIS STRAIGHT!
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,08:00)
{NOTE: Edited for content.}
My position remains that the entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from two parents with a significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 4500 years since the Flood.

Team Evo is trying to say that ...

9) Mike PSS wants to know about HLA alleles accumulating in only 250 years


This post is rather long already, so I will answer some of the other questions later.


Dave,
The problem above is that this is the timeline YOU proposed for the UCGH.  This isn't my proposal for the 250 years but YOURS.  Your UCGH has only 250 years available for genetic mutation of alleles in ALL the genes, not just HLA.

Please accept or correct my timeline presented in my post.

THEN REPLY TO THIS QUESTION.  HOW CAN MUTATION ACCOUNT FOR THE HLA VARIABILITY IN THE HUMAN POPULATION IN ONLY 250 YEARS AFTER THE FLOOD!

Date: 2006/10/23 07:12:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE MUDDIES THE WATERS BUT DOESN'T ADDRESS SOME CONCERNS IN HIS UCGH - NEWS AT 11
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,12:21)
Yes, 500 > 16.  And 500 mutated alleles is genetically more corrupted than 16.  Conversely, a population with 16 uncorrupted alleles is "genetically richer" than one with 16 uncorrupted ones and 500 mutated (corrupted) ones.

Dave,
I have a couple questions,

Which of the....  Ermmm.....

WHICH 16 HLA ALLELES (I'M BEING GENEROUS HERE) WERE PRESENT ON NOAH'S ARK?

HOW CAN THE REMAINING 484 ALLELES OF HLA APPEAR IN ONLY 250 YEARS?

Date: 2006/10/23 08:52:13, Link
Author: Mike PSS
EASY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UCGH THAT DAVE DOESN'T ANSWER!

Dave,
I responded to a lurker a few days back about the post-flood timeline.  I went back to your original UCG hypothesis post to piece together the timeline.  
LOOK AT THE BOLDED COMMENTS IN THE UCGH POINTS.    
Quote (afdave @ Original UCGH from May2006)
C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

From these points I had to deduce some facts.  
I need you to confirm these facts from YOUR hypothesis.

  • THE ARK LANDED IN WHAT IS TODAY TURKEY.
  • THE POST-FLOOD/PRE-ICE AGE TIME WAS ONLY ~50 YEARS.
  • THE TOWER OF BABEL HAPPENED AFTER THE FLOOD BUT BEFORE (OR EARLY INTO) THE ICE AGE.
  • THE ICE AGE LASTED TWO HUNDRED YEARS AT MOST.
  • POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW GUINEA, AND MADAGASCAR MIGRATED DURING THE ICE AGE BECAUSE OF AVAILABLE LAND BRIDGES (OR SHALLOW SEAS).
  • WRITTEN HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS THAT ARE VERIFIED IN EGYPT AND SUMERIA POST DATE THE ICE AGE BY 50 TO 100 YEARS (THE TIME NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE NOBILITY HEIERARCHY AND DYNASTIC FAMILIES IN THESE KINGDOMS).

    These are your claims Dave, not mine.  My only question about this is:
    HOW DID HLA ALLELIC DIVERSITY OCCUR IN ONLY 250 YEARS WHEN THE ARK HAD AT MOST ONLY 16 ALLELES (GENETICALLY RICH OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER).

    Oh,
    and Dave,
    WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MY REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM!

Date: 2006/10/23 10:55:56, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 23 2006,15:06)
Re "POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW GUINEA, AND MADAGASCAR MIGRATED DURING THE ICE AGE BECAUSE OF AVAILABLE LAND BRIDGES (OR SHALLOW SEAS)."

To continents that didn't then have any local wildlife to serve as food for the migrants? ;) :D  :p  :O

Ooooo.... Ooooo.... Oooooo..... That ones easy.

The continents.... they... uhhh....
The animals went over to..... uhhh.....
Well, they bred like rabbits (or Rabbit Kinds, AHH HAH).

Anyway, those garanimals, erm.... animals then raced off, breeding a lot, from the Ark to the edges of the continents.  The ice age came and the animals RACED across the land bridges.  

Yeeeaaahhhhhh.... That's the ticket.

Anyway,  the plant seeds were in hybridization, erm.... hydroponics (heh, heh, with the flood and such, I made a funny), erm.... hybernation until the waters receded.  When the land dried the plants germinated and greened the earth BEFORE the mamajamafefifofanimals arrived on the continents.

Easy...  You see?

Date: 2006/10/23 13:18:50, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 23 2006,17:18)
Quote
Anyway, those garanimals, erm.... animals then raced off, breeding a lot, from the Ark to the edges of the continents.  The ice age came and the animals RACED across the land bridges.

No, no, NO! This is WRONG. You're just mixing UP the order.
The animals bred ,
THEN they migrated to the edges of what *would BE* the continents, surviving on manna, since all the plants were dead, and couldn't germinate and become food-sized,
Then the continents TOOK OFF! WHOOSH!!, whizzing across the seas in one day, like speedboats!!!
THEN the ice age happened.

HERETIC!!!!!!!!

Followers of continental migration AFTER the flood are HERETICS!

Only true followers believe in continental migration BEFORE the flood fully subsided.

I banish thee to the lowest levels of intellectual dishonesty (i.e. Dave's web site).

All those who meet deadman_932 in person are hereby authorized to belittle him and mock him.  He IS NOT WORTHY!
**********************
(Follow the holy gourd.... No, follow the shoe)
**********************

Date: 2006/10/27 04:21:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE STILL CAN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS UCGH!!!
Dave, You have'nt replied to my TIMELINE QUESTIONS.
Nor have you replied to my HLA INFORMATION that YOU ASKED FOR.
Nor have you replied to my REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM.

*******************************
You go on the road for a few days, come back and review 10 pages of this world famous thread and pick up a few gems.  The creativity (as opposed to the creationisity) of posters is enlightening.
Some good old fashioned ribbing...        
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Oct. 24 2006,02:58)
I'm still open to suggestions for a type specimen name for Davey and his comrads, I'm leaning towards Homo simplex at this time.
   
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 24 2006,15:44)
then I would suggest that  H. tardus or (my favorite of the moment) H. refluxus come closer to capturing the essence of the new species than H. simplex.
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 24 2006,16:53)
"H. cretinus" has the advantage of good solid Latin roots and the added bonus of the double meaning

Some classic goal post movement from our resident YEC.  He argues about Information content, gets smacked down, then changes the meaning of what he's debating.        
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,10:44)
However, when an intelligent agent begins drawing the balls out and communicating the color, now we have the potential for Meaningful Information (which I simply abbreviate as Information ... I fail to see how Information is Information at all unless it is meaningful to SOMEONE).  Be that as it may,...

Henry J called this one a day earlier...      
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 23 2006,16:19)
Re "One contains more pure information and the other is more informitive to circa 1942 Britons. "

Yeah, maybe he's confusing "information" with "useful information" (which is a subjective judgment).

Henry

I think Russel hits on a key item causing confusion between AFDave and others.  AFDave views his entire world as anthropocentric, including G*D.  How many times has Dave limited his G*Ds abilities to human-like limitations of design/thought/action?      
Quote (Russel @ Oct. 24 2006,11:41)
       
Quote
I believe that humans are "at the pinnacle of God's creation" which has all kinds of implications: humans have civil rights,receive sophisticated medical care, are punished for committing murder, and so on.  I observe that there is such a thing as a "harmful mutation." This necessarily implies design.  Why?  Because how else would you be able to tell if it is harmful or not?
 
But if you're going to use your anthropocentric, nonscientific criteria, can't you at least be consistent?

incorygible comes up with a strike, and jupiter helps define the term a little.    
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 24 2006,12:41)
Which is why we told you to quit using this ridiculous "upward evolution" term (which you seem to have pulled out of your orifice of miscomprehension)...
 
Quote (jupiter @ Oct. 24 2006,17:48)
Is that anything like the moustache of understanding? They both seem to have similar functions, e.g., allowing an organism to maintain an unwarranted sense of superiority within a hostile environment of scientific research, basic reasoning, and reality. Clearly these are beneficial mutations for the individual organisms, but harmful (or at least deeply annoying) to the larger population.

k.e rips apart the fog of the arguments to come up with clear reasoning about AIG.  It makes you realize WHY AIG exists in the first place.  If they were to compete in the peer-reviewed field of science they would be utterly, completely, marginalized and disappear from the page.
Quote
AFD AiG is NEVER RIGHT EVER, EVER, EVER, 100%

Not even once.

BY DEFINITION it is anti right.

IF they posted actual non pseudo science they would be absolutely irrelevant, they would literally disappear in a puff of logical smoke.

It would cease to exist, there would be no reason for its IP address, it would have passed on, carked it, turned up its toes, shuffled off its mortal coil........


And all this on a Tuesday.  I'll have to keep reading and catch up on this roller-coaster ride of "Science vs. Semantics".

Date: 2006/10/27 08:17:03, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE ANSWERS OTHERS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UCGH BUT IGNORES MIKE PSS.  WHY DOES AFDAVE EXERCISE THIS SELECTIVE NATURE OF INFORMATION?
 
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,12:25)
{snip}
As each founder pair spread out from the Ark, the standard laws of population genetics dictate that each isolated group would have manifested different features, much as we see quite different variants of the same species today even on opposite sides of a mountain range.  I think you still have an erroneous view of the fomrs on the ark.  Again, they were not "perfect" like superdogs, etc.  They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.  How much?  I cannot say.
{snip}
Remember Ayala's words that mutations are a mere trickle in relation to the built in variability of species. (And I would say they are not even a trickle in a positive sense ... I would say they are a "bad trickle" because all the good adaptive variability was already there--built in from Creation)
{snip}  
Quote
If we look at the genetic differences within a single kind could we estimate the historic mutation rate necessary to produce the modern diversification of life within 4500 years?  Is the historic mutation rate the rate we see today?  If not, why has the mutation rate changed, and when did it change?
I would assume that it has always been roughly the same rate since Creation.  But again, mutations are not the source of variability.  Variability is built in!  And we can have massive variability in only one generation!  How much more in 4500 years with massive migration and subsequent isolation of groups?

Dave,
If population genetics dictate that the Ark humans had, at most, 16 alleles of HLA then how does the UCGH explain the 500 alleles found in the population today?

I repeat this question and refer to my previous posts that explain this line of reasoning in more detail.

Dave, You have'nt replied to my TIMELINE QUESTIONS.
Nor have you replied to my HLA INFORMATION that YOU ASKED FOR.

Mike PSS

p.s.  Nor have you replied to my REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM.

Date: 2006/10/27 17:42:15, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 27 2006,21:57)
As far as noiseless channels in the real world, I would guess they do not exist but I could be wrong. However, that has nothing to do with the point I am making.

I think a LASER may represent a noiseless channel.  You don't have a noisy LASER, just signal strength loss.  I believe fidelity is maintained.

Date: 2006/10/28 10:50:42, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 28 2006,09:29)
{snip-mined by Mike PSS}
INTUITION AND COMMON SENSE
All this brings up an opportunity to talk about Intuition and Common Sense.

We are all better off if more people use common sense.  

Our intuition should have driven us all to a search for the truth and for the source of the confusion.

...which is why we need to keep our telescopes and our microscopes and our calculators handy.  But this does not mean we should completely throw away our intuition.  Our intuition is quite valuable and many times steers us to the right answer.  We walk outside on an uncloudy day and feel heat on our skin.  Our intuition tells us that "Maybe the Sun is a burning ball of fire."  And it turns out that we are correct.

Dave,
My intuition led me to question your own hypothetical assertions as they related to Isochrons.  And my Commen Sense led me to question how the UCGH handles HLA gene distribution while using the UCGH timeline.

What does your intuition and commen sense have to say in return?

You have'nt replied to my TIMELINE QUESTIONS.
Nor have you replied to my HLA INFORMATION that YOU ASKED FOR.

Mike PSS

p.s. Oh, and Dave....  stating that the Sun is a "burning ball of fire" implies combustion.  This statement would be misleading to others who may not understand cosmic plasma-nuclear *fusion (simplistically stated as E=mc^2).  A listeners intuition may lead them to believe in actual combustion (Hc of CnHn+O2 = CO2+H2O).  They would then come erroneous conclusions about the elemental content of the Sun and stars.  Just one of many rabbit trails that trusting in intuition can lead.

p.p.s.  Nor have you replied to my REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM.

*Edit:  Of course it's fusion, not fission.  I was reading about North Korea before I typed this.

Date: 2006/10/29 16:55:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE GETS DOWN TO BUSINESS.... FINALLY.  
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 29 2006,08:03)
OK ... ENOUGH FUNNY STUFF ... BACK TO BUSINESS

DAVE,
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO EVEN RESPOND TO MY POSTS THAT YOU YOURSELF ASKED FOR!


You have'nt replied to my TIMELINE QUESTIONS from YOUR OWN UCGH.
Nor have you replied to my HLA INFORMATION that YOU ASKED FOR.
Nor have you replied to my REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM that directly answers questions YOU ASKED FOR.

This is information dealing directly with UCGH claims.  Not rabbit hole discussions about information theory.

I've been waiting paitiently for your response so far.  I just want to get in the door.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/30 10:47:58, Link
Author: Mike PSS
YEAAAAAHHHH!!!    AFDAVE IS BACK ON TOPIC AND READY TO ANSWER MY RESPONSES TO HIS QUESTIONS!!!  
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,14:55)
Bringing this back to our context of the Biblical account of speciation since Noah's Ark, biological diversity and information, mutations, alleles and such, what can we conclude?

Not very much, really, from this study.  The most important fact here is simply that ...

We still do not know very much about ANY genome!

So I will not be making any attempts to prove what Noah's genome looked like or trying to show you comparisons of modern human genomes with Noah's.  

But what we can do is discuss known mutations, known alleles (like HLA), causes of variability, speciation and other questions which surround the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.

Like a good little sycophant I can provide Dave all the necessary references to these questions.
Here's myTIMELINE QUESTIONS.
Here's my HLA INFORMATION.
And here's my REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM in case you get peaked in your work.

Uh Oh!!  Look's like I'll have to wait for tomorrow for the pertinent information.
Quote
More on those specific topics tomorrow.

Oh Well.
Another day waiting for AFDave to C&P...  errrr..... discover new and exciting information to add to the discussion.

Date: 2006/10/30 15:29:05, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,18:49)
Mike PSS ... great picture!  You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA  :-)

AFDave,
It's been what... two weeks?  I put my message together in about 15 minutes (after studying the pertinent information for about 30 minutes).  And I haven't changed anything in my statements.  I have stood by them ever since I've posted and no-one (yourself included of course) has mentioned anything amiss about the information presented.

I hope you answer the pertinent statements I made in response to your questions.

I'm bringing back Petey for a new incarnation, the Pertinent Poster Panda.

"Who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree?
Pertinent Poster Panda.
Who explains pertinent posts to you and me?
Pertinent Poster Panda.
"Don't say that! Don't go there!
Don't be nasty!" says the silly bear.
He's come to tell you what's right and wrong.
Pertinent Poster Panda."


If Dave doesn't answer the questions in my post, that will make me a Sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda.

Date: 2006/10/31 06:25:31, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE POSTED!  IS IT ABOUT HLA ALLELES?  NOOOOOO....   I'M A SA-A-A-A-A-AD PANDA (sniff)

 
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,12:32)
I think you all have a very strange understanding of what creationists are saying ... let me reiterate very simply ...

1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible.  
4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

Lo and behold, I find that it is!

Wow.  I don't have to search through the post to find key points to counter, I can highlight the whole quote.

I think Dave has been wearing these for some time.  From here.  (Although these are Mormon Blinders and Dave probably has something to say about that too.)


A couple pertinent captions are:
"After seeing damning DNA evidence against the church the elder straps scriptures over his eyes. (out of site, out of mind.) "
"Similar to the Urim & Thummin these magical blinders cause the wearer to see only that which is faith promoting and supports church doctrine."
******************************
I'll just post a quick counter to point #1.
Here's my REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM which means you CAN'T REFUTE RM DATING UNTIL YOU SENSIBLY ANSWER THE REFUTATION.

Or..... Dave is calling me ignorant and/or a liar.

WHICH ONE IS IT DAVE, IS MIKE PSS IGNORANT, A LIAR, OR BOTH.  BECAUSE I STILL THINK RM DATING IS A VALID DATING SYSTEM.

Please be concise.  Petey is watching.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/10/31 15:09:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 31 2006,20:32)
Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,19:21)
and 3500 years is what I said! Do you have any better data?

Wait. Now you have four dates: 3,500 years, 4,000 years, 6,000 years, and 36,000 years. Which one is right? Or are they all right?

BTW, Dave: even if this "bwee" character is a parody (and, when it comes to YECs, it's hard to tell), his arguments aren't any worse than yours.

[edit: you can't change my posts, bwee, and I won't change them for you. :-) ]

Hey bwee,
Being concordant in your discordance is harder than it looks.

Don't you have access to the creo fact checker loaded on your 'puter?  When you start to question your statements just hit Ctrl-Alt-Del twice to get your facts straight. :O

Date: 2006/11/01 03:26:47, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE COMES BACK ONE DAY LATE AND.... WEL-L-L-L-L.... A FEW FACTS SHORT.
Remember, this post was preceded when I said...
[quote]Another day waiting for AFDave to C&P...  errrr..... discover new and exciting information to add to the discussion.[/quote]
And Dave replied and promised on Oct. 30 that..  
Quote
Mike PSS ... great picture!  You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA

So why am I not surprised when Dave comes back with a C&P job from Woodmoorappe!

Thank You, you've been a great audience.  I do this prediction thing every Monday night.  Please tip your waitress.
******************
On with the show....
 
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,07:54)
MORE ABOUT GENETIC RICHNESS (OK, GENETIC DIVERSITY), BOTTLENECKS AND ALLELIC DIVERSITY
Those of you who truly want to understand the creationist position on genetic diversity possible with the Flood/Ark scenrio should read John Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study.  An ATBC hero, Glenn Morton has reviewed it... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

Tell you what Dave, I haven't even read the TalkOrigins review and I don't think I need G.Morton's help in taking down Woodmoorappe (or your) position at this time.

 
Quote
Woodmorappe cites Templeton (1994) as a source of an excellent tutorial in common practices for expressing Genetic Diversity (what I have called "genetic richness").  The three primary measures are Percent Polymorphic Loci (P), Number of Alleles (N), and Heterozygosity (H).

I'm no geneticist but these terms seem to be used consistently in genetic studies.  I hope Woodmoorappe uses them consistently.  I'll leave it to other posters to catch any shenanigans that may occur.

 
Quote
WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GENES YET
BUT, we do know a lot about the HLA gene.  So let's focus on that one shall we?

 
Quote
BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
And this ISN'T THE POINT of the HLA allelic distribution issue we are talking about.  So how does this help the UCGH explain the 500 HLA alleles present in the population when we started with only 10?

 
Quote
HOW MANY ALLELES PER LOCUS EXIST TODAY?
According to Mani (1984, p. 282), most loci of present day animals contain between one and five alleles, although the MHC complex contains many more.  Woodmorappe ... p. 198 ...      
Quote
With the notable exception of the MHC complex, the overwhelming majority of polymorphic loci have no more than four alleles per locus (e.g., see Table 1.3.1, pp. 8-9, in Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).  Furthermore, when we look at the relative abundances of these alleles in a population, we see a very lopsoded distribution of frequencies (Altukhov 1990, pp. 206-9)....{snip, more numbers that don't help the point}

YEAAAAHHH.  WOODMOORAPPE RECOGNIZES THE VAST ALLELIC DIVERSITY OF THE HLA GENE!
 
Quote
Did you catch all that?  Woodmorappe concludes (and I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with him) ...      
Quote
This lopsided pattern of allelic frequencies is readily explicable in terms of founder effect (Altukhov 1990, p. 206), in theis case, Flood-related ones.  The 1 to 3 frequently occurring alleles at polymorphic loci are probably the ones which were carried by the two founders on the Ark, and the rarely-occurring alleles have arisen, by mutation or other means, only since the Flood.
BUT... Dave only hammers the point home about gene locus with limited alleles, not HLA.

 
Quote
HOW MANY MUTATIONS REQUIRED TO GENERATE THE PRESENT CONDITION?
In most cases none.  Why?  Because pre-Flood animals could have easily carried 4 alleles per locus.  Woodmorappe notes that most loci have [today] fewer than four alleles per locus.  And of course this is easily explainable due to the strong probability that the Ark animals did not always carry the maximum possible four per pair.  (Woodmorappe, p. 195)
And this helps you explain 500 HLA alleles how?

 
Quote
EXCELLENT CHART SHOWING HOW THE ARK BOTTLENECK WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR MAINTAINING DIVERSITY
I don't think anyone will argue this point.  But the chart only shows a five 'A' alleles.  We want to know how we go from five to five hundred!
 
Quote
HOW ABOUT HLA ALLELES?  WHY SO MANY OF THOSE?
ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
First, Woodmorappe explains that ...      
Quote
To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:      
Quote
Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.[/b]  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.  For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of allels would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (Parham et al. 1995, p. 177)

WRONG.  I posted a reference to a measurement of HLA allelic distribution within aboriginal populations of the different continents.  Without inserting my own conjectures on the data, here's what I said...
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 21 2006,19:16)
I searched for 'hla allele worldwide distribution' and started flipping through the pages.  The 8th entry was Allele Project AlleleFrequency.net and looked promising.  I clicked on the dbMCH Anthropology link and came to the front page I was looking for.  In fact the abstract states (my bold)...      
Quote
The goal of the Diversity/Anthropology Component is to determine HLA class I and class II allele and haplotype frequencies in various human populations.  Studies of allelic diversity in different populations can shed light on the evolution of HLA polymorphism as well as on the evolution and migration of human populations.  In a clinical context, a knowledge of the allele frequency distributions in various populations is critical to the strategy of establishing and searching bone marrow donor registries as well as in studies of HLA-associated disease susceptibility.

I clicked on the Pre-Defined Queries : Class I Allele Frequencies and lo-and-behold there is a table representing alleles and geographic distribution.  To make sure they are talking about native populations I clicked on the 'Citation' reference below the North American geography and found that the samples taken were from native populations.

Now, looking at the table I see that for the alleles tested (NOTE: THERE ARE MORE ALLELES FOR HLA THAN WERE TESTED FOR) there is ~90% commanality in the HLA-A,B,and C alleles between North America and Europe/Asia/Africa.

So the commonality in HLA alleles within the aboriginal populations was NOT due to admixture.  You haven't answered the question 'How did the allelic diversity of HLA appear?'  My points still stand tall and proud.
 
 
Quote
So if we are talking about 100 or so alleles of the DRB1 locus (not sure if this is a good number ... I think it's close), and if the Tower of Babel resulted in 12 separate groups (a guess for me at this point), then you have about 8 alleles per group needed in 4500 years.  Now of all the alleles, 10 pairs of them differ by only one residue at position 86 (Titus-Trachtenburg et al. 1994, p. 165).  Other alleles differ from each other only at position 57 (Apple and Erlich 1992).  Woodmorappe also points to several studies which show HLA genes mutating rapidly.

DAVE, I ASKED YOU TWO WEEKS AGO ABOUT THE UCGH TIMELINE.  WHEN DID THE TOWER OF BABEL OCCUR?  BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER THE UCGH ICE AGE.  PLEASE READ AND RESPOND TO MY TIMELINE QUESTIONS.
HERE'S THE PERTINENT STATEMENTS I MADE.  
Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 23 2006,14:52)
I need you to confirm these facts from YOUR hypothesis.

  • THE ARK LANDED IN WHAT IS TODAY TURKEY.
  • THE POST-FLOOD/PRE-ICE AGE TIME WAS ONLY ~50 YEARS.
  • THE TOWER OF BABEL HAPPENED AFTER THE FLOOD BUT BEFORE (OR EARLY INTO) THE ICE AGE.
  • THE ICE AGE LASTED TWO HUNDRED YEARS AT MOST.
  • POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW GUINEA, AND MADAGASCAR MIGRATED DURING THE ICE AGE BECAUSE OF AVAILABLE LAND BRIDGES (OR SHALLOW SEAS).
  • WRITTEN HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS THAT ARE VERIFIED IN EGYPT AND SUMERIA POST DATE THE ICE AGE BY 50 TO 100 YEARS (THE TIME NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE NOBILITY HEIERARCHY AND DYNASTIC FAMILIES IN THESE KINGDOMS).

    These are your claims Dave, not mine.  My only question about this is:
    HOW DID HLA ALLELIC DIVERSITY OCCUR IN ONLY 250 YEARS WHEN THE ARK HAD AT MOST ONLY 16 ALLELES (GENETICALLY RICH OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER).


And in conclusion...
 
Quote
CONCLUSION:  OUR OBSERVATIONS AND STUDY OF THE MHC COMPLEX IS ENTIRELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE FLOOD/BABEL SCENARIO ... IN FACT IT WOULD NATURALLY FOLLOW IF THESE ACCOUNTS REALLY ARE TRUE.
Woodmorappe...      
Quote
Let us recall that no local population has more than a few of the MHC alleles typical of the human race as a whole (Parham et al, p. 177).  WHen juman populations are subdivided and relatively monomorphic at MHC loci, nearly any new allele arising by mutation may be advantageous to its bearer by allowing the presentation of a more complex immune system to the pathogen (Belich et al. 1992, p. 328).  Once a few mutants arise, even a small number of them will rapidly become subequal in frequency within the population. [Cites Takahat 1993a, p.19 to support this]

Placed into a creationist context, we can see how the subdivided human populations in the post-Flood world (notably after the Tower of Babel) could have rapidly acquired novel MHC alleles, no doubt facilitated by the ever-changing pathogen-rich post-Flood world.  When the subdivided post-diluvian population subsequently merged, each of these small numbers of distinctive alleles, occurring at relatively high frequency, eventually amalgamated to form the large number of intermediately=occurring MHC alleles now characteristic of the human race as a whole.  THat is how the extensive MHC polymorphism we know today came to be in only the 5000 [sic] years since the Flood.

WRONG.  AS STATED ABOVE.  TRY AGAIN.

Dave,
It looks like you didn't read or understand my post about HLA.  Please tell me how I can make it clearer for you.  I haven't altered my post in two weeks, yet you haven't responded with any points that refute what I posted as shown above.  I have no need to alter any statements in my post.

Mike PSS

p.s. Here's my REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM which means you CAN'T REFUTE RM DATING UNTIL YOU SENSIBLY ANSWER THE REFUTATION.  IS MIKE PSS IGNORANT, A LIAR, OR BOTH.  BECAUSE I STILL THINK RM DATING IS A VALID DATING SYSTEM.

Date: 2006/11/01 15:02:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,18:59)
Mike PSS--  I followed your links and got nothing.  I think you are primarily interested in the creationist explanation for the HLA-B locus, with 500 known alleles, right?  Now you were saying you have a table somewhere that shows how similar the alleles of various groups worldwide are, or something, right?  Could you reproduce that table here for us?

From reading Woodmorappe, my understanding is that, yes, there are 500 known alleles, but that in any one indigenous people group which has not been mixed with other groups, the number is much lower--maybe 40 or 50 alleles?

So if you have that table, it would help to clear this up.  If you don't have it, I'm sure I can find one somewhere.

I'm surprised at the person who said that my "bottleneck chart" does not show how genetic diversity is maintained/regained.  Can you explain in more detail why you think it does not?

Right you are.  The table is nested in some reference and I'm not savvy enough to reproduce it here.
Try this....
Click this underlined link to the front page.
On the left there is titled Pre-defined Queries.
Click on 'Class I Allele Frequencies' to get the table.
*************************
The table clearly shows that the Afro-Euro-Asia allelic presence is simalar (~90%) to North & South American allelic presence.  These are the same alleles found in populations that have been isolated from each other since after the UCGH ice age.

AFAIK, there are only two ways to get this type of allelic distribution in the UCGH environment.  You need either to mutate the alleles in exactly the same way over time in isolated populations, or the alleles need to travel with the foundation groups that settled North & South America.  That is why I asked my timeline questions.
What time period in the UCGH did the foundation group that settled North & South America travel?


Also, relating this HLA-B gene to your table looks like this:
Before Flood: A1 through A?? (doesn't matter)
Immediately After Flood: A1 through A10
After Ice Age (NA and SA settled): A1 through A500
Click on this underlined link to get a full listing (as of last month) of the HLA-B gene.  Also the front page of the same website has more references and information available (website found from Wikipedia link about the HLA-B gene).

I don't care about B, C, D or any other GENE in your table.  Only A (the HLA-B GENE) and the numbers after A (the alleles of HLA-B).  I don't deny that A1 through A10 could be represented in the entire population, but how did A11 through A500 show up in only 250 years?

Do you understand the point now?
Did the link work?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/01 17:04:10, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 01 2006,18:25)
 
Quote

Let’s Talk About Sex
October 31st, 2006
{snip}
The church’s silence has not only affected sex before marriage – it has found its way into the bedroom. Christian divorce rates are no different than non-Christian ones. In many instances, Christians surpass the lost in rates of divorce.
{snip}
Filed under: Christian Culture, Teen Culture, Christian Worldview — Joel @ 4:48 pm
Comments Off


http://stoplyingtous.com/

Thanks to this board I now know that Joel's mind is ALWAYS in the gutter when it deals with any subject.  Joels obsession reminds me of Beavis and Butthead snickerring and laughing whenever a 'questionable' word is uttered (heh, heh, He said "wiener" dog. heh, heh).

What bugs me the most is outlined above.  The black and white (sorry GoP, in terms of shades of grey in this case); holier than thou; Us vs. Them; I'm Right, Your Wrong; attitude about life in general.

Joel assumes the reasons for divorce to "the lost" will be different than the reasons for divorce for "the gifted" (or whatever he wants to call his cabel).

A very English word comes to mind with Joel.

Wanker!

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/02 04:16:31, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,08:10)
Mike PSS--- I downloaded and printed that HLA DB and will look at it on the plane this morning.

Even though this is only Thursday, and I do my best predictions on Monday...ahem...

I predict Dave will take the database numbers and do some whamma-jamma-thank-you-mamma mathematical manipulation (that means smoke-and-mirrors math, not comprehensive statistical analysis) and come back with an "explanation" that supports his hypothesis.  Upon further review I think we'll find the math doesn't hold up to scrutiny, OR Dave's conclusions don't address the original problem statement.

The Great Karnak Has Spoken

Date: 2006/11/02 16:52:06, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I like the "Discussion Questions" at the end of the chapter.
Quote
10. Comment on T. H. Huxley’s famous claim that “it is as respectable to be modified
monkey as modified dirt.” Did humans evolve from monkeys? Are there
compelling reasons for thinking that humans did evolve from monkeys? Are there
compelling reasons for thinking that they did not?
Which of these positions is
compatible with intelligent design? Are both compatible? Support your answer.


I love the bolded part.  It's really asking;
"Is evolution true?"
"Are you SURE evolution is true?"
"Don't you think evolution is false?"

If I answered this with supporting evidence from the biological sciences, would I then be marked wrong on my answer?

Can we get DaveScot to grade these papers?

Date: 2006/11/04 12:07:24, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 03 2006,23:59)
Mike PSS--

Some initial observations on the HLA-B Alleles ...

1) I only see 225 lines in the whole chart, not 500
2) Of the 225, half of them have fewer than 10 occurrences worldwide
3) I see no pattern of frequencies that contradicts anything Woodmorappe has written (and I summarized)

What are your observations and how exactly do they pose a problem for my 4500 year timeframe?

Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 04 2006,02:34 )
Dave, more than than 20 contradicts your "hypothesis." 10 extra alleles in 450 years is going to be very difficult for your "hypothesis" to explain. So I suggest you get busy.

Especially if you think a human generation at the time was more than a hundred years.

Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,08:08 )
How do you come up with 10 extra alleles in 450 years from that database that Mike linked to?  Are you taking 100 alleles for 4500 years and dividing by 10?

Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 04 2006,12:06 )
No. I'm saying even ten, to say nothing of 100, or 225, or 500, alleles in 450 years is going to present problems for your "hypothesis." Again, for someone who says he doesn't believe in evolution, you're talking about evolution rates far in excess of anything actually proposed by the theory of evolution.

"Genetic richness" isn't going to help you there, Dave.

Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,13:08 )
I'm thinking you have not even looked at Mike's HLA DB.  You appear to not be understanding my question.

Dave,
I'm not going to argue about this sample set.  I told you the table didn't sample for all the HLA alleles.  This is only a representative sample, but large enough to make my point.  

The commonality of HLA alleles across population groups is significance enough.  Whether we have one, two, or MANY people with the same HLA allele doesn't matter.  The fact that the distinct geographic populations SHARE a common HLA allele IS significant.

I don't think you read my posts too thoroughly.  Go back and read the part where I ask about the UCGH timeline.

In that part I ask you specifically when the UCGH ice age was finished.  This is the last time the North American population intermingled (admixed) with the Africa-Euro-Asia population until 1492.  (We can ignore the impact of the Leif Ericson settlement since this influence was localized to Labrador).

If the North American population was ISOLATED from the end of the UCGH ice age to 1492, then the common HLA alleles between these populations must have come about BEFORE the populations seperated.  The data set specifically tested aboriginal populations that have never shown familial history of admixture with outside groups (that is the 'Citation' tag under each geographic heading in the table).

THIS IS WHY THE UCGH HAS ONLY 250 YEARS TO CREATE AND MIX THE HLA ALLELES THAT ARE COMMON BETWEEN THE NORTH AMERICAN AND AFRICA-EURO-ASIA POPULATIONS.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/04 14:57:26, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,20:49)


OK Mike--  Here's an extract from your table.  Tell me what data I should be looking at and tell me how this is a problem for a YEC timescale.  (I added a "Sum" column in and sorted by that column).

Also, you might want to explain to everyone how the frequencies are calculated and what the numbers in the region columns represent.

Thanks!

OK Dave, I'm game to lead you step-by-step through this.

First the data in your table.  Each region listed has a seperate sampling size (listed in the original table).  The frequency columns listed to the right of the region columns are purley the fraction of the regions population that that have that allele.  For example... Column H is 'Europe' and Column I is Frequency of Europe population that have a certain allele.  Cell I2=0.0491 which means that 4.91% of the European population tested (179 people in cell H2) has the HLA-B B*4001 allele.

Next, the explanation.  Look at Columns H(Europe), N(NE Asia), V(SE Asia), X(SW Asia), and Z(Sub-Sahara Africa).  All of these regions share the almost the same alleles (above 90% of those tested for).  We should expect this since these populations have interbred (admixed) for millenium.  As an HLA-B allele appears in any of the above populations from mutation and selection, the geographically connected populations will spread the allele throughout the population over time.

However, look at Column L(North America).  The NA population shares almost the same number and type of alleles as all the populations above (Africa-Euro-Asia).  Since the NA population was isolated from (Africa-Euro-Asia) population until 1492 then the shared alleles MUST have come from a mixed population BEFORE the NA population isolation.  This is why I (and Grey Wolf and ericmurphy and others...) say that there is only 250 years for the allelic mutations to appear in the population.

If there are common alleles in ISOLATED populations then these populations must have shared these alleles BEFORE seperation.  The population of NA was seperated from (Africa-Euro-Asia) after the UCGH ice age.

Also, the individuals tested within each region were selected for regional homogeneity (they and their familial lineage was considered aboriginal to the region).  The original table has a citation to justify this fact and can be cross-checked.  So the North American population tested consisted of Mayan, Navaho, etc... individuals that have familial lineages that don't cross-breed with other regional peoples.

Does this help explain the table?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/06 02:39:20, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
Did you run out of fingers and toes counting the alleles?

Here's another one to ponder.  Why does a protein molecule look as structurally complex as kerogen?


Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/06 05:58:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:13)
Argy...    
Quote
He said they were present, but he didn't say they had the same frequency. It's the presence that matters.
Pardon me, but here's what he said ...    
Quote
The table clearly shows that the Afro-Euro-Asia allelic presence is simalar (~90%) to North & South American allelic presence.  These are the same alleles found in populations that have been isolated from each other since after the UCGH ice age.
There is no way this table supports any kind of "90% similarity."  Sorry, not buying it.

   
Quote
Uh, Dave, I thought the point of your red dots "experiment" was to say that if the scientists took a bunch more measurements, they'd come up with random points.  And since you had no evidence, you just imagined some data out of thin air and then critiqued your own made up chart.  I don't seem to remember anything about fossils on that chart, Dave.
Yes, you are correct, that was my point.  And I most certainly DID have evidence.  I gave you a clear example:  the "dating" of the layers at Koobi Fora.  This example showed unequivocally from a major, non-YEC source--Science magazine--the absolute randomness of RM "dating" results and the necessity to "calibrate" results with fossils of "known" age.  You are a very intelligent guy as can be seen by your academic achievements.  Why would you buy into this foolishness?

Dave, Dave, Dave.
What is that saying again?
"There are lies, dam lies, and statistics."

Argy has pegged it.  My 90% statement clearly indicates that the regions have the similarity in the presense of an allele.  The distribution frequency is irrellevent to my point.  If the allele is expressed in the NA population then it is present (NO statements about frequency distribution).

Now, if you think outside the box a little we can look at the regional frequencies to derive other points (NOT the point I'm making remember).  We could look at these allelic frequency distributions and find out which alleles may have originated with the ark inhabitants.  If the general populations express a certain set of alleles vastly more frequent than other alleles then maybe the frequent alleles were the original to the ark (a prediction based on the UCGH hypothesis).  We can test this and determine whether this prediction holds up to the evidence.

Mike PSS

Oh, and Dave.  My refutation of your mixing argument was about Rb-Sr dating.  Your Koobi Fora stuff was about K-Ar if I remember right.  So, no points for you in this case.  Your made-up red dots were discarded long ago, why bring them up again?

Date: 2006/11/06 06:10:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:45)
Richard ...    
Quote
Dave, you still do not understand alleles. On the left side of the chart there are four alleles of gene A. There are also 3 alleles of gene B and 2 of gene C. As far as gene A (think HLA) is concerned, the number of alleles of genes B and C are irrelevent. Forget them. Erase them from your mind. They have nothing to do with the situation.
No, my friend.  They are quite relevant.  The fact remains ...

I said that a single, genetically rich (diverse) founder pair would have easily been able to maintain/regain a high degree of genetic diversity following a bottleneck such as Noah's Ark.

Woodmorappe's chart shows this quite vividly.

No amount of denial from you that B and C somehow don't matter will change this simple observation.

Quit squirming and admit you were wrong.

9=9.

A loss of only 1 common allele is excellent maintenance, thank you very much.

Dave,
When are you going to have that "Ah-Ha" moment with alleles and genes?
When are you going to say "So that's what everyone is talking about."
When Richard says "B and C don't matter.." he is only talking about the alleles that relate to the A gene.
The A alleles are not expressed on the B or C gene.
The HLA-B gene has 500 alleles.  These alleles are only part of the HLA-B gene (A in the Woodmorappe chart).
When we are talking about the HLA-B gene (A remember) we aren't mentioning any other gene (B or C).
That is why Richard made that statement.
Your confusing alleles (only expressed on a single gene) with genes (each gene has it's own seperate set of alleles, distinct and seperate to each gene, seperate and distinct, no A alleles are found on B, no B alleles on C, etc. and so-on).

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/06 06:27:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,13:19)
The tapdancing has commenced again I see ...

"OK ... forget the 90% stuff ... HERE'S what is really important." *cough cough*

"And oh, let's take Woodmorappe's example and trim off those pesky B's and C's **cough** (never mind that leaving them in makes the example more relevant to the real world) ... THEN we can prove Davey wrong!"

Nice, guys ... really classy.

*******************************

Mike--  Have you ever considered that people from all over the world have been traveling to N. and S. America for the last 500 years or so?  Thought question:  how would this affect your argument?   Hmmmmmmm .....

Dave,
Your the only one tapdancing right now.

The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
DO YOU DENY THIS?

The Woodmoorappe chart shows three genes (A, B, C) and we are talking about only one gene (A).
DO YOU DENY THIS?

The table I referenced had a Citation that shows that the people tested were aboriginal to the region and showed no outside cross-breeding.  I mentioned this in almost every post about this table.
DO YOU DENY THIS?

Please Dave,
Answer the ice age questions too.  How many years after the flood did the ice age occur?  When did the ice age end?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/06 09:08:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 06 2006,15:54)
Not to support AFDave in any way, but are we sure that those shared alleles between Europeans and Native amricans don't result from introgressions after secondary contact? We can never be sure that an individual that is genotyped today don't have one of his ancestor native from the other continent.
Of course, gene sequences/mutations rates would clarify this. As I said, some alleles diverged even before the existence of homo.

jeannot,
I looked into this before I posted my data table.
Follow these instructions to get to the data table I'm talking about.
Quote
Click this underlined link to the front page.
On the left there is titled Pre-defined Queries.
Click on 'Class I Allele Frequencies' to get the table.

Underneath each region heading is a 'Citation' link.  The citations list the sample population for each region.  These sample populations were tested for regional homogeneity using other genetic markers.

Dave tried to question the same thing a couple hours ago.  I got this one covered.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/06 17:32:20, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,23:42)
Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.

Most of you are too lazy to even do it.  All you want to do is sit on the sidelines and mindlessly throw rotten eggs.  At least Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming are not lazy.  They have at least engaged me and gone to some effort to try to support their view.  Unsuccessfully, I might add, but at least they tried hard.

Anyone up to the challenge besides those mentioned?

Dave,
Still waiting for you to clarify your position.  Here's a reminder.
   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 06 2006,13:27)
   
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,13:19)
The tapdancing has commenced again I see ...

"OK ... forget the 90% stuff ... HERE'S what is really important." *cough cough*

"And oh, let's take Woodmorappe's example and trim off those pesky B's and C's **cough** (never mind that leaving them in makes the example more relevant to the real world) ... THEN we can prove Davey wrong!"

Nice, guys ... really classy.

*******************************

Mike--  Have you ever considered that people from all over the world have been traveling to N. and S. America for the last 500 years or so?  Thought question:  how would this affect your argument?   Hmmmmmmm .....

Dave,
Your the only one tapdancing right now.

The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
DO YOU DENY THIS?

The Woodmoorappe chart shows three genes (A, B, C) and we are talking about only one gene (A).
DO YOU DENY THIS?

The table I referenced had a Citation that shows that the people tested were aboriginal to the region and showed no outside cross-breeding.  I mentioned this in almost every post about this table.
DO YOU DENY THIS?

Please Dave,
Answer the ice age questions too.  How many years after the flood did the ice age occur?  When did the ice age end?

Mike PSS

Or would you rather continue your dance?

Date: 2006/11/07 13:26:41, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 07 2006,10:58)
HLA-B NO PROBLEM FOR THE BIBLICAL SCENARIO

Mike PSS--      
Quote
The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
DO YOU DENY THIS?
OK, we can talk about the PRESENCE of the allele ... no problem.  I can readily explain it in terms of the Biblical scenario.  But first, why did you mention the 90%?  What point were you trying to make?

Dave,
I posted the 90% number because I'm lazy.  My initial review of the data showed ABOUT 90% of the alleles were matched in the different regions without going through the tedium of counting and crossing out.  I couldn't say ALL the alleles matched but wanted to have a ballpark number we could talk around.  This also means I think there is a greater than 80% match in the data.  If you want to come up with a more precise number feel free to post it.
 
Quote
 
Quote
The Woodmoorappe chart shows three genes (A, B, C) and we are talking about only one gene (A).
DO YOU DENY THIS?
Two separate issues, Mike.  The Woodmorappe chart shows how genetic diversity can easily be maintained to a very high degree in a bottleneck such as the Flood.  The HLA-B allele question is a different matter.  You are trying to claim that there is not enough time between the end of the Flood and the end of the Ice age for all these HLA-B alleles to have arisen.  And I am in the process of systematically dismantling your claim as I have done with so many other bogus claims here.

Dave,
Don't conflate your 'genetic richness' claim with the HLA-B allele arguments.  Woodmoorappe's chart says nothing to the points in the HLA-B discussion, unless you can show the large number of mutations necessary in the short amount of time you have available between the end of the flood and the end of the ice age.
Quote
 
Quote
The table I referenced had a Citation that shows that the people tested were aboriginal to the region and showed no outside cross-breeding.  I mentioned this in almost every post about this table.
DO YOU DENY THIS?
Yes, I deny this for two reasons ...
First, there is some admixture explicitly acknowledged in the citations ...
     
