PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Origin of Life
       One step closer...

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very cool article from here:

Origin of Life

"By working with the simplest amino acids and elementary RNAs, physicists led by Rockefeller University’s Albert J. Libchaber, head of the Laboratory of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, have now generated the first theoretical model that shows how a coded genetic system can emerge from an ancestral broth of simple molecules."

The picture of how life arose on the earth is becoming clearer.  Still no sign of supernatural sources.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:09 AM on August 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still no sign of supernatural sources.


Even if there was a sign, you would have to ignore it -you are constrained to natural causes from the outset so you have your religion and must stick with it.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:56 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationist mantras offer no protection against the facts.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 07:12 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even if there was a sign, you would have to ignore it -you are constrained to natural causes from the outset so you have your religion and must stick with it.

Still don't know what a religion is.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:22 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still don't know what a religion is.


No actually I'm very aware of what a religion is - it's you that doesn't understand your own.

Creationist mantras offer no protection against the facts.


Creationists love facts, evolutionists are the ones with the mantras.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:56 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No actually I'm very aware of what a religion is - it's you that doesn't understand your own.

Obviously not, since a religion in the classic sense requires a supernatural entity and a personal relationship with that supernatural entity.  Science doesn't aknowledge the supernatural, so evolution, the main concept of biology, is not a religion.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:59 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:56 AM on September 2, 2009 :
Still no sign of supernatural sources.


Even if there was a sign, you would have to ignore it -you are constrained to natural causes from the outset so you have your religion and must stick with it.



This from the guy who thinks bible verses trump evidence....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:03 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

News on the abiogenesis front.  Uracil synthesized in deep space conditions:

NASA Reproduces a Building Block of Life in Laboratory

NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life.

Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the basic structure for uracil, part of a genetic code found in ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is central to protein synthesis, but has many other roles.

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:52 PM on November 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, you're avoiding enough threads already. Don't add one more.

People, stop indulging him replying to empty claims devoid of facts such as
No actually I'm very aware of what a religion is - it's you that doesn't understand your own.
And
Creationists love facts, evolutionists are the ones with the mantras.


He's trying to keep away from facts, and you're letting him.

Lester, if you love facts, go and discuss them already, instead of avoiding them. We've shown you plenty. and you have deserted every thread.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:01 AM on November 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think when Todd Wood made the post about idolatry, Lester saw too much of himself in it to be comfortable.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:14 AM on November 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:06 PM on November 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I bet Lester said "Phew! New thread! A fresh start!!"


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:09 PM on November 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow my ears were itching so I popped in just in time. So sorry to have disappointed you all  in so many areas but you know if I wasn't here, who would you fight with??
It wouldn't be fun patting each other on the back - it would be such a hollow victory.  

As far as deserting threads goes -I make my point, I move on. There are too many of you to have the last word so you just go ahead and be my guest with your last words. I don't have all day and sometimes it can be tedious with the long posts especially when I am alone on the creationist posting side which happens a lot.

As for this thread, I love your uracil story but you miss the point -just because uracil may have a hope in hell of forming under 'natural' circumstances somewhere does not equate to the formation of RNA nor does it explain the DNA coding that is required for the RNA.
Randomly dropping scrabble letters is not the same as making a logical and coherent book of information. Who's going to put the uracil and the other bases in their places so that they mean something?

If this is your best latest story, it gets you precisely nowhere so what's the point?


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:34 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:34 AM on November 11, 2009 :

It wouldn't be fun patting each other on the back - it would be such a hollow victory.  


Tell that to the heavily censored blogs and 'discussion' boards run by YECs and hard-core ID advocates.


As far as deserting threads goes -I make my point, I move on.


So, I gather your points thus far have been:


I will reject any evidence presented to me that supports evolution

I claim to have a PhD, so I really, really know what I am talking about - just don't ask me about anything technical or scientific, especially if I do not have a book written by a credential-embellishing YEC hack wherein I can paraphrase a pat dismissal or misrepresentation of what you tell me

I have many books written by YEC experts on everything, they are not wrong about anything, even if you guys can show that they are incompetnet dorks, they are MY dorks, and being YECs, they know the TROOOF.





Did I miss any?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:15 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
So sorry to have disappointed you all  in so many areas but you know if I wasn't here, who would you fight with??
The thing is that you are not "there".