Quote
Anthropology Citations

 Submitter: BGRNAU
   Population: Bulgarian
     Report:  Roma from Bulgaria  
     Authors:  M. Ivanova, A. Michailova, E. Naumova  
 Submitter: BRADON
   Population: Brazilian (Af Eu)
     Report:  Brazilian (Admixed, African and European) from the Northeast region of State of São Paulo, Brazil  
     Authors:  P. Louzada-Junior, N.H. Deghaide, M.B. Araujo, A.G. Smith, M.H.S. Kraemer, E.A. Donadi  
 Submitter: BRAPTZ
   Population: Guarani-Kaiowa
     Report:  Guarani-Kaiowá Amerindians from Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil  
     Authors:  M. L. Petzl-Erler and L. T. Tsuneto  
   Population: Guarani-Nandewa
     Report:  Guarani-Ñandeva Amerindians from Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil  
     Authors:  M. L. Petzl-Erler and L. T. Tsuneto  
 Submitter: CANLUO
   Population: Kenyan 142
     Report:  Kenyan from Kenya  
     Authors:  Ma Luo, Joanne Embree, Suzie Ramdahin, Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, Simon Njenga, Job B. Bwayo, Kristine Jacobson, Luvinia Kwan, Marlis Schroeder, Sha Pan, Marc Jevan Narayansingh, Shehzad Iqbal, Robert C. Brunham, and Francis A. Plummer  


Dave,
When you mix and match data, like you've done above, you can get a confused picture about the results.  Remember, I'm only using the North American data for my claim yet you posted a hodge-podge of Citation data from different regions.
The BGRNAU citation is from the Europe region.
The BRADON citation is from the Other region.
(Geez Dave, why would they put this admittedly admixed population in the Other region instead of the South American region)
The BRAPTZ citation is from the South America region.
The 'Guarani-Nandewa' citation is from the South America region.
The CANLUO citation is from the Sub-Saharan Africa region.

Why don't you only cite the North American region (you know, the region WE ARE TALKING ABOUT).  Here's the table from the North American Citation, let's only look at this....
Quote (NA Citation @ Nov. 7 2006, 13:56)
Search Criteria
  Population Area:   North America

 Submitter: MEXGOR
   Population: Lacandon
     Report:  Lacandon Mayan Indians from Mexico  
     Authors:  Carmen Alaez, M. Vazquez-Garcia, Angelica Olivo, and Clara Gorodezky  
   Population: Seri
     Report:  Seri from Sonora, Mexico  
     Authors:  Infante E, Alaez C, Flores H, Gorodezky C.  
 Submitter: USAERL
   Population: Canoncito
     Report:  Cañoncito Navajo from New Mexico  
     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
   Population: Maya
     Report:  Maya from Mexico  
     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
   Population: Pima 17
     Report:  Pima from Arizona  
     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
   Population: Pima 99
     Report:  Pima from Arizona  
     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
   Population: Sioux
     Report:  Sioux from South Dakota  
     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
   Population: Zuni
     Report:  Zuni from New Mexico  
     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
 Submitter: USALEF
   Population: Yupik
     Report:  Yup'ik Eskimo from Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska  
     Authors:  Mary S. Leffell, M. Daniele Fallin, Henry A. Erlich, Marcelo Fernandez-Vina, William H. Hildebrand, Steven J. Mack and Andrea A. Zachary  
 Submitter: USAMFV
   Population: Amerindian
     Report:  Native American from the United States  
     Authors:  K. Cao, M.A. Fernández-Viña


On to your next false claim....
Quote
Secondly, there is plenty of admixture NOT explicitly acknowledged in the citations.  Think about those Amerindians from Mato Grosso, for example.  Are you telling me that these researchers have some way of eliminating the possibility of admixture of the Spaniards and the Incas?  Do they (and you) think that those Indians just evolved right there in the jungle, pure and pristine, being descendants of some nearby apes?  Come on.  No ... the ancestors of the Incas  came from the same place that ALL ancient nations have come from ... the Tower of Babel.  And those Amerindians probably came from the Incas, likely with some Spanish lineage mixed in.

Dave,
Your argument by assertion doesn't work here.  And if you argue by assertion please get your asserted facts straight.  I am saying that the sampled population wasn't admixed with the Spaniards (or English or French or Africans or....), but I do agree that there can be considered full admixture with the Incas (same region populated AFTER ISOLATION.  I have never denied this.

Also, I'm not arguing about ape origination in Matto Grosso (where in he11 did you come up with that one?).  Let's just concentrate on the North American citations quoted above, mmmkay?
Quote
 
Quote
Please Dave,
Answer the ice age questions too.  How many years after the flood did the ice age occur?  When did the ice age end?
Not quite time to change the subject yet.  I know you're getting uncomfortable, especially now that Jeannot has challenged you too.  Your claim was that 450 or 500 HLA-B alleles had to arise in 250 years or something because "Look, there's 90% similarity all over the world!"  And as we are seeing, the data does NOT support your claim.
 
But Dave,
Understanding the time between the flood and the ice age end gives everyone a concrete number of years to analyze the data.  This means we have to hold multiple factoids in our brains to analyze the data and come to some conclusion.  Also, as you mentioned above, we need to know the timeline consequence of the Tower of Babel within the ice age question (before, during, or after.... I say during but early on in the ice age).
Quote

WHAT DOES THE HLA-B DATA TELL US?
In short, it tells us that Woodmorappe is correct when he refers to Parham's study which says ...      
Quote
Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (Parham et al. 1995, p. 177)

So, Dave, how does your CGH explain 500 alleles in 250 years?  It doesn't.  And it doesn't have to as this Parham quote makes clear and as Mike's data makes clear.  
Now some of you are very hard-headed and won't be convinced, so try this ...
Take that HLA-B data from Mike's table, put it in an Excel spreadsheet so you can sort it, then perfom various different sorts.  DAVE'S PREDICTION:  Australia will have a comparatively low number of alleles because there has been relatively little admixture since the Tower of Babel.  Europe will have many alleles because there has been a lot of admixture since the Tower of Babel.  N. America should fall somewhere between Europe and Australia because there has been admixture, but not as much as in Europe.

RESULTS?  
Australia: Only 11 alleles > 1% frequency
N. America:  19 alleles > 1% frequency
Europe:  25 alleles > 1% frequency

Hmmmmmm ... I guess the Bible isn't so silly after all !!

Dave,
You can make frequency predictions to support your hypothesis all day.  I will look at your frequency prediction myself to see if it stands the smell test.

However, we are only talking about allele presence, not frequency.  HOW did all the alleles get to the regions, not how many of each are there.  If one allele makes it to the region that's one more data point in the 'presence' column no matter what the frequency.

So........
Please try and deconstruct only the North American citations.  Posting a global hodge-podge of citations you disagree with (especially since the researchers already classified the results with admixture in mind) doesn't help your case at all.  Your entire argument hinges on the citations being wrong in some way.  Please be specific and show us how the North American (ONLY) citations don't represent aboriginal populations.  All your other verbose prose after this is only so much hot air unless you disprove the citations.

Have at it....  disprove the North American citations.

Mike PSS

*******************************
deadman,
do you have access to the 'American Journal of Physical Anthropology'?  During my web search for 'worldwide distribution of hla alleles' I found a couple abstracts from this journal that looked promising.

I don't think I need to cross-reference any other data than what I presented, but if Dave gets aphasiac during this discussion then we might need to pummel him with more references.
*******************************

Date: 2006/11/07 22:22:15, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 07 2006,16:01)
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

For Dave to say that the Guarani of the Mato Grosso region of Brazil ( near PARAGUAY)  had gene flow with the Inca of Peru ( on the OTHER SIDE OF THE CONTINENT)...despite thousands of miles between them, thousands of enemies, no history of trading, no language similarities for communication and no lingua franca to use for trade or gene flow...well, that's hilarious. That's like saying the New York state Iroquois had stabilizing gene flow with the Navajo of Arizona WAVE THOSE HANDS, FLYBOY!!!!!

Sorry deadman,
I actually gave Dave this point in my present discussion of HLA-B gene presence.

No matter how wrong Dave may be in this, the data I presented are purely of a regional (continental) nature.  I'm sure we could seperate the different tribes from the continental regions, but in my case I actually group all the continental populations together as a single entity.

This doesn't change the fact that the Guarani AND the Inca originated through the land bridge of Alaska during the ice age.  AND the Guarani and Inca tested for the data table were aboriginal in nature to the region.  

It would actually be interesting for Dave to say....
"But the Guarani contributed 50 alleles and the Inca contributed another 50 alleles and the Tierra del Fuego indians another 50 alleles (etc. and so on)."

THAT would be some good tard.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/08 00:17:28, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2006,00:29)
...there were likely three waves that made it over the Bering or along the coast, according to the best available data.

...although linguists in particular are not real happy with the "lumper" mentality...

"Lumpers and Splitters"

Don't all arguments always end up this way? :D

Date: 2006/11/09 08:23:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
***(deep breath)***
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MY FACTUAL REBUTTAL TO AFDAVE'S FOGGY REASONING THAT ANSWERED MY REPLY TO HIS MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF MY POSITION ABOUT HLA-B GENES
***(pant)**(pant)**(pant)***

Dave,
Here's a quick summary (the one's you like) from my admittedly long reply to your admittedly long post a couple days ago.
  • The 90% similarity number between North America HLA allelic presence and Euro-Asia-Africa is an estimate only.  You can challange this number or accept the estimate.  I don't think I'm far off on this.
  • When talking about HLA-B, the only thing the Woodmoorappe chart shows is the 'bottleneck' of allelic presence at the ark as it relates to ONE gene (we've been using 'A' in almost all cases to discuss the HLA-B gene).
  • I'm talking about North American populations only at the present time.  When you posted your table of Citations here was my response (refer to the previous posts for the data mentioned below)...  
    Quote
    When you mix and match data, like you've done above, you can get a confused picture about the results.  Remember, I'm only using the North American data for my claim yet you posted a hodge-podge of Citation data from different regions.
    The BGRNAU citation is from the Europe region.
    The BRADON citation is from the Other region.
    (Geez Dave, why would they put this admittedly admixed population in the Other region instead of the South American region)
    The BRAPTZ citation is from the South America region.
    The 'Guarani-Nandewa' citation is from the South America region.
    The CANLUO citation is from the Sub-Saharan Africa region.

    Why don't you only cite the North American region (you know, the region WE ARE TALKING ABOUT).  Here's the table from the North American Citation, let's only look at this....

  • Discussing the timing between the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age (AND the Tower of Babel incident) is a functional part of the HLA-B allele discussion.  This is NOT a seperate topic since the presence of HLA-B alleles in the North American population involves knowing this timing with some accuracy.  Please answer the ice age and Tower of Babel timing questions within the UCGH framework.
  • Your attempt to discredit the citations has been smacked down since you don't even mention or address the citations we are discussing (North America).  Any conclusions you may have drawn after your discrediting statements are null and void of logic, reason, or testament since your discreditation of the citations has been discredited itself by me.  Please address only the North American citations if this is the line of argument you wish to pursue.  
    {NOTE TO AFDAVE: On page 75 of the thread, deadman says...  
    Quote
    My mom's full-blooded Mescalero Apache, my father's family is from Alsace-Lorraine.
    This would mean deadman is 'admixed' but what about his mom?  Would a 'full-blooded Apache' qualify to be part of the North American Citation since her family allegedly indicates no previous admixture to before 1492 (that's what 'full-blooded' implies)?  I'm only using this as a pertinent example, I definately DON"T want to get into discussing deadman's relations in more detail (factual OR conjectured) than to relate the bare statements made to the Citations that are listed in the HLA-B allele table.


    This summary can be purchased for $4.99 at your favorite anti-evolution critic sites.  (A little tactic I picked up by learning about ID.  Always charge for your work no matter what the content.  The DI actually charged $15 for their rebuttal to the Dover trial.  Hucksters every one.)

    Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/09 09:48:09, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,17:36)
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 08 2006,16:32)
Soccer (which we call "cricket" in England) seems to crop up quite often. God must be a fan.

I'd love to see a soccer match played with cricket bats...

Like Hockey, but with more blood.

Cool.

This would actually be Woman's Field Hockey.  The most vicious game I've ever witnessed.  I've seen Rugby players cringe when watching one of these events.

Date: 2006/11/09 09:59:02, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2006,17:48)
Down with the kids. hip like dem. word.

Churchy types attempts at 'cool' are always good:

http://www.dltk-bible.com/jesus_rap.htm

Ooooops....

I wonder if these people really want to associate their rap with the actual singer?  And everything he stood for?

Date: 2006/11/09 10:26:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS


Luddites fit this thread.

Dave is the sledge hammer held by the leftmost person. :O

Date: 2006/11/09 13:28:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2006,11:03)
He dressed shockingly badly for a Gay fella.

More 'borat' than trendy.

Wwwwhhhhaaattt??

The slightly oily/sweaty, shirtless, poly-pants, tennis-shoes, velvet cape with matching crown look is now out of fashion?

This fashion stuff changes too fast. :(

Damm, now I need a new warddrobe.

Date: 2006/11/09 20:46:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,18:32)
NORTH AMERICA ONLY?  OK.  NORTH AMERICA ONLY, THEN.
Mike, despite your recent summary, I always have a hard time determining exactly what it is you are trying to assert.  Let me take a shot.

I think you are trying to say that ...

HLA-B poses a serious problem for the Biblical record because how in the world did 500 or so HLA-B alleles arise in the 250 years or so between the end of the Flood and the end of the Ice Age.

I think the reason you say that only 250 years were available for these 500 alleles to arise is because you observe that ...

Approximately 90% of the HLA-B alleles in the N. American indigenous population ALSO appear in Euro-Asia-Africa indigenous peoples also.

I hope I am stating your position correctly.

Yes Dave,  you got my position fairly correct.  

However, I'm not saying that this point is a 'problem for the biblical record', I'm saying that the UCGH needs a valid and cohesive explanation for this apparent anomoly in the data.  I'm saying that the data in front of everyone on this board seems to contradict the present UCGH theory.  IF you can 'square-the-circle' by using the biblical record that's fine.  OR you can come up with another valid explanation for this anomoly.  Right now you haven't presented any cogent statements to explain the data within the UCGH.

   
Quote
MY ANSWER
1) There are NOT 500 alleles in your chart.  There are 225.
2) There are only 18 -- did you catch that? -- 18 alleles in North America that occur at a frequency greater than 1%.
3) There are only 2 -- TWO! DOS! ZWEI! -- 2 alleles in N. Am > 10 % frequency.

MY REBUTTAL
1)  I already told you that the researchers never tested for all 500 alleles.  I'm not going to make predictions on the other 275 alleles right now until I get more data (if I need it).  The fact is there ARE 500 HLA-B alleles (I gave you a reference table in the past that listed them).  It would be an assertion on my part to say the remaining 275 alleles would show the same regional distribution, but I won't say anything to these alleles until/unless I present more date.  However, It would behoove you to assume that the other 275 alleles show a similar regional distribution (presence, not frequency of course).
 Tell you what Dave, why don't you try and explain 215 HLA-B alleles in 250 years.  At the end of your explanation change the '215' to '490' and see if your explanation still holds up.  Then we can see if these other 275 alleles need supporting data or not.

2)  FREQUENCY DOESN'T MATTER.  ONLY PRESENCE.  The fact that the allele is PRESENT in North America means it came over with the migratory population.  Selection of the allele within a population(which leads to frequency) doesn't matter.  This is a rabbit-trail of your own making so please send the ferret down this trail and "nip it in the bud".

3)  See point DEUX) above.  
(Why don't you make a prediction here Dave.  Why don't you say that we can clearly identify two of the HLA-B alleles that were present on the ark since they are the most common.  So far you've made one prediction about allelic frequency as it relates to time of regional admixture since the ice age.  Now you can make a second prediction that identifies the ark alleles.  If your predictions hold up to scrutiny then maybe your hypothesis will start to make sense.)
   
Quote
I'm also not sure how you can be sure of eliminating the possibility of ANY admixture in the sampled N. Am. groups.  Are you telling me that in the last 500 years, there was ZERO intermarriage between Euro-Asia-Africa peoples and the Native Americans?

I have said before that this is your ONLY point worth making.  BUT you have to make sense.  I'm NOT telling you that admixture didn't happen within North America (like your second sentence insinuates).  I AM telling you that the North American data in the table came from indiginous populations of the continent (countering the hand-waving assertion in your first sentence).  The Citation shows that this selection avoids any admixture with outside populations (except South America which I'm not arguing against).  
 So you better support your position with more than hand-waving and personal increduality.  You have clear access to the Citation page from the data table.  DISCREDIT THE ACTUAL CITATION WITH ACTUAL FACTS.  HANDWAVING JUST WON'T DO.

   
Quote
OK.  Over to you.

Right Back At You.

Mike PSS

Oh, and Dave,
 
Quote
5 years!!  Horrors!! I guess he thinks I'm looney because the Xia Dynasty could not have been established within 5 years after the Tower of Babel.  Well, I didn't say that it was.  I merely point out the remarkable fact that WIKIPEDIA (not me) has the earliest Chinese dynasty (Xia) beginning in 2205 BC.  My date for the Tower of Babel is AROUND 2200 BC, not EXACTLY 2200 BC.  I don't know if it's possible to nail these dates down any closer than within a few hundred years in ancient history.

Is this your answer to the ice age question?  If it is, then you have some serious 'splainin' to do.  If the UCGH flood ended 4500 years ago (Usher??) which is 2500 B.C. then there is only ~300 years between the flood and the first written records in China (2205 B.C.).  That is why the Tower of Babel and the ice age have to happen in this period, not after.

Date: 2006/11/09 22:53:27, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,22:57)
Mike PSS ...  
Quote
2)  FREQUENCY DOESN'T MATTER.  ONLY PRESENCE.  The fact that the allele is PRESENT in North America means it came over with the migratory population.
Of course frequency matters.

Unbelievable.
Dave, why do you confuse your paragraphs with three or four different subject statements.  I have to break apart every sentence because they are saying different things.  Time to break out the bold all caps.

DAVE, IF THE ALLELE IS PRESENT IN THE REGION IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY THERE ARE.  THE SAMPLED PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTATION OF THE POPULATION.  IF A SAMPLE SHOWS 1% FREQUENCY THIS REFLECTS AN INFERRED ALLELIC POPULATION OF MAYBE 50,000 OR MORE INDIVIDUALS.  WHO CARES.  THE ALLELE IS PRESENT IN THE INDIGINOUS POPULATION.  END OF STORY.
Quote
And there is no way you can show that many of those alleles were not the result of some admixture.

WRONG DAVE,
The Citation shows exactly that this is not the case.  The sample population was selected for no admixture after 1492.  Prove the Citation wrong with whatever facts you come up with.  Your only waving your hands around because you can't disprove the citation that's listed.
THE CITATION SHOWING THE NORTH AMERICAN POPULATION SAMPLED IN THE HLA-B TABLE IS VALID.  YOU HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT ONCE EXCEPT TO INDICATE THAT IT EXISTS.
Quote
This has become a goofy discussion and has ended up like all the other ones ...

1) You guys present some "horrendous" obstacle for my CGH
2) I dissect it and look at the details (apparently you guys must not expect me to do this)
3) It turns out that once I dissect it, I understand it even better than you guys do (Grey Wolf's eye color "mutation" was another good one)
4) You guys wind up backpedalling and talking nonsense

My Rebuttal
1)  I presented an anomoly that needs explaining.  You haven't explained it yet.  The anomoly STILL EXISTS.  The UCGH needs to explain this anomoly.

2)  You have looked at SOME of the details but not ALL of the details.  You have successfully limited the discussion to 225 alleles (although I said we have to consider all 500 if needed).  You have done some Excell math to compare alleles.
 What you haven't done is LOOK AT THE DETAILS OF THE CITATION.

3)  Your 'perception' of your own understanding is yours to keep.  Your 'representation' of that same understanding is what is under question here.  Maybe it's the language, maybe it's the regional dialict, maybe it's the mindset.  But you have to at least complete this sentence before your 'representation' of the understanding is recognized by everyone else.
The frequency of the alleles present in the North American population matters because......
Please fill in the rest of that sentence and I can comment on how much understanding you have.

4)  I haven't backpedalled at all.  I gave you a couple points that you presented in good faith and I agreed upon them (see 2) above).
 Please quote the lines and statements that you deem nonsense so we can clarify this misunderstanding.
Quote
Bottom Line:  HLA-B is no problem at all for my CGH.  I have shown that at most there might have been the need for 18 new alleles in a 250 year span.  Don't try to tell me this is a problem.

WHERE DID YOU GET 18 ALLELES?
FREQUENCY DOESN'T MATTER.  YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL THE ALLELES PRESENT IN THE POPULATION.

Quote
And please spare me the nonsense about "there was no admixture."  This is getting about as silly as "white noise has more information than a Churchill speech."

YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING A DATA POINT TO REFUTE THE NORTH AMERICAN CITATION IN THE HLA-B DATA TABLE.  

IF THIS IS THE NONSENSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO ABOVE THEN YOU BETTER PULL OUT YOUR DICTIONARY AND GIVE ME A DEFINITION OF NONSENSE.  BECAUSE I DISAGREE FULLY WITH YOUR PRESENT DEFINITION.


Mike PSS

p.s. And DAve,  Is Mike PSS a liar, ignorant or both because I believe that RM Dating is a valid methodology for determining the age of rocks and strata.

Date: 2006/11/10 08:08:09, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE SELECTIVELY READS OTHERS POSTS THEN RESTATES OLD ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REBUTTED.
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,06:44)
 
Quote
EDIT:  You still haven't said where those alleles are coming from?  
The alleles come from random mutation ... where ALL alleles come from.  This has all been covered here.  Nothing presented by Mike poses any real problem to the idea of a Global Flood.  I'm just not getting what you think the hangup is.  At first, Mike and Grey Wolf were trying to say that 500 HLA-B alleles had to arise in 250 years.  Now that I've shown them that there are only 18 alleles in N. Am. occurring at a frequency greater than 1% (and we could add that there are only 74 in the chart at all), I'm not sure what the problem is any more.

Dave,
Your reading comprehension sucks.  I posted about this in my reply to you yesterday.  Your still stuck on this frequency idea.  Please complete this sentence...
The frequency of the alleles present in the North American population matters because......

 
Quote
Mike PSS...    
Quote
WRONG DAVE,
The Citation shows exactly that this is not the case.  The sample population was selected for no admixture after 1492.  Prove the Citation wrong with whatever facts you come up with.  Your only waving your hands around because you can't disprove the citation that's listed.
THE CITATION SHOWING THE NORTH AMERICAN POPULATION SAMPLED IN THE HLA-B TABLE IS VALID.  YOU HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT ONCE EXCEPT TO INDICATE THAT IT EXISTS.
No admixture, huh?  You said there was none in ANY of the data, so I checked your facts.  You were utterly wrong as I showed in the table extract.  There was EXPLICITLY ADMITTED admixture and there was HIGHLY PROBABLE admixture as I showed.  

Now if you want to argue no admixture in N. Am, fine.  Post your proof ... don't make me go find it.

HERE'S YOUR PROOF.  CHOKE ON IT.  I POSTED A REBUTTAL TO THIS SILLINESS TWO DAYS AGO.
YOU QUOTED CITATIONS THAT WERE NOT IN NORTH AMERICA.  I CORRECTED YOUR MISTAKE.  PLUS I NEVER SAID 'THERE WAS NONE IN ANY OF THE DATA'.  I'M ONLY ADDRESSING NORTH AMERICA.


Also, please show either the calculations or reasonable estimates (you know, actual numbers) that relate your 'HIGH PROBABILITY OF ADMIXTURE' statement to the actual facts.
Here's the North American citation table you can work with.
 
Quote
Search Criteria
 Population Area:   North America

Submitter: MEXGOR
  Population: Lacandon
    Report:  Lacandon Mayan Indians from Mexico  
    Authors:  Carmen Alaez, M. Vazquez-Garcia, Angelica Olivo, and Clara Gorodezky  
  Population: Seri
    Report:  Seri from Sonora, Mexico  
    Authors:  Infante E, Alaez C, Flores H, Gorodezky C.  
Submitter: USAERL
  Population: Canoncito
    Report:  Cañoncito Navajo from New Mexico  
    Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
  Population: Maya
    Report:  Maya from Mexico  
    Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
  Population: Pima 17
    Report:  Pima from Arizona  
    Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
  Population: Pima 99
    Report:  Pima from Arizona  
    Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
  Population: Sioux
    Report:  Sioux from South Dakota  
    Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
  Population: Zuni
    Report:  Zuni from New Mexico  
    Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
Submitter: USALEF
  Population: Yupik
    Report:  Yup'ik Eskimo from Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska  
    Authors:  Mary S. Leffell, M. Daniele Fallin, Henry A. Erlich, Marcelo Fernandez-Vina, William H. Hildebrand, Steven J. Mack and Andrea A. Zachary  
Submitter: USAMFV
  Population: Amerindian
    Report:  Native American from the United States  
    Authors:  K. Cao, M.A. Fernández-Viña


DO YOU NEED ANOTHER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY?
DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING AND COMPREHENDING MY PREVIOUS POSTS?
DO YOU NEED GLASSES?


Stop waving your hands all over the place Dave.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/10 08:54:40, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,08:32)
ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

You guys should quit bashing creationists and start READING them for once.

Dave,
Your statements on this post (actually, Woodmorappe's statements) are ALL OVER THE PLACE.  You start out with statements about MHC complex then contunue to HLA genes in general then make statements about HLA-DRB1.

Here's a playbook of definitions from Wikipedia.  
Quote
The best-known genes in the MHC region are the subset that encodes cell-surface antigen-presenting proteins. In humans, these genes are referred to as human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes, although people often use the abbreviation MHC to refer to HLA gene products. To clarify the usage, some of the biomedical literature uses HLA to refer specifically to the HLA protein molecules and reserves MHC for the region of the genome that encodes for this molecule; however this convention is not consistently adhered to.

The most intensely-studied HLA genes are the nine so-called classical MHC genes: HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-DPA1, HLA-DPB1, HLA-DQA1, HLA-DQB1, HLA-DRA, and HLA-DRB1. In humans, the MHC is divided into three regions: Class I, II, and III. The A, B, and C genes belong to MHC class I, whereas the six D genes belong to class II.


When we're talking about HLA-B, we are talking about one gene.  NOT THE ENTIRE MHC COMPLEX.  Your having a rough enough time concentrating your efforts on one gene.  Don't try and take on the entire MHC complex now.

If you want to take on the entire MHC complex, let's start with this statement from the same Wikipedia page.  
Quote
One of the most striking features of the MHC, particularly in humans, is the astounding allelic diversity found therein, and especially among the nine classical genes. In humans, the most conspicuously-diverse loci, HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1, have roughly 250, 500, and 300 known alleles respectively -- diversity truly exceptional in the human genome. The MHC gene is the most polymorphic in the genome. And population surveys of the other classical loci routinely find tens to a hundred alleles -- still highly diverse. And perhaps even more remarkable is that many of these alleles are quite ancient: It is often the case that an allele from a particular HLA gene is more closely related to an allele found in chimpanzees than it is to another human allele from the same gene!


WOW!!!  ANCIENT ALLELES THAT RELATE TO CHIMPS BETTER THAN HUMANS.  WHO'D 'AVE THUNK?

Also Dave,
When you say this...
Quote
And the MHC Complex is a supergene, and the closely linked genes hitch-hike with each other, thereby facilitating the origin and multiplicaiton of genetic polymorphism (Kaufman et al. 1995, p. 67)

are you saying that gene alleles are transferrable between genes?  I would like to see the whole quote in context instead of a snippet like you stated.

Date: 2006/11/10 09:39:05, Link
Author: Mike PSS
DECONSTRUCTING DAVE'S ASSERTIONS REQUIRES CAREFUL READING.  SOMETHING DAVE DOESN'T DO WITH MY ASSERTIONS (SEE PREVIOUS POST WHERE DAVE STATES THINGS I'VE REBUTTED TWO DAYS AGO).
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,06:44)
Now that I've shown them that there are only 18 alleles in N. Am. occurring at a frequency greater than 1% (and we could add that there are only 74 in the chart at all), I'm not sure what the problem is any more.

Dave,
Here's the HLA allele table again.
Quote
Click this underlined link to the front page.
On the left there is titled Pre-defined Queries.
Click on 'Class I Allele Frequencies' to get the table.

Click on the arrows at the left side to expand the allele tables out.
There are 74 alleles present in the North American column.  My contention was that 90% of the NA alleles matched alleles from Asia-Africa-Europe.  When you compare each allele to the presence in the Europe, North-East and South-East Asia, and Sub-Sahara Africa column you find only B*3911 (also found in South America also), B*4015 (found only in NA), and B*4404 (also found in Other column).

So.... I count only 3 alleles out of 74 that are unique to North (or South) America.  That is a 95.9% similarity in allelic presence.  I still stand by my approximation of 90%.

Also,
CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.
If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.


Good Luck,
Mike PSS

*Edit- fixed the quoted links to the HLA tables.*

Date: 2006/11/10 09:53:41, Link
Author: Mike PSS
QUICK TEST OF THE HLA-B ALLELE TABLE

A quick count of region sample size and number of alleles expressed in the region gives us the following numbers.

Region          2n Size Tested       Alleles expressed
Europe               3210                       89
North America     1299                       74
North-East Asia    760                        65
South-East Asia   5489                      101
Sub-Sahara Africa 3526                      104

I would say the sample size for North America and North-East Asia are valid, but with a higher standard deviation in the allelic expression than the other regions.  Without a rigorous statistical treatment I would rather see the sample size above 3000 to narrow the standard deviation.  I think this data check can still confirm the numbers we are talking about from this table.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/10 11:44:43, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Ichthyic @ Nov. 10 2006,01:45)
Quote
Dave is the sledge hammer held by the leftmost person.


hmm, that's a lousy picture of Dembski.

Yeah!  Somebody got the correct reference.

Ichthyic, You win a prize.  One annual subscription to weekly AIG eNewsletter.  I'll notify them right away.

I think with their UD operation, THIS should be the proper hammer.



**Edit:  Changed my mind and the picture.**

Date: 2006/11/10 12:06:35, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,11:38)
Thank you.

Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?

PROGRESS.

Quote
I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on! ...

AND REGRESSION.
Dave, don't talk to me about the table.  DISPROVE IT YOURSELF.  POST A COGENT REBUTTAL.
I AM saying there was no hanky panky (not sure if all the tribes subscribe to your definition of mairriage in this case) related to the sampled population.  The Citation specifically eliminates this posibility.
GO AND REFUTE THE CITATION.  I BELIEVE THEM UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.  IF YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD CAN PROVE WITH DATA AND REFERENCE THAT THIS CITATION IS INVALID THEN I'LL TREAT THAT AS A PROPER REBUTTAL.
YOUR APPEAL TO INCREDUALITY IS NOT CONVINCING.

Quote
And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??

Dave,
I can read into data a little better than you apparently.  If indigenous North America only has 3 alleles independent of Euro-Asia-Africa between the end of the ice age and 1492 (~3700 years) then how do you explain 61 mutations in only 250 years.
Did the end of the ice age depress the mutation rate?
Did the ice age accellerate the mutation rate?

Date: 2006/11/10 13:25:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Here's a reference for you Dave.
Quote
American Indian mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Data: A Comprehensive Report of their Use in Migration and Other Anthropological Studies
http://www.iiirm.org/publica....DNA.pdf

Although the article is a little long in detail, look at the Appendix pp.45-133.  Read some of the Study Summaries to see how each study population was selected as indigenous.  This type of analysis is done to verify the the individuals as valid sample participants.

Hope this helps,
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/10 16:48:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,17:26)
Argy ...  
Quote
61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?
I don't think 61 alleles arose in 250 years.  I think it was much fewer than this, the balance being due to admixture (i.e. Mike's indigenous people aren't quite as purebred as he imagines).  My point has simply been to show that this "500 alleles in 250 years" stuff is nonsense.  At this point, I have investigated this topic enough to see that, once again, most of the objections to the Biblical account of Origins are hot air.  Have I made a watertight case for believing the Biblical account?  No.  And I don't think I'm going to go to the effort to get my PhD in "HLA-B Studies."  But I think anyone with an ounce of honesty can see the nature of some of the objections to the Biblical account posed on this thread, and can further see that, upon closer inspection, they simply do not hold water.  COULD some of them hold water?  Yes, possibly.  But when you've been investigating various objections for 6 months and all but one of them turn out to be weak at best, you become a bit jaded and tend not to want to go chasing all the rabbits down every trail.

Declaring victory already.  Unfortunately it's all in your own mind at present.  If "61 alleles in 250 years" is no problem I suggest you get the points of this thread over to AIG so they can post it on their site.  We can have another article on their website with glaring obvious holes in reasoning.

Is this your "moving on..." statement or are you going to try and explain the appearance of 61 mutations appearing in a population in 250 years?

OR, are you going to address the admixture issue you so want to cling to (but I have reinforced at every post of additional information)?

No sweat Dave,
We can put this one to bed at the point it's at.  This board knows EXACTLY where we stand so far.  We can pick this up at any time you need.

However, leaving this point open means the whole earth settlement/migration issue after the flood can't be used to support your UCGH.  This issue presents a direct anomoly in this point.

I'm afraid you can't complete your C&D points at the present time.
Quote
Quote
On a nicer note, happy Veterans' Day to AFDave and any of you other folks who signed up for the cause.  Your service is appreciated.
I'll deflect this to those who actually got their hands dirty and/or got in harm's way.  I don't consider my time in the AF as sacrifice at all ... it was pure fun flying jets and I never got shot at.  Of course the reason for this is because I'm a creationist and a coward and a dilletante ... or at least that's what I've been told here :-)

I put 6.5 years in the AF, enlisted, all overseas in Europe.  No shooting but near enough to get Desert Shield/Storm ribbons.  Lot's of beer to (mmmmm.... beeeeerrr...).

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/10 17:13:59, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Russell @ Nov. 10 2006,13:55)
I also think Deadman hit the nail on the head with his analysis of davy's modus operandi. So, for that reason, I want to support his suggestion that we focus on C14 dating. Here's a technique that earned its discoverer a Nobel prize, is widely used by multiple branches of science, but davy thinks he's debunked, based on the propaganda of these creationists, who - I take this opportunity to remind you - have absolutely NO scientific accomplishments to point to.

Ditto on this.  Who was the nobel winner?

Here's some pertinent links:
http://www.c14dating.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
http://www.radiocarbon.org/Info/
Neat! This one has a program for "an online calibration program for post-nuclear weapons testing C-14 samples."
And of course...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html.

And we have the counterpoints at:
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14e.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
http://icr.org/article/117/

Date: 2006/11/12 09:08:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,18:05)
Mike PSS-- On further thinking about your perceived difficulty with Native Americans sharing some alleles with different groups, I thought of something.  We would naturally EXPECT them to share alleles with the Asian people groups because they migrated to N. America FROM Asia.  And of course, the Asian peoples migrated from the Tower of Babel region.  So we should further restrict this discussion to alleles shared w/ Europeans and Africans, but disregard Asians.  Do you agree?

I missed this final musing by Dave about HLA-B alleles.

Dave,
If you want to get even more specified in the UCGH timeline go right ahead.  I've been asking you for a month about the time between the flood ending and the ice age ending and the Babel incident.  The only way you can include your musings is by fixing dates even further and specify WHEN the Tower of Babel occured and WHEN the Asiatic population exodus happened to initially seperate this group from the African-European group.

Unfortunately this won't help either.  The Asia group shares over 95% similarity with the Africa-Europe group.  In a prior post I counted allelic appearance and the Europe group had 89 alleles in the table.  So you have to answer a tougher question.  HOW DID 75 { (89-10)*0.95 } HLA-B ALLELES APPEAR IN LESS THAN 50 TO 200 YEARS (this is where you need to fix the timeline).  In this case you CAN argue about admixture in recent times (Marco Polo anyone, silk road, Chinese adventures to Africa, etc....) so we need to see an accounting of how this admixture affected the entire HLA-B allele accounting.  Which alleles were original to the Asia population (and thus comparable to the North American population) and which alleles appeared from admixture.  Good Luck with that.

It's good that you recognize the origins of the North American population.  Now we only need to fix the ACTUAL date of migration(s).  I say 13,000 ybp and some say 15,000 ybp.  Deadman has posted numberous sources for this discussion.  Mind you, I don't think anyone else is saying that the HLA-B alleles appeared in 250 years.  Two or Three in 13,000 years maybe, but even we wouldn't propose 61 alleles appearing in 13,000 years.
********************************
Ahhhhhh......  Carbon-14.......
Here's a couple snipits to keep the discussion focused.
   
Quote
First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.

Dave,
14C is the SAME as 12C in terms of chemical and biological function.  Unless these plants have a nuclear accellerator in their uptake mechanism then I'm going to call you on this one.  It takes a lot of centrifuges to seperate 235U from 238U, and that is a 3 neutron difference.  
HOW MUCH EQUIPMENT DOES IT TAKE TO SEPERATE 14C FROM 12C?
IS THIS DISCRIMINATION EQUIPMENT A NEW TRAIT OF PLANTS?

   
Quote
Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.

Whaaaaaaaaat????????
I'd like to see a correlated atmospheric chart that relates to this claim.
   
Quote
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.

And this is one of Dave's "stakes in the ground" as it relates to dating methods.

   
Quote
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Ummmmmm.......
CAN WE GET A MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP QUOTED?  IT'S FINE TO MAKE STATEMENTS BUT LET'S SEE THE MATH.
WHAT IS THE STRENGTH/DEFLECTION RATIO?
WHAT IS THE MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY OVER TIME?
WHAT IS THE COSMIC RAY FREQUENCY VERSUS 14C PRODUCTION CURVE LOOK LIKE?


   
Quote
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation).

This brings back a point made in a past discussion about the Grand Canyon.
ARE GEOLOGIC LAYERS BELOW THE DEEPEST COAL DEPOSITS PRE-FLOOD?
This means we can identify the pre-flood and post flood layerring of the geologic column.  NEAT!!!!

   
Quote
inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets

Well......
Ground Sloths ARE slow so collecting data must be slow too.

   
Quote
Click here for the references http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp


Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/12 16:29:45, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (edmund @ Nov. 12 2006,15:23)
afdave:        
Quote
First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.

Mike PSS:        
Quote
14C is the SAME as 12C in terms of chemical and biological function.  Unless these plants have a nuclear accellerator in their uptake mechanism then I'm going to call you on this one.

Actually, Mike, plants don't take up different carbon isotopes in the same ratios, and plants with C3 metabolism take up the isotopes differently than do plants with C4 metabolism. Take a look at this page, especially part (IV) near the bottom:
Stable Isotope Overview
But don't start gloating, Dave. Based on that site, differential uptake of carbon isotopes seems to make plants appear too young rather than too old. Second, this process can be corrected for when using carbon-dating techniques. Third, and most importantly, differential uptake of carbon isotopes cannot begin to explain why many different independent dating methods available converge on the same (very old) ages. Once you have dealt with this log in your eye, then you can criticize Mike for having a mote in his.

Ouch edmund.
Look's like I got served.


I stand corrected on this point.  I do enjoy, however, that the actual scientific facts reverse the actual effect that AIG is looking for.  Awsome.


I also like being compared to Larry Niven (one of my fav's).

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/13 11:41:54, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
I'll leave it to others for a back and forth on C14.

I only want to know a couple things from this discussion.

ARE GEOLOGIC LAYERS BELOW THE DEEPEST COAL DEPOSITS PRE-FLOOD?

You also mentioned something about 'primordial' coal.

HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMORDIAL COAL DEPOSITS AND FLOOD DERIVED COAL DEPOSITS?

I assume that coal beds that exhibit fossil members are flood derived (lignite, most bituminous and sub-bituminous) and the non-fossil varieties are primordial (anthracite).  I could be wrong on this.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/13 12:49:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (incorygible @ Nov. 13 2006,13:30)
I'm still busting a gut over Davey's idea of "real" science. It's tough to choose, but I think this is my favourite part of Snelling's 'calculations':

 
Quote
Divide 14 days by .03%
i.e. (14 x 100)/.03 days equals 46,667 days or 128 years of solar input via photosynthesis.
So we can conclude that only 128 years of plant growth at today’s rate and volume is all that is required to provide the energy equivalent stored in today’s known coal beds! There was, of course, ample time between Creation and Noah’s Flood for such plant growth to occur—1600 years, in fact.

So, what are the real estimates for how much potential energy in biomass is converted into the potential energy found in fossil fuel deposits? Dave, do you believe that ALL (or even MOST, or even a significant amount) of plant biomass (or at least potential energy) alive on the planet will become part of the energy content in known fossil fuel deposits? Really?!

I was going to hold this one in reserve myself, but its out now.

Hmmmm....   100% efficiency..... perpetual motion...... 2nd Law Arguments.......   methinks there is a problem here.

Now, the article claims TOTAL solar energy that hits the earths surface.  I like energy too, but there are forms of energy that are not too useful for what you need to get done (i.e. a large, tepid lake has a lot of enthalpy compared to the surrounding environment BUT whet I really want is chemical potential energy to launch my rocket into space).

How much of that TOTAL solar energy is of a form that photosynthetic plants can use?

What is the efficiency of plant energy conversion when related to photosynthesis (even in the vaporous, heavily thermadore environment that is claimed pre-flood).

Dave likes to parse claimed numbers from science articles so the reverse action should be acceptable when looking at flood claims.

Date: 2006/11/13 14:23:33, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:15)
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM?  NO ... IT'S REALLY SIMPLE TO GRASP ... HERE IT IS AGAIN

Once again ... REALLY simple this time ...

1) Lots of pre-Flood carbon, 200-500X modern levels
2) Invalidates uniformitarian assumption for C14 dating
3) All that carbon gets buried in the Flood
4) The Brookhaven Symposium reports it
5) ATBCers don't get it
6) What's new?

(And in case you forgot ... Proof for the Flood >>> say it with me ... Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth! )

Dave,
Still waiting for an answer related to your flood and coal.  In case YOU forgot....
***********************
ARE GEOLOGIC LAYERS BELOW THE DEEPEST COAL DEPOSITS PRE-FLOOD?

You also mentioned something about 'primordial' coal.

HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMORDIAL COAL DEPOSITS AND FLOOD DERIVED COAL DEPOSITS?

I assume that coal beds that exhibit fossil members are flood derived (lignite, most bituminous and sub-bituminous) and the non-fossil varieties are primordial (anthracite).  I could be wrong on this.
*************************
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/14 11:59:32, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,10:50)
Oh brother ... more word games ... "evidence" vs. "proof" ...

Regardless of which word you use, you are still lying to public school kids with my tax dollars.

Shameful !!

Here's some simple words for you Dave.

Simple questions, directly about your UCGH.  

I want to learn more about this hypothesis.

ARE GEOLOGIC LAYERS BELOW THE DEEPEST COAL DEPOSITS PRE-FLOOD?

You also quoted R.H.Brown who mentions something about 'primordial' coal.  
Quote (R.H.Brown @ 1979)
The term fossil is here used within quotation marks to indicate that some of the buried organic carbon may be primordial rather than associated with organisms.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm

HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMORDIAL COAL DEPOSITS AND FLOOD DERIVED COAL DEPOSITS?

I assume that coal beds that exhibit fossil members are flood derived (lignite, most bituminous and sub-bituminous) and the non-fossil varieties are primordial (anthracite).  I could be wrong on this.

Mike PSS

It would be Shameful if you ignored these fundamental questions.

Date: 2006/11/14 12:52:16, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

R.H.BROWN AND HOW HE DID HIS MATH!  PRICELESS!


Reading into the R.H.Brown reference http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm at the top is a 'REACTION' link.

On that page (http://www.grisda.org/origins/07006.htm#Brown) a Ross O. Barnes questions the 'carbon exchange reservoir' available that would impact atmospheric CO2 (and thus the 14C/12C ratio).
Quote
Given the above limitation on increases in the inorganic exchange reservoir, the required increase in the active organic carbon reservoir is nearly 2000 times the present biospheric carbon inventory. Until some plausible model is presented for such a huge increase in the antediluvian organic carbon exchange reservoir, Brown's conclusion that "these considerations ... provide justification for confidence that C-14 age data for time prior to approximately 3500 B.P. are associated with a transition between the pre-biblical-flood biosphere and the contemporary biosphere" should be judged somewhat premature.


R.H.Brown then responds.
Quote
Confusion regarding the term "biosphere carbon inventory" may be avoided by making specific that whatever term one may use for the concept, it is clearly understood to designate the active carbon inventory in the region of the planet that supports organisms.
   Although the 14C/12C ratio in the surface layer of the ocean is typically about 5% below that in air, freshwater, soil surface, and the organisms which populate them, for the purposes of the treatment in ORIGINS 6:30-44, it is convenient and satisfactory to treat these four regions as one subregion of the general biosphere, designated "upper biosphere" in the treatment cited. The active carbon exchange reservoir, to use Dr. Barnes' choice of terminology, in this subregion is reliably estimated to be 4.03×1012 metric tons (Table 1, Item 9). Air and water contain 37.2% of this inventory in inorganic form; living and dead organic material represent the remaining 62.8%, 60.6% of which is associated with land and 39.4% is in the ocean (calculations from data in Table 1).
   Assuming that flood sediments were formed about 5000 real time years ago, and that at their initial formation these sediments had a 14C/12C ratio no greater than the minimum detectable by current conventional gas or scintillation counting techniques, requires that 45,000-50,000 years of 14C age be accounted for on some basis other than that given by a simplistic uniform conditions model, as discussed in ORIGINS 6:30-44. This range of 14C age represents 7.85-8.73 half-lives for 14C. The reduction in 14C/12C ratio over this half-life range is in the range 231-425 (27.85 -28.73). For the task at hand one can postulate that before the flood the 14C production rate in the atmosphere was less in this ratio, the upper biosphere carbon inventory (active carbon exchange reservoir in the upper biosphere) was greater in this ratio, or any appropriate combination of intermediate factors for lower 14C production and greater inventory. In the following discussion the "upper limit" factor 425 will be used, recognizing that the true situation might be approximately twice as easy (231 factor) to accommodate.
   We can speculate that the CO2 concentration in the preflood atmosphere was near 1%, approximately 20 times its contemporary value, since plants generally exhibit more vigorous growth as CO2 levels are increased up to this level, and the atmosphere becomes toxic at higher levels. It may be assumed that the carbon concentration in the water components of the upper biosphere, being in contact with the atmosphere, would be identified with a similar increase. Accordingly the factor F by which living and dead organic material must be increased to secure a total upper biosphere carbon inventory increase by a factor of 425 is given by

0.372 × 20 + 0.628 × F = 425,

from which F = 665.

   To model a preflood biosphere that might meet these requirements, one can postulate a 665-fold greater number of contemporary-sized plants and animals, worldwide total, assuming a constant ratio of living to dead organic material; or one can postulate a net 665-fold increase in the volume of the average individual organism. A 665-fold increase in volume is associated with an 8.71-fold ( 3Ö665) increase in lineal size. [Recall 30-inch wingspan of fossil dragonflies, the size of fossil Equisetum, etc.]. Doubling the average lineal size of organisms would require only an 83-fold increase in their numbers to provide a 665-fold increase in biomass.

Talk about trying to make your numbers work out.  Mr. Brown's first assumption is that he has to find a way to fit all the 14C data into 5000 years.
There are so many other knee-slappers that I leave it to others to comment.
I do see that he admits the toxic nature of elevated CO2 levels (but still arbitrarily jacks them up by 20x).

But the kicker is at the end of his reply.  He states
Quote
I know of no objective basis for confidence that a particular model for the preflood biomass, land/water surface ratio, or 14C production rate is "correct," but the development presented in this note seems to provide justification for confidence that models can be developed which are appropriate and also contribute to an understanding of 14C age data that is consistent with the chronological witness of Scripture.
So Mr. Brown "writes off" his entire essay about 14C and plants it firmly in the realm of conjecture and speculation,  just so it can fit Scripture.

Peer-review this article again Dave.

I think you'll have to reframe your whole 200x carbon argument because you can't use R.H.Brown to support it.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/14 19:15:41, Link
Author: Mike PSS
DAVE USES AN INVALID REFERENCE FOR HIS ARGUMENT.
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,16:45)
Eric...  
Quote
But he still hasn't answered this simple question: "Where was all this extra carbon, Dave,
In the bioshpere.  Again, see the table in this paper http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.pdf
 
Quote
where did it come from, and where is it now?"
It came from the pre-Flood organic material including what is now fossil organic material and sedimentary carbonates.  Much of it is now in the fossil record.

DAVE, YOU CAN'T USE THIS REFERENCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.  THE AUTHOR, R.H.BROWN, INVALIDATES THIS HIMSELF.  SEE MY POST AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE (86).

This means you have to go back and rehash your 200x carbon argument (whatever number you choose, I don't care) without that reference.

The "GRISDA 06030.pdf" file is null and void.
It is no more.
It is pushing up the daisies.
It has proverbiably gone to meet its maker.
It is travelling in the great beyond.
It is an "ex" reference.

Please don't use this reference again.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/15 21:22:30, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,22:18)
Mike PSS--    
Quote
But the kicker is at the end of his reply.  He states      
Quote

I know of no objective basis for confidence that a particular model for the preflood biomass, land/water surface ratio, or 14C production rate is "correct," but the development presented in this note seems to provide justification for confidence that models can be developed which are appropriate and also contribute to an understanding of 14C age data that is consistent with the chronological witness of Scripture.

So Mr. Brown "writes off" his entire essay about 14C and plants it firmly in the realm of conjecture and speculation,  just so it can fit Scripture.
Mike, welcome to Origins research.  Has it taken you this long to realize that it is impossible for origins researchers to objectively know for sure if any model of Origins is correct?  I suppose you find this candid statement suprising coming from your world of deluded (or dishonest) scientists who think they have "proven ToE."  No origins researcher--creationist or naturalist--can say anything other than what Brown says at the end of the day.  All either one can do is propose plausible models to explain their view of origins.  The difference between them is this:  Creationists have a reliable historical record as a starting point for their proposed models.  ToE advocates do not.  All they have is their wild imaginations.

Dave,
You are SO wrong on so many levels with this feeble attempt to defend R.H.Brown's math.

It's not that he uses hand-waving, assumptions and outright fantasy to support his conjectures (and I purposefully didn't dwell on this); it's that he CREATES THE CONCLUSION BEFORE INSERTING THE DATA.

R.H.Brown not only assumes invalid assumptions, he purposefully fixes the end point of his math (making the numbers add up to 5000 years) and deriving the factors to make this so.  He then takes these 'derived' factors and tries to come up with explanations on how these factors could occur.

This is such obvious backward reasoning that it's hilarious and TOTALLY invalid.  If R.H.Brown had a shred of honesty he would examine actual measured data first to determine his factors, insert these factors into his model to get the conclusion, then compare the conclusion to his hypothesised assumption (5000 year old earth).  If his conclusion didn't work out to his hypothesis the EITHER his hypothesis is incorrect OR his model is incorrect.

GET IT?

The fact that you REFUSE to see this obfuscation in the math isn't surprising since this paper SPEAKS directly to you.  If I read a paper about ToE that had this type of mathamatical manipulation then I would call foul as quickly.

I would like to see you fisk a ToE article as well as I justed fisked R.H.Brown.  Go to Talkorigins and find ONE article, fisk it for errors on this board and we'll see what kind of equivelent results appear.

 
Quote
It appears that over and over again, you guys fail to see the approach that creationist origins researchers take, which is ...

1)  Use historical documents to determine events if they are available.  We have an excellent one.  It is called the Book of Genesis.
2)  Then they observe the evidence and compare it with the historical record.
3)  If the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the historical record, then they might throw out the historical record.
4)  However, it does not ... especially in the major points

For example ...

1)  It is obvious from observing the evidence that a Supremely Intelligent Creator is required to produce the designs in nature--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
2)  It is obvious from the evidence that all genomes are deteriorating--this is predicted in the Genesis Record.
3)  It is obvious from the evidence that there are strict limits on variation and speciation--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
4)  It is obvious from the evidence that there was a global, life-destroying flood--this agrees with the Genesis Record
5)  It is obvious from the evidence that there was much greater land surface and far more organic material prior to the Flood and that conditions were much more conducive to long life in humans--this agrees with the Genesis Record.

Are you getting the picture?

Creation researchers have an extremely reliable historical document in the Book of Genesis--it's verifiable history has been confirmed by archaeology over and over again.

Why should they question it in the unverifiable areas?  Especially when they can propose plausible models which agree with the record.

This is common sense.

This is good, honest origins research.

There is nothing honest about this approach by R.H.Brown in the paper I fisked.  He assumes a conclusion before he discovers the data.  He then derives factors that HAVE to lead to the assumed conclusion.  He then makes assumptions about the derived factors.

This is NOT proper investigatory research.  This is pure sales pitch without ANY research applied.

Do you see my point?
MIke PSS

Date: 2006/11/16 22:18:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE.  STOP USING THIS DISCREDITED ARTICLE.  YOU HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER ONE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.  DON'T USE THIS ONE, IT MATHEMATICALLY STINKS.  
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,22:23)
Ok ... I'm moving too fast ... let's try again very slowly ... one point at a time ...

Point #1 - There was a Global Flood which buried massive quantities of organic material.  (This has already been shown in many ways on this thread.  I realize that you disagree, but that is your problem.  There is probably more evidence for the Flood than for moon landings ... I believe in both BTW)

Point #2 - The Brookhaven Symposium gave two sets of organic material figures:  Current and Fossil (i.e. buried by the Flood) ... Aftershave is mistaken.

Point #3 - We have no reason to believe that TOTAL C14 was significantly different prior to the Flood, therefore the C14 RATIO was much smaller.  Hopefully eveyone gets this ... you are scientists, right?  OK, in case you don't, remember that C14 is formed in the atmosphere from Nitrogen.  It is only a function of atmospheric carbon and cosmic rays.  It is NOT a function of total carbon in plants, animals, etc.  IOW, there are only so many "marbles" (C14) to go around among all the organic material (marble players).  Since there were so many more players, the concentration was much smaller.

Point #4 - What are some approximate figures?  176X the present amount of organic material if you exclude the sedimentary carbonates.  (Again from the Brookhaven Symposium--a famous non-YEC source)

Point #5 - If we use 176X, then conventional Carbon 14 dates are horrendously wrong ... see calculations below ...

{snip discredited article}

C'mon guys ... this is really not that difficult.

Now why don't you just pretend for a minute that you agree that there was a Global Flood.  Do you understand the line of reasoning?  (I know you don't buy the Flood, but if you did, would you follow the logic?)

Dave,
I could go back and respond to every past post today, but I think this one sums it up.

I DISCREDITED THIS ARTICLE ALREADY.  THE AUTHOR ADMITS HE MADE UP THE NUMBERS.  HE DIDN'T DO RESEARCH OR MATH, JUST SOME SIMPLE FACTOR FITTING.  THERE IS NO RESEARCH HERE.

That means your points number 2, 4 and 5 no longer are valid because they are based upon data from this article.  You MAYBE can keep point 3, but your magic hat dance will have to be spectacular to prove this one.

BELIEVING IN A FLOOD OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER.  HIS MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS IS FLAWED.

You tried to weasel out of this with a very revealing (revealing to others about your mindset in this matter) diatribe about Origins Research.

You said NOTHING about how R.H.Brown handled the math.  Go back and read the 'Reaction' section of the GRISDA article, come back here and admit that R.H.Brown made up his factors to fit his admitted foregone conclusion.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/16 22:42:40, Link
Author: Mike PSS
R.H.BROWN WANTS US TO INVEST IN HIS NEW WIDGET PLANT.  ANY TAKERS?

Dave,
I was talking with R.H.Brown the other day and he has a new investment for me.  He wants me to invest $50,000 dollars in his new widget plant.  He gaurantees me a 30% return on my investment over 5 years.

I read the prospectus and all the proper entries were there.  Cost of capital (check), widget manufacturing rate (check), cost of building (check), raw material cost (check), labor cost (check), estimated sales figures of widgets (check), estimated price of widgets (check).

I was excited, but being a smart investor I wanted to cross-check a couple figures that R.H.Brown was quoting.  So I checked on three things,  cost of capital, widget price, and manufacturing rate.

The cost of capital was easy, I phoned the bank and they said that money could be borrowed at 9.5% and R.H.Brown quoted 9.0%.  Maybe he knows someone.

The widget price was $22 wholesale price to the distributor with a retail cost of $36.  Most stores start at $39.99 with periodic sales at $35 or lower.  I looked up the prices for a whatsit, which the widget will compete with, and found out the whatsit was selling for $31.99 retail with some sales as low as $26.  This relates to a wholesale price of $15.  Uh-Oh!.  Looks like R.H.Brown inflated the sale price by almost 50%, NOT GOOD.

The manufacturing rate of the facility was listed as 400,000 widgets per year.  This rate turns out to be the maximum production rate of the machines the plant is installing if they ran day and night for a year.  But the facility will only run two shifts M-F so R.H.Brown inflated the manufacturing rate by 50%.

Turns out that the labor cost quoted would have paid the workers a $3.50/hr wage rate also.

I talked to R.H.Brown about these discrepencies in his widget prospectus.  He hummed and hawed for a second then said;
"Well, If you weren't promised at least a 30% return on your money you would not have invested with me.  I had to make the details fit so they added up to a 30% return."

Needless to say I kept my money away from R.H.Brown.

However,
I gave him your name Dave.  I also said that Dave Hawkins wouldn't question those pesky detail numbers or how they were derived.  Dave Hawkins would only notice the 30% return and accept that the details were accurate and derived properly.

If I run across any more investment opportunities Dave, I'll be sure to let you know.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/16 22:54:09, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 16 2006,17:20)
Davison cited prominent modern scientists who dismissed darwinism. I would like add one name from "small philosophy" - atheist Friedrich  Nietzsche who ridicules Darwin very. I cannot find english translation of his last book Gotzen dammerung, but German original  can be found easily on inet.

Nietzsche on darwinism AND MIMICRY in Gotzen Dammerung (see especially that Darwin forget spirit (Geist) - "das ist englisch!"), :

Anti-Darwin. - Was den berühmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die Üppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekämpft wird, kämpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so läuft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wünscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wünschen dürfte: nämlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glücklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder über die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klüger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!;), die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nöthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nöthig hat. Wer die Stärke hat, entschlägt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehört ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).

http://manybooks.net/support....xp.html

And the babelfish translation....
 
Quote
Which concerns the famous fight um's life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proven. It occurs, but as exception; Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power... One is not to confound Malthus with nature. - set however, it giebt this fight - and in the That, he comes forwards -, then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to Ungunsten of the strong ones, which privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman, - which makes, them are the large number, them are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is English!, the weak ones have more spirit... One must have spirit noethig, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not have him any longer noethig. Who has the strength, entschlaegt itself the spirit (- "lass drive there! one thinks today in Germany - the realm must us nevertheless bleiben"...). I understand the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything that mimicry by spirit, as one see, is (to the latter a large Theil of the so-called virtue belongs).


Actually, reading this fairly quickly.  It sounds more like JAD than Nietzsche.  It just needs the proper flourish at the end.
Pick one:
  • I love it so!
  • Write it down!
  • How do you like them dung-dripping apples!

Date: 2006/11/17 09:26:32, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,09:14)
   
Quote
I DISCREDITED THIS ARTICLE ALREADY.  THE AUTHOR ADMITS HE MADE UP THE NUMBERS.  HE DIDN'T DO RESEARCH OR MATH, JUST SOME SIMPLE FACTOR FITTING.  THERE IS NO RESEARCH HERE.
What a hoot.  He didn't make up any numbers and you didn't discredit his math.  You TRIED to discredit his methodology of using the historical record of Genesis, then postulating scenarios.  This is what YOU as a ToE advocate SHOULD be doing as well, but you cannot because there is no history book available during your imaginary period of earth history.  So what are you left with?  Your wild imagination.

       
Quote
BELIEVING IN A FLOOD OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER.  HIS MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS IS FLAWED.
Again, his math is fine.  You just don't like his methodology.

       
Quote
I was talking with R.H.Brown the other day and he has a new investment for me.  He wants me to invest $50,000 dollars in his new widget plant.  He gaurantees me a 30% return on my investment over 5 years.
Now you are falling into the "Totally Irrelevant Analogy" routine of Steve Story.

Pathetic Dave, really pathetic.

I showed clearly (permalink to my post) that R.H.Brown MADE UP THE FACTORS IN HIS MATH.  He set the factor for atmospheric carbon (20x) based on some specious claim that the pre-diluvian atmosphere had 1.0% CO2 concentration (no measurements, no evidence, not even a quote from the Bible no less).  He then derived, through a simple balance equation from Grade 5 math, what the ground biosphere number HAD TO BE SO THAT THE NUMBERS ADDED UP TO A 5500 YBP DATE.

Let's let R.H.Brown speak for himself.    
Quote
**1**Assuming that flood sediments were formed about 5000 real time years ago, and that at their initial formation these sediments had a 14C/12C ratio no greater than the minimum detectable by current conventional gas or scintillation counting techniques, requires that 45,000-50,000 years of 14C age be accounted for on some basis other than that given by a simplistic uniform conditions model, as discussed in ORIGINS 6:30-44. This range of 14C age represents 7.85-8.73 half-lives for 14C. The reduction in 14C/12C ratio over this half-life range is in the range 231-425 (27.85 -28.73). **2**For the task at hand one can postulate that before the flood the 14C production rate in the atmosphere was less in this ratio, the upper biosphere carbon inventory (active carbon exchange reservoir in the upper biosphere) was greater in this ratio, or any appropriate combination of intermediate factors for lower 14C production and greater inventory. **3**In the following discussion the "upper limit" factor 425 will be used, recognizing that the true situation might be approximately twice as easy (231 factor) to accommodate.
  **4**We can speculate that the CO2 concentration in the preflood atmosphere was near 1%, approximately 20 times its contemporary value, since plants generally exhibit more vigorous growth as CO2 levels are increased up to this level, and the atmosphere becomes toxic at higher levels. It may be assumed that the carbon concentration in the water components of the upper biosphere, being in contact with the atmosphere, would be identified with a similar increase. **5**Accordingly the factor F by which living and dead organic material must be increased to secure a total upper biosphere carbon inventory increase by a factor of 425 is given by

0.372 × 20 + 0.628 × F = 425,

from which F = 665.

Found here; (http://www.grisda.org/origins/07006.htm#Brown)
Commenting on R.H.Brown original writings here; (http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm)

I've numbered the bolded entries to outline the whole hypothesis.
**1** He ASSUMES a 5000 year result for all measured 14C dates that show 45,000 to 50,000 years in the reported results.  This is R.H.Browns ONLY reference to actual data (the fact that reported dates from 14C testing exist).  He clearly indicates that he has to ACCOUNT for these dates in some other method.  However, he has already FIXED the result at 5000 years.

**2**  He POSTULATES that the pre-flood 14C production rate was less or there was a greater "upper biosphere carbon inventory" (or a combination).  However, his postulate has NO DATA, NO REFERENCE, NO BIBLE VERSE, JUST HIS OWN IMAGINATION.

**3**  He's conservative with his numbers and chooses a worst case scenario.  However, this number is chosen ONLY to make the existing 14C data fit his preconcieved conclusion of a 5000 year old date.

**4**  He SPECULATES that CO2 levels were at 1.0% before the flood.  He is only looking for a maximum number here.  NO DATA, NO REFERENCE, NO BIBLE VERSE, JUST HIS OWN IMAGINATION.

**5**  He does some simple algebra and CONCLUDES  that the land biosphere carbon content must be 665x the present concentration.  However, this number is a simple derivation from factors that he has NO DATA, NO REFERENCE, NO BIBLE VERSE, JUST HIS OWN IMAGINATION.
**********************

Tell me again where R.H.Brown DIDN'T make his numbers up?

Take back your statement.  You've just been served.

Mike PSS

p.s.  Dave, You crowed on about how you made money in the past.  You of all people should have realised that my analogy is spot on to this discussion.  Have some reading comprehension classes soon.  Refuting your simple statements is too easy at present.

Date: 2006/11/17 10:25:36, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,10:52)
Mike---  Of course he postulates some scenarios and proposes some numbers to reconcile the pre-Flood conditions with the historical record.

But as I keep telling you over and over again, this is ALL WE CAN DO from our vantage point.  You cannot go out into the field and measure C14 and come away and say "See this bone is 20,000 years old."  

You simply cannot do this.

You have to ASSUME certain things.  Now in your case you ASSUME relatively constant C14 levels throughout earth history.

THIS IS A BAD ASSUMPTION.

In Dr. Brown's case, he ASSUMES NON-constant C14 throughout earth history.

THIS IS A GOOD ASSUMPTION -- I.E. MORE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER EVIDENCE, NAMELY THAT THERE WAS A GLOBAL FLOOD.

Now the math that your talking about is Dr. Brown going a step further -- not only does he have better STARTING ASSUMPTIONS than you, but also he is attempting to REFINE THE ASSUMPTIONS.

And he is honest ... he admits that this is a guess, but it is helpful nonetheless because it allows us to evaluate if his model is even plausible ...

WHICH IT IS.

*******************************

Face it, Mike ... you've been fisked, served and refuted.

Now are you going to get mad and stomp your feet like Arden?

Or politely admit defeat and move on?

Dave,
You can see the evidence in front of your face but refuse to admit it exists.

Present C14 dating DOESN'T ASSUME CONSTANT C14.  The practitioners of this method CROSS-REFERENCE OTHER, INDEPENDENT METHODS TO VERIFY THE INTEGRITY OF THE C14 RESULTS.  The reported C14 number is now based on TWO data points, the measured ratio AND the independent method measure (whichever one of the 41 methods deadman and ericmurphy have referenced).  AND, the practitioners of C14 then JUSTIFY their choice of independent reference so that anyone viewing the result can independently confirm or question the method.

WHERE IN R.H.BROWN'S WRITINGS IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT, CORRELATED NUMBER PRESENTED.  THE ONLY HISTORIC NUMBER HE PRESENTS IS THE 5000 YEAR NUMBER.  I DON'T SEE ANYTHING MENTIONING THE 20X CO2 CONCENTRATION OTHER THAN SOME WILD IMAGINATION MUSINGS.

THAT IS MY POINT.  R.H.BROWN MAKES UP THE NUMBERS FOR PRE-FLOOD CO2 CONCENTRATION WITHOUT AN INDEPENDENT REFERENCE (EVEN THE BIBLE).

CAPICHE?  (STOMP, STOMP, STOMP)
****************************
You've been drawn, quartered and fed to the buzzards.

Date: 2006/11/17 10:50:33, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
Give me a reference, even a Bible reference, for the CO2 concentration number.

Post it here.  I know your so good at C&P.  Nothing complicated, just a statement justifying the choice of 1.0% CO2 concentration in the pre-diluvian atmosphere.

Date: 2006/11/17 11:32:23, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)
Mike ... silly statements like this ...  
Quote
Dave,
Give me a reference, even a Bible reference, for the CO2 concentration number.

Post it here.  I know your so good at C&P.  Nothing complicated, just a statement justifying the choice of 1.0% CO2 concentration in the pre-diluvian atmosphere.
... will not help your already-damaged credibility.

So......
You don't have a reference?
Is that what I hear you saying?

And please post a reference where my credibility was damaged?

Please (see, I said the magic word).

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/17 11:55:19, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)
No Mike--  This is what Brown does ...  you are wrong.  He is basically saying that ...      
Quote
1)  Conventional C14 dating requires roughly constant C14 and C12 levels throughout earth history -- this is a horribly mistaken assumption -- not just a minor problem that needs a little calibration -- it's gigantically mistaken
2)  There is quite clear evidence that carbon inventories were much higher prior to the flood -- 100X modern levels is a conservative estimate http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
3)  Thus the C14/C12 ratio would have been much smaller pre-Flood.  
4)  If one does the calculations with reasonable assumptions, one finds that 30,000 and 40,000 year old dates shrink to within the 6000 year Biblical timeframe. Calculations shown here.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.htm

Ummmm.....
Dave, your reference in point 2 is titled;
CARBON-14 CONTENT OF FOSSIL CARBON
Paul Giem, M.A., M.D.
Loma Linda, California
(here's the web reference, not the pdf)

Interesting that he cites Brown's 1979 paper and I have DEBUNKED Brown's conclusions.

So..... I have now DEBUNKED this fine doctor's work also.

Why don't you give him a call and come up with a new reason to assume carbon content, because Brown's reason is ALL WASHED UP.

Also, since Brown's calculations are also based on his 1979 paper, THESE CALCULATIONS ARE ALSO DEBUNKED.

I like the sound of that word.  Say it about 10 times over and it has a rythym.

DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED.

(p.s.  I changed your references in your quote to the .htm web page instead of the .pdf)

Date: 2006/11/17 12:26:14, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 17 2006,13:03)
Well, I just keep wondering how your argument is substantively different from this one:

Heretic,
You must repent and reject the FSM.  Here's the evidence.    
Quote
what’ll really nip yer noodle is when you research the archeological records, using the rules of admissable evidence, only to find that FSM is really the the evil anti-pasta!

the One True Creator is Croxetti the ONE TRUE PASTA and His Holy Spirit-n-cheese-filled son Ravioli. you can see the imprint of The Creator on every croxetti and the shape of the Father in the Son, ravioli.

FSM is a fraud. he is the evil anti-pasta. awake, repent, and turn from your noodly ways while there is yet time.

if you do not believe in the One True Croxetti Ravioli and His Holy Prophet, Chef Boyardi, you are all infidels and shall be slaughtered for sauce on the great day of divino pranzo!

And.....  
Quote
repent, ye pastafarians! the final supper is near!
it the strategy of He who fills me with Unassailable Fair and Balanced Pastafarian Truth!

i am a devout Pastafarian like anyone else, but as it’s been noted, every True Religion includes SMITINGS … something FSM has never expoused … also, no True Religion is true unless there are Warring Factions … something else that FSM has dodged until now.

the CRS (Croxetti, Raviolli, Secret Sauce Filling {or just Sauce, for short}) is the True Pastafarian religion. CRS is to FSM as Islam is to Christianity. we believe most of the things FSM believes, only we have a little bit more Truth. however, we improve on all of those by melding together trinitarianism, onanism, and strict monotheism into one yummy bite-sized, microwaveable package.

FSM just can’t beat the CRS for price, value, convenience, flavor, and truthiness!

don’t be a mushy-minded pastafarian! examine the overwhelming anectodal evidence! decide for yourself!
And....
Quote
we will all be gulped down and eaten by death and the grave. many of us, without so much as a good chewing. others, after many many decades of backbreaking work and daily chewing by every parent and boss on the planet.

so clearly, the final supper is near. but the question is, whose plate are you on?

we are the only True Pastafarians of the CRS. you have not heard of us, perhaps, because we have not sold out to the cold, crass, commercialism of the False Pastafarian FSM sect. we are the true descendants and inheritors of All Doughy Deity; yes, we have omnipotent diversionary power of ADD on our side!

to believers, CRS is shorthand for CURES, because CRS is for U and E, for Everyone.

to infidels, CRS is shorthand for CURSE, because it is the curse of the fallacious flimsy FSM.

for the magnanimous, these small matters matter in matters of material magnitude.

remember, the truer the Truth the harder it is to pronounce. true truth is never quite as rhyming and slick as those diabolical FSM noodly counterfeits! In the name of Croxetti, Ravioli, and Sauce, amen!

Smiting! Warring Factions! The Pastafarian End Times are near! Whose plate are you on?

Date: 2006/11/17 12:44:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Oh Dave,
Another DEBUNKING for you.  The good doctor I indicated above.
CARBON-14 CONTENT OF FOSSIL CARBON
Paul Giem, M.A., M.D.
Loma Linda, California
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
At the end of his essay he says...
Quote
FURTHER STUDY CAN PROVIDE MORE EVIDENCE FOR THE AGE OF LIFE ON EARTH

   The data we have at present, although they are most easily interpreted as against a long age for life on Earth, cannot prove a short age. Even more data cannot prove either a short or a long age. First, there are legitimate questions that can be raised about any data, present or future. Proof is elusive in science. It will always remain possible that the available data may be interpreted another way, or is inaccurate. For someone who doubts a short age for life on Earth on other empirical grounds, those doubts may outweigh the positive evidence noted above, or even outweigh further experimental evidences, although at some point the accumulated evidence regarding this phenomenon should outweigh other evidence if it is sufficiently corroborated.
   Second (and less legitimately), if a short (or a long) age for life on Earth is philosophically ruled out, no amount of evidence matters. The entire exercise of science then degenerates into an attempt to find evidence to support one's philosophical position, and science ceases to be a search for truth. Then the above data are not allowed to teach anything, and are simply utilized for the sake of argument, or else discounted in an attempt to prevent their use by someone with an opposing view.
   For anyone who is seriously considering both a long age and a short age of life on Earth, the above data support the latter and argue against the former. Additional experiments may further support a short age, or change that picture. In either case further experiments can become important, as they help one make an important choice in one's worldview.

So tell me Dave.  Point to the SPECIFIC conclusions reached in this paper that support your contention of a short age of the earth.  You can't use the paper to PROVE a short age of the earth as the author indicates.

Please quote and reference these SPECIFIC conclusions from the paper.  Don't just hold the paper up and say "See, this PROVES it."  The good doctor himself says that the paper needs additional evidence to even support his position in the paper.

Date: 2006/11/17 14:51:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AFDAVE NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT REFERENCE TO CORROBERATE R.H.BROWN'S ASSERTION THAT THERE WAS 1.0% CO2 CONCENTRATION IN THE PRE-DILUVIAN ATMOSPHERE!!!
Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 17 2006,12:32)
 
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)
Mike ... silly statements like this ...    
Quote
Dave,
Give me a reference, even a Bible reference, for the CO2 concentration number.

Post it here.  I know your so good at C&P.  Nothing complicated, just a statement justifying the choice of 1.0% CO2 concentration in the pre-diluvian atmosphere.
... will not help your already-damaged credibility.

So......
You don't have a reference?
Is that what I hear you saying?

And please post a reference where my credibility was damaged?

Please (see, I said the magic word).

Mike PSS

Still waiting for that reference Dave.

You have anything for me today?

Date: 2006/11/17 17:18:02, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,17:23)
How you think this refutes anything I have said, I will never know.  I repost this because here is a good example of an honest, credible researcher who has done good work, but admits that he is not infallible.  Some of you should follow his example.

You still won't admit anything will you?  Here's a quick C14 comparison between someone publishing in Radiocarbon magazine and R.H.Brown.

A site of an old campfire is found.  The geologic layer of the new site is correlated to another campfire/waste pit site 10 miles away that has been investigated 15 years before with published results.

R.H.Brown AND the Radiocarbon researcher would sample the charcoal and test for the C14/C12 ratio.  Everyone agrees on the ratio so far.  This is where science and R.H.Brown part company.

The Radiocarbon researcher investigates the findings at the older site first which were C14 tested AND cross-correlated with painted clay shards that have an independent historical tracking (built up over the last 145 years for this region)with an age result at 8,500±380 YBP .  The clay shard style was estimated to fit a date range from 8,800 to 7,900 YBP because of a certain edge fluting found on the shards.  The paint on the clay shards was examined (gas chromatograph) and found to contain a dye mix from a verified site 50 miles away (researched 20 years ago).  The dye site was active from 8,700 to 8,400 YBP.  So the Radiocarbon researcher has a geologic column link to another site, and independent dating methods that verified the older sites age.

When the Radiocarbon researcher looks at the new site C14 result he finds a first age of 8,750±400 YBP.  He then corrects the result for this regions atmospheric correction for this time range (published and available) and comes up with an initial corrected age of 8,600±300 YBP.  He then samples the geologic column at, above and below the new site AND grabs samples from the same representative layers at the older site too.  He does a chemical constituent test and finds that the strata above the old and new site shows elevated Si readings while the strata below the old and new site show elevated Ca levels.  The results are consistent so he uses another correlation factor for the date result that relates to the pottery shards at the old site.  This adjusts the date downward to 8,550±280 YBP.  He concludes that this campsite was used by travellers infrequently but linked to the older site.  He publishes his results.

Meanwhile, R.H.Brown takes the C14 result and plugs the ratio into his derived formulae that you have been flashing at us.  R.H.Brown gets an age of 3,750 YBP.  All is well in his world with this "adjusted" date.  R.H.Brown then points to the Radiocarbon published results and says "Your Wrong."

WHICH ONE IS RIGHT?  R.H.BROWN OR THE RADIOCARBON RESEARCHER?
**************************
You see Dave,
I refuted Brown because he doesn't correlate or cross-check or independently verify ANYTHING.  He throws numbers around and tries to make them stick.

The only reason R.H.Brown and others say they can't "PROVE" anything is because they never look at all the available evidence.  Their worldview is skewed so that they have to actually IGNORE whole swaths of published findings.

R.H.BROWN AND HIS WHOLE BUNCH OF PRE-DILUVIAN CARBON HAS BEEN REFUTED.

Dave, You can try and prove me wrong by posting one, ONE, JUST ONE independent reference that supports Mr. Brown's assertion that the pre-diluvian atmosphere contained 1.0% CO2.  Until you do this, your attempts to prove unassisted human flight with your handwaving is duly noted.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/27 12:41:39, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 25 2006,08:49)
WOW ... WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND!  LET'S REVIEW THE LATEST HIGH POINTS.
* We examined many other examples of RM dating and found that discordance is the rule, not the exception

* It was claimed that the 500 or so alleles of the HLA-B gene are some sort of problem for creationism, but this was shown not to be true.  The HLA-B gene mutates in response to different environments more rapidly than other genes.  And these mutated genes are then mixed in the various populations of the world.   Woodmorappe has excellent information on this.

Geez Dave,
Your really think you have succeeded on these points?

I can Permalink the posts from me where you have run away and not responded to pertinent questions that I have been involved.

I can Permalink to a post about Rb-Sr dating techniques that you have yet to respond.

I can Permalink to a post about 61 HLA-B alleles that appeared in less than 250 years that you have yet to respond.  (And THAT discussion is based on only ONE set of data I found, skipping hundreds (nay thousands) of other data sets available).

I can Permalink to a post asking you about the UCGH timeline between the UCGH flood and the UCGH ice age ending.

I can Permalink to a post where......  well you get the idea now I think.

So....   methinks your claims in your summary (yes, you like that format I see) hold as much air as this plane does.


DO YOU NEED ME TO PERMALINK THE ABOVE CLAIMS I MADE?  OR DO YOU TAKE MY WORD FOR THESE CLAIMS.
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/27 15:59:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 27 2006,15:59)
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 27 2006,12:41)
DO YOU NEED ME TO PERMALINK THE ABOVE CLAIMS I MADE?  OR DO YOU TAKE MY WORD FOR THESE CLAIMS.
Mike PSS

If you take his word for it, Dave, that will be an admission of defeat on your part, and an admission that you were lying in your "summary" that you had actually demonstrated any of the points you claimed you were making.

Otherwise, I think Mike should permalink to exactly where you ran away from his questions and objections.

Eric,
I think your taking AFDave for granted here.  Your implying that he can reason more than one step beyond the question.

I learned chess when I was young and got bored quickly.  It wasn't that I was good or anything, just too small a field of play.  I got into such things as Avalon-Hill board games ('Diplomacy' with a group of six others drinking your favorite beverage can be an evening of back-stabbing fun) and more complicated strategic wargaming.

I have yet to see Dave think one move beyond his next statement.  He has anticipated a couple people with data before but I think BWE and others give him too much credit for the depth of argument he can sustain on a lot of issues.  I know it's 'for the lurkers' so that is why BWE posted the C&P reply (why waste precious drinking time writing it yourself when others have already done it).

It does say something about the weakness of Dave's own points when BWE, Deadman, you, myself (he!!, everyone) can post a SINGLE rebuttal to one of Dave's C&P articles and SUSTAIN the rebuttal with ONLY that SINGLE piece of evidence over pages and pages of Dave trying to shoot the rebuttal down.

I wonder sometimes how Woodmoorappe, Snelling, Humphreys, and other 'Luminaries of Creationist Science' can write such drivel when the logical holes are so large.

Cognitive dissonance indeed.  I would need to take Schedule I meds to reach that state myself......  (let me think on that one a little....  opiates.....  of the masses....   oooooooooopss!!!;))  :O

Date: 2006/11/27 18:04:17, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 27 2006,17:36)
Egads! I have been accused of giving Davey too much credit!
I demand you take it back and offer a full apology! My words and deeds offer no evidence whatsoever of credit given to the churlish vacuum that is AFDave's reasoning capacity. I merely sport with him.

If you attempt to offer proof then I will offer counter-proof of immeasurably more weight!

!

Ummmmm......
(sniffs at offered troll paté)

I would respond b-u-u-u-u-t.....
(smells a distinct pheromone, "green" in nature)

(rereads bolded comment in relation to present lack of response to recent posts by BWE) {or in this case 'bwee'} ;)

You can debate with DAVE, not me.  I'm not going to sink to your 'pathetic level of detail' you request to support my general assertion.

I detect that you n-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-d to debate someone over something now that Dave has started your juices flowing.  I won't provide a crutch for your present addiction!  Go ask someone else for a fag (in the Canadian sense of the word of course).

!!

Date: 2006/11/27 22:14:56, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 27 2006,20:01)
Aaarrrggghhh!
My aching ego. I am sorely wounded.

They have a patch for that now.  Just follow the instructions.

Date: 2006/11/28 09:38:47, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 28 2006,00:54)
Arent such reactions something I would call bipolar?

Btw does bipolarity aroused via random mutation too and
was subsequently preferred by natural selection?
(shrug).

Aren't you asking yourself a question?
Why don't you answer yourself?

Why don't you get a clue and read a little about bipolar in the first place?
Quote
Studies seeking to identify the genetic basis of bipolar disorder indicate that susceptibility stems from multiple genes. Scientists are continuing their search for these genes, using advanced genetic analytic methods and large samples of families affected by the illness.

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

If you can navigate through the facts and come up with a mechanism for bipolar disorder then please let the scientists know.  They are searching too.

In fact, why don't you spend some precious brainpower and propose a new mechanism for this disorder using JAD methodology.  The subject is wide open at present since there seems (at least from the Wiki page) to be an opening for new and various ideas.

Put up or stop whining.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/28 09:55:35, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
I'm an observer for this subject.  Military History is more my thing.

But.....

Are you going to "sew" these disparate quotes into a "tapestry" that clearly reinforces your contention?

Are you going to combine these factual pieces into an intelligable mosaic of mutually supporting and mutually reinforcing facts to support your contention?

Or, are you going to sling quotes from historical reference without them interlocking or intermingling.

I think BWE has already laid out how quotes from some historical figures support and reinforce certain specific historical results (the Constitution, Treaty of Algiers, etc....).

You at least have to counter these claims and show how your quotes, in context, rebutt BWE or support your claim directly.  Otherwise these quotes on there own have no direct support to your original contention.  We aren't disputing that historical figures were themselves religious in nature afterall.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/28 13:09:53, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 28 2006,13:23)
 
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 28 2006,08:48)
Argy ... Who did you invite from AIG?

Daniel J. Lewis

I see that he (re)draws pictures.  Maybe he can improve Dave's photoshop evidence creation skills.
 
Quote
Figure 13.2. Dispersion from the Tower of Babel. (Drawn by Daniel Lewis of AiG–USA.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter13.asp

 
Quote
Figure 1.6. Woolly mammoth carcass distribution in Northern Hemisphere. (Redrawn by Daniel Lewis with Eurasia.30)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter1.asp

**Edit** AND a 'presentations professional'.  Maybe he can 'present' the UCGH with a little more flair than Dave.
Quote
DANIEL LEWIS (presentations professional)http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/creationCollege2/speakers.aspx

Date: 2006/11/28 16:39:00, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Nov. 28 2006,17:11)
"data dancer" ==> hypothesis hula? ah! hypothesis hustle!



I wondered when I could use this picture. {From the 'Worst Album Covers Ever' file circulating}

In this case turntable means circular like many of Dave's arguments.

Date: 2006/11/28 17:35:58, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 28 2006,17:54)
Dare you forget....

GoP.  You've done it again.  Posted a picture of scantily clad men.  Louis is going to comment I'm sure.

**Edit**
AND....  Version II

AND.... Version III

Enjoy!  (p.s. to the GoP vs. Louis flesh war.  More exposed flesh available.)

Date: 2006/11/29 08:08:58, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Nov. 29 2006,02:54)
As for the album cover pics this one



caused a severe case of deja vu.

I dunno why.

Can somebody tell me why?

There's something for everyone in music.

Crabby,
I read w-a-a-a-a-y back why you chose your avatar and what it represents.

Now, with selective memory loss....  I ummm.....  oh yeah...  I forgot what it represents.

Can you provide a link to your historical avatar?

Thanks,
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/29 16:41:14, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,12:43)
Argy, the best I have is a Definition of Biological Information, which as I have said, comes from Crick ...    
Quote
"By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein"

Are you implying (from this Crick quote) that biologic information is a measure of the chemical makeup of a protein?

If this is the case, how do you determine whether one allele is degenerate from another if they both provide an equivelent function?  Do you count carbon atoms?

Quote
As for MEASURING it and determining relative amounts, this is a different matter.  As I have mentioned before, this has always been intuitive up until Dembski and Behe's attempts at quantifying it.  I watch with interest to see what they will come up with.  To those who would say "See ... you don't even have a rigorous, mathematical means of detecting biological information ... how then can you talk about it and say that it is decreasing whenever mutations occurs?"

To this I would answer, "Do you have a rigorous, mathematical means for determining that my friend's old rusty 1972 pickup truck has deteriorated?"

Didn't think so.  And yet only a fool would say that it has not deteriorated.  Hmmm ... makes you think now, doesn't it?

Dave,
If I applied Crick's definition to your truck analogy I would say that a certain quantity of the original metal (primarily Iron, but with other constituents of course) had oxidized to Fe2O3.  However, why I would characterize this as "DEGENERATE" is a mystery.  I would characterize this as "DIFFERENT".

Where have Dembski or Behe provided an attempt to MEASURE Biologic Information?  Are you implying CSI here?  Or maybe the EF?

Please provide a reference or link to this wonderful biologic information measurement tool you think you would use so the rest of us can share the results.

Again Dave you conflate terms and practice semantic gymnastics.  Your "definition of Biologic Information" is wholly lacking a key ingredient....
...the actual definition...

Try again.

Date: 2006/11/29 16:56:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 29 2006,13:51)
 
Quote
 And yet here we have it in black and white ... Eric Murphy claiming that "Alleles Increase Biological Information."

A larger number of alleles for a given locus increases the sum total of the information contained in the populations' genome. Explain to me, in detail, why this is not the case, Dave. Can you do that? No? Didn't think so. Are you claiming that a more genetically diverse population embodies less, or even the same amount, of genetic information than a population that is more homozygous?

Eric,
I think there is one point in this discussion that needs clarification.

In most of the discussion both Dave and others are discussing point mutations on a single genome and how alleles are created/destroyed/function/etc...  However, every once in a while someone makes the above statement relating to the population.  The two subjects are seperate and distinct because when we talk about information we need to constrain the set (or so I'm contending right now, please correct me if I'm wrong).  If we move from individuals to populations then we need to restate the premise that we're trying to discuss.

I think Dave's premise of degenerate information is even less applicable when we talk about a population instead of an individual.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/11/30 23:15:39, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
Thanks for the reply.
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,09:51)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Mike PSS...      
Quote
Are you implying (from this Crick quote) that biologic information is a measure of the chemical makeup of a protein?
No.  Read the quote.

It was a question of clarification.  I was hoping on something more than a yes or no from you.  I still am asking that.  But whatever.....

Quote
Mike PSS...      
Quote
Dave,
If I applied Crick's definition to your truck analogy I would say that a certain quantity of the original metal (primarily Iron, but with other constituents of course) had oxidized to Fe2O3.  However, why I would characterize this as "DEGENERATE" is a mystery.  I would characterize this as "DIFFERENT".
No you wouldn't.  Let me prove this to you.  Let's pretend I own a used car lot and you come to my lot to buy a car.  I show you a nice, mid-90s truck and an old rusty mid-70s truck.  I tell you "Mike, this truck is not deteriorated ... it's just different.  You can have either one for $5000."  What would be your reaction?  Hmmmm....

Sometimes it just blows me away to see how Darwinian thinking has destroyed your common sense!

O.K. Dave,
I've gotton my mind around this analogy a little more and it 'stinks'.  Your are saying that a single 1972 pick-up that ages is to DEGENERATION as the genomic mutation of multiple generations of an organism.

This analogy sucks.  Someone earlier (OA?) mentioned the progression of designs of a pick-up over time.  That would be more of an apt analogy in this case.

Now, you could also argue around the blueprints to the 1972 pick-up.  And if a 'new' truck built in 2006 from the 1972 plans came out looking like a rust bucket then this would be an apt analogy for ?transcription error? maybe.

So my answer to the salesman question would be "I think both are overpriced but the 1972 truck is older and showing signs of wear."

Quote
Mike PSS ...      
Quote
Please provide a reference or link to this wonderful biologic information measurement tool you think you would use so the rest of us can share the results.
Please read what I type.  I don't have such a wonderful tool.  I said so plainly.  All I have at the moment is my intuition.  But again, intuition is quite valuable if kept in its proper place.  You have no rigorous mathematical tools to help you on my used car lot above, but you have your eyeballs and your intuition.  Ditto for biological systems.  Use it, my friend!

I think I just used that skill above.

Do you like how I used it?  :O

Quote
Mike PSS...      
Quote
I think Dave's premise of degenerate information is even less applicable when we talk about a population instead of an individual.
you have now made several statements which show that you do not read what I post.  Please re-read the posts from the many POPULATION GENETICISTS beginning with Muller in the 50's that I have posted.

So your ready to start talking about HLA-B genes again.  And how 61 new alleles appeared "fully expressed in the population" in less than 250 years.