You dodge. I showed you how you do. I showed you why your definitions (concepts) don't work.

As far as deserting threads goes -I make my point, I move on.
I showed you that your points were fictional. If you insist that they are real, go there and discuss it. Because you keep repeating PRATT.
There are too many of you to have the last word so you just go ahead and be my guest with your last words.
If you magnanimously grants us the last word, then don't bring that subject up ever again.
I don't have all day and sometimes it can be tedious with the long posts especially when I am alone on the creationist posting side which happens a lot.
But you use your precious little time responding crap ("The ToE is a religion!", for instance) instead of addressing the important points or answering questions.
Randomly dropping scrabble letters is not the same as making a logical and coherent book of information. Who's going to put the uracil and the other bases in their places so that they mean something?
I call your bluff. Go to the thread "Information", and say what you have to say there. If you don't, then you got nothing.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:29 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You dodge. I showed you how you do. I showed you why your definitions (concepts) don't work.


And I tell you why your arguments don't work and you don't believe me any more than I believe you.

I showed you that your points were fictional.


'Fraid not -all the fiction is yours old Wisp!

If you magnanimously grants us the last word, then don't bring that subject up ever again.


If the topic comes up, I'll respond and I won't keep a record of all the times you choose not to respond either. Why don't you help Derwood explain the whale evolution on the other thread. Perhaps you can do a better job but please don't make it ten pages long or I fall asleep.

But you use your precious little time responding crap ("The ToE is a religion!", for instance)


The ToE IS a religion, that's why I told you that. As for 'responding crap', I don't think so.

I call your bluff. Go to the thread "Information", and say what you have to say there. If you don't, then you got nothing.


Why don't you just answer the question right here? Who orders the letters to make functional proteins? They can't just have any old order, they have to fold up to a specific shape that does something specific in conjunction with other specific shapes -all are coded for by DNA. Who (or what) ordered the letters? Chance?





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:50 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You dodge. I showed you how you do. I showed you why your definitions (concepts) don't work.
And I tell you why your arguments don't work and you don't believe me any more than I believe you.
I don't dodge. And i didn't tell you. I showed you.

I showed you that your points were fictional.
'Fraid not -all the fiction is yours old Wisp!
So you say. So let's not say. Let's show. I did, you didn't.

If you magnanimously grants us the last word, then don't bring that subject up ever again.
If the topic comes up, I'll respond
Then don't say you grant us the last word.

The topic(s) did come up. Go and answer. If you can't, admit it.

and I won't keep a record of all the times you choose not to respond either.
Please, do. I'll answer to anything (i think i have). When i don't know the answer, i will say so. If you show me you're right, i'll say so.

Why don't you help Derwood explain the whale evolution on the other thread.
You mean the thread that is supposed to be about you providing definitions instead of cowardly dodging?

I don't know... It doesn't seem apropriate.

Perhaps you can do a better job but please don't make it ten pages long or I fall asleep.
Explaining the evolution of the whale to a creationist in less than 10 pages... Doesn't seem feasible.

But you use your precious little time responding crap ("The ToE is a religion!", for instance)
The ToE IS a religion, that's why I told you that.
I didn't say it isn't (not in this thread). I'm saying you're wasting your time while saying it's precious little.

As for 'responding crap', I don't think so.
It doesn't address facts (even if it turns out to be true), so it's crap.

I call your bluff. Go to the thread "Information", and say what you have to say there. If you don't, then you got nothing.
Why don't you just answer the question right here?
Because of the title of the thread. There's a thread about what you're asking. Why do you avoid it?

I'm not going to answer to your unrelated questions here. Nobody should.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:42 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:50 AM on November 11, 2009 :
Why don't you help Derwood explain the whale evolution on the other thread. Perhaps you can do a better job but please don't make it ten pages long or I fall asleep.


How did you ever make it through your PhD program if reading '10 pages'; makes you fall asleep?  When I was taking graduate classes, I would routinely read 100+ pages a night...

But, we see that classic YEC cultist misreptresentation at its hideous best - I explicitly stated that I CANNOT explain whale evolution, yet here is the Christian YEC cultist indicating that I have tried and failed to do so.

It must be easy to be a YEC - all you have to do is lie and deny and pat yourself on the back for being a good Christian who never loses a 'debate'.



But you use your precious little time responding crap ("The ToE is a religion!", for instance)


The ToE IS a religion, that's why I told you that.