I have a little brain teaser in response to your Ayala post that you use to support this whole mixture analogy you seem to hold onto.  Anyway, Ayala is referring to populations mixing genes over a l-o-o-o-o-o-ng time.  So we'll have to start talking about deep time again when discussing Ayala.

Assume sickle-cell anemia (SCA) is the same as an HLA-B allele.  Black Africans brought the SCA allele to the NA continent over 300 years ago.
Now, how distributed within the NA population is SCA?
Do we find it expressed in Native Americans?
Do we find it expressed in European natives?
Do we find it expressed in South-East Asian Natives?

How long before the population becomes fully admixed so that the SCA distribution within the NA population is statistically avereaged?  Another 300 years?  5 years?  never?

And....  Will there be populations living in NA that can trace ancestry back that shows no admixture with other groups?

Population genetics is discussed in terms of statistics.  It's one of the few mathamatical practices I loathe (give me matrix mathamatics any day, eigen value anyone?) but I think I can muddle my way through.

Date: 2006/12/02 09:59:54, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,10:05)
If you do all this, you come away from Kimura's 1979 paper (and graph) saying "Wow ... look at all those VSLDM's that cannot be selected out! (grey shaded area)  I agree with Kondrashov and Crow that this is a big problem.  (Crow called it a "bomb" with a long fuse) Then, if you are Eric, you can get out your Electron Microscope, focus it somewhere near the origin of Kimura's graph, set it on about 100,000 magnification and say "Gee, if I squint real hard, I think I see some beneficials on the left side of the vertical axis!" and "Gee, that vertical axis sure is narrow, but I think I see one or two "exactly neutrals" precisely sitting on that line!" and "Gee, ain't Darwinism great to have taken those few little beneficials (that no ones even really sure even exist) and magically created all life on earth!"

Dave,
With this argument I'm reminded of the 1900's in physics with Bohr, Rutherford, Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others.

Within thirty years these researchers and theorists redefined what constitutes matter.  From the "plum pudding model at 10^-9m to the Bohr model at 10^-10m to the Schrodinger distribution at 10^-11m and further down (in the next thirty years) to quarks, bosons, mesons, and all the other colorful characters at 10^-14m.

Every discovery was an improvement not only of explanatory power but also of discrimenatory classification.  And the resolution of the information has improved by orders of magnitude (not just multiples).

Your argument above only reinforces that point.  The recent discovories in genetics, genomes, alleles, protiens, etc. have only EXPANDED our understanding of what is occurring in real life.  Your just trying to fit your "God of the Gaps" argument into smaller and smaller resolutions of information.  And your using a microscope that doesn't have the resolution power that you need to interpret the data in todays world.  In physics, all you have left is 6.625x10^-34 to find your Gawd.  After every paper in biology over time your gap is less and less in this field too.

Dave,  Go back to the flud or genetic richness or barimonology.  Your argument space with your present subject is smaller and smaller.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/02 10:33:48, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,11:21)
So Russell, I guess you will go on through life thinking that lucky beneficial mutations created all life on earth in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile, I have achieved my goal of finding out what evolutionary scientists really believe.

And it's even more unbelievable than I had even imagined.

A-a-a-a-a-a-a-nd........

The AFDave version of the Gish Gallop continues on its ride into the nether regions.

(Waves at Dave as he disappears on his White Charger)

"See you at the next round-up Dave" I yell.

The sun glints off the silver spurs as the Charger disappears over the next hill.

We hear a voice on the wind....  "Suckers!!"

And then twilight sets in.

Turning to the bar we notice something on the ground.  A pair of formerly whitey tighties, heavily yellow-stained and skid-marked.  In black marker on the label is written 'DAVEY'.

We chuckle, and think about our next encounter.

Date: 2006/12/02 16:37:33, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 01 2006,00:33)
So last night I was looking around for some Tom Waits stuff on the internets, and found an interview with him.  And, much to my glee, he proclaimed "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

Mike,
Is this interview (some 70s show, Waits performed "The Piano's Been Drinking") the origin of your signature, or does it have a predecessor?

Sorry for the tardy Argy.  

I was on the road when this comment came and (finally) remembered.

No such research for me on this one.  Bar talk on a trip in October set this one off.

I see k.e stated "Dorothy Parker".  I'll fix the sig for proper source, and then change the sig next month I'm sure.

Date: 2006/12/02 22:35:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
Take this from another perspective.  Imagine if you will that the only item in your hypothesis you have gotton wrong is the age of the earth.  I know it requires some mild adjustments to your world view but this 6000 year thing turns out to be your major stumbling block with getting your hypothesis to have any meaning.

Imagine if you got the age wrong.  Then go back through all your other hypothesis statements and you will start to notice something interesting.  That you can actually make clear, concise, and factual predictions from the data that is available to everyone.  And these predictions can be made to fit your hypothesis without the age/time stumbling block that ALWAYS trips you up.  If you didn't stick to your time argument then the whole genetic richness and HLA-B allele points would be FAR DIFFERENT and the discussions would be far more interesting.

Your dogmatic hold on 6000 years is ONLY based upon biblical interpretation by someone else.  Read a few other interpretations that DON'T HOLD THAT DOGMA but keep the rest of your hypothesis.

Time is your killer right now Dave.

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock the seconds go by.  Repeat another 1.7x10^17 times and you have the present age of the earth.  Not 1.9x10^11 like you presently claim.

The earth and everything around us is O-o-o-o-o-o-ld.  Very, very, very, very, very O-o-o-o-o-o-ld.  Our solar system may be the second or third incarnation of stars within the Milky Way since the beginning of the universe.  Thinking on these time scales requires far more insight to understand than what you have presented so far.

Mike PSS

p.s.  Dave, you keep bringing up the catastrophism claim like it is "owned" by creationists.  I know of no scientific claim that doesn't recognize that catastrophies have occurred in the past.  From ice ages to hurricanes to meteors to volcanoes to earthquakes to plate tectonics to.....  every type of natural disaster imanginable these (and others not yet discovered or imagined yet) have occured on the earth.  And that these occurrances result in changes to the earth and biosphere in local, regional, continental, or total earth impact is not a surprise.  The whole Uniformitarian versus Catastophism "problem" you have identified is a red herring.  I call shenanigans.

Date: 2006/12/03 09:15:17, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Just flipping back through the thread (part 2 only for now) and I thought I would change my sig to some AFDave inanity I found.

I think I'll change my sig every week to a new AFDaveism.  That means I need to be on this board for....  say....   two thousand years?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/03 09:21:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 03 2006,01:39)
Your responses fell below the level that even I set for you.
Mike PSS, I humbly aknowledge that you were right when you said I was giving Dave too much credit.

HaHA.  Point for me.


Soon you will owe me a foot massage.

Date: 2006/12/03 11:11:58, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 03 2006,12:00)
Something I've always wondered about when it comes to "hydraulic sorting" of fossils proposed by creationists. As I understand it, the floodwaters were in the form of rain, were they not? 40 days and 40 nights of rain? If we accept Dave's estimate of a bit more than a mile of floodwaters, that means rain fell at the rate of five feet an hour for forty days, or roughly the rate that a bathtub fills up.

Now, if the floodwaters appeared in the form of rain, where would any motile organism run to avoid those floodwaters? Dave says the pre-flood topography was flat to gently rolling, so presumably it would be difficult for, say, a rabbit, or a deer, or even a wolf, (and to say nothing of of a clam, or a blade of grass, or a tree) to even figure out in which direction to run in order to avoid floodwaters which were accumulating at the rate of a bathtub filling up with water. On flat terrain, any organism shorter than five feet tall would have drowned in the first hour of the flood, and hence would be found in the lowest strata of "flood"-laid sediments. Why don't we find Precambrian rabbits, Dave?

So I fail to see where the "hydraulic sorting" mechanism can even work, Dave. Since you're well into gallop mode, I'm sure you can find time to elucidate this little problem for your "hypothesis."

But before you do that, why don't you honor Jean's request for an answer you should have given back in May: what evidence would you accept as falsifying your "hypothesis"?

Dave has claimed the "breaking up of the waters of the deep" as an additional source.  Which means not only the bathtub filling rain but the tsunami sized upwellings also.

Maybe we can make a smash hit disaster movie from this.

Date: 2006/12/03 17:24:52, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 03 2006,17:35)
Quote
The Reach of the Cross

By William A. Dembski

Message delivered at Southwestern  
Seminary Chapel, October 19, 2006

There is a link on This Page to a movie clip of the Lugubrious One delivering this talk at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Search for/scroll down to WAD.

Dembski's an overachiever with this crowd.

From the good Dr. above...
Quote
Dr. Bobby Holt
Trustee, SWBTS, Pastor, Vista Grande Baptist Church, Colorado Springs, CO


And from the Dr. below...
Quote
Dr. D.L. Lowrie
Retired Pastor, FBC Lubbock, TX


And finally from Dembski...
Quote
Research Professor in Philosophy
Ext. 4435
email: wdembski@swbts.edu

Web site: www.designinference.com
Blog: www.uncommondescent.com


Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Seminary.
Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
Executive Director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
Education

Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago (1996).
MDiv. Princeton Theological Seminary (1996).
M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago (1993).
Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago (1988).
S.M. mathematics University of Chicago (1985).
M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago (1983).
B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago (1981).
Fellowships/Awards

Texas A&M’s Trotter Prize, shared with Stuart Kauffman, April 2005. (Past recipients: Charlie Townes and Francis Crick (2002), Alan Guth and John Polkinghorne (2003), Paul Davies and Robert Shapiro (2004)).
Intelligent Design Network’s Wedge of Truth Award, 2004 for promoting intelligent design (past recipients include Michael Behe).
Templeton Foundation Book Prize ($100,000) for writing book on information theory, 2000–2001.
Discovery Institute Fellowship for research in intelligent design, 1996–1999.
Notre Dame Postdoctoral Fellowship (Department of Philosophy) for philosophy of religion, 1996–1997.
University of Illinois at Chicago, Outstanding Dissertation Award in Fine Arts and Humanities for
The Design Inference; published subsequently September 1998 with Cambridge University
Press Pascal Centre Research Fellowship for studies in science and religion, 1992–1995.
Northwestern University Postdoctoral Fellowship (Department of Philosophy) for history and philosophy of science, 1992–1993.
National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship for mathematics, 1988–1991.
McCormick Fellowship (University of Chicago) for mathematics, 1984–1988.
National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship for psychology and mathematics, 1982–1985.
Nancy Hirshberg Memorial Prize for best undergraduate research paper in psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, 1981.

Academic Experience

Research Professor in Philosophy, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas, June 2006 present.
Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky., June 2005–May 2006.
Associate Research Professor, Conceptual Foundations of Science, Baylor University, research in intelligent design, 1999–May 2005.
Fellow, Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, research in complexity, information, and design, 1996–present.
Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Dallas, Department of Philosophy, teaching introduction to philosophy, 1997–1999.
Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Notre Dame, Department of Philosophy, teaching philosophy of religion and research, 1996–1997.
Independent Scholar, Pascal Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, research in complexity, information, and design, 1993–1996.
Postdoctoral Fellow, Northwestern University, Department of Philosophy, teaching philosophy of science and research, 1992–1993.
Research Associate, Princeton University, Department of Computer Science, research in cryptography & complexity theory, 1990.
Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow, University of Chicago, James Franck Institute, research in chaos & probability, 1989.
Postdoctoral Visiting Fellow, MIT, Department of Mathematics, research in probability theory, 1988.
Lecturer, University of Chicago, Department of Mathematics, teaching undergraduate mathematics, 1987–1988.
Professional Associations

Discovery Institute—senior fellow.
Wilberforce Forum—senior fellow.
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design —executive director.
Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design—general editor.
Foundation for Thought and Ethics—academic editor.
American Mathematical Society.
Evangelical Philosophical Society.
American Scientific Affiliation.
Books

The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (biology textbook coauthored with Jonathan Wells). Dallas.: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, forthcoming 2006.
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design. Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, vol. 9 (coauthored with Michael J. Behe and Stephen C. Meyer). San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000.
Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology. Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999. [Award: Christianity Today’s Book of the Year in the category “Christianity and Culture.” Translated into Finnish and Korean. Translation into Spanish in preparation.]
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. [CUP’s best-selling philosophical monograph.]
Edited Collections

Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement (Festschrift in honor of Phillip Johnson). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006.
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (co-edited with Michael Ruse). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. Wilmington, Del.: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2004.
Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design (co-edited with James Kushiner). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2001. [Translation into Indonesian in preparation.]
Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies (co-edited with Jay Wesley Richards; selected papers from the Apologetics Seminar at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1995–1997). Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design (proceedings of a conference on design and origins at Biola University, 14–17 November 1996). Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Books in Preparation

Freeing Inquiry from Ideology: A Michael Polanyi Reader, co-edited with Bruce Gordon; an anthology of Michael Polanyi’s writings, book under contract with InterVarsity Press.
Being as Communion: The Metaphysics of Information, Templeton Book Prize project, book under contract with Ashgate publishers for series in science and religion.
John Warwick Montgomery Festschrift Volume (co-edited with Thomas Schirrmacher).
The End of Christianity, book under contract with Broadman & Holman.
The Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design. Technical research monograph.
The Nature of Nature, co-edited with Bruce Gordon, conference retrospective on the Nature of Nature conference at Baylor, 12–15 April 2000, book award through Grace Valley Christian Center, Davis, California.
The End of Materialism, co-edited collection with Jeffrey Schwartz and Mario Beauregard.
The Patristic Understanding of Creation, co-edited with Brian Frederick, anthology of writings from the Church Fathers on creation and design.
Work in progress

Series of technical mathematical articles collected together under the rubric The Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design. Topics to include variational information (relevant article presently under submission), uniform probability, displacement/no free lunch theorems, Bayesian methods, Fisherian methods, specification, universal probability bounds, specified complexity, configurational entropy, and conservation of information/fourth law of thermodynamics.

Online

“Information as a Measure of Variation.”
“Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and the No Free Lunch Paradox.”
“A Primer on Probability for Design Inferences.” [available at www.designinference.com]

Forthcoming

“In Defense of Intelligent Design,” The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, edited by Philip Clayton.
“Intelligent Design.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, edited by Lindsay Jones. New York: Macmillan, forthcoming.
“Transcendence,” New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (British InterVarsity), available online at www.designinference.com.
“Does the Design Argument Show There Is a God?” In The Apologetics Study Bible, general editor Ted Cabal. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, forthcoming.
“Irreducible Complexity Revisited,” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design.
“Reflections on Human Origins,” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design.
“Dealing with the Backlash against Intelligent Design.” In William A. Dembski and Jed Macosko, eds., A Man for This Season: The Phillip Johnson Celebration Volume. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.
A detailed list of publications starting in 1990, and a list of profession activities starting in 1988, are available upon request or at wwwdesigninference.com.


I've heard of padding a resume but this is a bit ridiculous.  I did notice that he didn't list his high school GPA OR when he first ate solid food... so he can't be t-o-o-o-o self centered.

Mike PSS

Also, that guy singing in the beginning is s-o-o-o-o-o flat.

"IT BURNS... IT BURNS... MY EARS... IT BURNS..."

Date: 2006/12/03 17:53:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
In addition to Eric's summary.  Astrononmy and astrophysics are another item that wholly invalidates the 6000 year old earth myth.

Dave,
Here's the deal.  The speed of light and the Doppler shift (actually a small piece of general relativity) can invalidate the 6000 year old earth very easy.  Astronomers (and I'm lumping in astrophysicists and cosmologists in this case) have observed supernovae and noted centuries old observations of such events.  From these observations they have created mathamatecal models of these events and the consequences.  Over time, more supernovae detritus observations have occurred and the measured consequences of these later events have fit very well with the constructed models.  In fact many astronomers predict the measured effects of a new supernovae using the models and their predictions end up very close (1% or less) to actual measurements.

Now, how does this invalidate a 6000 year old earth?  The measured consequences of a supernovae (gas ejecta velocity, Doppler shift of detritus, spectrum of detritus, etc.) are given over hundreds of millions of years timeframe.  And ALL observations fit into the hypothesis put forward by the astronomers (and others mentionsed).

The sixteenth century Catholic church realized that the telescope would shatter the geocentric claims taught as truth to the masses.  The catholic church silenced Copernicus and muffled Galileo.  But the new truth was out and the Catholic archbishops just wanted some time to re-teach the masses instead of shock them with new truths.

The twentieth century astronomers have done the same type of discovery that has shattered past held beliefs.  The difference this time is that no central body of control has succeeded in silencing the data.  But the data and interpretations have stood the test of time and challenge.  A new truth is upon us and we have only to look into the details and facts to understand that this truth (a vast and old universe) is created to match ALL the evidence out there.

Sorry to pop your 6000 year old bubble.  Ask Santa for a telescope for christmas and learn something new.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/04 08:35:18, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 30 2006,12:44)
Faid:

   
Quote
   
Quote
 
1) The laws can be inconsistent if Jesus glues the atoms together after all.
   
Ohhhhhkay. Please put the troll back in the doghouse now, it drools on the carpet.


I admit the answer was a little flippant. I was trying to say that an intervening deity could set up a universe whose laws conflict with the creation and existence of its own matter. For example, scientists could find that the attractive forces within an atom are too weak to counteract its natural repulsive forces (protons, for example, have positive charges and don't like to be close to each other), and that atoms "should" break apart*. Observations show that the atoms do not fly apart. Therefore, a mysterious glue must bind the atoms -- yet this mysterious glue thwarts all investigations. Sure, scientists can play the "just you wait" game, but if the reigning model explains everything else, and predicts that the glue shouldn't exist, then why should we assume that there's a better natualistic model on the horizon? Perhaps there isn't one, and God is doing the work himself, but hiding his "force" from us.

We may assume that naturalism must have the answers in principle, but then we can't use this assumption to argue against theism, because then we're reasoning in a circle. Perhaps God really is in the gaps. Who can tell when our models fail? We're left with inductive inferences that turn into special pleading as the failures pile up.

*This is not the case in the real world -- I'm using a hypothetical example.

Normally I'm an observer to this type of tripe.  However, I couldn't let this one pass.
 
Quote
Experimental observations
The first direct experimental evidence of gluons was found in 1979 when three-jet events were observed at the electron-positron collider called PETRA at DESY in Hamburg. Quantitative studies of deep inelastic scattering at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center had established their existence a decade before that.

Experimentally, confinement is verified by the failure of free quark searches. Neither free quarks nor free gluons have ever been observed. Although there have been hints of exotic hadrons, no glueball has been observed either. Quark-gluon plasma has been found recently at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
And there is a LOT more physics you need to go through before making conclusions about fine-tuning.
How about a high-energy environment? (where EM and Weak forces combine)
How about a higher-energy environment? (where three, or four fundamental forces combine)
How about Si-based lifeforms? (chemically possible but environmental conditions not well understood)

Also, physicists have postulated the graviton and have started experiments to detect the graviton energy.  However they calculate that you would need a detector the size of Jupiter (filled with Deuterium of course) to have any chance of even detecting one graviton particle in one year.

Debate the present model all you want, I won't get involved because I think your debate model doesn't capture the complexity that actually exists.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/04 11:09:57, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 04 2006,10:56)
Ummm, Mike, you do understand the meaning of the word "hypothetical", don't you? Why do you think the footnote was there?

{snip the snark}

I never said my model did capture the complexity. I'm just saying that I-J's model doesn't either. Apparently, you agree.

I won't explicitely appologise for getting lost in this convoluted discussion.  Just to admit that I can't quite comprehend what your arguing for or against sometimes.

I started trying to understand your point here where you summarized your position.
At he bottom is a 'line-in-the-sand' statement that clarifies your postion...  
Quote
Since we would not assume that life is the goal of our universe, then we should not expect our universe to take the values that it has due to blind chance. This implies that the constant was not randomly selected, which leads to the possibility of a Designer.

But you let the cat out of the bag here...  
Quote
I'm not assuming God to prove God. I'm saying that observations imply that random chance alone can't explain our universe. Therefore, there must be an organising principle (doesn't have to be God, could be a natural law we haven't discovered, or perhaps our universe has had trials that are currently hidden from us). I interpret this principle as God. But God was not the presumed hypothesis, atheism was.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=38564

Which is simply an argument from personal increduality.
However, you do admit the boundry limits of your own (humanities) fallible insights here in a response to Louis...  
Quote
We can do a lot with what we have, and what we have just might be enough, but there is a good reason to assume that we're just simplifying (and thereby distorting) certain aspects of reality that our brains can't comprehend and that our senses can't investigate.
............
I'm sorry, but your assurances are not enough to overturn my skepticism about the limits of human inquiry. Heck, most scientists admit up front that science cannot handle questions about God's existence.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=38684

Now, rereading the past four pages I've found numerous examples of your personal increduality as it relates to the whole I-J thingy.
I tend to agree that the I-J model doesn't capture the complexity of the moment.  But that's not what your arguing...
Quote
I suspect that I-J's conclusion is not only limited, but tautological, because the existence of life implies "life-friendly" laws.


I think the following will clarify my point.

Your whole basis against the I-J model seems to be an argument about boundry limits (assumptions).  If you want to include your own assumptions (i.e. "an intervening deity could set up a universe whose laws conflict with the creation and existence of its own matter") then you cannot compare the results because the original I-J model didn't draw conclusions from using your assumptions.

I was blindered in my initial response.

I'll try harder next time.  :D

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/04 14:44:27, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,14:46)
Meanwhile, my question to you about why we should see the phylogenies we see (i.e., far more (CH)G trees than the other two possibilites, and fewer but equal proportions of (CG)H and (GH)C trees), when your (tee hee) CGH tells us that humans are one kind and chimps/gorillas are another, went unanswered.

Dave did answer this....

Ahem.....

A LOUSY ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT?!?!?!?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Date: 2006/12/04 15:04:47, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Speaking totally O/T (like there has been one recently).

I wonder why Steviepinhead hasn't taken an Avatar when there are so many choices and styles too.
From the innocent....

To the insane....


Is it because they're not named 'Steve'?

Date: 2006/12/04 15:28:31, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,16:12)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 04 2006,14:44)
Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,14:46)
Meanwhile, my question to you about why we should see the phylogenies we see (i.e., far more (CH)G trees than the other two possibilites, and fewer but equal proportions of (CG)H and (GH)C trees), when your (tee hee) CGH tells us that humans are one kind and chimps/gorillas are another, went unanswered.

Dave did answer this....

Ahem.....

A LOUSY ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT?!?!?!?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

lol  :D

Nope, that was actually a different one. It was Dave's "lousy one-and-a-half percent" Portuguese moment regarding overall genetic difference that made me try a different tactic by showing him the distribtuion of distance trees for specific genes/regions. In that case, 60% show (CH)G, 20% (CG)H and 20% (GH)C -- so there was no getting off with the 1% bluster. I showed Davey, point by point, why this could have actually been predicted (and how/why) from what was known prior to detailed genetic work, but certainly not by his CGH, which would obviously predict a much higher proportion of...well...(CG)H.

How anyone can spend 8 years in school and get a PhD in biology nowadays and not recognize that similarities in genes and sequences between animals is evidence for common design is beyond me.  I mean...  really... get your head examined or something.

IT'S SO OBVIOUS!!!!!

**************************

Is that better?

Date: 2006/12/04 16:07:42, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,16:39)
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 04 2006,15:28)
Is that better?

*shudder* Eerily so. What's your secret?

AFDave-ese = Bluster + Hand-waving + other factors?

I just picture AFDave as a modern day Col. Jack Ripper...  
Quote

Ripper:
Ah, naah. We're ok here. Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridated water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake. Children's ice cream?

Mandrake:
Good Lord.

Ripper:
You know when fluoridation first began?

Mandrake:
No. No, I don't, Jack. No.

Ripper:
Nineteen hundred and forty six. Nineteen fortysix, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your postwar commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works.

Mandrake:
Jack... Jack, listen, tell me, ah... when did you first become, well, develop this theory.

Ripper:
Well, I ah, I I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Mandrake:
(sighs fearfully)

Ripper:
Yes a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly: loss of essence.

Mandrake:
Yes...

Ripper:
I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women... women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.

Mandrake:
Heh heh... yes.

Just replace commie with evolutionist (or Darwinist) and it sounds eerily familiar.

Date: 2006/12/04 16:29:40, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,17:11)
Uh, we need to start much simpler for stevie.  If I go to Wikipedia and search "avatar," I don't get a selection of samples, I get an article about avatars...!

Even if I find a sample image, where does it get hosted, how do I link it, etc., etc....

Remember the third and fourth syllables in the screenname!

???

First, find an image you like and copy the URL (a right-click on the image and opening 'Properties' will get you the image path from the middle of a web page).

Click on Your Control Panel at the top of the page.
Then click on Personal Info Tab.
Then click on Avatar Options.
At the bottom of that page is a place to paste the path of your avatar.
Select size (64x64 is max size) and click on the button below the path you just pasted.
Happy avatar.

I just inserted Patrick.gif as an example just now.
Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/04 18:45:53, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,18:44)
Oookay, let's see what happens...

Ah, now we're talking!   :p

The pinhead is outed.

Is there anything else you wish to publicaly confess?

A-a-a-a-a-n-n-n-n-n-y-t-h-i-n-n-n-n-n-g-g-g-g??

Date: 2006/12/04 19:01:04, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 04 2006,19:37)
In general, the laws of a nation should apply only to it's citizen's and no other nation's laws should also apply.  I can think of one exception and that is the European Union (but I don't believe that the Constitution has been fully ratified yet, someone correct me on that if I'm wrong) which I believe was intentionally designed for shared soverignty, so to speak.

So, no, in my opinion the US doesn't get to thumb their noses at the rest of the world because they can.  All nations should have complete and total jusidiction over it's citizens.

The European Constitution in its present form is DOA because one or more countries have vetoed the document.  Both France and Netherlands (and Denmark I think) voted it down in a popular referendum.  Many other countries have ratified it either with public referendums or governmental votes (thus bypassing the citizens to vote on their own sovereignty).  The U.K. cancelled their referendum after France's rejection (why bother, the document is dead).

The EU at present has some common institutions.
*Agriculture Policy (more subsidy and field/crop rationing than anything)
*Monetary Policy (for those countries enrolled in the Euro mechanism).  This policy also cedes rights of each countries central banks to set interest rates and 'tries' to limit governments spending to maintain balanced budgets (not as successful as originally hoped).
*Trade Policy (the original Common Market type of set-up)
*Environmental Policy (still a little fragmented but since the Kyoto accord the EU laws are collectivising the national rules into a central body)
*Labor Policy (this Policy tends to provide rights of work withing the EU body more than dictate the countries working rules themselves)

Europe still barks with seperate voices at the UN and the International arena, but they are starting to share organs and morphing into a hydra-like entity.

Date: 2006/12/05 08:59:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Two more shiny new pennies for everyone...

The Iraq fiasco could never happen without 9/11.  The aftermath of 9/11 led to Afghanistan and the implementation of security laws (the "Patriot Act" is an oxymoron name if I ever saw one).  The population, and more importantly for BushII the legislature, where cowed and softened for a year before the Iraq agenda was presented with full shreaks and shrills.

I have no issue with Afghanistan intervention since this was a direct response to an attack to the US.  Parallels with WWI (sinking US flag ships) and WWII (Pearl Harbor) show how important it is NOT to fire the first shot.  However, the BushII team overreached and thought they could expand the mandate of 9/11 into other arenas.

But Iraq, like Panama, like Grenada, like Vietnam (although that was more like mission creep in this context) were wars mandated by the US executive first and foremost.  Whether successful or not in their original aim to increase the 'security' of the US in the near term, all these actions have lessened US standing in the world.  These (and other) actions have shown the shallow nature of the perpetrators in the game of realpolitik.  The US population eventually punished the perpetrators of these wars internally just like we punished the external perpetrators.  Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world, as soon as the 'punishment' is meted the population goes back to watching American Idol (or whatever else is currently fad) and forgets the history lesson so painfully taught.

The present war against terrorism is a knee-jerk reactionary response to 9/11.  My hope is that cooler heads will prevail eventually and roll back some of the onerous regulations that have been implemented.  Unfortunately the security gambit has been institutionalized in the government beuracracy.  The actions of FEMA opened the door to the type of glacial response to change that every other department of Homeland Security is afflicted.  Changing minds in the legislature just won't do, breaking the hold of a beurocratic entity like Homeland Security is a longer drawn out battle.  He!!, K-Street lobbyists are choir boys compared to the internal lobbyists of every beurocratic department in government.

Date: 2006/12/05 10:36:04, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,10:57)
I am teaching kids and will be on a wider scale as time goes on.  So it is important to me to get this stuff right.

But teaching them that single celled organisms can evolve into higher organisms doesn't square with any reality that I have ever seen.

How about you?

Egads Dave,
What ARE you teaching these kids.

Rhetoric?  Obfuscation?  Quote Mining?  Selective Reading?  Statistical Manipulation?  Blissful Ignorance?

All these subjects you have shown your worth.  

But it seems you want to teach them other subjects like:

Biology?  History (non-Theological)?  Geology?  Physics?

It is these items you have shown a lack of understanding.  And you have YET to get things 'right' in your brain about how these things work.

Disagree?  Try me on one of these subjects then....

How about you?

Date: 2006/12/05 13:05:33, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,12:10)
Mike ...    
Quote
Disagree?  Try me on one of these subjects then....
I AM trying you ... We are on Points C & D of my Hypothesis and I feel we had a fruitful discussion on HLA-B alleles.  We didn't wind up agreeing, but I think we both learned a thing or two, don't you?  So jump back in with the Ames Test or something else related to Points C & D.

Dave,
Your whole argument is about biologic information.  And it's all semantics at this point.  The Ames Test is only one more example of you butcherring the evidence with your world view.  I can parse your latest post with some comments but I think I can predict the answers already.

So... Here we go....
Quote
THE AMES TEST - WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
I think we are zeroing in on the real issues with the Ames Test.  It sounds like what is going on is that an "A" or other nucleotide gets deleted or inserted causing a frame shift mutation.  Then another mutagen may cause a reversion (goes back just like it was before) in about 1/3 of the cases.  Russell says that this invalidates my contention that mutations do not add information.

Fairly good summary of the position as you understand it.  Let's look how you (re)define information though.  Next....
Quote
I think the reason that we creationists (or at least this one) say that it does not add information is because of what we see going on in the whole organism (in this case a single celled organism-a bacterium).  

Good statement of your objection to the summary position.  You equate information as how it affects the 'whole organism' in the singular sense.  Next....
Quote
While it is true that an "A" that gets deleted, then reverts back to an "A" is "beneficial" or is a mutation in the "right" direction, the fact remains that this only happens in 1/3 of the cases.
STOP RIGHT THERE!  You have now (re)defined that 'beneficial' means "mutation in the "right" direction".  This is certainly a nonsense phrase meant to mislead.  Also, your restatement of the 'fact' has no counter-point; why bring it up in your rebuttal to sound like a problem?  Next...
Quote
Simultaneously, what else is going on?  Other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction so that I think the net effect is a decrease in information.
GO TO JAIL, GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL, DO NOT PASS GO!
Where in he!! did you find out that other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction and how in he!! did you measure this and where in the Ames Test information did you reference this?  This is the semantic mumbo-jumbo you keep spouting at every piece of evidence presented.  Next....
Quote
Yes, those bacteria that got that "good  mutation" might get selected for, but what "bad" mutations (VSLDMS) do they bring with them in the whole organism--the whole bacterium?  Surely you are not telling me that good mutations can be selected for while the bad ones are discarded?  Because this is not how it works. The whole bacterium reproduces, not just the individual gene that mutated favorably.

You just contradicted yourself here.  See it?  It's the bolded parts.  Let me quickly explain how you confused yourself in this matter.
You started off discussing only ONE bacteria and how the Ames Test mutation reversion is a "good" thing.  But in the above statement you are comparing this ONE bacteria to the WHOLE POPULATION by bringing up selection.  My simple question to you is.....
How many bacteria that had the "good" mutation present died?
The Ames Test doesn't answer that question because they don't test the dead bacteria.  And there are probably a lot of bacteria that had the correct histidine mutation BUT had another mutation present that killed them off.  Selection happens all the time and LIMITS the bad mutations in a population.
If you want to attach your flag to a single bacterium and follow its path through each and every generation and comment on each and every mutation after each duplication then go right ahead.  But the fact that ONE bacteria with the "good mutation" survives through ITS OWN LIFETIME while carrying what you consider "bad mutations", even though those baddies don't kill or limit that ONE bacteria from surviving or reproducing kills your statement above.  I thought you were arguing about the information contained in a single bacterium here.
Your semantics are duly noted in this phrase.  Next....
Quote
Sanford talks about this by saying something like "mutations occur at the level of the genome, but selection occurs at the level of the phenome."
So while you are technically correct that an individual mutation can be favorable, the net direction of all mutations in any individual is always DOWN.
This only reinforces my point that your using semantic games to bolster your case by conflating your singular definition of information to argue against a totally seperate subject (population of organisms).  Also you never supplied a link to Sanford's quote.

Play semantic games all you want.  Unfortunately you can't teach it to the kids because your doing it all the time without even knowing it.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/10 09:16:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I haven't seen any hard numbers coming from Dave in a long time.  A whole lot of handwaving and conjecture, along with a healthy dose of quote-mining and personal increduality is all we have had for a couple weeks now.

I think Dave is being VERY selective on what he wants to present and defend on this board.  After having the snot kicked out of any number of claims he brought forward all he has left is semantics and obfuscation (eating Crow indeed).

C'mon Dave, I want to see more 14C discussion.  Your last attempt was quite limp.

I want to see more radiometric challanges.  Yours (and Humphreys) data left a bad taste in your mouth but it was sweet to Deadman and others.

I want to see you show how the earth was created only 6000 years ago.  Your genetic richness positions and allele misinformation were dissolved when faced with the acid test of facts.

Your present attempt to string together some silly quote-mines and dubious statements (out of context of course) and then weave a connective tale to "prove" your Hypothesis is a joke.  Here's your summary position...  
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,12:41)
I see no way that anyone with the slightest understanding of genetics can read these clear statements by prominent geneticists (of which Sanford himself is a highly successful one), the latest being written a mere 4 years ago, can possibly miss the clear messages that ...

1) The Higher Genomes are deteriorating.
2) The evidence weighs heavily that they have always been deteriorating
3) The inevitable end of genome deterioration is extinction of species
4) Natural selection can only delay the end, not prevent it

What are the logical conclusions from these powerful truths?

1) Genomes were better in the past, IOW less deteriorated.
2) The source of variation in species is not the very thing (mutations) that causes their deterioration in spite of Ayala's wishful thinking
3) Rather, the source of variation is stored genetic variation (Ayala)
4) If humanity is in danger of genetic meltdown within the next 3000 years, it could not have survived for 200,000 in the past.
5) Therefore, the accepted deep time scale for the human species is wrong.
6) This conclusion is further strengthened by examining the details of radiometric dating
7) It is further strengthened by the reality of a 6000 year timescale of written history
8) It is further strengthened by the oral and written traditions of numerous people groups all over the world, the most prominent of which are the Hebrew records known to the Western world as the Book of Genesis.
9) This enigmatic "stored genetic variation" as Ayala calls it, this pre-existing variability, had to come from somewhere.  If not from mutations, then where?
10) Ayala's "stored genetic variation" can only come from one place: Intelligence.

I think Genesis 1:1 could be restated to say ...

IN THE BEGINNING, INTELLIGENCE ...

Many people have already parsed these "conclusions" and found them wanting.  Here's an incomplete list of only MY challanges to your statements above....
  • How do you explain the profusion of 61 or more newly expressed HLA-B alleles in the population within 250 years after the flood.  Your "admixture of populations" argument was clearly refuted and you haven't presented anything to explain this.
  • How do you explain the concordant results of Rb-Sr Isochron tests with U-Pb-Th tests of the same material.  The age results from these tests show an age of the earth of over 4.3 billion years.  You have yet to respond directly to the validity of Rb-Sr dating methods.  Your (or should I say Arndts and Overn) past "all Isochrons are mixing lines" argument was clearly refuted.
  • How can we observe supernovae events in space whose light took 50 million years to reach the earth.  You have yet to even hint at a discussion of space, the cosmos, or any of the physics involved beyond the earth itself.


Get a new writer, your old one is caught in a loop.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/10 11:46:59, Link
Author: Mike PSS
THE FLOOD IS IMPOSSIBLE.  THERE IS TOO MUCH CO2 THAT WOULD APPEAR IF THE MECHANISM OF THE FLOOD ACTUALLY OCCURRED.  WE WOULD BE IN AN ENVIRONMENT RESEMBLING VENUS!

Recent studies about volcanic extrusions showed the following.
Quote
There are huge lava flows on earth, called volcanic traps, which must have occurred during the flood year because they lie on top of supposed flood deposited sedimentary rock and beneath flood deposited sedimentary rock. So if the geology requires that they be extruded during the flood, how much sulfuric acid {and CO2} must come with them?


A listing of such extrusions (traps) results in over 98x10^6 cubic kilometers of basalt.  From this number we have
Quote
So at 3.6 megatons/km3 x 98 x 106 cubic kilometers of basalt = 3.5 x 1014 tons of CO2.

Given that there are 1016 kg/ton this means that during the one year flood, 3.47 x 10^17 kg of CO2 would be released. According to my CRC the mass of the atmosphere is 5.2 x 10^21 g or 5.2 x 10^18 kg. Thus the amount of CO2 released ONLY by the volcanic traps during the YEC global flood, is equal to 6.6% of the entire atmosphere.

WOW!!!!!  6.6% CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.  JUST FROM THESE VOLCANIC TRAPS.  HOW CAN THIS BE?!?!
These investigations then compare this CO2 level to some actual measurements on earth.
Quote
How does this relate to the present atmosphere? Currently we are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the YEC scenario would produce an atmosphere that had AS A MINIMUM a CO2 level of 58615 parts per million. Scientists are worried about a 600 ppm CO2 world next century, the YEC post flood world would create such a hot climate that all life would be destroyed. Yet amazingly, Creationists like Austin, Baumgardner, Wise, Snelling, Vardiman, Humphreys and Oard think that the post flood world would be glacially cold. (See "Austin et al, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" 3rd ICC 1994, p. 615 and Michael Oard, A rapid Post Flood Ice Age," CRSQ 16(1979):29-37; Oard, An Ice age Caused by the Genesis Flood, 1990 ICR).

SEE THAT!!!  ALL THOSE YEC SCIENTISTS ARE REFUTED WITH THIS MATH!!!  IS THERE ANY RECOVERY FOR THE YEC POSITION?
Quote
Of course, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas and young-earth creationists have not given the thought to this issue that they should have. Their global flood would choke Noah on sulfuric acid and then choke him again on the CO2, and with an atmosphere so clogged with CO2, Noah would burn up. Venus has an atmosphere with lots of CO2 and the temperature there is several hundred degrees C.! But somehow, YECs want us to believe that the postflood, CO2 rich atmosphere would be very cold. Is there any scientific fact that will move them to reconsider their views?


Of course, faced with such facts and refutations of the flood.  What can we expect from AFDave?

Over to you Dave.  You can't claim there is a flood without accounting for the CO2 release in the atmosphere caused by the volcanic traps.

Mike PSS

*************************
If Dave can't accept scientific journals then he can certainly accept some analysis from a different perspective.
Source:  This article and others are Dave's worst nightmare.  A shared worldview teleologically (like some commenters on this board have already indicated) requires Dave to answer the questions factually.  Which he can't.

Date: 2006/12/13 20:45:00, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (NOTafdave @ today)
"What is the fundamental difference between a micro-evolution and macro-evolution?"

One word.

TIME

First,how are they similar?
1) Both use the same mechanisms for change.
2) Both use the same mechanisms for change.
3) Both use the same mechanisms for change.

So how are they different in the most fundamental sense?

TIME

That's it really in the final analysis.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?

Simply this ...

1) Micro-evolution utilizes the mechanisms of evolution to exhibit change over time in a species.
2) MORE TIME means more changes in a species which leads to macro-evolution.

Think about it ...

There ... is that better?  

Now ... if you disagree, could you tell me WHY ... specifically?

Wow.  I like this form of presenting ideas.

Maybe Dave can respond to the implications raised above.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/15 15:56:02, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,09:01)
Now ... your objections.  Remember, the most effective objections--if you have any--are ones directed at my specific points.  It won't help anyone (and Steve thinks it makes you look bad) to just say stuff like "Dave. You're an idiot."  That's fine if you think that.  But please tell me HOW I'm an idiot and WHY--in detail--my particular statement is idiotic.

O.K. Dave.  I'm game to parse this post at your invitation.  Maybe you'll actually respond.  I think I'll keep my objections to only one point.

You first said.....
Quote
Here is some "anti"-misinformation stuff to keep the water unmuddy ...

1) {snip}

2) Understand what I am NOT saying ...

a) I am not saying anything about general tests for complexity
b) [/b]I am not invoking teleology (purpose in design)[/b] in any way for this argument ... it is not needed
c ) Malum asks a good question "How can God not be designed" ... but that is not part of this argument

So you don't want to invoke teleology at all.  No mention, no purpose, just design detection a la ID.  We continue with your next statements....

Quote
THE ARGUMENT EXPLAINED IN MORE DETAIL
Clear everything else from your mind and understand this ...

1) "WE KNOW ABOUT WATCH DESIGNERS" NOT A VALID OBJECTION.  You already accept that watches are designed.  Why?  Someone said it's because we KNOW something about watch designers.  Yes, you do ... but wait a minute ... HOW do you know about them?  Have you ever met one?  Have you ever been to his factory?  Have you ever watched this process in action?  I doubt it.  You have probably done nothing more than heard or read reports in some form ... a magazine, a book, TV ... whatever.  And ... now here is the key thing.  You accepted the testimony of the reporter ... on faith.  Yes, I said faith.  You put your trust in that reporter or author to give you the truth about how watches are made.  Was it blind faith like some people believe certain religious things?  No.  It was a reasonable faith, grounded in good evidence.  It is reasonable to believe that these reports are true.

Now why did we go through this?  

Simply so that I can demonstrate to you that in both cases -- the watch and the butterfly -- we have been given reports of how they were made.  We just looked at the reports informing us about watchmaking.  And the report for how butterflies are made, of course, is in the Book of Genesis.

Well Dave.  You didn't take long to counter your own promise to exclude teleology.  Your premise of butterfly design is based upon the Bible.  A truckload of teleology right there.  But you try to back your way out of the words you just typed (maybe using the 'Delete' key isn't known to your typing skills)...

Quote
The difference is ... you feel you have good reason to believe one report, but you feel that you have good reason to doubt the other.  You DO NOT need to accept the report in the Bible for my argument to work.

How can WE not accept the Bible as an explanation when your entire premise is based upon that book.  Your fallacy here is that your entire basis for your point rests upon the Bible account of Genesis.  There is no other reference given, except your own word and you talked about trusting the story teller if you can't see the evidence.  I'm SURE that if you ask the people on this board if they trust you on your word then the answers would resoundly reply "NO!!!"  So if you remove the Bible as your evidence what do you have left to support your whole butterfly analogy?

Does that make sense to you?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/15 16:06:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,15:44)
Improv ...
Quote
We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and butterflies consist of similar technology, butterflies are also built by humans.


Almost right.  

Change that last word "humans" to "higher intelligence" and you've got it!

(As in higher intelligence than human intelligence)

****************************************

And I am looking forward to seeing how many people go on record with a "Yes" answer to my most recent question of Dr. Durbin.

So watches are to humans using human technology as butterflys are to "higher intelligence"...... using human technology??

W-h-a-a-a-a-a-t??

Is this really your position Dave?  That the butterfly design used human technology?  Is that the road were on right now?

Please elaborate a little.

Date: 2006/12/16 23:41:08, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,09:05)
Mike PSS is trying to bring the Bible back into the discussion, but it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Wrong Dave.  Your the one who mentioned the Bible in the first place THEN tried to discard its use to your analogy.  I then showed how you can't discard it because....

You said evidence of watch making factories (your term) is needed UNLESS you trust the journalist (tv show, written article, etc....).
You then compared butterflies to watches and said the evidence is in the Bible, but we don't need that evidence BECAUSE YOU ARE TELLING US ALL ABOUT IT!.  YOU ARE ASKING US TO TRUST YOU ABOUT THE WHOLE BUTTERFLY STORY.

AND WE DON'T TRUST YOUR STORY!

So produce the evidence please.  The Wiki article didn't quite cut it.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/16 23:55:31, Link
Author: Mike PSS
First, to stick my neck out, I haven't read the references (yet).

Has there been any agreement from the researchers involved about the environmental conditions at the time of abiogenesis?

If this is answered in the linked references then I'll find out eventually.

If not, shouldn't finding this out be condition 0) for your tract.

Date: 2006/12/18 08:14:40, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 17 2006,18:08)
Mike PSS,

   
Quote
Has there been any agreement from the researchers involved about the environmental conditions at the time of abiogenesis?

{snip}......{/snip}

If not, shouldn't finding this out be condition 0) for your tract.


I honestly don't know if there has been "agreement", depending on what one means by agreement. Are there a variety of plausible evidence based scenarios, one of which has yet to be 100% settled on by all relevant experts everywhere? Yes. So as for agreement the answer is yes and no!

Should this be condition 0) for my "tract"?

[Outraged John Cleese voice]

Well the first thought is "tract"? I'm fucking Jack Chick now am I? Tract? Kiss my heavily polished not particularly black arse! Tract. Fuck off.

[/Outraged John Cleese voice]


Ok so I'm kidding about, don't take the above to heart or in any way seriously.

What I think the question is is this:

"Is a complete description of the environmental conditions for the early earth, when we think abiogenesis occured, available?"

Ahhhh... so many ways to respond to Mr. Cleese.  Shall it be classic MP?  Some of the stage work?  Films (I was thinking Kevin Klinesque at first since the psedo-psychological rantings could produce some chuckles).  Naw, I choose the simple route.

[Normal Manuel voice]
"Qué?"
[/Normal Manuel voice]

*****************************
My comment, although sparse in detail, is angled more on the 'energy pump' aspects of any first self-replication survivor.  With your references and others I see a few alternatives for the energy source, and eventual energy stream, for our first bugs.

1.  Sulfide/Sulfate energy source.  Originating source from the hydrothermal vents that have most likely existed on earth since the oceans first formed.
(O.K. Sulphur for you East Atlantists, I'll also state that Al-U-Min-E-Um is more correct but becoming more archaic.  Color....   errrrr  Colour me surprised that you cling on to this usage as "MORE" correct)

2.  Water surface energy source, maybe a CO2 or hydrocarbon source.

3.  Specific catalysis products in some specific area.  This source could be a vent from a large deposit of hydrides (H2 product is possible) or other such chemistry where a catalysis starts the breakdown of an older geologic deposit after some specific geologic change (uplift exposure to air/rain, fold exposure to water, volcanism through formerly stable areas, metamorphic change, etc...).

The first 'energy pump' piece of abiogenesis would have to be a simple system and the self-replicator may have located itself in an area where unstable (read higher-energy) sources of chemicals occur so that the first 'energy pump' consisted of simple autocatalytic (or catalytic, see below) one-step reaction.

Another aspect of these conditions is the availability of catalysts.  Although autocatalytic processes are an easier condition, a catalytic process may be necessary in these early conditions.  As Deadman referenced...  
Quote
Montmorillionite Clays and catalysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....2458736 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....5570708
Clays seem pretty interesting in terms of autocatalysis and early cell formation, etc.

Deadman, just had one correction on your comment.  Autocatalysis implies no external factors.  The presence of clays (Fe, Mg, Mn, etc...) would be external catalysis only.
Anyway, the first replicator could use an available catalytic source (say a clay ball) located near a source of higher-energy molecules (list above) to source its energy for life.

I'll become more verbose on this thread to bore the he11 out of everyone.

Mike PSS

I'm a BSc chemical engineer and spent the last 10 years working in industrial production.  My first seven was with phosphate fertilizer manufacture.  Interesting process;
-first making 8000 tons per day (tpd) of sulfuric acid by burning liquid sulphur (SO2) then catalysing to SO3 then scrubbing to H2SO4 (98%).
-then using all that sulfuric acid to attack 12,000 tpd of phosphate ore (the drag lines at the mines are massive) becoming phosphoric acid and gypsum.
-combine the phosphoric acid with liquid ammonia and you get 7,500 tpd of a high quality Di-ammonium Phosphate (18-46-0) or Mono-ammonium Phosphate (10-50-0).
Big equipment, big material balances and big energy swings in every process.  Lots of fun after the lab scale processes taught in school.

Date: 2006/12/18 10:55:41, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,09:54)
LIFE / NON-LIFE DEMARCATION LINE WILL BECOME FUZZY WITH TIME
The truth is that, thanks to our high technology, we will be able to create machines which are more and more automated, self-fueling, self-maintaining, etc., and our manufacturing will continue to become more and more efficient until we reach the ultimate in manufacturing efficiency and are able to duplicate biological reproduction in our own technology.

We are headed to this future ... fast!

And when we get there, all of you folks will have a really hard time explaining how, on the one hand, it took some brilliant intelligence to produce the man-made self-duplicating, self-feeding, self-maintaining machine, but on the other hand, the very similar biological one made itself!

Whoo boy!  That's gonna be ugly!  Egg on many faces.

What are the conclusions here?

Again ...

1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch
2) The differences boil down to degree of technological sophistication, nothing absolute or fundamental.  They use elements from the same periodic table. The same laws of physics apply to both.
3) In archaeology, if you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology (writing, pottery, etc.), you conclude that it had an Intelligent Cause, do you not?
4) In biology, we also find thousands of artifacts in every living cell that resemble known creations of human technology.  Why would we rule out the possibility of an Intelligent Cause in this case?

Especially when the alternative idea, ToE, has ZERO experimental proof of new structures being formed by RM+NS.  In fact, the opposite has been proven experimentally ... "speeded up evolution" on fruit flies only produced dead and mangled fruit flies, not fruit flies with new structures.

********************

* Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Evolution.
* Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Creationism.
* Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Bible.
* Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Teleology.
* Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of the Nature of the Putative Intelligent Designer - it could be an alien on some planet for all we know.


****************************

I have to hand it to you Dave.  You caught me totally off gaurd with this bit of (il)logic and (non)reasoning.  Mainly because my brain isn't wired up in such a convoluted worldview as yours.

I'm beginning to see "your" light but my conclusions are not what you think.  Playing "your" game, I challange you (over the next 20, 50, he11 100 pages) to figure out what I'm actually saying in this statement (instead of coming out and stating it clearly and concisely without the semantics and misdirections you consistently use).

Your "four" conclusions are actually "two" comparisons.  Point 1) is a basis statement and Point 2) is purely clarification of Point 1).  Point 3) and 4) are the meat of your argument.  Unfortunately you haven't exhibited any logical underpinnings in your argument.  When I break down these statements I get the following.  And I'll show you where you are going wrong.

Point 3)....
If {archeological artifact}={human technology} then {intelligent cause}.

Point 4)....
If {biologic artifact}={human technology} then {intelligent cause}.

So you see that your comparing (anthropomorphising) all life mechanisms (machines to you) to human technology.
The problem here is that your {intelligent cause} result can only be {humanity} because of the direct comparison and similar conclusion.

And you want to tie this all together by comparing analagous (i.e. non-existent) automatons derived from human technology to biologic equivelence.  However, even if you pull this analogy off your conclusion statements in Point 3) and 4) STILL point to {humanity}={intelligent cause}.

I pointed this out a long time ago and your still missing the explanation.  Your problem with this argument is based upon your anthropocentric world view (as a guess).  You can't remove humanity from your thinking because it's too hard wired into your reality.  Take a step back and try and figure this out.  Otherwise your own twisted logic will continue to show everyone false and misleading conclusions when we parse your statements down to the basic points.

Also.....
This helps your UCGH how??

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/18 11:37:43, Link
Author: Mike PSS
It was this piece of babbling....
 
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 15 2006,13:33)
Anyway there is no need for John Davison to explain his view outlined in Manifesto.
All that he has written there seems to be correct. First I was struck by his claim (or better his citation of Broom) that evolution is finished.  Brooms claim:

             
Quote

In Eocene times -- say between 50,000,000 and 30,000,000 years ago -- small primitive mammals rather suddenly gave rise to over a dozen very different Orders -- hoofed animals, odd-toed and even-toed, elephants, carnivores, whales, rodents, bats and monkeys.  And after this there were no more Orders of mammals ever evolved.  There were great varieties of evolution in the Orders that had appeared, but strangely enough Nature seemed incapable of forming any more new Orders...
                               (1951), page 107


I checked it in modern sources and I found this:

             
Quote

"..i.e., euprimates: lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, and apes) and Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates such as horses, tapirs, and rhinos)-also appeared abruptly and in abundance in early Eocene Holarctic deposits, with little indication of their ancestry."


Darwinists to defend their views use a claim that "the mammalian Orders" is a human invention and in fact such division does not exist in Nature (its btw old philosophical dispute between nominalism vs. realism). Anyway its hardly to believe that mammalian families are also the human invention. Yet:    

             
Quote

"A number of mammal orders show peaks of family diversityaround the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, such as Soricomorpha, Rodentia, Primates, Artiodactyla and Proboscidea."


             
Quote

The great diversity of Holarctic primates during the
Eocene indicates that at least 90% of modern diversity
would already have been reached by the Middle Eocene.


             
Quote

Perissodactyls were once much more diverse...Only seventeen species of perissodactyls remain on the Earth today, a shadow of the group's former glory.


and much much more that supports Brooms and John Davisons conclusion that evolution is finished.

John Davison need not search sources that support his claims. Internet is full of them. Just check it yourself.

Along with this follow-up babbling ....  
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 17 2006,07:24)
 
Quote

What reasons can you give us for why you think evolution has to continue to produce new mammalian orders after all the available ecological niches were filled?  


Why not? As you know there were much more mammalian families in Eocene as today are.
Do you mean that there were much more "ecological niches" at that time comparing nowadays?

that convinced me that VMartian can't think his way out of an open closet with the light on because a white robe is coverring him.

My only sensible question to Mr. Martian is to explain how Australia native species are holding up to invasions of external species brought into the environment.  Then to compare this to the plate conditions 30mm to 50mm years ago.  Will the number of mammillian species increase or decrease in the world after this "competition" for ecologic niches reaches it's eventual conclusion over time.

And I didn't have to open a book or find a reference to come up with this little challange.

I don't expect a cogent response to this at all.  More handwaving, semantics and convolusions are expected from VMartian considerring his past behaviour.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/18 12:24:32, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:48)
Mike PSS ...      
Quote
So you see that your comparing (anthropomorphising) all life mechanisms (machines to you) to human technology.
The problem here is that your {intelligent cause} result can only be {humanity} because of the direct comparison and similar conclusion.
Not true.  It suggests an {intelligent cause} which is MORE INTELLIGENT than {humanity}.  Why?  Because the technology is more sophisticated, more elegant, more efficient, more miniaturized, etc. etc.  In short, more high tech.  And this is attested by no less an authority than Bill Gates ...      
Quote
 “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  (The Road Ahead, p. 188)


So a logical explanation might be ...

1) An advanced alien civilization, or ...
2) Some sort of God ...

(Don't worry about how it helps my CGH at the moment.  Right now I'm interested in why you would disagree with this conclusion.)

Again Dave your butcherring the logical argument.  You just changed your statements with this clarification (moved the goal posts) and your equations become....

Point 3ver1)...
If {archeaological artifact}={human technology} then {intelligent cause}.

Point 4ver2)...
If {biologic artifact}={more high-tech than human technology} then {more intelligent than human cause}

Your original Points actually had comparible consistency.  The version2 of Point 4) doesn't have that because you now need additional conclusions to equate {human technology} to {more high-tech than human technology} AND {intelligent cause (humanity as I pointed out)} to {more intelligent than human cause}.

You can state that you ASS-U-ME that an alien or G0D are the {more high-tech than human technology} and {more intelligent than human cause} but you still need to equivicate this to terms in Point 3) by adding two more (at least) conclusions.  If you don't define these terms the logical conclusion is that you are just "stating" these terms into existance then "stating" that your comparison makes sense.  The proverbial "Goddidit" or "Unknown Telic Entity Didit" (whichever you prefer).

Logic is like mathamatics.  You can't have terms (variables) hanging around without some type of definition or equivication.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/18 12:40:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 18 2006,13:34)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,08:54)
What are the conclusions here?

Again ...

1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch.

Dave, Dave, Dave. You really need to keep better track of your own arguments.

Eric,
Dave gets tripped over his own semantics all the time.  I said above that Point 1) and Point 2) of his "conclusions" were actually just statements to set up his conclusion comparison in Point 3) and Point 4).  Here's his quote...
Quote
Again ...

1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch
2) The differences boil down to degree of technological sophistication, nothing absolute or fundamental.  They use elements from the same periodic table. The same laws of physics apply to both.
3) In archaeology, if you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology (writing, pottery, etc.), you conclude that it had an Intelligent Cause, do you not?
4) In biology, we also find thousands of artifacts in every living cell that resemble known creations of human technology.  Why would we rule out the possibility of an Intelligent Cause in this case?

Notice that Points 1) and 2) are (should) be one statement.  Or at least state in Point 1) that there is no difference in elements (i.e. same perodic table).

Back to your regularly scheduled parsing.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/18 13:45:47, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:52)
Eric, Eric, Eric ... my lawyer ... er ... lawyeresque friend ...

Your "Watches can't reproduce" thing that you got from Russell isn't working.

Quit  typing so much and re-read my posts and you will see why.

Jeannot already agreed with me and you all would to, if you were honest.

So Dave reads the logical challanges to his most recent attempt at logic.

AFDave:  "Biologic Machines have intelligent designers because we know that archeological discoveries have intelligent designers."  And Jeannot agrees with me.

Mike PSS:  "Ummm... Your "intellegent designer" is HUMANS in both cases if you look closely (logically) at your argument."

AFDave:  "Biologic Machines have HIGHER INTELLIGENCE designers because we know that archeological discoveries have intelligent designers".  How about them road-apples.

Mike PSS:  "Ummm...  Now you moved the goal posts.  You have to go back and define "HIGHER INTELLIGENCE designers" or equate them to "intelligent designers"".

AFDave:  "Jeannot already agreed with me and you would too if you were honest."

To which I will respond.... U-m-m-m-m-m-m-m....

I really don't have a response to this ad hominum (questioning my honesty).  I think I'll wait a little more to see if Dave actually responds to my logical argument.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/18 13:53:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
We should get some ideas together for AFDave to insert as his avatar.  I can't believe he hasn't modernised his character on this board.

No poo-flinging either.  I suggest TWO submissions from each contributer.
First submission is what you WANT to see as an AFDAVE avatar.
Second submission is what you THINK AFDave would actually place as an avatar.

What I want....

What I think AFDave would accept...


Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/19 12:40:19, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
I've been trying to explain to you HOW to satisfy the logical argument your trying to make.

You just aren't listening.... at all.

I said you needed to equivicate (link, compare, quantify) your terms in your argument.

You need to explain to everyone how the leap from {Equal Tech in Archaeology} to {Higher Tech in Biology} is somehow comparative.  You need to do the same thing with {Equal intelligence to humans} to {Higher intelligence than humans}.  Since you have stated to everyone that you base this on complexity you can establish the equivelance statements by defining complexity in this context.

These equivecations are quantitative by definition (notice the mathy language in logic).

Once you make these equivecations, only THEN can you make further qualitative statements based upon the quantitative basis of your equivelence definition.

The statue in Ur compared to a modern statue is a qualitative measure because there are readily established and published norms (definitions, equivelances, links, etc.) about the nature of these statues and their creators (human artisans in this case).

Improvious and OA are correct in their statements.  They're just feeding you these requirements one morsel at a time.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/19 12:49:58, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,13:28)
Improv ... I defined my "=>" sign as "produced by" in this context ... you are crashing and burning so often today, I can't keep track of it all!

Dave,
In what way is "produced by" not quantitative.

I produce a number of widgets in a certain amount of time and it costs me money for raw materials but I make a profit at the end of the day because my widget sales are good.

Please elaborate.

Date: 2006/12/19 14:57:54, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,14:10)
Mike PSS ...      
Quote
The statue in Ur compared to a modern statue is a qualitative measure because there are readily established and published norms (definitions, equivelances, links, etc.) about the nature of these statues and their creators (human artisans in this case).
Yes, precisely.  Thank you--yet another person--for making my point for me.  This is too cool! :p  :p  :p

We DO have readily established and published norms for doing qualitative comparisons with biological machines as well.

Did you not read this Bruce Alberts piece that I referred you to?      
Quote
Most important for the future of our field, the departmental structures at most universities seem to have thus far prevented any major rethinking of what preparation in mathematics, what preparation in physics, and what preparation in chemistry is most appropriate for either the research biologists or the medical doctors who will be working 10 or 20 years from now. The result is a mismatch between what today’s students who are interested in biology should be learning and the actual course offerings that are available to them. It is largely for this reason, I believe, that so many talented young biologists feel that mathematics, chemistry, and physics are of minor importance to their careers.

It is my hope that some of the young scientists who read this issue of Cell will come to the realization that much of the great future in biology lies in gaining a detailed understanding of the inner workings of the cell’s many marvelous protein machines. With this perspective, students may well be motivated to gain the background in the quantitative sciences that they will need to explore this subject successfully. But they will need faculty in our colleges and universities to lead them.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Jonathan Alberts for his explanations of how engineers analyze machines, Mei Lie Wong for preparation of the figure,and Teresa Donovan for manuscript preparation.

Alberts on Cells


Think of that!  The President of the National Academy of Sciences, consulting with an engineer to help him analyze marvelous protein machines!!

And Mike PSS seems to think we don't have established norms for analyzing them!

Whoo boy!  This thread gets funnier and funnier!

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Thank You Dave,
You have taken the first step down this primrose path of knowledge.  However, you seem to have tripped at the first brick.

Now, all you have to do is answer this question.
HOW does that quote equivicate {human technology} to {higher than human technology} and {human design} to {higher intellegence design}.  You have to take what Alberts said, and how he defines what you say are his norms, and show how this statement supports your equivication.  

We are asking for this one bit of work from you so that we can understand how you can make this comparison between the above terms because it seems that the statement is very qualitative ("{cell contents} to {machines}") but the author doesn't quite take the next step and DEFINE what is meant with the statement.

Oh wait....  the author WASN'T stating that cells are machines, he was using an analagous concept to state that cells are like machines.  This is a qualitative definition and doesn't serve the purpose you need.  Unless you can show otherwise.

Unfortunately Dave, you are stateing an absolute.  You are CONCLUDING that...
If {Biologic Artifacts} then {Higher than human technology} therefore {Higher than human intelligence}
and you are deriving this CONCLUSION from the basis of known facts that...
If {Human Artifacts} then {Human technology} therefore {human intelligence}.

I see we need to keep explaining to you that to make this CONCLUSION you need to define the links between the CONCLUSION statement and the basis statement.

You haven't provided this link yet.  So therefore, all statements made about your present conclusion are ENTIRELY BASED UPON YOUR OWN IMAGINATION (qualitative measuring device).

Your victory claims are ringing more hollow on every post.  I hope your having fun playing in the sandbox of your own imagination (Wheeeeeee).

Date: 2006/12/19 15:21:03, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
Maybe you picked this up already, maybe not.  But Bill Dembski has already tried to make the link between {human intellingence} and {higher than human intelligence} in all his works.  The ID movement used "CHANCE" as their equivication because they could use the basis of randomness in actual equations.

So Dembski started with Behe's idea of Irreducable Complexity (IC).  Since IC was qualitative (it's complex so must be designed) Dembski then created a concept like Complex Specified Information (CSI) then created a mechanism to measure CSI called the Explanatory Filter (EF).  So with years of "hard" work and three or four books (none peer-reviewed of course) the ID system that is ANALAGOUS to yours is....

If {Some Biologic system is IC} then {IC system contain CSI} therefore, using EF {Biologic system is designed}

That's a huge butcherring of the ID position, but it doesn't matter because no-one (not even the ID people) have clearly defined IC and CSI as it relates to real world biologic systems.  Nor have they clearly subjected the EF to proper testing to describe real world (or any world) biologic systems.

You want to shortcut ALL this work and go back to what Behe was saying ten years ago.  Basically that Biologic systems are complex so must be designed.

Well, sorry, but that ain't good enough.  You need to provide the proper equivications before that statement holds any substance outside of your imagination.  And it doesn't take anyone long to find out that a subjective stance like that holds no facts or basis in reality.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/19 18:00:03, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 19 2006,18:25)
Pretty much sums up 2006 for ID.

EDIT: Shit! Keiths beat me to it by seconds! You bastid!  :angry:

And just to rub salt in...

I clicked on keiths link instead of yours.

His is more "primary".  :D

Date: 2006/12/19 20:01:59, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 19 2006,19:43)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 19 2006,18:00)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 19 2006,18:25)
Pretty much sums up 2006 for ID.

EDIT: Shit! Keiths beat me to it by seconds! You bastid!  :angry:

And just to rub salt in...

I clicked on keiths link instead of yours.

His is more "primary".  :D

Ah! But my link is now in TWO posts!

Make that three, actually.

I win again! You homo. -dt

Not according to my math.


See, keiths was first and beats you in five different catagories.  :O

Date: 2006/12/19 20:57:52, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2006,21:50)
Time to settle this the DaveTard way.

OUCH Arden.

That's gotta hurt in any language.

**Edit** And anyway, keiths still wins.  You were reading your language backwards.  Tard.

Date: 2006/12/20 13:47:26, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 20 2006,13:11)
Hmm...no posts this morning. I wonder how many people need to flush their DNS caches...

Tried a long post numerous times.  Now for a short post.

Date: 2006/12/20 13:56:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Hmmmmm....
My long post didn't work again.  I'll have to retype and try again.  Maybe the new server or something.

Anyway, in shorthand.

Dave,
Your wrong again.  You've been wrong every since you started this trainwreck of an argument (what... the fifth time this month, unlucky traveller or what).  I can show you exactly HOW you went wrong if I ever get this server to accept my stuff.

In the meantime.  TRUST ME.  YOU KNOW MY WORD IS GOOD FOR IT.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/21 08:06:05, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 20 2006,18:57)
"You are all wrong about everything.  Completely.  Trust me.  I'm way smarter than you!"

Ahhh Dave.  You see, your arrogance got in the way of your sarcasm.  I only said....
Quote
Dave,
Your wrong again.  You've been wrong every since you started this trainwreck of an argument (what... the fifth time this month, unlucky traveller or what).  I can show you exactly HOW you went wrong if I ever get this server to accept my stuff.

In the meantime.  TRUST ME.  YOU KNOW MY WORD IS GOOD FOR IT.


You see the difference?  I'm not stating any superiority of intellect or knowledge.  I'm only stating that I have the facts on my side and will show them to you.  I then ask that you "trust" based upon my past behaviour.

Now, you can NOT trust me and ask for the facts.  I indicated I have them and will present them if required (i.e. you not trusting me that my position is correct).  In fact, this is the same thing I did to you recently.  I stated that I didn't trust your word and needed you to present the facts that you based your statements.

So....
Do you accept my trust and admit your wrong on this subject?
OR
Do you NOT accept my trust and require further facts to SHOW you how your wrong on this subject?

Mike PSS

p.s.  Dave.  Notice that I'm not calling you a moron, a loon, a mendicant, a bashibazook (thank you Tintin), or a slavering maniacal control freak.  I'm not calling you any of these things.  Nor am I indicating that my intellect and logical reasoning is superior to yours.  Not doing that at all.

Date: 2006/12/21 09:00:14, Link
Author: Mike PSS
AVATAR REQUEST FOR AFDAVE

Dave.  It's Christmas time and the gift of giving is in the air.  For my gift in this season I can only offer you honest critisism (better than dishonest panderring to your ego however).

We had a collection of ideas about what type of avatar you should accept recently.  The ideas are split between what the submitter thought would best represent you (in the submitters eyes) and how they thought you would represent yourself.  In general terms here's the finalists....

What we thought you should look like.
Insertion of body item into body orifice.  3 submissions.
WINNERLess than average intelligence.  4 submissions.
Air Farce related scenes.  2 submissions.

How we thought you represent yourself.
WINNERGod's annointed messenger.  2.5 submissions.
Admitted Creationist.  2 submissions.
He-Man type Lord of the Universe.  1.5 submission

With these results I offer you the following options to insert as your Avatar on this board.
Right-click on the image you like below and select "properties".
Highlight the path of the image and copy to the clipboard (Ctrl-C).
Click on "Your Control Panel" at the top of the page.
Click on "Personal Info" tab.
Click on "Avatar Options".
At the bottom of the page paste (Ctrl-V) the path you copied into the "Your Avatar" block.
Choose a dimension (64x64 is max).
Happy avatar.

So.....  Here are the images to choose from.

 




Happy avatar.  It will be interesting to see which one your choose.

Date: 2006/12/21 09:19:04, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Finally got my syntax correct.  Tried to post this yesterday.
********************************
Dave,
This whole train wreck (you must me an unlucky traveller, this is the fifth one this month) started after your feeble attempt to "prove" design".  Despite being pulped, misted, and dispersed to the nether regions you summarized your (fully refuted) points in a meanderring post that had no direct link between cause and effect.
 
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,15:48)

Look.  Let's simplify this even further.

1) Stone age ancestor has to get smarter, better lookin', more civilized, etc.
2) What's a Pithecanthropus supposed to do to achieve this?
3) Well mutate!  By golly!  
4) Mutate, mutate, mutate ... keep them dogies mutatin' (Note: recombination only makes varied Pithecanthropi, not Super-Pithecanthropi)
5) Problem: how do we keep the harmful ones from outrunning the good ones? (In spite of natural selection)
6) Truncation selection to the rescue!  Ta da!
7) Problem: Crow says it doesn't work -- proposes "Quasi" version.
8) OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al
9) Meanwhile:  mutate, mutate, mutate ...
10) Problem: We now have no mechanism for helping the good mutations outrun the bad ones
11) Problem: this will lead to genetic meltdown according to the geneticists
12) Hey wait a minute!  Didn't Crow say we are genetically INFERIOR to these ancestors?
13) How did we get to be genetically inferior if mutations made us smarter, better lookin', etc.?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious problem.

Conclusion:  A Designer, not mutations and recombination, created humans.


You used this as a summary post about mutations (eating Crow indeed) but you felt if you simplified your argument then MAYBE the readers on this board would understand your point....
 
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,18:28)
Let's try a new tack on this mutation thing ...

Russell (or anyone)--  Since you called me down on my watchmaker analogy ...

What do you think is the fundamental difference between a watch, and a butterfly (to pick any old critter)?

(This may sound unrelated, but go with me on it ... just answer the question.  Hint:  I'm looking for 10 words or less.)


So you posted this additional "challange" to the "evo's"...
 
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,12:21)
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUTTERFLIES AND WATCHES (AND WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE EVO/CREO DEBATE)
(Ooops!  Pardon me ... I forgot ... there IS no debate ... strike that!;)

"What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

One word.

COMPLEXITY

All the answers given by you guys are correct, but they are not as fundamental as this key difference.  Think about it.

First, how are they similar?
1) Both are constructed from the exact same elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
2) Both have a legitimate purpose for their existence outside themselves: watches tell time, make the wearer feel classy, etc., butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty, inspire artists, etc.
3) Both get worn out over time
4) Both have intricate mechanisms and systems which are coordinated and work together to achieve the purposes stated above

So how are they different in the most fundamental sense?

COMPLEXITY

That's it really in the final analysis.

1) The butterfly can reproduce.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial implications if we could figure out how to make watches reproduce!
2) The butterfly has self-maintenance systems.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial impact if someone would invent self-maintaining cars, washing machines and airplanes!
3) The butterfly can refuel itself automatically.  The watch has no such complex system.  We are now seeing some systems like this in man-made technology, i.e. the robot vacuum cleaner that can navigate itself to the charging station, etc.
4) The butterfly has all manner of highly sophisticated robotic systems--vision, touch, flight, navigation, taste, etc.  The watch has none of this.

On and on we could go, but you get the idea.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?
Simply this ...

1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence.
2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.

Think about it ...


Now, you've been flailing around this post for a week because you want to make qualitative conclusions from the quantitative basis of your argument.  Right in the last two points you actually state a quantitative measure ("MORE comlex systems...) yet you still don't get it.

You then blind-folded yourself and started arguing against your original post.  In response to Russel you used this twisted bit of illogic reasoning....  
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,22:52)
WATCHES AND BUTTERFLIES ... AN EASY PROOF FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER

Dr. Russell Durbin says ...  
Quote
The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.

This is not correct.  Let me explain why.  Think about what reproductive capacity is.  Break it down and analyze it like a good scientist should.  

What you will find is that it simply means that the replication system (machines, tools, plans) are external to the watch, but in the case of the butterfly, the replication system is internal.  And this simply boils down to complexity, i.e. more in the case of the butterfly.

Do you see?

So the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch is, as I said -- COMPLEXITY -- more in the case of the butterfly.

This being the case, then it should be quite obvious that IF the watch requires a designer, then the butterfly does also, but much more so.

When Russell says reproductive capability is a "difference" between and watch and a butterfly YOU DISAGREE.  But (but....but....but....but) in your original post you stated for everyone that reproduction capability WAS A DIFFERENCE.

Then you ramble on about MORE and LESS complexity (a quantitative measure) but you eventually seem to think this is a qualitative measure.

Dave,
You are absolutely lost in your attempt to present this idea based upon complexity.  You don't know what you said, don't know where your going, and don't know how to get there anyway.  Time to move on to the ice age.

Mike PSS

HINT:  Remember Dave.  All you have to give up is the 6000 year old thing and a lot of the arguments you make will have a better, more reasonable basis.  Think about it.

**Edit** Fixed the reference to quantitative.  Thanks Improv.

Date: 2006/12/21 10:00:10, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,10:45)
Improv ...  Whether you choose to use the word "qualitative" or "quantitative" about your own "technology tests" does not matter.  The point is ...  I am applying the same test to biological technology as you are applying to evaluate ancient technology discovered by archaeologists.

You seem to be the most lucid at the moment so I will ask you ...

Do you disagree with this?  If so why?

Dave,
Let's say I find a rock with a sharp edge.  How can I qualitatively determine whether this rock is a designed tool or just a sharp rock?

I know how to quantitatively determine this but you state in your point 1) that we determine archeological design qualitatively.

Date: 2006/12/21 11:26:46, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:36)
Mike PSS ...        
Quote
Dave,
Let's say I find a rock with a sharp edge.  How can I qualitatively determine whether this rock is a designed tool or just a sharp rock?

I know how to quantitatively determine this but you state in your point 1) that we determine archeological design qualitatively.
Mike-- As I told Improvius, I don't care how you label the test.  But I determine it with my eyeballs in the same way that you do.  This test would not work if the object was questionable.  We would need something more rigorous.  But it works great for stuff like arrowheads and pottery ... and many biological machines!

So where in this figure does it work?  And where DOESN"T it work.  Be specific because that is what your trying to do... identify machines.


I guess we can look at the mitochondria like this...

But where do we store all the waste?
However, to put this in perspective we can't compare to a power plant since the chemical process for energy in a mitochondria is this...


So what "machine" is this process comparable to?
***************************

Maybe Alberts was using an ANALOGY instead of absolutely stating that all the cell functions were machines.

Date: 2006/12/21 12:00:44, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,12:35)
BOTH DESIGNED ... HOW DO WE KNOW?  INTUITION

Ancient stone tools ... and ... modern tools

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Your wrong though.  The ancient tools are metric so your "intuition" is wrong.
*******************

By the way.  You never did address my question about "which" parts of the cells we CAN'T identify as machines.

And if we can't identify these parts as machines then we can't "infer" design.

And if we can't "infer" design then these parts evolved by chance.  Q.E.D. I believe according to your past logic.

Date: 2006/12/21 13:27:43, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,14:04)
Quote
Now, I'll give you this much: the _model_ of a flagellar motor in the picture was clearly human designed. But you wouldn't be silly enough to mistake design in a model for design in the original, would you?
You are telling me that it's not a real motor because this is a computer generated model??!!

:D  :D  :D  :D

:p  :p  :p  :p  

Oh ... my sides are splitting ... please keep going!!

You Darwinist Fundies are highly entertaining!

Keep laughing Dave.  We're laughing too, just not at the same thing.

Here's a flagella (a "schematic" drawing of the flagella actually).

Here's the source article.
http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm

The author uses many references to "motors", "stators", "rotors" and other such terminology.
Quote
Escherichia coli is a single-celled organism that lives in your gut. It is equipped with a set of rotary motors only 45 nm in diameter. each motor drives a long, thin, helical filament that extends several cell body lengths out into the external medium. The assemblage of motor and filament is called a flagellum. The concerted motion of several flagella enables a cell to swim. A cell can move toward regions that it deems more favorable by measuring changes in the concentrations of certain chemicals in its environment (mostly nutrients), deciding whether life is getting better or worse, and then modulating the direction of rotation of its flagella. Thus, in addition to rotary engines and propellers, E. coli’s standard accessories include particle counters, rate meters, and gear boxes. This microorganism is a nanotechnologist’s dream. I will discuss the features that make it so, from the perspectives of several scientific disciplines: anatomy, genetics, chemistry, and physics.


The author doesn't mention anything about evolution or design.  But he does use one item that you are missing.
FUNCTION!

Why don't you tell me what you agree, or disagree with this article.  And does this author support your assertion about design versus evolution.

Date: 2006/12/21 18:21:12, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Interesting.  TRoutMac signs his message...
Quote
TRoutMac
The Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1895#comment-82040
Is he the secret, super-duper, extra-special, out-of-this-world, Silicon Valley is on Line 2 graphic designer of the Billy Fart Fest?

Enquiring minds want to know.  :)

Date: 2006/12/21 18:26:44, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Central Florida.  Via MN (UM grad), UK and GE (USAF), Vancouver Canada (THE best place in North America) and Madison, WI (THE second or third best place in NA).

I'm near Tampa so I pick a local radio station that is left winger socialist (88.5 Radio Active.  Lenny should know this one.) so I get exposed to both sides of crazy in the political pantheon.

Date: 2006/12/21 18:53:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,18:26)
It's incredible that you would ask that, but I will patiently explain ...

Why is a design origin more plausible than an evolutionary origin for this bacterial motor?

Simply because we know of a case where a motor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, electric motors.

So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a motor in nature might also require a designer.

IOW from our experience, MOTORS REQUIRE DESIGNERS.

Therefore, why would we make an exception for THIS motor--the flagellum driver--and say "Nope. No Designer required." ??


We know of a case where a nuclear reactor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer.  Namely a water moderated uranium fuel nuclear reactor.

So it is logical to think that the hypothesised(1956) and actual discovered (1972) natural nuclear reactor should show the hallmark of design also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_natural_reactor
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf.

LOOK.  I USED MY INTUITION TO CORRECTLY IDENTIFY ANOTHER ACT OF THE DESIGNER!
(By Using My Newly Discovered Skills In The Field Of AFDavology).
********************
Dave, you then said....
Quote
When the idea of extrapolating micro-evo to create motors from something less complicated has NO experimental support whatsoever!!

In fact, the idea of extrapolating historical human designs that created more complex motors from prior motors has DOCUMENTED support.
Human designers have modified/improved/changed/altered/optimised almost every design ever spoken/written/built.

So we should then assign these same attributes (changes in designs to lead to new/improved/altered/optimised/surprise functions) to biologic systems if we are to compare them with human design systems.
*****************************
One final muse.
Why does Mitochondria contain its own DNA?  Why doesn't the cell nucleus control everything in the cell?

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

You got anything on that one?  Design maybe?

Date: 2006/12/22 10:04:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Dec. 22 2006,02:24)
 Dilettard Dave the Taxi Driver is a closet Flagellant.

Pie Jesu Domine, THUD

dona eis requiem.  THUD

Not happenin' stud.



There crabby.  A little embellishment.

Date: 2006/12/22 11:16:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:18)
E. COLI MOTORS ... THE DARWINIST'S NIGHTMARE AND IDist'S FRIEND
Thanks, Mike PSS for the excellent article!
{snip image}
He relates this quote ...        
Quote
Escherichia coli is a single-celled organism that lives in your gut. It is equipped with a set of rotary motors only 45 nm in diameter. each motor drives a long, thin, helical filament that extends several cell body lengths out into the external medium. The assemblage of motor and filament is called a flagellum. The concerted motion of several flagella enables a cell to swim. A cell can move toward regions that it deems more favorable by measuring changes in the concentrations of certain chemicals in its environment (mostly nutrients), deciding whether life is getting better or worse, and then modulating the direction of rotation of its flagella. Thus, in addition to rotary engines and propellers, E. coli’s standard accessories include particle counters, rate meters, and gear boxes. This microorganism is a nanotechnologist’s dream. I will discuss the features that make it so, from the perspectives of several scientific disciplines: anatomy, genetics, chemistry, and physics.
http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm

The whole thing was a fascinating read from a professor with interesting credentials ... a Harvard guy, with specialization in molecular and cellular biology, and in physics!  What a cool combo!

{snip electron micrograph discussion for Eric, Faid and others to beat up Dave with}


Yeaaahhhh.  A non-YEC source that Dave enjoys reading and understanding.

Do I win a prize?
********************
Dave,
The Harvard guy is a molecular/cellular biologist.  Notice in the quote that he is discussing the flaggeller system of E.Coli from the perspective of other fields of science (anatomy, genetics, chemistry and physics).  He ISN'T talking about biology in general.

He is also referenced by many other sources in other fields.  In fact, I was reading an article by Nick Matzke of NCSE fame and Berg was referenced.

Now, the article also has this...  
Quote
The molecules of DNA in the members of a given set of descendants are identical except for mutations, which occur spontaneously for a given gene, at the rate of about 10-7 per generation.

Uh Oh.  Dr. Berg is stating a measured mutation rate here.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?  ARE MUTATIONS IN THIS CASE BAD, GOOD, OR NEUTRAL?
HOW CAN HE KNOW THE MUTATION RATE OF THIS ORGANISM?


Is the Dr. your "friend" now?  Or do you start to disagree with some of his statements.  Maybe he has swallowed the dogmatic Darwinist kool-aid and he is just spewing out boiler-plate comments when faced with this subject.

Moving on.....
You responded to my FUNCTION question...

 
Quote
Then Mike PSS says ...        
Quote
The author doesn't mention anything about evolution or design.  But he does use one item that you are missing.
FUNCTION!

Why don't you tell me what you agree, or disagree with this article.  And does this author support your assertion about design versus evolution.
"The author doesn't mention anything about evolution or design."  Wonderful!  Nice to hear a Harvard professor giving us a nice "steak dinner" of scientific wonder for once without sprinkling his offering with the usual Darwinian horse-radish.  Not sure why he didn't, but I'm not asking questions.  I'm thrilled!

As for the word FUNCTION, you say I don't mention it.  I say it is assumed.  I have been comparing man-made motors to the E. Coli motor and I think it's safe to ASSUME that they both have the FUNCTION of rotating and applying torque to some device.  Hopefully Deadman will not give me a ZERO for making that assumption.

Dave, why didn't you read the author's specific reason for the flagella's existence in the first place.  Here is Dr. Berg again...  
Quote
Detecting chemical gradients
The motor runs either clockwise (CW), as seen by an observer standing on the outside of the cell looking down at the hook, or counterclockwise (CCW), with protons continuing to flow from the outside to the inside of the cell. Switching direction involves the proteins FliG, M, and N.

In a cell wild type for chemotaxis, CW and CCW modes alternate (with exponentially distributed waiting times). When the motors turn CW, the flagellar filaments work independently, and the cell body moves erratically with little net displacement; the cell is then said to “tumble.” When the motors turn CCW, the filaments rotate in parallel in a bundle that pushes the cell body steadily forward, and the cell is said to “run.” The two modes alternate. The cell runs and tumbles, executing a three-dimensional random walk, as shown in figure 3.

When different flagellar motors in the same cell are studied under conditions in which they cannot interact mechanically, they change directions independently. Yet, when a flagellar bundle drives the cell forward, all of the motors have to rotate CCW. The events that bring about this coordination are not yet understood. The mean run interval is about 1 s, whereas the mean tumble interval is only about 0.1 s. Both of the times are exponentially distributed.

Although the change in angle generated by a tumble is approximately random, there is a slight forward bias. When, by chance, a cell moves up a spatial gradient of a chemical attractant or down a spatial gradient of a chemical repellent, runs are extended. When, by chance, it moves the other way, runs revert to the length observed in the absence of a gradient. Thus, the bias in the random walk that enables cells to move up or down gradients is positive.

Finally, the behavioral response is temporal, not spatial. E. coli does not determine whether there is more attractant, say, in front than behind; rather, it determines whether the concentration increases when it moves in a particular direction. Studies of impulsive stimuli indicate that a cell compares the concentration observed over the past 1 s with the concentration observed over the previous 3 s and responds to the difference.5

You notice that the flagella actually has multiple functions depending on what stimulus the organism is acting upon.  CW, CCW, independent "tumble", directional movement with bundled filaments.  The "motors" are purely one component of this entire system.

Dr. Berg continues discussion the physics limitations of the flagella system, the chemical receptors, and some typical Frankenstein type experiments on the poor, lab E.Coli he worked with.  
Quote
Here is a sample experiment. Because shearing a dense cell suspension causes the filaments to tangle and fracture, we can break off most of a cell’s flagellar filaments and then cement the cell body to a glass slide. If the cell makes filaments that tend to stick to everything (because of a particular mutation in fliC), then it is easy to attach a latex bead to one of the flagellar stubs.

Shearing off filaments!
Cementing the organism to a slide!
Attaching stuff to the amputated stubs!
THIS GUY IS A MONSTER!

**********************
My point is this Dave.  Knowing the integrated system required for the flagella to operate "correctly" within E.Coli....
WHY DO YOU ONLY ASSUME THE MOTOR IS DESIGNED?
WHY NOT THE CHEMICAL UPTAKE SYSTEM AND THE MOTION CONTROL SYSTEM TOO?


What is the obsession with ONLY the filament when all the other parts of the system are required to operate for the filament to have a USEFUL FUNCTION.

Date: 2006/12/22 12:51:02, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 22 2006,13:24)
Dave, read the freaking captions, will you. That is not an electron micrograph of a bacterial flagellum. It is a "Rotationally averaged reconstruction of electron micrographs of purified hook-basal bodies."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I KNEW you wouldn't let Dave get away with that.  In my post above I said...
Quote
{snip electron micrograph discussion for Eric, Faid and others to beat up Dave with}


I started to respond to this but deleted my response because I KNEW you and Faid would pummel poor Dave.  Although guilty myself at times, our poor Dave has fundamental Reading For Comprehension issues because he'll ASSUME things before he comprehends the reality.

And again.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!   :D  :O  :D  :O

Date: 2006/12/22 13:32:26, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Louis,
This is the point I need to do some more reading from the assigned list.  The details of the next point of discussion start to get fuzzy in my mind because I lose sight of everything going on at once.  Holiday reading I guess.

Sticking to the thermal vent environment might be helpful for the moment.

My initial thoughts about your 1) 2) 3) scenario are:

1)  Plausible for carbs.  Easy to polymerise and easy to find in the environment we're talking about.  I think the polymer chemistry in this step is what will set up step 2) as a first Ur-replicator.

2)  The polymerisation products in step 1) may form the encapsulation layer here.  A branched polymer or co-polymer is an option to consider for incorporation within the encapsulation layer with one branch backbone adapting to the miscelle barrier and the other branch backbone internal and/or external to the barrier (the first resemblance of an interbarrier receptor).  As new variants of polymer chains are included in the miscelle then new chemical reactive functions may appear depending on backbone structure and chain endings.  Now we would have a system incorporating the full variety of organic chemistry in the vent environment.

3)  The energy pump system is probably an Ionic Pump type found in cell functions today.  The Ion source is produced in the vent or the exposed Fe catalyst source.  One item I thought of is that the miscelle formation would change the water conditions inside the miscelle formed in 2) so that the Ionic Pump system has a greater energy release or different product mix (maybe moving the equilibrium or solubility of the products one way or the other).  The Ionic Pump system would also have to maintain the internal miscelle conditions so that this reaction could be sustained.

Just musings for now.  I'll see how good this holds up in the literature.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/22 16:19:45, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Dave,
Just wonderring.

Do you have any substance left behind your point?  Anything whatsoever?

Are we left with semantics and "Did Not!" "Did To!" ?

Or are you happy with Goddidit as your answer to the flagellum.

Date: 2006/12/22 16:33:42, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 22 2006,15:04)
EDIT: Whoops - must read whole thread before hitting SUBMIT.  Sorry.

Nice sig Altabin.
Quote
ID is dead and has been defeated by real science. (William A. Dembski, December 2006).


Since Mr. Mr. Dembski didn't quote bracket that little gem then the attribute is directly to him.  Not even a quote-mine here.

Date: 2006/12/22 16:34:42, Link
Author: Mike PSS
**Ooooppsss!  Double Post***

Date: 2006/12/22 16:36:02, Link
Author: Mike PSS
***Danm!  Triple Post***

Date: 2006/12/22 16:37:29, Link
Author: Mike PSS
****Well.  Steve "said" he liked traffic.****

Date: 2006/12/23 13:18:12, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,09:33)
Eric--  I already spent a good deal of time answering you biodiversity question, but I'll give you the short answer again.  