So, your doctorate is in theology?

If it is a religion, it is the only religion that has multiple lines of corroborative evidence for its concepts.


I call your bluff. Go to the thread "Information", and say what you have to say there. If you don't, then you got nothing.


Why don't you just answer the question right here? Who orders the letters to make functional proteins?

Nobody does.  
And they are not 'letters.'  If you want to make people think you have a science-related doctorate, it would be best to stop relying on grande-school level metaphors and analogies when discussing scientific concepts.  
Mutations occur in response to local conditions (i.e., inside the cell), replication errors, recombination errors, insertions, etc.  Pretty basic science.


They can't just have any old order, they have to fold up to a specific shape that does something specific in conjunction with other specific shapes -all are coded for by DNA. Who (or what) ordered the letters? Chance?


Chance and selection.  You people always want to leave out half the equation.

Also, you people want to insist that the extant genes were produced as-is all at once.  You also seem to think that only one particular DNA sequence will work to produce a functional protein.

All of these things that YECs implicitly or explicitly insist on are really just evidence of their profound ignorance.




~19% difference in nucleotide sequence in the cyt c gene between humans and chickens, yet both proteins are functional and work fine.

Who made the same gene with so many differences?


(Edited by derwood 11/12/2009 at 08:48 AM).

(Edited by derwood 11/12/2009 at 09:14 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:44 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
If it is a religion, it is the only religion that has multiple lines of corroborative evidence for its concepts.
And also the only religion that has been found by two people with no connection and no exposure to it.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:35 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How did you ever make it through your PhD program if reading '10 pages'; makes you fall asleep?


Ten pages of your writings is different...

When I was taking graduate classes, I would routinely read 100+ pages a night...


I imagine so - you are VERY clever!

here is the Christian YEC cultist indicating that I have tried and failed to do so.


"Help Derwood explain whale evolution" does not say that you have tried and failed, it implies that I hope you still intend to try. As an evolutionism cultist it should be something you have the capacity to understand. So help me out, it makes no sense to me.

It must be easy to be a YEC - all you have to do is lie and deny and pat yourself on the back for being a good Christian who never loses a 'debate'.


And that all comes from you which is why I doubt the veracity of the accusation.

So, your doctorate is in theology?


No, the ToE is based on faith.

If it is a religion, it is the only religion that has multiple lines of corroborative evidence for its concepts.


But you're wrong. The only corroboration there is is between the believers who wish to believe that nonsense and possess the requisite faith.

And they are not 'letters.'  If you want to make people think you have a science-related doctorate, it would be best to stop relying on grande-school level metaphors and analogies when discussing scientific concepts.


They work like letters, Derwood and i'm surprised that you find these grade level metaphors so difficult to understand. Do you understand that 3 DNA 'letters' stand for one specific amino acid which is like a word and if you string the words together you get a sentence that, like a protein, makes sense when folded up and ready to do what it is designed to do. Is that too difficult? Or is it too easy? Or do you just prefer not to acknowledge the comparison?

They can't just have any old order, they have to fold up to a specific shape that does something specific in conjunction with other specific shapes -all are coded for by DNA. Who (or what) ordered the letters? Chance?
 Chance and selection.  You people always want to leave out half the equation.


Selection selects only what already exists. It has no creative power at all. Mutations scramble existing information as evidenced by the many deleterious results. Selection doesn't help chance mutations when chance mutations appear to be destructive for the most part - so it's hardly worth mentioning.Or should I say, it doesn't help at all.

Also, you people want to insist that the extant genes were produced as-is all at once.  You also seem to think that only one particular DNA sequence will work to produce a functional protein.


Not extant genes -they are reproduced, not produced all at once. Nobody says one particular DNA sequence will produce a functional protein as there are many different functional proteins but each one has a very specific outlay required to allow for folding in a particular manner to do a particular job whic is in co-ordination with all other proteins required for the cell or organism as a whole. No random layout could possibly have that effect. Throwing together amino acids willy nilly will not work.






















-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:06 AM on November 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Help Derwood explain whale evolution" does not say that you have tried and failed, it implies that I hope you still intend to try. As an evolutionism cultist it should be something you have the capacity to understand. So help me out, it makes no sense to me.
Show us your interest by starting a thread.

derwood
So, your doctorate is in theology?
No, the ToE is based on faith.
Start a thread and defend that claim, or take it back.