The short answer is from Ayala ... In his opinion, mutations provide only "a mere trickle" of diversity compared to the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic diversity."  You need to really let Ayala's statements, combined with everything I have shown you about VSDMs sink into your head.  When you do this, it will suddenly dawn on you why the Ark bottleneck was no problem at all for preserving radical genetic diversity.  All that was needed on the ark was a fair amount of heterozygosity (what I termed "genetic richness"), then subsequent dispersal and geographic isolation of of sub groups to allow the full potential of diversity to be expressed.  This huge diversity can happen quite rapidly (< 1000's of years) as shown by our experience in domestic animal breeding.

The mental stress you are having with this question stems from your uncritical acceptance of the Darwinist Dogma that Mutations are the Ultimate Source of all Variation.  This has proven false as Ayala himself admits ... it's just that YOU haven't accepted that it's false yet.  Hopefully you will in time.

Dave.
Our HLA-B gene discussion is still open.

You CANNOT claim what you stated because we still have to find out how 61 HLA-B alleles appeared in the population in less than 250 years.  I think we agreed to stop the discussion around page 35.

BUT THE DISCUSSION IS STILL OPEN.  MY PRESENT POSITION DESTROYS YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT AYALA.  YOU CAN'T USE AYALA WITHOUT TAKING UP THE HLA-B DISCUSSION AGAIN.

Do you want me to summerize our positions so we can continue the discussion?

Sorry Dave.  In the whole "genetic richness" case you are still in the middle of the minefield.  Blindfolded.  Without a metal detector.  And advanced leprosy in your limbs.

STOP USING THE POST-FLOOD GENETIC RICHNESS SHENANAGINS UNTIL YOUR READY TO TALK ABOUT HLA-B ALLELES SOME MORE.

Ready?

Date: 2006/12/23 19:18:46, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,19:26)
When all else fails ... call 'em liars and psychoanalyze 'em!

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

How about drown them in details.  Lets see where we stand.
 
Quote
UPDATED HYPOTHESIS
A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.

Can't argue with this one.  I think you have "proven" A just with this statement.

 
Quote
B. This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."

Ahhhh.  AFDave as the messenger of "his" God.  Notice the first words.  Still no arguments about this.  I look at B. as an embellishment to A.

 
Quote
C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

And here is where Dave is stuck.  We have (AFAI can remember)....
Adam and Eve as genetic source - Not discussed yet.
Great Flood - Rebuked and proven wrong.
Single continent before the flood - Not discussed yet.
Discussion of kinds - Mentioned but Not discussed yet.

 
Quote
D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

Part D is bad for Dave so far.  We have....
Early man was (genetically perfect, taller, fecund, aged, defect free even within family) - Not discussed yet.
In fact the ante-diluvian world is rarely mentioned.  Why?
Genetic Mutations/Richness - Trashed

 
Quote
E. Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.

More Theology mixed in with Dave's apparent insight into the "Mind of God" (or "his God" would be more correct).  Still more embellishment to Part A.  Not Discussed Yet.

 
Quote
F. God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly.  Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.

More embellishment with miracles sprinkled here and there.  Is this supposed to be the ante-diluvian world here?

 
Quote
G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.

What a wonderful story retold for us here.  Fire and brimstone, dishonesty and murder, finally a flood.  Quite the gripping tale.  

 
Quote
H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

Ooooops....  We just went off the deep end here.
Global Flood - disproven in Oh so many ways
The Ark - disproven in so many more ways
Genetically Rich - shot down so far.  Still some discussion left in this one.
And the genetic dispersion tale - shot down so far but still open for more discussion.

 
Quote
I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

Ah, more claims.  We have....
Ice Age - Not really discussed yet.  Only mentioned.
Dinosaurs - Not discussed yet.
Plates whizzing about - soundly refuted
Uniformitarian vs. Catastrophism - A red herring discussion.

 
Quote
J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

Back to the story telling via magic and miracles.  Except...
All language roots at the Tower of Babel - Not discussed yet.

 
Quote
K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

More stories of what happened.

 
Quote
L. God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures.  This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers.  This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.

Chapter 23 or so of the story so far.  I hope everyone is keeping up on this.

 
Quote
M. Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

A claim about Graf-Wellhausen Theory - Not discussed yet.


 
Quote
N. The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.

Dave again reveals his personnal expertise with this story.  However....
Inerrent Bibles - Under discussion, Dave has to answer the latest challanges.

 
Quote
O. Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

Ahhh, the prophesies in the OT.
Tyre - disproven.
Others - under discussion or not yet discussed.

 
Quote
P. The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.

The story as the basis for life, the universe, and everything.  We have a couple points....
American as Christian Nation - under discussion but Dave has to respond to some hard eveidence counterring this.
*****************************
Wow Dave.  A bunch of claims that you either have not discussed or have been totally handed your A$$.  Let's see where you went wrong....
Great Flood - Rebuked and proven wrong.
Genetic Mutations/Richness - Trashed
Global Flood - disproven in Oh so many ways
The Ark - disproven in so many more ways
Plates whizzing about - soundly refuted
Uniformitarian vs. Catastrophism - A red herring discussion.
Tyre - disproven.


And here is where your flounderring about...
Genetically Rich - shot down so far.  Still some discussion left in this one.
And the genetic dispersion tale - shot down so far but still open for more discussion.
Inerrent Bibles - Under discussion, Dave has to answer the latest challanges.
Others (prophesies) - under discussion or not yet discussed.
American as Christian Nation - under discussion but Dave has to respond to some hard eveidence counterring this.


And here is where Dave has yet to venture....
Adam and Eve as genetic source - Not discussed yet.
Single continent before the flood - Not discussed yet.
Discussion of kinds - Mentioned but Not discussed yet.
Early man was (genetically perfect, taller, fecund, aged, defect free even within family) - Not discussed yet.
In fact the ante-diluvian world is rarely mentioned.  Why?
Ice Age - Not really discussed yet.  Only mentioned.
Dinosaurs - Not discussed yet.
All language roots at the Tower of Babel - Not discussed yet.
A claim about Graf-Wellhausen Theory - Not discussed yet.

****************************
And there you have the UCGH so far.  I hope to see more discussion on this topic in the new year.

Merry Xmas Everyone.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/23 19:53:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Egads, the inmates are restless.
Quote (DaveScot @ December 23, 2006 @ 2:19 pm)
...get the legislative and executive branches to slap down the judicial branch.


Quote (tribune7 @ December 23, 2006 @ 4:06 pm)
...the Old Guard in the media has to be overthrown.


Out with the judicial.  Out with the Old Gaurd media.  I'm surprised they didn't want us to wear red shirts and listen to four hours of radio broadcasts on Sundays.

Lucky that dopderbeck is treated so harshly over there.  Almost a voice of reason and comprehension.  I was reading his fairly cogent statements then laughing at the "pit bull" response.  And I thought the Lenny vs. PZMeyers scrap was self-defeating.

Date: 2006/12/23 20:43:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Hello R. Josiah Magnuson.

Is there a handle you prefer or is the full name a proper address to you.

It's not about bandwidth, just typing all the letters.

You can call me anything you want but "Mike" or "Mike PSS" works fine.

The PSS stands for "Project Steve Sibling".  My brother is on this list.
Here's a little bit about Project Steve.

You have an interesting take on a lot of subjects.  I scanned through your proferred web sight and one thing did stand out.  You said this...
Quote
Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly. This means that when the first proteins were formed, they were created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids.
http://worldrevscience.blogspot.com/2006....ds.html


I would state that even though a protein could be chirally left-handed, it's constituent parts do not necessarily need to have chirality.  It would be good to provide a specific example of the protein/amino acid system you are referencing.  Maybe even provide a counter-example also if one exists.

Welcome to the board.  I'm sure others will say the same.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/23 20:49:09, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Hey Altabin.
Another line to add to your sig.
Quote (William Dembski @ December 23rd, 2006)
When biological evidence fails to establish Darwinian evolution, go instead for digital evidence. Here at last digital proof positive for the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum (if Kitzmiller v. Dover wasn’t enough to sink ID, this surely will):

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1902

Date: 2006/12/24 09:01:41, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,07:51)
THE DESPERATE DARWINISTS UNMASKED
They say Dr. Berg's pictures aren't really what a flagellar motor looks like!  (And don't forget ... it was your teammate, Mike PSS, of Talk Origins fame that posted the picture and article ... not me)

http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Oh my goodness!!!  This thread gets funnier and funnier.

Mike PSS of Talk Origins fame??

Wh-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-t?

Dave, what's this then.  When have I ever claimed I'm associated in any way with Talk Origins.

I would like a reference or a retraction for this one.  I wouldn't want myself to be misrepresented on this item.

I state today that I have never in the past been associated or contributed (etc. and so on) to Talk Origins.

Dave, please correct and/or retract this statement.

Thanks,
Mike PSS

p.s. Dave, why don't you quote reference the picture caption.  It would help a lot of readers to get the proper referent to your point.  Just an idea.

Date: 2006/12/24 09:23:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 24 2006,03:35)
I'm confused by this thread.
First, who is this Chapman chap?
And how did we get into the middle of a chirality discussion already? Did some posts get deleted?

RJM is the Intelligent Design advisor to Chapman.  Read SteveStory's web reference at the top of the page.

RJM showed up and gave another web reference to his site.  I called it an "interesting" read.  It's chock full of some pretty drastic claims about science, society and government.

Now, knowing that RJM is a 15 year old (I won't call him "kid" without him earning that label yet) I "started" the discussion of chirality because chiral formation is a chemistry topic that he "might" be able to discuss in detail and logic considerring what I gather is his past educational experience.

Maybe RJM will prove me wrong and be a chemist savant.  Or maybe he's just cutting and pasting others claims without actually understanding the subjects involved.

I certainly didn't want to start the discussion about politics or society.  I could see the dead ends in those discussions immediately.  So I started off with some science softballs.  As skeptic insinuated, there are hard balls available if RJM wants to continue.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/24 11:59:44, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (k.e @ Dec. 24 2006,11:12)
18) Say Karl Marx send a copy of Das Kapital to Darwin and  get us to wear red shirts and listen to four hours of radio broadcasts piped in from Pyongyang by 'Dear Leader' on Sundays.

(thanks Mike PSS. for that image BUT I already thought it up .....so it's mine and Pascal can go to h€ll.

I guess we have a lot of nimrods to fit this description.


**NOTE:  This is an EX-nimrod as of 21DEC06.**

L-O-V-E the hat.



Ahhhhh.  So many luminaries to choose from.  I don't know where to start.  And there are a few in the wings trying to reach the exulted status of "big man".

Date: 2006/12/24 16:47:06, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,15:21)
Mike PSS ... I was working from memory about Talk Origins ... I thought you said you wrote some articles for Talk Origins back when first joined my thread ... No?  Ok, then.

Thank You Dave.  Wouldn't want to misrepresent myself even at the fault of others.

Remember, the PSS stands for "Project Steve Sibling".  My brother is on this list.
Here's a little bit about Project Steve.

Date: 2006/12/26 10:23:55, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,10:26)
AND ONE LAST ITEM ... MACNEILL
Deadman, I'm not interested in your wagers anymore.  But why do you think my statement is wrong?  My statement that MacNeill says that the Modern Synthesis which is "Microevo=Macroevo" is dead?  He says this quite clearly and unequivocally.

Dave,
It is your fevered imagination that has twisted MacNeill's words into your quoted definition of "Microevo=Macroevo is dead".

I've read the MacNeill quotes posted by everyone and it clearly doesn't say, imply, or even hint at the above conclusion.  Nowhere does MacNeill equate "Modern Synthesis" with "Microevolution" or "Macroevolution".

You're interpreting MacNeill's statement incorrectly.  THAT is why people challange you to bring MacNeill to this board.  His words are in "stone".  The interpretation of his words is what is in question here.

Date: 2006/12/26 10:58:53, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,10:26)
A REMEDIAL COURSE ON POPULATION GENETICS
One of my favorite quotes, as you know too well is Ayala's where he says that Darwin was wrong about most of the genetic variation in populations arising from new mutations at each generation.  He says they are a "mere trickle" compared to the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."

Now, of course, Ayala is a committed evolutionist and he recites the Primary Religious Doctrine of ToE that "mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation" (as opposed to my view that God is the ultimate source of all genetic variation) so I am not saying that he has become a creationist or anything.

What I am saying is that Darwin was wrong about mutations and Ayala says so.

Further, what I am doing is pointing out that Ayala acknowledges the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."  He and I disagree as to the ultimate source of that "stored genetic variation" but at least we have dispensed of this commonly believed nonsense (Eric and others) that "most of the genetic variation in populations arises from new mutations."


WHAT ABOUT BOTTLENECKS?
Now Russell says, "You're a moron ... Ayala is talking about large populations, not small bottlenecks like you would have had on your ark!"

To which I reply ... "I agree.  why don't you try arguing something I don't agree with you on.  What's your point?"

And I think his point is that he thinks that you lose all the variability if you just select 2 individuals out of the population.

Which of course, reveals Russell's fundamental ignorance of population genetics.  He obviously hasn't bothered to read Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study which is extensively documented with non-YEC sources showing just how feasable Noah's Ark really was.

If Russell had read Woodmorappe's book (or my previous posts), he would know that ...

BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF HETEROZYGOSITY (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
Woodmorappe states that it was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck, it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (example, Nei et al. 1975, p.1) Robert Moore has erroneously cited this old assumption as fact (Moore, 1983, p.7)

Here's a couple of studies Woodmorappe cites to support this ...        
Quote
The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential [not the words I would choose] is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum." Evolution49(1): 176-188.)

Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).  He cites a historical example also.  A very small number (probably a single pair) of macaques had been introduced to Mauritius island by Dutch sailors some 400 years ago.  The presently large population exhibits lo MtDNA diversity when compared with the macaques on the Philippines.  Yet (H) ... is greater than that found among macaques on the Philippines (Lawler et al. 1995, p. 139)

Dave,
May I remind you that your interpretation of Ayala is clearly refuted by my outstanding question about 61 HLA-B genes appearing in less than 250 years.

******************************
Here's where we stand on that argument at present.  My present challange to you...
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 10 2006,10:39)
DECONSTRUCTING DAVE'S ASSERTIONS REQUIRES CAREFUL READING.  SOMETHING DAVE DOESN'T DO WITH MY ASSERTIONS (SEE PREVIOUS POST WHERE DAVE STATES THINGS I'VE REBUTTED TWO DAYS AGO).    
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,06:44)
Now that I've shown them that there are only 18 alleles in N. Am. occurring at a frequency greater than 1% (and we could add that there are only 74 in the chart at all), I'm not sure what the problem is any more.

Dave,
Here's the HLA allele table again.    
Quote
Click this underlined link to the front page.
On the left there is titled Pre-defined Queries.
Click on 'Class I Allele Frequencies' to get the table.

Click on the arrows at the left side to expand the allele tables out.
There are 74 alleles present in the North American column.  My contention was that 90% of the NA alleles matched alleles from Asia-Africa-Europe.  When you compare each allele to the presence in the Europe, North-East and South-East Asia, and Sub-Sahara Africa column you find only B*3911 (also found in South America also), B*4015 (found only in NA), and B*4404 (also found in Other column).

So.... I count only 3 alleles out of 74 that are unique to North (or South) America.  That is a 95.9% similarity in allelic presence.  I still stand by my approximation of 90%.

Also,
CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.
If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.


Good Luck,
Mike PSS


Your feeble attempt at rebuttal...
Quote
Mike PSS...    
Quote
CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.
If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.

Good Luck,
Mike PSS

Thank you.

Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?

I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on! ...  
Quote
Search Criteria
Population Area:   North America

Submitter: MEXGOR
 Population: Lacandon
   Report:  Lacandon Mayan Indians from Mexico  
   Authors:  Carmen Alaez, M. Vazquez-Garcia, Angelica Olivo, and Clara Gorodezky  
 Population: Seri
   Report:  Seri from Sonora, Mexico  
   Authors:  Infante E, Alaez C, Flores H, Gorodezky C.  
Submitter: USAERL
 Population: Canoncito
   Report:  Cañoncito Navajo from New Mexico  
   Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
 Population: Maya
   Report:  Maya from Mexico  
   Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
 Population: Pima 17
   Report:  Pima from Arizona  
   Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
 Population: Pima 99
   Report:  Pima from Arizona  
   Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
 Population: Sioux
   Report:  Sioux from South Dakota  
   Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
 Population: Zuni
   Report:  Zuni from New Mexico  
   Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
Submitter: USALEF
 Population: Yupik
   Report:  Yup'ik Eskimo from Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska  
   Authors:  Mary S. Leffell, M. Daniele Fallin, Henry A. Erlich, Marcelo Fernandez-Vina, William H. Hildebrand, Steven J. Mack and Andrea A. Zachary  
Submitter: USAMFV
 Population: Amerindian
   Report:  Native American from the United States  
   Authors:  K. Cao, M.A. Fernández-Viña
 

And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??


My counter to your feeble attempt...
Quote
 
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,11:38)
Thank you.

Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?

PROGRESS.

 
Quote
I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on! ...

AND REGRESSION.
Dave, don't talk to me about the table.  DISPROVE IT YOURSELF.  POST A COGENT REBUTTAL.
I AM saying there was no hanky panky (not sure if all the tribes subscribe to your definition of mairriage in this case) related to the sampled population.  The Citation specifically eliminates this posibility.
GO AND REFUTE THE CITATION.  I BELIEVE THEM UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.  IF YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD CAN PROVE WITH DATA AND REFERENCE THAT THIS CITATION IS INVALID THEN I'LL TREAT THAT AS A PROPER REBUTTAL.
YOUR APPEAL TO INCREDUALITY IS NOT CONVINCING.

 
Quote
And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??

Dave,
I can read into data a little better than you apparently.  If indigenous North America only has 3 alleles independent of Euro-Asia-Africa between the end of the ice age and 1492 (~3700 years) then how do you explain 61 mutations in only 250 years.
Did the end of the ice age depress the mutation rate?
Did the ice age accellerate the mutation rate?


And my supporting source data to back up my counter-point...
Quote
Here's a reference for you Dave.  
Quote
American Indian mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Data: A Comprehensive Report of their Use in Migration and Other Anthropological Studies
http://www.iiirm.org/publica....DNA.pdf

Although the article is a little long in detail, look at the Appendix pp.45-133.  Read some of the Study Summaries to see how each study population was selected as indigenous.  This type of analysis is done to verify the the individuals as valid sample participants.

Hope this helps,
Mike PSS


And finally you running away...
Quote
 
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,17:26)
Argy ...    
Quote
61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?
I don't think 61 alleles arose in 250 years.  I think it was much fewer than this, the balance being due to admixture (i.e. Mike's indigenous people aren't quite as purebred as he imagines).  My point has simply been to show that this "500 alleles in 250 years" stuff is nonsense.  At this point, I have investigated this topic enough to see that, once again, most of the objections to the Biblical account of Origins are hot air.  Have I made a watertight case for believing the Biblical account?  No.  And I don't think I'm going to go to the effort to get my PhD in "HLA-B Studies."  But I think anyone with an ounce of honesty can see the nature of some of the objections to the Biblical account posed on this thread, and can further see that, upon closer inspection, they simply do not hold water.  COULD some of them hold water?  Yes, possibly.  But when you've been investigating various objections for 6 months and all but one of them turn out to be weak at best, you become a bit jaded and tend not to want to go chasing all the rabbits down every trail.

Declaring victory already.  Unfortunately it's all in your own mind at present.  If "61 alleles in 250 years" is no problem I suggest you get the points of this thread over to AIG so they can post it on their site.  We can have another article on their website with glaring obvious holes in reasoning.

Is this your "moving on..." statement or are you going to try and explain the appearance of 61 mutations appearing in a population in 250 years?

OR, are you going to address the admixture issue you so want to cling to (but I have reinforced at every post of additional information)?

No sweat Dave,
We can put this one to bed at the point it's at.  This board knows EXACTLY where we stand so far.  We can pick this up at any time you need.

However, leaving this point open means the whole earth settlement/migration issue after the flood can't be used to support your UCGH.  This issue presents a direct anomoly in this point.

I'm afraid you can't complete your C&D points at the present time.


DAVE.  IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT TO START THIS SCRAP AGAIN.  I WOULD POST PERMALINKS BUT YOU HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF NOT NOTICING THIS.  ANSWER THE CHALLANGE ABOUT 61 HLA-B GENES APPEARING IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  CHAMP.

Date: 2006/12/26 11:08:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
And by the way Dave,  here's the unanswered Rb-Sr Isochron argument you've been avoiding for quite some time.

Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 10 2006,18:16)
 
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,14:57)
AFDAVE DEFINES A 'CREATED KIND'
{big, mondo snip}
Mike PSS...            
Quote
Dave, your claim that whole rock Isochrons are not merely mixing diagrams is false because a verified co-genetic sample of rock will have various minerals formed from the homogenous melt where each mineral has a different uptake of Rb so that testing a whole rock sample will give a statistically different set of minerals contained within the whole rock sample so that testing for Rb from each sample will give different Rb values from each whole rock sample.  AND, selective extraction of specific minerals from the same co-genetic source will add usable data on the existing sample data set.  A verified co-genetic source will result in a data set in a linear relation when plotted on an Rb/Sr vs. Sr/Sr graph with both the whole rock and mineral data points on the linear line.

Therefore a properly tested whole rock Isochron is not merely a mixing line but a data set of various Rb/Sr concentrations that originated from a homogenous source.
Mike, first of all, you got my claim wrong.  Please go back and read my claim again and kindly requote me correctly.  Next, how do I know that a co-genetic source is the result of mixing?  Easy.  In order to obtain homogeneity, it HAS to be mixed.  Think about it.  Of course you will get a data spread if you do a MINERAL isochron test of minerals in this rock for the reasons you have so ably given.  But this has nothing to do with Arndts and Overn's claims.  Their claim is regarding the whole rock sample.

Dave,
Here's your original question that I answered in my response you quoted above.  Compare the bolded statements and tell me where I got your claim wrong WHEN I RETYPED YOUR RESPONSE QUESTION ALMOST WORD FOR WORD.  The only words missing are "Deep Timers cannot prove" and I've told you time and again that I'm not discussing time.  I've also avoided the words "prove/proven" and "truth/truthiness" because in my eyes they are loaded statements.      
Quote (afdave @ (Oct. 06 2006 @ 23:40))

Mike PSS-- Let me help you out.  If you want a response from me, try this ...

"Dave, your claim that Deep Timers cannot prove that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams is false because _."  

You fill in the blank.

Or ...

"Dave, mineral isochrons and concordia-discordia methods are much better than Whole Rock isochrons because __."


Moving on from another Portuguese moment.....

Before I made my summary on page 7 of this thread, I read ALL the references you cited with Arndts and Overn.  I then read Dalrymples five point rebuttal.  Then I read Arndts and Overns reply to Dalrymples rebuttal.  I then searched my textbooks, the web, and one other source (which I shall remain quite about for now) to find cross-referenced sources for both sides of the claim.  I then prepared my summary after researching ALL (both sides) of the information.

I answered Arndts and Overns mixing claim in my summary and expanded on this information with a reply to clarify some questions you had.  My summary and reply (click on those underlined words for the Permalink) are a DIRECT REFUTATION of Arndts and Overns WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRON CLAIMS.

Dave, I know this whole Isochron thing is WAYYYYYY in the past (started at least two weeks ago, long time on this thread) but the only response I've got from you is sidestep and obfuscation when I meet your stated format.

If you don't understand the material in my summary and replies then please ask directly.  I am answerring the claims of Arndts and Overn dealing with whole rock Isochrons, you just may not recognize it if you don't understand all the material I presented.

At least we are making progress and your positon with Mineral Isochrons is clear.  I think I can work with this, but give me a day or so.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/26 11:35:27, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,12:02)
I'm the one with the fevered imagination ... ??

Here's MacNeill's words ...

Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis” ...

How much more clear can you get?

Or how about this ...?

And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

Fevered imagination!  C'mon Mike ... how about some of of that intellectual honesty that you all say you have and say I don't have.

And no, I didn't bring up HLA again.  I showed you long ago how baseless your assertions were.  Not going there again.

OK Dave.  Let's parse your favorite MacNeill passage then.  
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1714#more-1714

Your contention is...
 
Quote
"MICRO=MACRO DOCTRINE" = MODERN SYNTHESIS = DEAD


So we start off with...
 
Quote
Allen_MacNeill  // Oct 17th 2006 at 6:35 pm
Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success.

Well, well, well.  It seems that MacNeill has DEFINED what he means my "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" in the first paragraph.  Good for him.  Now, everytime we read "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" or "Modern Synthesis" in the following comments we know what it means.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis = gradulistic changes in allele frequency in populations over timeas the result of differential reproductive success.

Continuing...
 
Quote
This idea was essentially based on theoretical mathematical models originally developed by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, with some experimental confirmation (using Drosophila) by Theodosious Dobzhansky and field observations (chiefly of birds) by Ernst Mayr (with some supporting observations on the fossil record by G. G. Simpson and plants by G. Ledyard Stebbins). Its high water mark was the Darwin centennial celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which most of the aforementioned luminaries attended, and which has been chronicled by Ernst Mayr and William Provine.

So MacNeill then clarifies his definition with some historical facts surrounding the term.

Let's continue...
 
Quote
However, cracks were already showing in the “synthesis” by 1964, when W. D. Hamilton proposed his theory of kin selection. They widened considerably in 1969 when Lynn Margulis proposed her theory of serial endosymbiosis. Then, in 1972, the dam broke, when Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould published their landmark paper on “punctuated equilibrium. Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis”, Gould went on to publish yet another landmark paper with Richard Lewontin, this one undermining the “Panglossian paradigm” promoted by the founders of the “modern synthesis”:
that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.

So from 1964 onward, further researchers discovered kin selection, serial endosymbiosis, and punctuated equilibrium.  These discoveries overturned the DEFINITION of "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis".

And finally we have...
 
Quote
And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

So the discovery of the neutral theory of genetic evolution disproved the MODELS UPON WHICH THE "MODERN SYNTHESIS" WAS FOUNDED.

Let that statement sink in a little Dave.

Along with the other discoveries mentioned above, the "Modern Synthesis", as defined above, was REPLACED with a BETTER EXPLANATION of what was occurring in the natural world.

Let's see what MacNeill says about this...
 
Quote
But what has come out of all of this is NOT the end of the theory of evolution, but rather its further integration into the biological sciences. Darwin only hinted at (and the founders of the “modern synthesis” mostly ignored) the idea that the “engine of variation” that provided all of the raw material for evolutionary change is somehow intimately tied to the mechanisms by which organisms develop from unicellular zygotes into multicellular organisms, and the mechanisms by which genetic information is transferred from organism to organism.

It seems that MacNeill applauds the recent discoveries in evolutionary biology.  In fact, he says the recent discoveries provide a BETTER EXPLANATION for evolution than the "Modern Synthesis" did in 1959.

In conclusion...
Quote
We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 17, 2006 @ 6:35 pm

I think MacNeill's conclusion stands on its own without embellishment needed from me.

So let's review.  MacNeill states that the "Modern Synthesis" was a description of evolution before 1960.  Recent discoveries listed above have refuted the "Modern Synthesis" (as defined above) into a BETTER EXPLANATION of evolution.

Reading for comprehension is a skill you have yet to learn Dave.

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/26 11:45:45, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,12:13)
Mike--  You seem like a decent guy, so I'll be easy on you.  But you might want to keep track of what you say.  You wouldn't want people laughing at you when you say this ...  
Quote
Mike PSS Oct. 19 2006,21:20    

So, what do you think, Dave? 500 alleles due to mutation in 200 generations? How plausible does that sound?
Which I totally refuted.

And now you say this ...  
Quote
DAVE.  IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT TO START THIS SCRAP AGAIN.  I WOULD POST PERMALINKS BUT YOU HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF NOT NOTICING THIS.  ANSWER THE CHALLANGE ABOUT 61 HLA-B GENES APPEARING IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  CHAMP.
You were way, way off on the 500 thing, which you now admit.  And I explained the 61 thing to you already.  I'm not going through it again.  Buy the book, please.

This thread is not "Educate the Skeptics."

It's "AFDave Educates Himself About the Skeptics."

Geez Dave.  In my long post above I admit that you found out that only "61 alleles" were indicated in the one source I used.  You parsed the data to come up with the correct number and I applauded you on that fact.

I also stated that other sources are available but you never asked for any of them.

Now you only have to explain how 61 HLA-B alleles showed up in the population in less than 250 years (the time between the end of the flood and the end of the ice age in the UCGH timeline).

YOU HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THIS AT ALL.  YOU'VE JUST PROVEN YOU CAN USE MS EXCELL TO COUNT COLUMNS AND ROWS.

And which book would explain this type of allelic appearance in the population?

Enlighten me please.  Because nowhere in your past posts have you explained anything related to the question.  Read my summary above if you have forgotten the details of this discussion.

You wouldn't want to misrepresent the facts about this subject to anyone else.  Would you?

Mike PSS

Date: 2006/12/26 12:04:13, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,12:48)
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

Nice performance, Mike PSS ...

BUT ...

MacNeill doesn't just say the old models of the Modern Synthesis are dead ...

He says "THE MODERN SYNTHESIS IS DEAD"...    
Quote
The “modern synthesis” is dead - long live the evolving synthesis!
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 16, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1711#comment-69014

Squirm, Darwin Fundies!  Squirm!  Run and hide from the spotlight of truth!

Nice post Dave.  Why don't we let MacNeill's definition sink in again.

Remember, this is the evolutionary MODEL prior to 1960.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (before 1960)= gradulistic changes in allele frequency in populations over timeas the result of differential reproductive success.

This is what we're referencing here.

Do you disagree?   Hmmmmmm?

And also, can we agree that when MacNeill says "evolving synthesis" he is talking about all the recent discoveries (since 1960) that have overturned the above definition of "Modern Synthesis".

Hmmmmmm?

Date: 2006/12/26 12:15:20, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,13:10)
Mike PSS--  
Quote
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (before 1960)= gradulistic changes in allele frequency in populations over timeas the result of differential reproductive success.
Mmmm hmmm ...

AND IT'S DEAD.

D - E - A - D

DEAD.

And it's been superceded by what?

THAT is where you fall flat on your face.

"Victory is Mine!" says Dave to himself.

The rest of us are watching in bemused pity.

Waterlooooooo....
Waterlooooooo....

Date: 2006/12/26 12:22:16, Link
Author: Mike PSS
At this point I think Dave is only mocking himself.

This is beyond semantics and into morning cartoons (not the good past-primetime stuff on Adult Swim, Comedy Central).

I asked this before Dave.  Do you have anything else to support your UCGH.  I listed all the topics you have yet to comment on.

We're losing Russel in a few days.  Eventually you'll be as popular as our hero zero.  Can't wait for that.

Date: 2006/12/26 13:39:58, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I think Dave got catnip in his stocking.

This type of dialogue is what I would expect from my cat after partaking in massive quantities of catnip.

A few "kitty downers" may do the trick Dave.  Seek vetrinary help if this affliction continues.

Date: 2006/12/26 20:33:08, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (k.e @ Dec. 26 2006,19:26)
AFD if you read this I promise you will lower your stupidity from 100%.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

k.e
I have that one saved to my archive.  Good historical account.

I also have this one saved because of the great historical account and all the references all in one place.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/waterloo_in_dov.html

Date: 2006/12/27 12:49:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
And please don't leave out the ice age.  And the migrating families to the western hemisphere.  And the tower of babel (that had to occur before the pyramid also).  Then the population is split (12 times?) with different "tribes" (languages I think) migrating to different regions.  So the population for Egypt settlement is reduced further.

But we have to account for the HLA-B alleles (61 at least as of the last count) that are common between the pyramid builders and the Native Americans too.

Geez Dave.  Lot's of 'splainin' to do I see.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:14:04, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,15:15)
I do believe that small changes can occur in a species, it is even observable today, and in reality is all the evolution supports, but I do not believe that all species originated from a single species.  I do not dispute that current measurements show a very old universe, I just don't believe that we can extrapolate that to a creation date of the universe.

Dog Swallowed (or whatever your glom name means).  
Can you seriously point at a historical timeline and "say" that this is the point that actual history reverted to apparent age?
When you have done that with, say, C14 you can then do that with lake varves, dendochronology, ice cores, historical pottery shard studies, Rb-Sr Isochrons, U-Pb-Th Isochrons, etc. and so on.
The independent methods of measurement (some based upon nuclear physics, some on pollen analysis, some on subjective but consistent interpretation of ancient art) that these techniques use agree with each other in a chronology that reaches back on earth to over 4 billion years.  Add in cosmology and we have over 13 billion years of data that is both consistent and self-correcting in nature.

How old did you say the earth was?  The universe?

If your god is so omnipotent then there is NOTHING I can say to make you look at the evidence.  Just don't hold the printed words in your book as evidence to counter the discoveries of scientists.  The simple statement of "goddidit" is all you need to maintain your worldview.

For the consistant chronological measurements mentioned above, your god has to hide within Heisenberg's Uncertainty.  The rest of the measurements are consistent and real and there is nothing you can say to refute them.

Mike PSS

p.s.  B.Sc. in chemical engineering.  Minor in chemistry.  Many in the family are PhD's and have vast knowledge in certain areas.  I think you are confusing the nature of a PhD degree.  It is for those who wish to specialise in a specific field.  If math isn't in the field then the PhD may never be able to balance their checkbook.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:38:03, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,16:19)
BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF HETEROZYGOSITY (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH

Dave,
I have a very large hammer to bash this assertion to smitherrines.

HOW MANY ALLELES ARE PRESENT IN THE BREEDING PAIR AFTER THE BOTTLENECK?

How many Dave?  Four?  At most?

What I have been asking is how you get 61 HLA-B ALLELES fully interspersed in the population in only 250 years (or even 180 years with your latest timeline assertions).  Because in the case of the ark we only had 16 ALLELES TO START WITH NO MATTER HOW WELL MIXED UP THEY ARE AFTER A FEW GENERATIONS!!!!!

Dave,
The 61 NEW HLA-B ALLELES APPEARED IN THE POPULATION AFTER THE FLOOD AND BEFORE THE END OF THE UCGH ICE AGE!!!!

Your genetic diversity argument doesn't address this inconsistency in your UCGH.

Please explain to us how these 61 alleles appeared in only 250 (or 180) years.

Date: 2006/12/28 19:01:45, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,18:09)
dgszweda is a crunch of the name Dave Szweda.  And yes Szweda is a fine Polish name

What is it with "Dave" and anti-evolution?

Design?  Some cosmic alignment?

Or are we just witnessing some random, non-telic coincidence.

Date: 2006/12/28 22:19:25, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Since AFDave is stuck in one of his parrot loops (endlessly reposting fully refuted arguments) I thought I'd bring up some ¿new? creo points to the table.

While slumming..... er.... skimming through some ICR stuff to try and predict what Dave might throw our way next I ran across a good summary from Dr. D.R.Humphreys about "Evidence for a Young World".

Here's the article...
Evidence for a Young World by Dr. Humphreys - ICR

And here's his fourteen points he makes....  
Quote
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
(Earth max age of a few hundred million years.)

2. Too few supernova remnants.
(7,000 years max)

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
(10,000 years max)

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
(12 million years max)

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
(62 million years max)

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
(20,000 years max)

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
(less than 1,000 years)

8. Biological material decays too fast.
("Old" fossils with surviving DNA imply young earth)

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
(Polonium Halo's and other such shenanigans)

10. Too much helium in minerals.
(Deadman, this one's for you.  :D )

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
(Thousands, not millions, of years old)

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
(The "Stone Age" only lasted a few hundred years)

13. Agriculture is too recent.
(From "Stone Age" to "Agriculture" in a few hundred years after the flud)

14. History is too short.
(Written records only 5,000 ybp)


Now, Dave has mentioned a few of these and uses a couple all the time.  He has mentioned #7 and #9 but hasn't really gone in depth.  He has tried #10 and #11 in depth and got clobberred and uses #14 all the time.  I wonder why our resident c&p pro hasn't delved into this basket of "good" arguments to bolster his UCGH.

As I read through this diatribe I noticed that Dr. Humphreys specifically attributes ALL of these diverse "evidences" to some type of evolutionary cause.  But I see only #8 as directly pertinent to evolutionary biology.  The remainder of the points are based upon cosmology, physics, geology and anthropology.

Do you think Dr. Humphreys has an axe to grind with evolutionists in particular?  Why doesn't he attribute these observations to the proper field of study they belong?

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/03 19:40:39, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Go away to the U.P. for the New Year and everything changes.  Gotta get this post in quick before the end times comes.

Does Stevestory have an e-mail version of kool-aid for all the thread participants?  I can't think of anything better occurring after this ends.  My numerological analysis shows the number 5000 very prophetic for some reason.  Something to do with "reasoning will return" and "knowledge will flow like hot cocoa".  If that's the case then I know I can't face it so soon.  I've purchase my purple coveralls and have my white sneakers already.

I'd like to thank everyone for their continued dilligence of facts.

And Eric also gets my vote for persistance in opposition.

AFDave,
I thank you for teaching me new ways to obfuscate, confuse, and confound a debate opponent.  Your lessons in semantics and verbal manipulation deserve some type of mention.  Too bad the big sky mommy chose for you to reveal these skills in such an unproductive endeavor.

Mike PSS

p.s.  Dave, since I believe in radiometric dating techniques does that make me an idiot or a liar?  You said that once, do you want me to find the quote OR DO YOU TRUST THAT YOU SAID THIS!

Date: 2007/01/03 21:10:38, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,10:43)
INCORYGIBLE'S REQUEST FOR AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR CLASSIFYING ORGANISMS
Yes.  I quoted Woodmorappe's opinion that the created kind probably was roughly equivalent to the family (at least in the case of mammals and birds).  And you would have a very good point in asking how can we separate humans from the great apes if sequence difference is our objective guide .. EXCEPT ... for the fact that you are overlooking one key item.  

You are disregarding two pieces of Biblical information ...

"Genesis 1: 26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

... and ...

"Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Now of course, you do not take these statements as authoritative, which is fine for now ... you will in time either in this life or the next, but nevertheless, even with your present dim view of the Genesis record, these passages stand as possible clues to the profound mystery of the differences we see between apes and humans.

As we wrap up I noticed another item that needs clearing up from Dave.

W-a-a-a-a-y back we were questioning Dave on which verses of the Bible (the KJV specifically) were "God Inspired" and which were "mixed-up in interpretation".

We see now that Dave has listed;
 Genesis 1:26
             1:27
             1:28
             2:7
as the infallable word of the big one.

Maybe Dave can continue with a verse listing before we close at 5000.

Date: 2007/01/03 22:33:17, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Rich Uncle with a house on the Menomonie River.  He's got a camp inland too with all the UP toys.  Nothing but silence sometimes.  I try and get there once a year.

Tire chains needed this time.  Snow, then rain, then freeze left some tricky spots off the main roads.

Turned into a beer and wine fest for a few days.  Didn't have internet but for some reason didn't miss/remember it existed.  Must have been the 5th (or 8th) Stella.  At least we had DirecTV to watch the bowls.  I applaud Boise State; what a game.

I saw a few venison-on-the-hoof (along with a few other cuts) but no biggies.  More drinking than driving on this visit.

By the Way,
Happy New Year to All.
Even to you Dave.

Date: 2007/01/04 00:02:32, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 03 2007,23:46)
Oooo, Stella. And here I am, stuck with a few Molson XXX's. I've got a few days off so ordinarily it would be Vodka Time, but there are a few South Parks downloading, and when they get here in an hour, I'd rather be pleasantly buzzed than passed out on the floor with the cat jumping on me.

Nothing wrong with Canadian brew but I spend a little more because I can only drink beer brewed in the Reinheitsgebot tradition.  Put rice, or wheat, or honey junk into my beer and a wicked headache comes forth.  I've drunk for hours at the gasthouse and woke up feeling "stretched" but still functional.  Give me two Buds (or other such U.S. concoction) and I'm a basket case until the next afternoon.

Plus, it tastes danm good.

I grew up on Canadian brew in the 80's when I lived in Vancouver.  Friday nights had 50cent beer and you could fill a table of draft Carling O'Keefe (or Moosehead) for $20.  I don't have the liver left for adventures like that any more.

Date: 2007/01/04 17:09:09, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I just want to ask Mr. BJU physicist one question.

Ahem.....

Looking at an Rb-Sr Isochron plot of meteorites....


Scanned from Dalrymples Age of the Earth. 1991

At what point was the radioactive decay "alterred" by Gawd to give apparrent rather than actual age?

Here's a simpler graph from the RATE I book I beleive.


Simple question for someone with such solid faith.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/04 18:19:47, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 04 2007,18:17)
You liar and fraud. You took out the red dots!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm just trying to see if Dave Szweda has the same fantasy leanings as Mr. Hawkins.

From the BJU undergrad physics overview...
Quote
Physics-College of Arts & Science >> Division of Natural Science
The Physics major introduces you to a world of experimental, observational, and theoretical studies of the physical nature of God's universe. Courses in general physics, optics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, theoretical mechanics, astronomy, modern physics and quantum mechanics provide the student with a basic understanding of the nature of the physical universe. A Christian worldview is stressed.

http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/physics.html

Hmmmmm...  I wonder if we can determine which physics information that Dave Szweda learned has a "Christian World View" basis and which information has a "experimentally determined world view"?

Let's see what he says (if anything) about these meteorites.

Also, the ciriculum has a course on "Modern Physics" which is...
Quote
This course investigates the elementary structure of matter, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the nature of radioactivity, and the issues involved in estimating the age of the earth.


I "wonder" why that course only includes those specific topics?

I "wonder"?

Date: 2007/01/04 18:29:10, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Ahhhh...  The interesting quotes from the BJU site are limitless.

Quote
The Christian Teaching of Science
The Christian teaching of science requires not only a good command of basic subject matter, but also the spiritual perception to discern truth from error in a great variety of contexts. As a prerequisite for this, the Christian teacher of science must be thoroughly grounded in the Word of God. Moreover, he must have firmly implanted in his mind a biblical framework of truth which serves as the touchstone for his decision making. True science will fit that framework; anything that fails to fit the biblical framework must be rejected as erroneous. The present discussion demonstrates the need for a distinctively Christian philosophy of science teaching and surveys the differences between Christian and secular science education.

http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/teaching/
Y-i-i-i-i-i-i-k-e-s!!!!!

Orwell comes to mind with that type of indoctrination.

Read and comment for yourself.  Don't just take my word for it.

Date: 2007/01/05 17:23:56, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 04 2007,21:23)
Quote (Steverino @ Jan. 04 2007,20:24)
What a full of sh!t statement.  While you may believe you have been touched or can attest to God in your life, the fact remains you have absolutely no proof other than your emotional desire to believe God has touched your life.

Your "witness" is nothing more than an appeal to an emotion.

One of the things I believe hurts the cause of Christianity are people who come to "save the lost" and take no time to build relationships or wait for anyone to ask them for reasons for their faith.

They barge in, preach an unkind, prideful message and then leave.  Somehow it scores them salvation points.

I'm thankful almost everyone on this board understands that is an aberration rather than dogma.

What I find disturbing in all this is the institutionalized brainwashing that occurs out in the open.

It's disturbing to think that BJU could be accreddited to issue degrees in science in fields like physics, astronomy, biology, etc. when there is a dogmatic axe to grind in what is taught in those courses.

I work in industry (in a privately held corporation) and my measure of the people working around me is HOW they practice the skills they are taught in school or on the job.  If someone like Mr. Szweda appears before me with a BJU accredited degree then my initial thoughts are that this person has certain boundry limits to his work practices because not only the teachings/cirriculum are limited in scope but the perceived world view are a limiting factor too.  Depending on the work we're doing these boundry limits may never be tested, but they are there all the same.

In this case, WHO do these perceived limits affect more?
Me?  In my job?
Or Mr. Szweda.  In his pursuit of professional accomplishment in his field.

I don't hold it against Mr. Szweda for his education choices nearly as much as I hold it against BJU for the twisted way in which they handle education in the first place.

Mike PSS

[/rant]

Date: 2007/01/06 21:12:15, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I see that "AFDave the Martyr" has as much debating prowess in the Scaryfacts tete-e-tete as "AFDave Defender of the UCGH".

I would have thought that Dave could stand up in his own field a little better.  Afterall, he has a lifetime of historical reference to support his views on his Christian world.  It has got to gall AFDave that he gets anotomical parts handed to him no matter what the subject.

I think I gave AFDave a little too much credit.

BWE, I have made the same mistake I (correctly) accused you of doing in the past.  Giving AFDave too much credit.

Pathetic AFDave.  Pathetic.

Mike PSS

p.s.  Dave, if I gave more in my lifetime than you, do I get the window seat?  How about a free drink?  Ear Phones?  Pathetic Dave.

Date: 2007/01/06 21:35:11, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Jan. 05 2007,21:19)
While I certainly pity some of the folks who get run through the BJU grinders, my impression of Mr. Dagwood is that he was very much a willing victim...

At what point is a participant in a group following endowed with free will w.r.t. "the message".  I will agree with your point if Mr. Szweda declares that he chose BJU over a state-supported university system that offerred scholerships/grants.

My impression of the BJU system is only a logical follow-up to those participants lives at the "university" level.  At the BJU level I suspect that only willing victims students that have already fully accepted the caveats of attendence (meaning the BJU disclaimers about teaching in the Christian perspective) will attend this institution.  The "message" is only a continuance of a pre-existing world view brought to the institution already by the students BUT actively reinforced in every facet of the cirriculum.

I don't pity Mr. Szweda.  I only want to point out that in my eyes his choices carry baggage far beyond what he may have considered.

Date: 2007/01/08 11:13:54, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (BWE @ Jan. 08 2007,01:10)
 
Quote
I. FOUNDATIONAL STANDARDS
{snip}
In the institution's Biblical Foundations Statement, the TRACS Biblical Foundations
Statement should be affirmed as a general model, but it is not expected to be used
verbatim. TRACS offers the following tenets:


The deeper you dig, the more shit gets on your finger.  I like that TRACS doesn't want the affiliated institutions to quote everything verbatim.  That would be... like... Orwellian or something.  TRACS "seems" to give free will for the institution to interpret the bible.  Uh Huh...

And lest we forget.  If we fail our "tests" at school.
Quote
Satan. The existence of a personal, malevolent being called Satan who acts as tempter
and accuser, for whom the place of eternal punishment was prepared, where all who die
outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.

So if I shout "Beelzebub!" or "Mephistophiles!" in the assembly hall then that's alright?

I guess ONLY if the institution takes the verbatim tenent description from TRACS.

This is screwed up at a whole different level.

Thanks BWE for the information.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/09 16:55:13, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (BWE @ Jan. 09 2007,12:45)
So, I've been reading up on accreditation and this seems like a strange anomaly. Does anyone know how the process works internally?

I read through some of the Google links related to TRACS and found they were denied status as an accreditation body until father banana-boy and his minions came into office.  TRACS was recognized by the USDE in 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRACS

Apparently, once TRACS is recognized as an accreditation orginization by the USDE and the CHEA it only must pass audit to maintain its status.  Therefore the universities that have been "blessed" by TRACS continue in their accredited status.

But what about professional degrees, or those degrees that require a certain cirriculum fullfillment to a national/international orginization.

Most engineering degrees must have the degree meet criteria based upon the engineering associations (AIChE, ASME, IEEE, etc...).  And I think that most science degrees must have a similar structure for the degree to have meaning.

I started a search on the BJU physics degree program but have come up blank on whether the American Physics Society actually critiques school cirriculums or not.

More searching needed I'm sure.

Date: 2007/01/10 08:05:54, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Jan. 09 2007,03:40)
Quote
But, whatever the limitations of Darwinism, isn't the intelligent design alternative an "intellectual dead end"? No. If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.

But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.

Finally, Randerson claims that ID is "pure religion". In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.


Read it here.

So is this statement an attempt to introduce the Explanatory Filter to the U.K.?

Or is this the CSI thingy?

I have yet to see (and know I will never see) any real numbers applied to these concepts.  I just wonder if any of the intended audience of this diatribe knows the background of this yammerer's statement.

Date: 2007/01/10 08:42:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 10 2007,09:02)
I've taken us far from Scary's initial question so I'm going to continue this on my own.  I did want to make concluding comment.  It would seem that this viewpoint would deny one from obtaining knowledge of any objective sort.  The words are just symbols that inadequately describe reality and you must experience something to actually know it but you cannot share that with anyone else because they haven't experienced what you have and the symbols limit your ability to share a common experience accurately.  Sounds like each creates their own reality and it is unique.  Anyway, back to Scary's discussion.

P.S. Lenny, if by "authority" you mean an objective reality in which existence is or it isn't of specific essences whether we know it or not, then yes, I subscribe to that.  If you're referring to an Authority Figure then you're still offbase.

You give up too easily skeptic.  From an independent observer I can make the following summary by analogy.  This is only my words and my view at present.

Early man saw lightning, heard thunder, and felt rain.  Processes (reality) that could not be understood or duplicated by the people experiencing these things.  Words were created to describe these phenomenae but attributions to the "creative" powers were brought in to calm the (natural?) fear of the unknown that the masses exhibited.  This poorly put together analogy is (I think) what Lenny is alluding to when he states your perception is locked into authority.  You "need" to have something spelled out as omnipotent/all-powerful or over-arching to make sense of everything else.

When Galileo discovered the Jovian moons the reality of the moons didn't change, only the perception of Galileo to the universe around him.  Galileo's words and writings were purely an attempt to convey meaning through the "Galileo reality filter" to those around him.  The church attempt to squash this message was just a case of differences in interpretation, not denial of the overall reality.  The "reality of the Jovian moons" never changed regardless of what message the masses heard.

Now we can stretch this analogy to the breaking point.  The same could be said of any new discovery in the universe.  By simple extension we can project that all such attempts by anyone (let's just say human for now) to explain any type of perception (reality based OR OTHERWISE) is purely a word jumble attempt to convey that persons projection to the rest of humanity.  The words have no value, only the "reality" that they try and describe has value.  BUT this "value" is only "real" to the witness of the reality described.  What muddy prose to describe an internal process.

Science enters the scene because it offers a neutral venue to describe reality that others can reproduce and experience for themselves.  I can describe gravity in many words, but probably the most "value" comes when I say that at the earth's surface it has an accelleration of 9.8 m/s^2.  I just gave you (and everyone else) a chance to not only interpret my word jumble that describes gravity but also a concrete "value" that you can take and reproduce and experience in your own internal word jumble that you create yourself.

Extend this thought to the unknown and unmeasureable aspects of the universe, human condition, butterfly thoughts, etc... and you can see that the concepts of a "higher authority" start to make no sense to the "reality" as it already exists.  The "higher authority" is only a projection of those who perceive it that way.

Date: 2007/01/10 09:34:12, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 10 2007,09:58)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 10 2007,08:42)
You give up too easily skeptic.  From an independent observer I can make the following summary by analogy.  This is only my words and my view at present.

 This poorly put together analogy is (I think) what Lenny is alluding to when he states your perception is locked into authority.  You "need" to have something spelled out as omnipotent/all-powerful or over-arching to make sense of everything else.

Two quick ones:

I'm not giving up, I just don't want to sidetrack Scary's discussion any further.

And the idea of an omnipotent/all-powerful authority is not a requirement and that is why Lenny's authority concept doesn't apply.  The Cause could be any number (or infinite) of things that resulted in existence as opposed to oblivion.  It need not be active, aware, unnatural or even still in around.  At the fundamental level it might just be more important to recognize that there is a cause than what the nature of the that cause is.

Anyway, I'll do some reading on my own and try to get a glimpse from the other side.

First off, I included the science statement in my analogy because this addresses the subject of the thread.  I can explain this if you need.

You contradict yourself immediately by attributing "The Cause" to (what I think is) our creation.  This is your authority statement.  Yes, our creation "happened" but so did everything else.
What is the reason you attribute "The Cause" as an over-arching event?

The first bolded part of your statement is your own perception (in this case a duality) of choice.  Either we exist or there is oblivion.  Well, we exist so what now brown cow.  Your duality is meaningless in my perception of your words.  And I can project "value" on my perception by saying:
"Look into a mirror and describe the oblivion, or lack thereof, that you perceive."
Anyone reading this, including Intellectually Honest Christians, can duplicate this action and begin to form their own word jumble to describe this experience.

The second bolded part reinforces your own perception of a duality in your universe.  All of us are part of the same reality, the same existence.  There are no opposites sides, only interpretations.

As an aside, I came into this world view by reading about everything else (religion, history, science, etc.) and trying to encapsulate ALL of what I read into a coherent perception that INCLUDES everything.  I haven't spent time or effort reading specifically about eastern Tao, or Zen.  What is interesting is that a lot of my conclusions about life in general are paralleled by authors thousands of years ago.  So even though my sources of information are different, and probably more detailed, the general perceptions I have are nothing new to the human condition.

Date: 2007/01/10 10:52:52, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 10 2007,11:28)
Quote
4) Do the math.
I think if I do the math, everything goes extinct eventually.

Does that fit into your world view?

Show us the math first Dave.  

O.K.  don't do the math but at least OUTLINE your approach to this problem.  What equations would you use?  What variables?  What assumptions?  Got anything new in that statement or just more bloviating.

Now this is real math....

Date: 2007/01/11 14:35:23, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 11 2007,12:41)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 11 2007,07:36)
WAD discloses his longings:
       
Quote
If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?).

Wow, IDers sure do hate biology, don't they?

Given that I think Bill is a pretty good barometer of ID's most dysfunctional pathologies, I think this something that the DI fantasizes about doing once society is 'renewed'.

If this one item were seen in isolation then the discussion string about WAD and DS would be tremendous.

However, given the weekly road-show of tard this is just one more datum in the long list of WhAckeD out DipShit ramblings.

It reminds me of...

Professional assassin Chev Chelios (Statham) Fig Newton of Information Theory (Dembski) learns his rival (Cantillo) (Barbara Forest) has injected him with an poisonidea that will kill him if his heart rate dropshe begins to comprehend the meaning.

Date: 2007/01/12 09:47:15, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Here's the linky's for the whole mess we call AFDave.

AFDave's Original Challange to Evilutionists (April 2006)

AFDave's Original Creator God Hypothesis.

AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis

AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2

And let's not forget a couple old gems....

AFDave's Chimpy discussion.

More Chimpy discussion (where AFDave created a seperate thread for every point he had)

Cain's Wife

There are other threads but this collection is the body of the AFDave entity.

Feel free to quote this message to reply to AFDave thus giving him a COMPLETE referential response to his silly arguments that have already been parsed.

Date: 2007/01/15 09:29:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
A tard world removed from all reality.  What a thread.

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....dropped

We have citizenbob being schooled by such luminaries as SChen24, Patrick and TRoutMac.

Even IF citizenbob is real (and not a sockpuppet) here's the "advice" he's receiving...

SChen24  
Quote
It is true that most science teachers will laugh if you ask them about ID. Others will mock students and so forth. A helpful tool that I posted a while ago is Jonathan Wells' "Ten Questions to Ask You Biology Teacher about Evolution." Here is the link:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_10questions.htm
********************
No, evolution is NOT the "central organizing principle of biology." Evolutionists always make that claim but it simply isn't true. They say things like "nothing in molecular biology makes sense except in light of evolution." How about, nothing in molecular biology makes sense except in light of...*gasp!*...molecules?! The simple fact is evolution is not the central organizing principle of biology.
********************
citizenbob opines - Tose [sic] ten-questions are awesome. I'm afraid to ask them to my biology teacher - he might set me an assignment to answer all ten. He's that kind of person.

SChen24 argues - Also, Citizenbob, if your science teacher tells you to do that, then we may be able to file for action (legal or not) against him.
*******************
Yes, there may well be a valid criticism of the ID argument at the moment. It would be nice for evolutionists to actually use it though. But yes, it could very possibley exist. Most, if not all, of the current claims being used against ID are not valid.

The argument that ID is not "testable" and that it "doesn't make any predictions" isn't true and most definitely isn't relevant.
....
As to the actual testability and prediction making of ID, however, I am not an expert and would rather have one respond to these questions.
*******************
Yes, are you correct that materialism is wrong. He asked what you replace it with and you didn't know so he got mad. Well, if it is wrong, should we keep it? If it is wrong, get rid of it and keep looking for the right answer.

Materialism is a paradigm that has gone wrong and needs to be replaced with a neutral, objective, truth-seeking paradigm.

And as for him getting mad, you're only a student. How about all the answers HE (and other evolutionists) can't produce?

Keep up the good work Citizenbob.


Patrick  
Quote

Patrick tries to define "Pragmatic Naturalism".
******************
On the subject of the usefulness of methodological naturalism I’d agree that it has been very successful as a working model for the majority of cases. The problem is, what if the evidence leads to explanations/conclusions that do not resort only to “matter, energy, and their interaction”? The point at issue is whether nature operates exclusively by such causes or whether there is a further nature beyond the known.
**********************
That’s why opponents to ID claim science IS methodological naturalism (and then some like Monod claim it is antiteleological naturalism). By that definition ID is automatically ruled out as being science since ID “allows” for the existence of entities outside of known “matter, energy, and their interaction” although it does not "require" them. Now eventually as discoveries are made the "nature of nature" may be extended. If God(s) does exist then it/them would operate by a superset of rules which, again, may not be the entire limit of reality (although they could be).
***************************
On a side note, I’ve pretty much banished the word “supernatural” from my vocabulary when in these discussions since to my mind the supernatural is stuff like vampires and the boogieman. The question is “what is the nature of nature” and whether we should be held back a priori from asking that question.

As for the idea that ID requires a designer that can supercede natural law (aka divine intervention) I suggest you read Dembski’s explanation of how an unembodied designer can influence the natural world by co-opting random processes (indeterministic quantum states) and inducing them to produce specified complexity.
*******************************
Despite the fact that ID is compatible with common descent Darwinists should not be so certain about this method being 100% undeniable evidence. Unfortunately the evidence is not self-evident...interpretation is required. I commonly will ask Darwinists why they're so certain the features of humans and whales came about due to the popularized timeline. Why couldn't these features come about by convergent evolution? If front-loaded evolution is occurring there really isn't a reason to follow the pathways established by the old dogma. Meaning, that if the data for all morphological features are contained within an initial supercell they could evolve independently of each other and not through a line sharing similar features.


TRoutMac  
Quote
First of all, you are in the right place, citizenbob. Hang out here and you'll get lots of great information.

Back when I was in high school, which was 20 years ago...
********************
You may not be able to convince your teacher… in fact, I'm almost certain you won't. But forget about that… the other students need to be exposed to these questions. They need to see someone else thinking critically about these issues and asking good, tough questions. And they need to see that their teacher doesn't HAVE the answers.
**********************
Materialism/Natularism is a fool's game when it comes to origin-of-life questions and here's why. The letter of the law in materialism is that you can only seek "natural" explanations for natural phenomena. What I like to do is to "zoom out" to the big picture… when we ask "How did life begin?" or "How did the universe come into existence?" we're really asking about the origin of nature. Think of it in those terms. Where did nature come from?...
**********************
Testability:
Remember that ID isn't just applicable to biology or natural things. So move it out of this realm for a moment. Think of archaeological discoveries like, for example, the Rosetta Stone. If ID isn't "testable", then how did anyone ever conclude that the Rosetta Stone was NOT the product of random natural processes like wind and erosion?

We have several thousand years of experience and knowledge of what intelligent agents produce. Intelligent agents devise languages, correct? You bet… we got TONS of languages. English, Morse Code, C++, HTML, Java. Humans observed the creation of these languages, correct? Have humans ever observed a language being produced purely by natural, unintelligent processes? Nope, never. So if we suspected (and we do) that biology is the product of intelligent design, we could "test" that hypothesis by determining whether biological life contains within it some form of language. Hmmm… That's just exactly what DNA is!! It's a "language".
**********************
We've got these folks on the run, citizenbob. Don't let 'em get you down.
*********************
would love to ask a Darwinist, by the way, whether Darwin predicted the complexity of a single cell. (in Darwin's time they thought a cell was just a blob of protoplasm, very simple) Did Darwin "predict" information processing systems in living cells? Did he "predict" that cells would contain tiny little machines… rotary engines, universal joints, etc.? Did Darwin "predict" that these tiny nano-machines would be irreducibly complex?

Answer? No, he didn't. Interesting, ain't it though?
*****************
As SChen24 pointed out earlier, your teacher has expressed a loyalty to materialism that surpasses even his loyalty to what is true. In other words, he doesn't mind chasing a lie if it allows him to remain within the bounds of materialism. Materialism is the boss, and truth takes a back seat. It's amazing.


As a bullet list of claims we have...
  • Evolution isn't the central tennent of biology.
  • ID is a testable theory.
  • Materialism is wrong.
  • Redefining what science is helps understand science better.
  • Front-loading is a practical theory.
  • DNA is a language.
  • Darwin didn't predict everything so evolution is false.
  • Truth! Truth! Truth! Truth! Truth! Truth!


U-g-g-g-g-g-h-h-h-h!!!

I need a drink.  And it's only 10 in the morning.

Date: 2007/01/15 11:23:58, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,11:36)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2007,08:31)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,10:24)
Could ya knock one back for me, Mr. Elliot?

Consider it done. Any particular toast that you would like? I default on "cheers", so that is what you will get unless you have a more complex specific inference that you prefer.

When in a particularly good mood, I like to add unnecessary obsceneties to the ends of my thoughts. For example "Cheers, crunk slurping monster trucker!"


...you can translate that into actual profanity if you like. But it's kind of funny as is, too.

In an assertive, commanding voice I announce
UP YOURS!
then bottom out the drink.

This usually leads to follow-up gestures.

The looks of astonishment I get are well worth it.

Mike PSS

p.s. I still remember the Austrailian tour that Bush I took (1991?) when he gave the peace sign out of the limo window to all the crowds in Sydney.  Another case of the local diplomats not correctly briefing the visiting dignitary on local customs.

p.p.s.  Try a round of "fuzzy duck" with friends at the bar.

Date: 2007/01/15 11:29:23, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 15 2007,11:21)
With the citizenbob thread - sockpuppetry or not - we really have hit the motherlode of stupid.

I was debating which tardalicious statements to include in the quotes.  There was so much tard I had to leave some out.

Didn't someone invent a measure of tard recently?

Work per unit Dumb or something?

If not then we need an SI measure soon.

Date: 2007/01/15 15:06:48, Link
Author: Mike PSS
It was AFDave's continued practice of quote-mining to prove his points that turned his arguments into nothing more than grade school oneupsmanship.  A silly tactic that put me off replying to the rubbish he presented.

I won't attribute his tactics to mastery in anything (i.e. AFDave was not a "master of the quote-mined word" or "master of the creationist word definition").  In my eyes AFDave regressed as time went on.  His debating tactics were limited to begin with.  He presented hard data less and less as time went on.  When the board consistently beat his presented arguments to a pink mist time and time again then AFDave was left with nothing more than semantics and word games.  He dared not put forward any hard data to support his views because he knew the treatment that was in store for him.

I support steve in closing the thread, it wasn't adding anything to any discussion this forum is created for (it's impact to the forum was complete before UCGH I was finished).  And AFDave was duly warned to "improve" his game or face restrictions and/or limitations.  Unfortunately for AFDave, he couldn't improve or change his discourse so the threatened action was carried out to the letter.  I for one was hoping that AFDave could change his stripes, but he kept up his inane semantics and c&p crusade that didn't add any worthwhile discussion to the thread or to the board.

As for posting on the Bathroom Wall, at present I see the responders (troll feeders) as guilty as AFDave for the continued "discussion".  Treat AFDave on the Bathroom Wall like hereoisreal was treated on his own thread, ignore the itch and the itch should go away.  This tactic is unenforcable to everyone, but as more people stop responding then AFDave becomes more of a voice in the wilderness.

Does a creationist argument sound stupid if there is no one there to hear it?  Let's find out.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/15 18:52:21, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I get the feeling that Michaels7 doesn't agree with some (any) of the tenents of evolutionary theory.

And he has a hang up about materialists too.
 
Quote (Michaels7 @ 01/15/2007 6:38 pm)
  • materialist only argument for evolution lives in the past
  • they’re flailing their arms in deep water with their stubborn refusal to admit just how wrong they’ve been.
  • Ateleologist cannot produce a valid experiment for dust to man, by a series of accidents or of snowflakes turning into polar bears. It is they who are living in fairy tales. All experiments have been utter failures. Fruit Flies, radiation, etc., etc.
  • they fail to produce a pragmatic scientific theory for future scientific research
  • science has progressed despite materialist evolutions 150 years of miscalculations and sometimes intentionally misleading(piltdown man, nebraska man, Haeckels embryo drawings) campaigns displayed to the public masses
  • Unfortunately forced upon children in schools with no apologies from the afundies.
  • Atheist can no longer claim and throw insults as more prominent scientist shed light on the Code of Life found within.
  • Materialist only crowds are losing ground little by little.
  • The mocking and scoffing is more evidence of a scientific groupt think culture in meltdown mode.
  • When “ethical scientist” start Hitler-esque propaganda tactics like comparing pedophiles to Christians, they’re in serious trouble both morally and scientifically.
  • They should be called out for what they are, morally corrupt, propagandist. They’re no longer scientist, but charlatans.
  • They have nothing left but insults and propaganda.
  • New life here will not result spontaneously and unfold without prior planning and guidance by intelligent agents.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1958

So, let's parse his comments for some constructive information on ID.
Quote
  • IDist and Creation scientist can manipulate life now and in the future by intelligent planning and foresight. By “tinkering.”
  • ID provides more fertile ground in the future as a way to think about life’s design in us and around us.
  • Simple things that we know by simple observations. Without massive planning life does not 1) begin, 2) survive, 3) produce more informationally rich complex life forms.
  • ID is the future paradigm. Life, new life does not and will not “evolve” in other galaxies and solar systems, on other planets, moons, without specific and complex criteria prior to and during lifes emergence. New life here will not result spontaneously and unfold without prior planning and guidance by intelligent agents.
  • The Third Subset of Functional Sequence Complexity is not attained without guided intelligence.
    Note: found this reference...http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1749
  • And the Four Null Hypotheses still remaind[sic] unfalisfied.


I have to give Michaels7 credit that he can carry on a screed filled post without spittle constantly shorting out his computer.

Date: 2007/01/15 19:37:53, Link
Author: Mike PSS
TRoutMac opines....
Quote
The "kinds" spoken of in the Bible could end up meeting up with one of our taxonomic categories already… maybe phyla. Who knows? (I'm certainly not claiming to know that it does, but I've heard it suggested and I think it's a reasonable speculation.)


I wonder if TRoutMac is channelling AFDave.

Maybe we could send TRoutMac a copy of the AFDave UCGH II thread where we destroy this notion.

Date: 2007/01/15 19:56:21, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,20:40)
Quote
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232

And that won post of the year for 2005 here.  See post #3.
http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp

In fact, the whole site is a hoot.

http://www.fstdt.com/

Pictures too.  I'm adding this to my favorites.

Date: 2007/01/16 08:25:51, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 16 2007,06:21)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1960

They have their knickers in a twist once more.
From the Rocky horror show... "truly beautifull to behold"

And Mentok subtely reveals his true feelings in his long winded diatribe.  Just after his revelations about the differences between MODERN apes and MODERN humans we get some beutifal tard.
Quote (mentok @ 01/16/2007 5:37 am)
We see the most beautiful and perfect things all around us, from healthy beautiful youthful human bodies, beautiful trees, stunning flowers, deliciously sweet fruits, wildely beautiful animals with astounding abilities, an amazingly beautiful perfect eco-system, all of it color coordinated for your viewing pleasure. Yet we also see human bodies that are not youthful nor healthy beauties.

*************************
Life on earth or earth planets for us is seen as a place where we can advance our consciousness and mental state which can enable us to fit into a world without the defects we see around us. A realm where there is only the perfection of the natural world and the perfection that we can see in youthful healthy beautiful people, with none of the defects of old age, disease, violence, cruelty, natural disasters, etc.


What does that remind me of?

Oh yeah...
 
Quote
General Jack Mentok:
Dembski said Creationism was too important to be left to the preachers. When he said that, ten years ago, he might have been right. But today, Creationism is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Evilutionist infiltration, Evilutionist indoctrination, Evilutionist subversion, and the international Evilutionist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our healthy beautiful youthful human bodies.

Date: 2007/01/16 20:49:26, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Stick around Louis.  If not for your banter then just for your present avatar.  Good find.

My 2 cents.....

Ahem.....

AFDave style...  :p

BAN THE PRESENT APPARITION CALLED GHOST OF PALEY.  BUT ALLOW THE CONTRIBUTOR TO REGISTER AS A NEW NAME LIKE GHOST II.  THE PRESENT NAME IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TROLLING BEHAVIOUR OF OVER A YEAR.  MANY ARGUMENTS AND ASSERTIONS BY THE PRESENT APPARITION ARE CONFUSED BECAUSE OF THE CONNECTION WITH THE PAST BEHAVIOUR.

There.  That felt better.

Date: 2007/01/17 08:39:38, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (ke. @ Jan. 17 2007,07:29)
Ichthyic ...I had a roomate like yours once


And don't forget Keed Spills!

Ahhhhh.
Fineas Freak and the Fabulous Freak Brothers.

My brother and I collected those at some time in the past.  Unfortunately, while we were...  ummm... expanding our horizens with friends those issues tended to wander.

Thanks k.e. (or ke., or .ke, or k.e, or .ke.) for reminding me of that comic.  I'll have to look out for those again.

Date: 2007/01/17 19:40:19, Link
Author: Mike PSS
GoP.  I suggest you shut this persona down.  All the arguments are conflated with pre and post troll behaviour.

Just get the O.K. from the moderator to register as a new name.

It will start a "fresh" look into what you present.

Date: 2007/01/18 09:42:34, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 18 2007,10:18)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 18 2007,16:08)
Awww, the kitty and the puppy get along!

Hold on... lower left of the picture... the red thing... is that a dog toy or what?? a butt plug?

A rhetorical comment leaves a little bit to the imagination.  It's also self-censored for fragile little minds.  The rest of us will probably get what's inferred anyway.

Intelligent Designed commenting?  Have I discovered a new pathway for enlightenment?

Date: 2007/01/19 07:55:21, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Didn't we have this same go-around with AFDave recently?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1974

I think caligula should ask if Sal understands alleles.

If the UD trend continues they might as well invite Bro.Randy from teens-4-christ to start commenting.  I'm sure his insights will help Sal with the ID arguments too.
Quote (Bro.Randy @ Jan 11 2007, 08:45 PM)
When God created the stars, He could have created them with their light already in place. I am not God, and I cannot explain how He did it. I can say, however, that whenever science disagrees with the Bible, the scientist is wrong or has misunderstood something.

At least Bro.Randy is humble and admits he's not god.  :)

Date: 2007/01/19 09:23:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I think skeptics post begins to bridge the gap between "personal" and "tribal" reactions to religion and science.

I re-read the thread and it began by looking at world religions, populations, and aspects of those orginizations.  The discussion has since been narrowed to examining the internal, personal interpretations of reality and religion.

k.e states...  
Quote
Today the language of earth and sky has no meaning if the horizon ends at the glass on the front of a TV set. Anyone then can define reality as anything they like and American Christian Fundamentalism is industrial strength magical reality with a horizon that ends around 10 feet from the viewer’s eyeballs.

I think if the discussion is limited (focused) on personal experiences then this statement can be applied to all people, not just fundamentalists.  I've met a few hobos in my life and they are quite happy with their existance because everything beyond their basic survival (10 foot pole universe) is not even thought about.  Talk about intellectually honest.

But skeptic starts to bring back the tribal aspect of religion.  
Quote
"In my experience, science is not enough."

Now you're going to say that this is nothing more than a "God of the Gaps" argument and I will counter saying that is a vast oversimplification.  We're not just dealing with a current lack of understanding but fundamental limitations on our ability to understand.  You may be opposed to one particular method or book but at that point all decisions are personal and up to the individual to decide what supplies the most satisfying answer to the Why.  It is telling that you see those involved with religion as unnecessarily saddled with guilt and shame.  Is this how you felt?  Could it be possible that for you religion didn't offer the most satisfying answer and leave it at that?
I agree that in an environment with free choice a person can choose which stories methods to believe to answer the Why? question.  But if someone chooses a religious environment then there seems to be some "baggage" to go along with the answers to the Why? question.  As an example I'll ask;

k.e:  You said...
Quote
The local tribes still have creation myths based on gigantic snakes making life giving creeks around the rock formation where that artifact is.
It looks like the local tribes haven't changed their creation story for 70,000 years.  How many dissenting voices with alternative creation stories (or lack thereof) have been expressed within those tribes in that time?

What I'm saying is that the acceptance of a religion tends to bring that person into the tribe.  And tribal pressures take on new influences for the person.

I argue that science is a neutral venue that offers explanations to phenomenae that ALL people can reproduce for themselves.  Regardless of the "baggage" of your belief system.  However some tribes will resist the results because it goes against established tribal practices.  

If you are truly an Intellectually Honest Christian then you have to address all the evidence that is discovered in a coherent, scientific framework because once there is evidence on the table then it's no longer religious in nature.

Date: 2007/01/19 09:31:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 19 2007,09:00)
New Tardative posted!!!
 
Quote


13

DaveScot

01/19/2007

4:44 am

El Klone

"Although I agree with the point of your post, that greater acceptance of ID can be considered an indicator of scientific literacy, your assessment of the NSF statistic was not quite right."

Point taken. However, if you add up the percentages for the US for each of the 9 literacy questions excluding evolution then take the average, and do the same for EU, the U.S. comes out slightly higher.

So it IS essentially equal with a slight U.S. lead if all 9 questions are given equal weight. Keep in mind if we consider the opener a valid question and add that into the equation “Is astrology science?” then the U.S. gets a wider lead in the average.

I would guess I unconsciously weighted the questions differently such that being way more right about Astrology not being science is better than being a little more right about continental drift. Or that being way more right about the nature of radioactivity and antibiotics is more important than being a little more right about sperm determining the sex of a child or the center of the earth being very hot. The relative importance of the questions biased my conclusion.


DaveTard, you are simply unbelievable.  Learn how to read graphs properly and quit LYING.  You are a blatant LIAR and are a DISGRACE.  You have NO credibility except amongst the DEMBSKIISTS.  Your explanations to any rational person are ABSURD and PATHETIC.  You make me NAUSEOUS.

Good find batboy.

I think DaveTard is in Six Sigma Black Belt the way he manipulates those statistics to make his coherent point.

I wonder if Dembski, the PhD mathametician and owner of the blog, approves of this type of analysis?

Date: 2007/01/19 12:28:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2007,11:17)
Sorry - it occurred at the old KCFS board.  Sometimes he referred to 10-character strings, sometimes it was 8.  It seemed to depend on how quickly he wanted to "disprove" evolution...

See one iteration of his 'toy examples' here, where he adds a symbol ('character';) to his string each 'generation' and darned if he can't make a hierarchy out of it in short order...
On page 2 of that thread, he introduces his 8-bit string.

His cluelessness, obfuscation, incredulity, etc. are exhibited in full glory in that thread...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Thanks slpage.  Good background read on Slitherring Sal.  From pre-Dover no less.

But you forget your closer.
Quote
Another unsupported assertion.

Who would have thought?

Hmmm... Let's give that a name - The Cordova maneuver*.


*The Cordova Maneuver was first used by creationist Salvador Cordova, the exact date is unknown, though it appears to have been used as early as 2004. The hallmark of the Cordova Maneuver is to reiterate an unsupported or even refuted position ad nauseum as though the position has not been addressed. Additional iterations of the claim are usually accompanied by self-aggrandizing commentary, dismissive insults directed at detractors, and weak attempts to belittle those that have rebutted the claims. It is a form of fallacious argumentation.
...
With an addendum:

A great deal of psychological projection is contained in the highly defensive posturing that accompanies the unsupported assertions.

Date: 2007/01/19 12:34:32, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Steverino @ Jan. 19 2007,12:14)
As a Graphics Designer, Artist and Usability Specialist....the assclown known as TRoutMAC on UD makes me want to turn in my talent.

To paraphrase a quote about business customers..."Scientists shouldn't do design and designers shouldn't do science."

STFU Assclown!!!

I hope he attends the next SIGGRAPH so, I can piss in his margarita.

If TRoutMac at UD pisses you off so much then P-l-e-e-e-a-s-s-s-e don't read him over at OE.

Quote (TRoutMac @ 2007-01-19, 16:11)
Goldstein wrote:
"if ID is not relgious, why are you using an example from the Old Testament?"

If Darwinism is religiously neutral, then why shouldn't someone use an example from the Old Testament?

He, he. Gotcha. Darwinism won't allow for the possibility that the Bible might just be a legitimate historical document. It's not religiously neutral at all. This is why they seek to exclude it from discussion.

Here's another stumper for you: If ID is really a just religious view, then why would folks of many different religious persuasions, including those that would not hold the Bible as a religious authority, be interested in it?

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....ent-830

I wouldn't want you to lose control of your prostate AND bowels at the same time.

Date: 2007/01/19 15:33:08, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 19 2007,15:59)
I saw this video before and I thought it was a fake.

Are you calling Richard Attenborough a fake? :O

Careful jeannot, or the cross-channel mud-slinging will commence.  ;)

Date: 2007/01/19 16:43:18, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (improvius @ Jan. 19 2007,17:08)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 19 2007,17:00)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 19 2007,15:49)
Prior to his sentencing, a tearful Kent Hovind, also known as "Dr. Dino" asked for the court’s leniency.

“If it’s just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach,” Hovind said.

"If it's just money the IRS wants, I should have no problem separating it from a few thousand rubes."

Despicable.

x2

x3  :angry:

He can preach to his "captive" audience all he wants.

Date: 2007/01/20 08:47:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 19 2007,23:22)
Hmm. I also haven't followed the Hovind case. Was it personal income taxes or corporate taxes or what? If it was corporate or property, then I guess the whole protest thing doesn't apply.

...

Kent Hovind may be dumb, he may be a liar, he may be whatever, but in my personal opinion, he doesn't deserve to go to jail for 10 years for not paying taxes.

Hovind not only didn't pay his own personal income tax he also didn't pay any of the employees withholding taxes.  Regardless of his employees own tax declarations Dinoworld has the obligation to pay the social security (~6.5% of salary) and medicare/medicaide (~1.5% of salary) of ALL employees on the payroll.  His employees are also obligated to pay the same amount into social security and medicare/medicaide (these quantities are usually withheld by the employer every paycheck but in this case Dinoworld never withheld any money from the employee paychecks), but I don't think the IRS is pursuing any of the employees directly in this incident.  Maybe in follow up audits will the IRS pursue some of the employees.

Hovind had already settled the property tax issue with the county (see the Wiki write-up) but this case was with the Feds and the IRS.
 
Quote
 
Quote
The Hovinds referred to the United States Government as "the 'bankrupt' corporate government"
$9 trillion in debt? I agree with them.

I want to be clear though. The only kind of tax I'm personally against is the federal personal income tax. If Hovind wasn't paying property taxes or some other kind, then, well, that sucks of him.

The US debt represents about 65% of the countries GDP.  With this measure in mind there are countries with a far worse balance sheet.  I think Japan has over 150% debt/GDP and Italy and Brazil are near 100%.  Britain is around 40% right now.
In 1946, after WWII, the US debt/GDP was around 130% also but soon shrunk to 45%.  

I'm not going to politicize these numbers, but the chart below shows some of the interesting trends when looking at the debt and relating that to historical events like the 2000/2001 crash in tech stocks, Bush II (and GOP) spending policy compared to second term Clinton.  I leave it up to the reader to find things out from these numbers.



EDIT:  Getting some facts straight.  Here's the debt/GDP table.  Straight from the CIA so you KNOW it's correct.https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

Date: 2007/01/20 14:15:36, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 20 2007,13:33)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 19 2007,15:33)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 19 2007,15:59)
I saw this video before and I thought it was a fake.

Are you calling Richard Attenborough a fake? :O

Careful jeannot, or the cross-channel mud-slinging will commence.  ;)

I agree with the sentiment but don't you mean Sir David Attenborough?

Here he is again on crows. Fascinating stuff.

http://video.google.com/videopl....borough

Man that dude has made some amazing TV. We are lucky to have him.

Im a 'Murican.  I donch care how you prunownce hish name.

Yoos new who I was talkin bout anyway.

(why does awful American slang sound like your drunk...
Ohhhhh....  Hahaha.... answered my own question there)

Date: 2007/01/20 18:50:52, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 20 2007,19:15)
bFast 01/20/2007 3:50 pm        
Quote
As far as I am conserned the whole “sexual selection” hypothesis totally collapses in light of reality.
I am the adoptive father of two girls who are the product of an FAS, mentally handicapped mother. She seems to breed like a rabbit. She has no trouble finding another partner. I, on the other hand, a fellow with a good career and above average intelligence was not able to establish a solid romantic relationship until I was 40. Watching those that are low on the evolutionary totem pole breed like rabbits (and my daughters’ birth-mother is surely not the only one) has caused me to conclude that this theory is, well, full of it.


Okay, so what did we learn here?

(1) bFast adopted two kids...that's great, noble, A Good Thing ( unless bFast manages to stunt their intellectual growth to equal his).
 
(2) bFast thinks that HUMAN sexual selection means that the "mentally handicapped" (undefined in his example) are LESS likely to find willing casual sex partners. This is beyond ignorant.

Conversely, bFast is stating that "sexual selection" means males prefer increasingly intelligent women to have sex with.

By his reasoning, males shouldn't be lusting after Playboy models, but instead seeking out and avidly competing for Rhodes scholars. Like Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, or Lindsay Lohan --just to cite some current "sex goddesses?"

Or for a man of bFast's age...maybe he DIDN'T really lust after those hot babes of the 1970's and '80's -- he really wanted a tryst with Golda Meir and Madeleine Albright  

(3) bFast thinks that the less intelligent are " low on the evolutionary totem pole." in HUMAN societies, at THIS time in history.

This statement is more a reflection of bFast's own bitter, biased, ego-centric views than an honest appraisal of sexual selection. I have no real idea of the extent to which his adopted children's mother is "mentally handicapped" or how bFast is ignoring the historical, biological and social science data that downplays the role of female intelligence in MALE sexual selection. I do know, however, that  bFast is guilty of the worst sort of twisting and perversion of selection theory, game theory, human psychology, etc.

I have a very good idea of why you couldn't find a relationship up to your forties, bFast.

I wonder which -ism bFast is expressing here, or what his belief is based upon.

I think I recognize some mental onanism.

And his expression is compatible within fideism.  

Yeah.  That's It.  Mental onanism within a fideism framework...

In the study...

With a candlestick...

Date: 2007/01/20 20:09:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 20 2007,20:58)
 
Quote
In the study...

With a candlestick...


Why, does somebody need a "Clue"? ;)

Henry

Something like that.   ;)  


Date: 2007/01/22 08:36:14, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Thank you Lenny.  One bit of personal criticism.  Why didn't you draft this reply when you first countered Dr. GH point?

It seems that your saying the fight against ID/Creationism political power is over.  But you have just indicated a glaring hole in your own argument by posting this.

Yes, I agree the legal framework is in place to hold everyone accountable that tries to undermine science education.  But just like speeding, the law is only as good as the people who enforce the law.  Using the government analogy, the fight is over in the legislative but we have far to go with the judicial (and the executive at the present).  

If you look at a book store presentation as one more datum in the education of the masses then awareness of the issues serves the purposes of what you propose as well.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/22 12:41:02, Link
Author: Mike PSS
avocationist,
Are you going to discuss these musings on the present LUCA thread?

Or go HERE.  I have a couple comments but some people have asked to clear this, and other, threads.

I can gladly ignore them if you with to carry on here.  However, there is a thread with your name.  OR you can create one yourself.  OR you can stay here.  No biggy for me.  I just want to establish some consistency before I comment.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/22 15:55:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
What a tard show.  Our AFDave is up to 14 pages already, had his a$$ handed to him since page 3 (or earlier actually) and tries to deny everything.

Another "Portuguese Moment" is in progress.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum....art=260

Thank You ericmurphy, Faid, OA, Ved, and many others for continuing to eviscerate AFDave.

Date: 2007/01/22 16:23:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:05)
Hello Paley,

 
Quote
Interesting idea, but keep in mind that in closed systems (i.e. sealed naturalistic universes that obey our laws), dissolution will triumph in the end!


Maybe it isn't a closed system?
Maybe it is or isn't, but at any rate, I recently read that the ancient Hindus considered one lifetime of Brahma, in which the universe manifests and unmanifests, as 311 trillion years! So either way, I think that we might consider that while the tendency toward increased entropy is very easy to observe, so is the organizing principle, but we haven't given much thought to it. Where does its will and energy come from?

 
Quote

By the way, what are your beliefs about religion, God, and science? Do you think that everything is reducible to naturalistic mechanisms, or is there an explanatory need for God? Just curious.


I am a monist, taoist, panentheistic sufi. Science and God and nature are nondifferent.
Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.

Truly the human conundrum is perplexing. Religion, and most other beliefs, are the pacifier and blankie that keeps people from facing facts: we have no facts.


Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
I'm a follower of Intelligent Design; I am sure that will win and soon, yet I just can't imagine God as I envision her being the designer of life forms. I think that was delegated. To a guy. Maybe a committee, like the Elohim!

avocationist,
I've bolded two points in your quote above.

My contention with this is:

1) How are you comparing the physically measured values of energy (as defined within Thermodynamics as you insinuate in your post) with the non-physical measures of will.  Or are you trying to indicate that the universe (and thus everything in it) has purpose.

2)  Some examples of false ideas would be helpful.  Are you arguing against some factual claims?  Or maybe evidentiary based explanations for the world around us?  Or is this a declaration of the limitations of thought and words as applied to certain theistic ideas?

These points are seperate from the present thread but whatever.  So someone will accuse me of trashing it with off-topic debate.  You can create your own thread right now and copy my post over.  I would create one but right now but I believe that the originator of the ideas that are challanged has the final decision to move the debate one way or the other.  The ball is in your court if you wish to continue to discuss these items or be a contributer only to certain threads.

Date: 2007/01/22 18:21:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 22 2007,18:27)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 22 2007,08:36)
It seems that your saying the fight against ID/Creationism political power is over.

ID/creationists HAVE no political power, as of now.

I'd like to keep it that way.

I would say the ID/creationists have no FEDERAL legislative power but what we see across the country is like a hangover of power.  There are enough people in government, local and state also, that are ID/C friendly that can hide/suppress their support for ID/C while at the same time restrict the actual enforcement of the laws that are on the books.

The school board fight is a natural next step, but I think the state governments will be as important to consider.  For your idea to move to other states then those states must have enforcable statewide cirriculum standards as strong as the state with the court case.  This may require legislative change in numerous states.  I think we'll find this battle long and drawn out as each state house tries to come to terms with definitions and statutes that are muddied in terminology by the likes of the DI or AFDave.

The FEDERAL political fight is over but the states political fights are just beginning.

Unless you want to support a federal cirriculum standard enforced by the Department of Education  ;)  ???  :O  :angry:  (not sure which smiley to put here)

Date: 2007/01/22 19:23:53, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (BWE @ Jan. 22 2007,18:30)
Why is xian any different from any other book?

I would put it up there with Joyce's Ulysses for readability.  After a few pages of the writing style you just have to put it down, blink your eyes, and focus on something else to get your mind back to reality.

I've tried reading Ulysses three times and never made it past page 50.

I've read much more of the bible, but that was with some "explanatory notes" on the side.  It becomes less of a chore and more of a story (depending of course on the author of the notes).

On the other hand, you have in Ulysses the original authors words.  Whereas the bible is a copy of a transcript of interpretation of a scroll.

Date: 2007/01/22 23:05:02, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,22:45)
Mike,
 
Quote
1) How are you comparing the physically measured values of energy (as defined within Thermodynamics as you insinuate in your post) with the non-physical measures of will.  Or are you trying to indicate that the universe (and thus everything in it) has purpose.

1.About the physically measured values. I'm not really educated scientifically or mathematically. Just a layperson here. Just to let you know. Yeah, I didn't mean to directly compare those values with will. I meant that the thought struck me yesterday while reading through the linked emails between Berlinski and Wadkins and in conjunction with my esoteric ideas, that the tendency toward dissolution ought to have a counterbalancing (equal? nonequal?) force which allows things to organize. Even though will seems to be involved, it must also have physical values. Notice I said will and energy.

As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken. I think existence (life) and evolution are purpose enough. Existence IS the purpose. Nothing can trump that.

Fair enough... for philisophical musings.  But I think your idea to identify the SLoT (or in this case entropy) as some "disorganizing force" confuses the discussion tremendously.  When you invoke the SLoT argument you can't ignore the other laws around it.  Entropy isn't so much a "disorganizing force" as it is a "cost of doing business".  Sometimes you have to pay, sometimes you get money back.  But in the long run there is an overall cost.  I like to think of it as inflation.  Not bad, sometimes reversable, but to make any progress in economics you need some inflation.

Would you agree that the SLoT usage is confusing?  Or do you have some more detail to this?

 
Quote
 
Quote
2)  Some examples of false ideas would be helpful.  Are you arguing against some factual claims?  Or maybe evidentiary based explanations for the world around us?  Or is this a declaration of the limitations of thought and words as applied to certain theistic ideas?

There are many examples. I am arguing that many so-called factual claims are not. There have been many intelligent and educated people who defended wrong ideas about astronomy, the phlogiston, and so forth. And while we do slowly improve, there are emotional impediments in the way which prevent us from moving a good deal faster. The mocking and mob mentality that go on here are a great example of it. Or, try picking on a Christian sometime. They cannot bear up under the scrutiny. It is scrutiny that ruins belief systems.

Are you defending non-factual belief systems that cannot withstand factual scrutiny?  In whose mind is a belief system ruined?  The factual scrutinizer or the believer?  Is this a bad thing?  I can't tell from your response even if I parse the sentences.  Please elaborate.

 
Quote
Today people made fun of a comment I made about forced immunizations. They brought up fluoridation, which I am against. Very mocking. No knowledge. No need to understand why someone has a different point of view because they already know better without examination.

Quote please.  Permalink.  I can't find it.  This is one more reason to open/discuss in a seperate thread.

 
Quote
Now, I might be wrong on these two, but I'll tell you I have an amazing batting average.

I agree that you have to toot your own horn.  Nobody else will. :p

 
Quote
Things I was made fun of over 20 years ago, health-wise, people are now asking for my advice. Because I turned out to be right. Margarine is not a health food. But the cardiologist I worked for insisted to me that it was, but guess who I see shopping at the health food store now? I am very suspicious of knee-jerk respect for whatever the current establishment says is right. In my ten years as a nurse, I have seen them pull a dozen drugs off the market because they are dangerous or lethal. They don't always know what they are doing.

I see lots of "They" and "establishment" talk.  Could this be a case of a single person (your cardiologist) being mistaken?  And your committing a falacy here by relating (his?) actions to some over-arching "establishment They".  I do know some factual information about margarine, butter, fats, oils, etc. (source, manufacture, chemical composition, etc.).  However my point is that with this type of statement without at least one reference the impression I get is someone (you) making conclusions (margarine bad) without enough factual information (WHAT makes margarine bad).  

And what have you replaced margarine with at the "health" food store?  

 
Quote
But mostly I'm talking about the way people want so very badly to know what's going on, and we don't and we can't.

This statement is in need of establishing boundry limits.  Are you talking theistic, natural world, measureable phenomenae?  In my opinion it's statements like these that tend to confuse a discussion.

 
Quote
Existentially, historically, metaphysically. Look at the belief systems held by Islam and Christianity, how they mirror each other and how each side is sure they are right and the arguments they can each line up to bolster their structure.

I agree.  But which system is right?  Or can we use factual based analysis to find some things out about the belief systems?  Or will this ruin the systems?

By the way, I wasn't irritated with your final statement.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/22 23:18:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
And Luskin takes only the "Larry King" approved line of questioning to peddle his propoganda.

Quote
Question (1): “Does the DI have any religious affiliation? (My understanding is DI is specifically neutral on religion and open to all scientific teaching and research regardless where the evidence leads)”

Question (2): “Has DI taken a stand on the enforcement of the 'church / state establishment' rules banning from public schools and colleges the teaching of evolution if it is being taught as a religion?”

Question (3): “When does teaching science cross the line from speculation to indoctrination?”

Question (4): “What kind of test can a teacher / parent / student use if they are trying to avoid being indoctrinated or being agents of religious indoctrination?”

Thoughtful and challanging questions that Mr. Luskin certainly had to tread carefully with his answers. :O

[innocence]
"Maybe I'll write some questions to Mr. Luskin.
Then he'll publish the answers for ALL to see."
[/innocence]

Date: 2007/01/22 23:42:36, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (k.e @ Jan. 22 2007,23:47)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 22 2007,19:23)
 
Quote (BWE @ Jan. 22 2007,18:30)
Why is xian any different from any other book?

I would put it up there with Joyce's Ulysses for readability.  After a few pages of the writing style you just have to put it down, blink your eyes, and focus on something else to get your mind back to reality.

I've tried reading Ulysses three times and never made it past page 50.

I've read much more of the bible, but that was with some "explanatory notes" on the side.  It becomes less of a chore and more of a story (depending of course on the author of the notes).

On the other hand, you have in Ulysses the original authors words.  Whereas the bible is a copy of a transcript of interpretation of a scroll.

Mike I hope you get to read this but I had a similar thought about Joyce's "Finnegans Wake".

I rather think his whole purpose was to write a bible in reverse, or more precisely to conceive a set of stories to be received by the reader on an aural plane by Joyce personally telling the story orally. With its images very consciously constructed just as the bible came into being, a product of the imagination. Spoken and sung in the language between deep sleep and sub awakening, of dream. Like an Aboriginal dreamtime story, reality is sung into existence. A mixture of rich fantasy, of metaphor and between the lines meaning. Using rhyming and crossword like clues for almost every line. Even the title fin again, to stop and restart in a circle (fin was always projected on the screen at the end of every movie in those days too, another Joycean touch) . Joyce believed life was a repeating tale, his 2 protagonists Shem and Shaun are the prototypical sons of Abraham engaged in a psychological battle between knowing and not knowing. The limit as always is the reader, meaning can only come by freeing the objective mind.

The countless mythological cross references with elements of '20's and '30's popular culture which have no meaning now, does show how the bibles readers construct from a non current or objective language with mixed fact AS fiction with outdated meaning and unrecognized mythological symbols that can only be understood by relearning a past culture.

Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" is a practice manual, a language tool, a gift for future generations that assists the user in decoding dream and poetic language. Just as the bible is meant to be read.

When words lose their ability to convey only the very basic ideas of Orwellian "good think" and bibliolaters think the OT is fact, when it is the Imagined History of the Jewish people Joyce’s work will remain as voyage of discovery (ultimately of ones-self) equal to a Homeric journey.

Well you certainly got more out of it than I did.  :D

In fact, your flowing descriptive prose has awakened a need for me to at least find the book again and crack it open to see if what you just conveyed could be present and I just "missed" it the first time I flipped through (oh so many years ago).

From an intellectual standpoint I'm so left-brained that I limp when I think.  I don't "experiance" art and literature I just interpret the words and meaning.  My analysis, although usually correct, is more analytical in nature rather than emotional.

But your point about knowing and understanding the referential nature of the environment he wrote ('20s and '30s) is, I think, key to understanding the story itself.  I'm an avid history reader and knowing and understanding the social, economic, political, and technological nature of the environment surrounding a story is very important.

I apply this to the recent pop-culture elevation of DaVinci.  DaVinci wasn't the end-all be-all of human existance but his environment (16th century Italy) was a unique melting pot of ideas and actions within the city states that was able to support DaVinci and MANY OTHERS.  Attributions to DaVinci tend to gloss over the social/cultural situation to focus only on the man.

Anyway, I'm sure if I could interpret the story in the same prosaic way you just did I would whole heartedly disagree with your interpretation and call you names.

Date: 2007/01/23 08:42:58, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,01:53)
Quote
Fair enough... for philisophical musings.  But I think your idea to identify the SLoT (or in this case entropy) as some "disorganizing force" confuses the discussion tremendously.  When you invoke the SLoT argument you can't ignore the other laws around it.
I simply can't keep from musing philosophically. It ties everything together for me. Perhaps you should explain about those other laws around it, in what way am I ignoring them. I do think of entropy as a disorganizing force, basically things break down into their simpler and simpler components. Is that wrong?
When does entropy give you your money back? When is it ever reversible? Sure it is a cost of doing business. I'm not knocking entropy. Ya gotta have the creator, the maintainer, and the destroyer (Hinduism).
   
Quote
Would you agree that the SLoT usage is confusing?  Or do you have some more detail to this?
Um, no, I don't see why.

I'll treat this question seperately.

I approach Thermodynamics from a chemical engineering understanding.  That means I don't see it as a "mechanical" system of rules but a "chemical" system of rules.  If you talk with a mechanical engineer you'll get a different perspective.  If you talk to a physicist, you'll get another perspective.  This just indicates that there are aspects of Thermo that are used more or less frequently depending on the systems you work with.  However, Thermo is a robust mathematical treatment of macroscopic heat transfer that works in all the above systems.

Skim through the Wiki pages for a quick reference.
Thermodynamics
Laws of Thermomdynamics
Thermodynamic Potentials (variables)

If you skim through those pages you'll notice that the terminology, when talking about Entropy (S), is always in regards to an integrated equation.  And most of the defined variables (Gibbs free energy (G), Helmholtz free energy (H), Internal energy (U), Enthalpy (H)) have mathematical relationships with each other along with associated physical properties (pressure, volume, mass, number of molecules, chemical potential, etc..).

Without making this into a primer for Thermo you can start to see that the SLoT is only a small part of the overall construct we call Thermodynamics.  Entropy is no more a force than Enthalpy or Internal energy.  ALL the variables contribute to the WHOLE macroscopic description of a system.  You can't remove Enthalpy as a seperate and distinct quantity (or quality).

You can muse on disorganizing (and/or organizing) forces all you want, but when you invoke Entropy as one of these forces I'm calling foul.  There are some interesting mathematical treatments of Thermodynamic balance equations (called, I think, transpositions) where we can transpose the Thermo equations (not the measured units) to describe other phenomena like electromagnetic fields and forces.  {Think of this in terms of coordinate systems on a graph.  You can transpose an (x-y-z) cartesian coordinate system to an (r-psi-theta) spherical coordinate system by transposition balance equations that relate the two systems.}

If you want to use Entropy to describe your disorganizing force then I'll have to ask you for the transposition formulaes your using for ALL the balance equations.

I'm travelling and will get back on the other half of the post in a bit.

Date: 2007/01/23 08:52:45, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Serendipity @ Jan. 23 2007,08:46)
Because, I have never seen entropy  described in quite that way. Nor is it a philosophical term nor up for metaphorical interpretation. It is a mathematical principle. It is not disorganisation. That's implying that it was once in an organised state. Entropy is whatever the equation defines it to be. This does not mean a philosophical restatement - it means "mathematics"

Here's my quick and dirty (although factually correct) answer to avocationist about Entropy and "disorganizing force" on the LUCA thread.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48179

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/23 20:30:56, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,19:29)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 22 2007,18:21)
The FEDERAL political fight is over but the states political fights are just beginning.



Nah, they're dead there too.  Over the past few years, they tried to introduce scads of ID-friendly laws in state legislatures all over the country.  Not a one of them passed.  Most of them never even made it out of committee.

-edit-    In any case, Federal law and Federal court decisions supercede any state law or court decisions -- no state legislature can pass any law that conflicts with Federal law or Federal court decisions.  So once the IDers lost at the Federal level, that loses the entire game for them.

I think your missing my point.  It's not that the state legislatures will draft ID/C friendly bills.  They will NOT draft bills that support a better treatment for evolution teaching.

Stagnation is their best friend right now.  A defensive holding of the status quo.

Date: 2007/01/23 20:59:26, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
   
Quote
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).
Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.

Avocationist,
I didn't mean for you to refute SLoT.  :(

I did ask a couple questions though.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48179

You started this with a statement about Entropy...  
Quote
I simply can't keep from musing philosophically. It ties everything together for me. Perhaps you should explain about those other laws around it, in what way am I ignoring them. I do think of entropy as a disorganizing force, basically things break down into their simpler and simpler components. Is that wrong?


I answered your question to show you where I thought you went wrong...  
Quote
You can muse on disorganizing (and/or organizing) forces all you want, but when you invoke Entropy as one of these forces I'm calling foul.
...
If you want to use Entropy to describe your disorganizing force then I'll have to ask you for the transposition formulaes your using for ALL the balance equations.


Now your saying there was nothing to refute in my message?
You agree with me fully?
Are you going to reframe your statements so that Entropy, or SLoT is never used in your statements about disorganizing and organizing forces?

Date: 2007/01/24 22:35:38, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Demallion,
 
Quote
The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.
So does entropy have any effect on a biological organism? What about when it dies?
Avocationist,
It's good your asking questions about Thermodynamics.  I hope you continue if for no other reason than to understand the subject more yourself.  I can answer your question here.

Entropy, like all the other Thermodynamic energies described, can be established within biologic systems by utilizing the balance equations and state properties within the Thermodynamics properties/Laws/rules/etc.  There are a lot of variables and there is certainly no true equilibrium reached with the surrounding environment.
When a biological organism dies then the environment within and around the organism changes its equilibrium values because the organism no longer has "active" interaction with the surrounding environment.

Let's do a quick checklist on this word "active".  By this I mean;
*The organism no longer converts inputs (light, food, water) to outputs (energy, internal structure, wastes).  This could include symbiotic or parasitic relationships.
*The organism to longer moves/grows to attain more light/food/water.
*The organism no longer reproduces to form additional organisms.
Each of these processes can be individually parsed to a detailed description of the functions involved.

So do you wish to go into finer detail on this Entropy question?

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/24 23:04:28, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.

A-a-a-a-n-n-n-d... the bullshit flag comes out again.  It's very easy to SAY something doesn't work but let's look at this another way.  I don't want you to "disprove" evolution to me.  What I would like is some of your criticism applied to a real situation.

The dreaded nylon eating bacteria is quoted and cited often.  Here's an experimental write-up and result.
Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution
 
Quote
Experimental Proposal
In this study, we investigated the possibility of creating a new metabolic activity that would degrade the Ahx oligomer in a strain that is not inherently capable of such degradation.
...
Some Experimental Results
After the cells accumulated the required genetic alteration to make a cryptic region active, cells grew in the nylon oligomer medium. The high frequency (1023) of the hypergrowing mutants of parental strain PAO1 on medium containing Ahx might be a result of a high mutation rate under the condition of starvation.
...
Experimental Conclusion
In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the process of adaptation.


Now comes the hard part.  I think you said that you disagree with the evolutionary mechanisms that the experimenters used in deriving their conclusions in this study.  However the study has measurements and data that I think both you and I (and the board) can agree are accurate.  Things like growth rate, controls, chemical balances, etc.

Please quickly parse the paper (only 2 pages long) and tell me;
1) Which mechanism cited you disagree with.
2) What mechanism you think is occurring to explain the data presented.


Now comes the HARDER part (which I'm not asking at present but which is still a valid point).  Apply your mechanism to all the other studies that assert a similar phenomena and see if your mechanism has explanatory power over ALL these cases.

Your assertions about mutations can only be valid if your explanations have descriptive power over ALL the evidence.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/24 23:25:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Whispers across the alley.

"Hey....    Arden...  C'mere..."

Arden slowly approaches.

"I hears you wants some heavy stuff"

Opens trench coat to reveal shiny stuff in inner pockets.

"Check THIS STUFF OUT!"

Arden eagerly grabs the shiny object profferred.

"Make sure you read the links too."

Arden smiles and slowly walks away.

"But only take a little bit at a time or your head will blow up."

Arden nods non-chalantly and starts to quicken his pace back home.

Date: 2007/01/25 22:42:05, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,02:53)
Mike,
I do like learning most anything. I think my main question is can we not see the law(s) of entropy at work in every day situations. The very fact that when the organism dies, the forces that work against it cease, allowing entropy to increase, seems to validate my point.
In light of the fact that Don comes along and says that nothing about entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution, it seems my intentions are misunderstood, although I've stated them a few times. I do not think entropy prohibits evolution. Information theory might, but not entropy. My interest in it was as I said, general interest in how things work. I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?

Avo,
I'll restate what I said before about Entropy.

Entropy is a defined variable used in the balance equations known as Thermodynamics.  Entropy doesn't "exist" as its own, unique force or system.

When you mis-use scientific terms like Entropy then people who DO understand Thermodynamics look at you funny.  Your usage just doesn't make sense.

At present I don't care if you call what you believe a disorganizing force and an organizing force (yin and yang) but just DON'T use Entropy in the discussion.  It doesn't fit (to those who know Thermodynamics) into your description.

You could use Entropy as an analogy of your disorganizing force, but I would avoid that too.

In my eyes the whole Entropy/Thermodynamic discussion is a good example of showing you how arguing points against well established scientific principles leads to a god-of-the-gaps type conclusion.  ALWAYS.  As we "drill down" deeper into details of these scientific principles then you eventually reach some basic mathematical functions like the cosmological constant or the Heisenberg Uncertainty constant.  When we eventually get to that level of detail then the discussion becomes "How many angels fit within the gap spacing of a proton quark."  The proverbial "Where's Waldo" of the evo/creo debate.
 
Quote
I'd like to have a look at the nylonase question, it interests me, and I want to see if it parallels antibiotic resistance. But it will be DAYS before I can get to it.

Thanks for answering.  Here's the Permalink to the original post.

Nylon Bug Question Permalink

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/26 08:40:22, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 26 2007,01:34)
Darn it Mike,

If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work?

What I and Serendipity and Creeky (and others) have stated is that when you invoke "Entropy" into your arguments then you have to INCLUDE all the other Thermodynamic variables too.  Because Entropy is not a stand-alone state but a variable contained within Thermodynamic balance equations.  I suggested that you just drop any reference to Entropy in your arguments.  You can talk all day about universal equilibrium and disorganizing forces but the moment you use Entropy to describe any of these concepts you are introducing Thermodynamics into the discussion.  And I will THEN ask you to give me the actual (or estimated) VALUE of S (Entropy) and some of the other Thermodynamic VALUES (A, H, U, G) OR the environmental conditions (P, T, V, N, m, ...).

The "public" use of Entropy (and SLoT) is historical in nature primarily because of the evo/creo debate.  This doesn't make Entropy any more seperable from Thermodynamics.  This DOES cause confusion with people who DON'T understand the mathematics and basic concepts of Thermodynamics.

In this case I invoke Lenny.  "I don't care what you "think" Entropy should represent."  There are pages and posts that clearly explain and define what Entropy represents.  And you are clearly misusing and misrepresenting the Thermodynamic variable called Entropy.

 
Quote
And how in the he11 does this bring us to God of the gaps? Your assumptions are showing. I have explained three times that that is not what I'm groping toward.

The god of the gaps argument will result when you challange or invoke any well established scientific principle to support your points.  If you invoke Entropy in an argument about the universe (or the earth, or your socks, doesn't matter) then I can look into Thermodynamics (remember, Entropy is a variable) and find out it uses the absolute temeperature scale as a basis of measurement.  I then ask you to define your argument in terms of Thermodynamics.  If you CAN'T define your system in these terms (the well established balance equations of Thermodynamics) then your argument HAS TO EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE DEFINED SYSTEM (TEMPERATURE SCALE IN THIS CASE).

Now you have some choices for your argument...
1) Redefine your argument to avoid invoking Thermodynamics in the first place.
2) State that your argument lies outside the established bounds of Thermodynamics.
3) Overturn Thermodynamic theory so you can carry on with your argument.

I suggested you go with 1).
You disagree (or don't quite understand the implications) so I said you will find out that your argument will invoke 2).
I really don't think you want to try 3).

Remember, you can always define your argument in Thermodynamic terms but I think we'll be checking your math too.

Date: 2007/01/26 08:48:25, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (k.e. @ Jan. 26 2007,08:58)
I like your point there so; Entropy is like Time,
neither once purchased, can be returned for credit.

In a closed system.  :D

Date: 2007/01/26 10:12:47, Link
Author: Mike PSS
I'll register at UD as LEO.
And talk about my clothing when I was a dancer.
****

"If I look closely at the ID arguments I find that the author ends up hoisting himself on his own pe....  ummm...  help me out here."
****

British:American Dictionary
American "Goodbye" = British "Ta"
Finish this phrase.
American Phrase "The funding was cut.  Goodby research and development." = British Phrase "The funding was cut. ???"
****

Date: 2007/01/26 10:19:24, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 26 2007,11:12)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 26 2007,10:10)
 
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 26 2007,09:57)
What's that word for an illegitimate child?  All I can remember is that it starts with BAS.  Can anyone finish it for me?

Etymology of "tardity"

c.1386 (implied in tardity), from O.Fr. tardif (12c.), from V.L. *tardivus, from L. tardus "slow, sluggish, dull, stupid," of unknown origin.

Ad vindictam tardus

thought is was from retard (French for slow..)

Response 1)
Umm.....  O.Fr. is "Old French" and V.L. is "Vulgar Latin".  Both are roots of the french language.
Or are you going to start another Portuguese Moment on this one.

*****
Response 2)
Are you trying to bait us?

I just can't see whether your making a statement or trying to bait someone with this response so I'll cover both bases.

Date: 2007/01/26 16:44:38, Link
Author: Mike PSS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/pdf/l_014_02.pdf [/quote]

Quote
adapted from The Human Evolution Coloring Book, 2d ed., by Adrienne L. Zihlman.
Produced by Coloring Concepts Inc. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.


Mr. Hunter is basing his initial argument from a write-up that accompanies a coloring book?

A COLORING BOOK??

A COLORING BOOK?!?!?!

Date: 2007/01/26 19:52:01, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (k.e. @ Jan. 25 2007,03:49)
Here in the antipodes we do not say platy-peez we say platypusez. Got that Socrates?

Reminds me of the movie the Big Red One with Lee Marvin.

Scene: In a tank with a French woman in labour.

Johnson:  She's got to push.  (to woman) "Push! Push!"
Sergeant (Marvin): She doesn't understand.
Johnson:  How do you say "push" in French?
Sergeant:  Poussez.
Johnson (to woman):  Pussy! Pussy! Pussy!
Sergeant:  You get the head.  I'll do the "poussez"-ing.

Classic.

Date: 2007/01/27 09:34:24, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,04:29)
CH responds: A niche does not cause an adaptation. Adaptations occur via unguided biological variation, such as by mutations. They can then be selected for and become one step in a series of evolutionary changes. Because the biological variation is unguided, there is no target. And since the design space is large and a large number of designs and species are possible, the variation is not likely to repeat. This is why evolutionists are surprised by impressive similarities. Then they explain them as due to similar niches.

The bolded part shows how many IDC arguments that use "information theory" arguments make mistakes with RM+NS+Time (+other factors.  Don't want to go Portuguese on this one).

The first assumption that RM is "random and unguided" does not mean that NS is "random and unguided".  As deadman_932 states...
Quote
At any rate, Mr. Hunter...on this planet, organisms encounter a non-biological reality in the form of oh, ---- physics, chemistry, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics etc., --- which constrain and at the same time, create "optima" that CAN affect the trajectory of organisms and the shared inherited characteristics of said organisms ( like oh, pentadactyly and the fact that...oh, ...mammals  .have SKIN), that have arisen , sometimes in similar ways.


The "design space" may be large BUT the space itself is overlaid with an environment "field" that may influence the "direction" of selected mutations.  Let me rephrase that...
The "design space" is not neutral to the selected mutations.

Mr. Hunter:  Since your argument REQUIRES a neutral "design space", how does your argument hold up if the "design space" is not truly neutral to selection?

Date: 2007/01/27 15:57:03, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 27 2007,15:32)
The Republicans are supported by large corporations who are trying to keep science from the people. They are also supported by ID proponents. The Democrats seem to support "Darwinism",so who should the IDiots disassociate themselves from? The Republicans who feed at the trough of the large corporations that are hiding science from the people, or the Democrats who, arguably are less beholden to corporations but support 'Darwinism? amadan creates the perfect infinite regress loop for the fundies...

U-m-m-m-m-m-m....

Is this a sweeping generalization to make your point or do you actually subscribe to this notion.

If this is generalization then carry on.
If you subscribe to this notion then I'll start another thread to counter this generalization.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/27 16:10:44, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Blahblahblahblah evilotion blahblahblahblahblah personal increduality blahblahblahblahblah intelligence, god, and you blahblahblahblah poor analogy blahblahblahblah more to come.  Stay Tuned!

Quote
Pat Boone, descendent of the legendary pioneer Daniel Boone, has been a top-selling recording artist, the star of his own hit TV series, a movie star, a Broadway headliner, and a best-selling author in a career that has spanned half a century. During the classic rock & roll era of the 1950s, he sold more records than any artist except Elvis Presley.


Another qualified spokesperson for the creo crowd.  Yup.

Date: 2007/01/27 18:05:49, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 27 2007,17:53)
No, I was trying to look at it from an ID point of view - seems to be their argument that this is some kind of conspiracy to prevent poor IDists from reading the truth...At least that is what I am getting from some of the comments on that thread...

A-h-h-h-h-h.

I "see".

I used my new ID filter machine and what you say now makes sense.

Date: 2007/01/28 08:25:07, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Since stevestory scooped me on the WAD insertion, I'll follow up with some tard from jpark320.

Quote
There are two things I loathe about this debate.(IDC/evo I imagine)

1) Any explanation will do for music. For example the more elaborate the mating call the more babies ah ha! Music is selected for. It really rubbed me the wrong way after Dr. Behe’s IC argument with the flagella that the whole Darwinist community was satisfied with any fanciful story as long as it somehow made a flagellum.

2) Why can’t they just say “I have no idea?” Is that so hard?

@ a5b01zerobone

How did the Cambrian explosion come about? Special creation. Just like our appreciation for music ie from God.

(italics and bolding mine)

In one comment we have witnessed some of the basic cognitave dissonance from ID supporters.
1)  Argument from Personal Increduality.  (Darwinians answer to flagellum is JUST wrong.)
2)  Inconsistent reasoning.  (Take comment 2 and apply THAT to the EF.  Why can't ID just say "I don't know!".)
3)  ID is agnostic, or not.  (I should just say... NOT)

Didn't this guy read the ID crib notes before commenting?

Date: 2007/01/28 17:52:52, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Mr. Hunter.
To create a quote box around someones quoted phrase type [quote] first.  Insert (or copy/paste) the message  then type [/quote}. (except replace the last } with a ]).  All the words/phrases/references between the typed "quotes" will be contained in a quote box.

***************************
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 28 2007,13:11)
...My question was, how is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental cousin species?

This was my question. There are many, many more examples of similarities that do not fit the common descent pattern. Why are those that can be fitted to the common descent pattern cited as such powerful evidence? Without some justification, this fundamental claim of evolution appears to be selective. Unfortunately, good justification is hard to come by. The vast majority of the responses simply avoided the question and made up their own.
...
What we have here are a vast number of similarities across the spectrum in biology, often arising via different genes and development pathways, and often showing up in distant species. Whereever possible, they are ascribed to common descent. Otherwise they are said to have evolved independently. So far so good. But the former do not qualify as particularly powerful, objective, evidence for evolution.

So the bolded question is your present claim.  And the following paragraphs focus your question.  I think I can work with this now that a clear and concise question is put forward.

First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.

Second, the evolutionary claim is made that the morphological similarities between thylacine and wolves are developmental in nature because of similar environmental influences during each evolutionary event.  You do know that this means that an environmental niche was "available" for evolution to "fill" by RM+NS+time (+other factors) and that the "available" niche was duplicate at seperate and isolated geographic locations.  And that the resident species "eligible" to fill this niche within these geographic locations were different.

I dispute your analogy here because without further explanation about how pentadactyl limb development is comparable to thylacine/wolf morphological development.  You need to show either...
How did available environmental niche influence the development of pentadactyl limbs.
OR
What genetic similarities were developed between thylacine and wolf as a result of environmental nich development.

You can parse and rephrase this objection as you see fit.

I see the "challange" you've made as a conflation of two seperate examples of evolutionary change.  Both changes occur, but you have to make a logical link somewhere between the two for your "challange" to have any meaning.

Date: 2007/01/29 22:08:20, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,01:47)
As regards the nylon eating bacteria, the paper cited was a bit technical (and also I'm having trouble with pdf links and I think it is the reason my computer shut down), but in this article they stated they didn't know how the bacteria aquired their ability. If we don't know that, I don't think we can assess the situation. Then ther's the problem I can't cut and paste from the article because it's in pdf. I was going to ask for clarification of a couple of things.

Yeesh.  It sucks being you.  :O

SORRY!  Sorry.  Shouldn't say things like that.

   
Quote
The bacteria were examined and compared with others of their species and it was discovered that a particular frame shift mutation (which means that a gene got read at a slightly different starting point and slightly different ending point) allowed that bacteria to break down the nylon and obtain energy from that process. But not a LOT of energy. It wasn't a highly competent design because the bacteria weren't extracting a lot of energy from the process, just enough to get by. And it was based on a simply frame shift reading of a gene that had other uses. But with a simple frame shift of a gene that was already there, it could now "eat" nylon. Future mutations, perhaps point mutations inside that gene, could conceivably heighten the energy gain of the nylon decomp process, and allow the bacteria to truly feast and reproduce faster and more plentifully on just nylon, thus leading perhaps in time to an irreducibly complex arrangement between bacteria who live solely on nylon and a man-made fiber produced only by man.

O.K. You got the main points of the paper.  
And you realized that the nylon digestion/conversion function, although "primative" was still functional enough for the organism to survive.
AND you realized that this function COULD be improved with further "evolution" (my word, not yours).

Here's a few more points from the paper that will be important in a second. Nylon eating bug paper.
Quote
We have previously isolated two microorganisms, Flavobacterium sp. strain KI72 (7) and Pseudomonas sp. strain NK87 (6), that grow with the Ahx cyclic dimer (Acd) as the sole source of carbon and nitrogen.
...
In this study, we investigated the possibility of creating a new metabolic activity that would degrade the Ahx oligomer in a strain that is not inherently capable of such degradation.
...
If a new metabolic ability could be directly evolved under laboratory conditions,
...
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO was clinically isolated in New Zealand and has been well studied biochemically and genetically as a standard strain of Pseudomonas (5). The wild-type PAO1 did not use Acd (Fig. 1) and the Ahx linear dimer (Ald) (data not shown); therefore, this strain was used to study whether microorganisms can acquire the ability to metabolize nylon oligomers experimentally.

So the experimenters identified that there existed two DIFFERENT bacteria strains that digested nylon.  But they wanted to see if a strain that DIDN"T have the nylon digesting mutation could be developed under laboratory conditions.

So the experimenters took a well identified strain PAO1 and subjected it to conditions where nylon was the only food available.

The results found two NEW bacterial strains (PAO5501 and PAO5502) where PAO5502 was actually derived from an isolated solution of PAO5501.  Tests were done on all three strains (-1, -5501, -5502) and it was confirmed that the two NEW strains were true derivatives of the original PAO1 strain.  The PAO5502 strain was the active strain that actually digested nylon.  THIS IS A KEY POINT.

The PAO5502 strain was compared to one of the originally discovered strains mentioned and found to have similar enzymatic funtions (although the rates of activity differed).

This was ALL the data.  Everything.  In three months this was the reported testing (measuring, cleaning, recording, observing, etc...) that was done.

NOW comes the hard part.  The experimenters have to answer the questions;
How does the data fit into the established theory of evolution?
What mechanisms within the theory are available to explain this data?
Are there any data discrepencies that don't fit the theory?


So the experimenters reported thus;  
Quote
The adaptation of microorganisms to nonphysiological substrates has been extensively studied, and several molecular bases have been proposed: (i) alteration of substrate specificity of an enzyme (amidase/P. aeruginosa) (1), (ii) activation of a cryptic gene by mutation in the promoter region (evolved b-galactosidase/Escherichia coli) (3), and (iii) alteration of regulator specificity (xylS/Pseudomonas sp.) (16). Though a molecular basis for the emergence of nylon oligomer metabolism in PAO5502 is still unknown, it is probable that the basic mechanisms acting during environmental stress are involved in this adaptation.

So the experimenters are making what we call an "educated guess" with "modifiers" and "clarification".  Notice that the suggested mechanism is supported by references to previous work.

Guess what, someone else could run this experiment again and set up a sampling regime to actually test and measure the molecular changes from generation to generation of this bug to see what actual mechanism occurs.  Maybe if I go back to school and pursue a biology doctorate this could be my thesis.

So when you say  
Quote
but in this article they stated they didn't know how the bacteria aquired their ability. If we don't know that, I don't think we can assess the situation.
I think that is a bit disingenuous to the work done and support given to the "educated guess" of the experimenters.

I'll reference this post from another when I take down Spetner's objections.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/29 22:51:04, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Avo,
You posted Spetner's objections to the nylon bug.  Here's some quick and dirty counter points by referencing the results of the nylon bug paper you read.

Remember, Spetner is only referencing a few papers (found at the bottom of Spetner's Objections to nylon bugs.) so he either wasn't aware of this paper or chose not to use it in his reply.
Also, the paper I referenced uses two of the three references that Spetner uses.
 
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,15:02)
Anyway, I found where somebody had asked Spetner about the nylon bug:

Comments by Lee Spetner, November 19, 2002

[snip paragraph 1]

there are two altered enzymes, not just one.
Both these enzymes are needed
Neither of these enzymes alone is effective. Both are needed.
The first enzyme, which I shall call enzyme 1, catalyzes the conversion of 6-AHA CD to 6-aminohexanoic-acid-oligomer (6-AHA LO).
The second enzyme, which I shall call enzyme 2, catalyzes the conversion of 6-AHA LO  to 6-amino-hexanoic acid [Kinoshita et al. 1981].  
Only enzyme 2 is the product of a frame shift.
Enzyme 1, whose DNA sequence I have not seen, is probably the product of only point mutations. [Okada et al. 1983, Ohno 1984]

So Spetner can read a report, and I can parse his comments down even further.
Quote
Second, enzyme 2 is not just the product of a frame shift, it is also the product of 140 point mutations. Many of these mutations are silent, but many are not. 47 amino acids out of 392 of the enzyme have been changed.

So Spetner is NOT aware of the enzymes in the NEW strain of PAO5502 that eat nylon.
I wonder how many point mutations and changed amino acids are in the PAO5502 bug?
I don't have the referenced papers where these mutations are counted so I can't comment further.  But Spetner certainly can...
Quote
It seems to me that many of these altered amino acids are essential to the catalytic effect of the enzyme. How many, I don't know. In my above cited letter to Jim, I calculated the probability of getting multiple random mutations in the 30 years it took to evolve these enzymes. If the evolution of this enzyme had to rely on random point mutations, it could have never evolved. Thus, if only 6 of these 47 mutations were essential for the evolution, the probability of achieving it in 30 years is about 3 x 1035. So, if the evolution could not be random, then it would have to be nonrandom, and as I have suggested in my book, they would be triggered by the environment. That is, the capability is built into the bacterium and the environment triggers the mutations.

And here is where Spetner waves his hands to create an answer based on a false premise.
Spetner cannot make these claims without further analyzing the mutational effect of the NEW strain of PAO5502 which was produced in only 3 months (maximum, maybe faster) from PAO1.

Quote
I have ignored the evolution of enzyme 1, and the random evolution of that enzyme makes for an even less probable event.

BUT, we saw in the experiment that PAO5502 was a new strain only AFTER PAO5501 was isolated and the conditions changed.  Remember that key point in my last post.
Therefore, might it be possible that PAO1 mutates to form PAO5501 which has enzyme 1 developed but not enzyme 2.  THEN PAO5501 mutates to form PAO5502 which now has both enzyme 1 AND enzyme 2.
Is this pathway a possiblility?  And shouldn't Spetner examine the development of enzyme 1 instead of discarding it with a non-sequitor?
Quote
Now, why should there be a built-in capability to metabolize nylon, which did not exist until 1937 or so? The answer is there shouldn't be. But there could have been a built-in capability to metabolize some other substrate. Kinoshita et al. (1981) tested enzyme 2 against 50 possible substrates and found no activity, but that does not mean that it doesn't have activity on some substrate not tested. The activity of enzyme 2 was small, but enabled the bacteria to metabolize the nylon waste.

And we finish with an argument from personal increduality.  Without supporting evidence on WHY the increduality is even valid.

Spetner ignored (or didn't know about) this paper when he formed his objection.  Even though it was published in May1995 (seven and a half years before Spetner's objections).

In my eyes Spetner is a hack.  Like so many other leaners against windmills.  He is a Luddite to sensible experimentation and interpretation of results.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/29 23:03:19, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (k.e. @ Jan. 29 2007,23:46)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 29 2007,22:22)
Re "Once you've caught the rabbit, you simply don't NEED the trap any longer."

Well, that lets Elmer Fudd out...

Henry

Ah yes...the Zen of Fudd....the rabbitless rabbiter.

Shouldn't that be....

"wabbitless wabbiter"

Date: 2007/01/29 23:45:37, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,15:09)
 
Quote
I'd be very interested in your source which states that any mutation is specifically directed. I am aware of papers that show an increased mutation rate under certain stress situations (such as application of antibiotics), which would naturally lead to a faster rate of "finding" an antibiotic resistance mutation. But I am not aware of any that show specifically directed mutations in bacteria.

It gets turned on in response to the environment, is confined to speific loci in the genome, and is turned off when it's job is done. The mutations which occur under those conditions are random. Thus it took (if I understood the article) 3 months to produce the nylon eating mutation(s) but apparently that was not the only time it occurred. Spetner mentions it being discovered accidentally 30 years after nylon was invented.

I missed this one.

Avo,
Are you referring to the second-to-last paragraph in the nylon bug article where it states...  
Quote
Though a molecular basis for the emergence of nylon oligomer metabolism in PAO5502 is still unknown, it is probable that the basic mechanisms acting during environmental stress are involved in this adaptation. Recently, it was reported that simple polymerase errors increase in the adaptive mutation from Lac2 to Lac1 in E. coli (2, 17) and that molecular mechanisms by which adaptive mutation occurs include recombination (4). Lenski and Mittler have observed a 10,000-fold increase in Mu element excision due to starvation (10). Since the nylon oligomer has no detectable toxicity toward microorganisms, the wild-type cells could be maintained in a starved condition for a long period.  After the cells accumulated the required genetic alteration to make a cryptic region active, cells grew in the nylon oligomer medium. The high frequency (1023) of the hypergrowing mutants of parental strain PAO1 on medium containing Ahx might be a result of a high mutation rate under the condition of starvation.


The paper is making a claim based upon previous observations.  The increased mutation rate occurs due to starvation of the bug.  There is no "switch" or "selection" that occurs because of this starvation condition.  There is only inferred mutation rate increase based upon conditions that resemble past experiments and observations.  Argy's response supports this claim.

Date: 2007/01/31 23:21:40, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 30 2007,11:42)
   
Quote
Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.


No, it need not be carried by all mammals.

Ummmm...
Common Descent = Nested Hierarchy
ALL mammals (extant and extinct) exhibit the pentadactyl limb pattern.
Please find me one example where a mammal (extant or extinct) doesn't have pentadactyl limbs or limb precursors.
If you want to discuss nested hierarchies then I'll probably have to channel Zachrial to this thread as he has numerous recent posts trying to explain this subject to a JoeG (over on the UD thread).
Quote
Quote
Mike PSS writes: Second, the evolutionary claim is made that the morphological similarities between thylacine and wolves are developmental in nature because of similar environmental influences during each evolutionary event.  You do know that this means that an environmental niche was "available" for evolution to "fill" by RM+NS+time (+other factors) and that the "available" niche was duplicate at seperate and isolated geographic locations.  And that the resident species "eligible" to fill this niche within these geographic locations were different.

I dispute your analogy here because without further explanation about how pentadactyl limb development is comparable to thylacine/wolf morphological development.  You need to show either...
How did available environmental niche influence the development of pentadactyl limbs.
OR
What genetic similarities were developed between thylacine and wolf as a result of environmental nich development.


The problem here is that you are placing the burden of disproof on me when you are making the evidential claim.

My questions are NOT burden of proof questions.  The questions are based on sound logic so that your argumentary claims can be logically LINKED to one another.  Without some type of answer (notice that you only have to answer one of them) then you don't have a linked comparative argument.  You just have two seperate observations that result in seperate answers.  There is NO claim you can make by comparing the two observations without some logical (NOTE: NOT EVIDENTIAL BUT LOGICAL) underpinnings to your statements.
 
Quote
I'm merely asking how those similarities, that happen to fit the evolutionary pattern, are supposed to count as powerful evidence. Of course evolution has an explanation, as you outlined above.

So you agree that my answers count as powerful evidence?
If you don't agree then you have to answer one of my questions to logically link the statements.
 
Quote
The answer to my question, according to standard evolutionary theory is, as Theobald concisely put it: "In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs)."

In other words, for homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why the same design would be used for different functions. This is puzzling for evolutionists.

I beg to differ with your conclusion here based on Theobold's quote.  You better parse or reference Theobold a little bit better to fit your conclusion you just made.  In fact I think the next paragraph you quoted (but didn't include) from the Theobold paper actually gives Theobold's answer to his "puzzling" statement.  Context in quoted phrases is important.

Maybe in your world view there has to be a "reason" associated with the use of similar design.  However, as the answers I gave above indicate there is NO puzzle to the functional dissimilarity of the pentadactyl homology in mammals.

 
Quote
There are several problems with this evidential claim, but I would like to focus on just two of them. First, the claim relies on an unproven premise. The premise is that the pentadactyl pattern is, at least in some cases, not an optimal or efficient design. The reasoning here is intuitive. It shows up for different functions, and it seems unlikely that one design can be the best for such different functions (digging, flying, grasping, etc.). That is all well and good, but we do not know this to be true.

First, no one but IDists seem to claim "optimum or efficient design".  I know I don't in my answer (nor does Theobold).  The only evolutionary claim made is that the pattern need only have enough function to support the organism.  This function, over time, may be "optimized" where version 2 (being a slight modification of version 1 due to evolutinary mechanisms) is better adapted to the function when compared to version 1.  However this is not "optimum design" nor does it have to be "efficient design".  There is no "best design" in the evolutionary pentadactyl pattern, only usefull function.
 
Quote
Darwin made the claim a century and a half ago with nothing to back him up but intuition, and today nothing has changed. Take one look at the different pentadactyl designs (eg, in the horse and bat) and one can see it comes in very different shapes and sizes, and seems to function OK. Who knows, perhaps it is efficient. Perhaps the extent of structural similarity which we observe (which often isn't very much) makes sense for the given functional diversity. So this popular and important evidential claim entails a premise that is not known to be true. It may seem puzzling to us, but perhaps we should not throw up our hands and give up. It is certainly a very interesting observation, but hardly supports the claim that this is powerful evidence.

And this is a strawman argument that you tried to create by claiming that pentadactyl limbs need to have "optimal or efficient design".

I'm blowing your straw down and you should look at my counter-point to your "optimal or efficient design" claim above and answer this first before making any conclusions based upon your "optimal or efficient design" claim.
 
Quote
A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.

I don't see how your making this metaconclusion from the evolutionary claim for pentadactyl limbs (common descent).  Please explain in some more detail how saying "common descent" as an answer can lead you to believe there is some "ought premise" put forward.  I'm confused with this response.

Mike PSS

Date: 2007/01/31 23:53:23, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Please take this petty, insinuation filled diatribe to the proper thread.


The "Civility" Thread.

"I came in here for an argument."
"Sorry, this is abuse.  Arguments are two doors down."

Date: 2007/02/02 09:55:33, Link
Author: Mike PSS
Mr. Hunter,
I can't quite accuse you of obfuscation (yet).  You responded (thank you) BUT you didn't quite capture everything that I was saying.  That makes your responses either incomplete in reasoning or incorrect in conclusions.

   
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 02 2007,03:50)
   
Quote
Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent.  You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs.  And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.

Me: No, it need not be carried by all mammals.

Mike PSS responds:
Ummmm...
Common Descent = Nested Hierarchy
ALL mammals (extant and extinct) exhibit the pentadactyl limb pattern.
Please find me one example where a mammal (extant or extinct) doesn't have pentadactyl limbs or limb precursors.


You are confusing observations with predictions. I was merely pointing out that evolution does not maintain that the pentadactyl pattern must be carried by all mammals or, by extension, that homologies must be present in all species in a lineage (otherwise evolution would have been falsified long ago).

No you were not.  You were using the pentadactyl pattern as supporting data to your argument.  ANY statements made specifically about pentadactyl patterns must hold true to the facts UNLESS you clarify your point.  You stated that "It {pentadactyl pattern} need not be carried by all mammals."  That is incorrect for the reasons I pointed out.  To correctly answer without confusing the subject you could easily have stated the more general observation about homologous structures.  But you chose pentadactyl and that is what I countered.

Also, it seems you understand the point about nested hierarchies as a structure to map out homologies but don't accept the concept.  The Wiki page you reference has a lot of pictures of the pentadactyl pattern, and ALL of the creatures pictured happen to fit within the "pentadactyl nested hierarchy".  If you don't understand what this means then we can get into more detail about the evolutionary claims related to nested hierarchies.  We could then create a picture map of "placenta nested hierarchies" and "marsupial nested hierarchies".  But I think what your missing in this whole structure is the basic tree of life structure that the evolutionary claim has created.

Tree of Life

When any of the above hierarchies are mapped onto the tree of life you will see a single source point for the claimed structure and every creature below that point will have homology with that claimed structure.  The homology map of the structure will not travel upward, or to other branches or twigs.

So let's be a bit less semantic and a bit more factual in the claims and comments.  The evolutionary claim is clear with supporting points both within biology and external to show that a nested hierarchy of the pentadactyl limb is strong evidence of common descent supported by the nested hierarchy that was created by factual analysis of present day animals (biology), fossils (paleontology), limb analysis (physiology), limb function (biology/physics), and many other data points.  

 
Quote
 
Quote
Mike PSS writes: I beg to differ with your conclusion here based on Theobold's quote.  You better parse or reference Theobold a little bit better to fit your conclusion you just made.  In fact I think the next paragraph you quoted (but didn't include) from the Theobold paper actually gives Theobold's answer to his "puzzling" statement.  Context in quoted phrases is important.


I was quoting from Theobald's post.

I stated that you made a strawman argument based upon what I thought was either a misinterpretation or misapplication of what Theobald said.  In other words you were using a selective q