If it is a religion, it is the only religion that has multiple lines of corroborative evidence for its concepts.
But you're wrong. The only corroboration there is is between the believers who wish to believe that nonsense and possess the requisite faith.
That statement consists of many subjects. You have dropped them all, so you're standing on nothing.

You need to defend your claims if you're going to keep repeating them.

And they are not 'letters.'  If you want to make people think you have a science-related doctorate, it would be best to stop relying on grande-school level metaphors and analogies when discussing scientific concepts.
They work like letters,
Start a thread and defend that claim, or hush.
Derwood and i'm surprised that you find these grade level metaphors so difficult to understand.
Hahaha! Is that what you like to believe?

The moon is like cheese. Ergo, it must smell.

None of your beliefs are hard to understand, Lester.

Do you understand that 3 DNA 'letters' stand for one specific amino acid which is like a word and if you string the words together you get a sentence that, like a protein, makes sense when folded up and ready to do what it is designed to do. Is that too difficult? Or is it too easy?
So all you have to do is find a sequence that means "I, Yahweh, did it".
Or do you just prefer not to acknowledge the comparison?
Start a thread and defend your comparison.

Lester
derwood
Lester
They can't just have any old order, they have to fold up to a specific shape that does something specific in conjunction with other specific shapes -all are coded for by DNA. Who (or what) ordered the letters? Chance?
Chance and selection.  You people always want to leave out half the equation.
Selection selects only what already exists.
Nice dodge.
It has no creative power at all.
That's true, in some sense. But it has a chiselling power.

You could tell the sculptor that he has created nothing. That he just selected what was already there.

I too can speak in metaphors. =D

Mutations scramble existing information as evidenced by the many deleterious results.
There's a thread called "Information". If you have something to say about it, say it there. If you don't, well, don't.

Selection doesn't help chance mutations when chance mutations appear to be destructive for the most part - so it's hardly worth mentioning.
Hahaha! You're messing with words. xD

You said "destructive for the most part". That's not true (most do nothing), but nevermind that. If you reckon that some can be beneficial, that's all it takes.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:14 AM on November 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you reckon that some can be beneficial, that's all it takes.


The problem is to sift those few to non-existant beneficial ones out from amongst the neutral or outright harmful ones. Overall you're still going down.

Show us your interest by starting a thread.

Start a thread and defend that claim, or take it back.

Start a thread and defend that claim, or hush.


I tell you what Wisp, you start a thread on anything you want and I'll go there if I feel like it. You're not defending your claim by telling me constantly to defend mine. Tell me your problem with my claims rather than coming with empty repetition, and we can discuss it.











-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:51 AM on November 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:06 AM on November 13, 2009 :
here is the Christian YEC cultist indicating that I have tried and failed to do so.


"Help Derwood explain whale evolution" does not say that you have tried and failed, it implies that I hope you still intend to try. As an evolutionism cultist it should be something you have the capacity to understand. So help me out, it makes no sense to me.


You may want to look up, among other things, the definition of 'cult.'

I have explicitly stated that I do not "understand" whale evolution in that I do not have the names of the intermediates and where and when they were found committed to memory.  It is not my field - I should think that a person with a science-related doctorate might understand that earning a doctorate in a specific field does not make one an expert on everything related to that field.  What I have presented in terms of whale evolution is an up-to-date classification and an overview of whale evolution that is available on Wikipedia, which is fairly accurate.  
What you have presented is tales of competing museum displays and dubious quotes from a demonstrably incompetnet YEC propagandist.


So, your doctorate is in theology?


No, the ToE is based on faith.

So you keep saying, so you're not able to support.  Claiming that it 'takes faith' to accept evolution is as meaningless as saying it takes faith to accept that there is a 'force' called gravity that keeps us from floating off into space.
Physicists cannot explain what gravity IS, yet we all accept that it is real 'on faith.'  Or do you think that it really is angels holding us down?


If it is a religion, it is the only religion that has multiple lines of corroborative evidence for its concepts.


But you're wrong. The only corroboration there is is between the believers who wish to believe that nonsense and possess the requisite faith.


See what I wrote earlier about denial and cognitive dissonance.

YECs with actual doctorates have admitted that there is evidence for evolution, and your complete response tot hat was to call them names.

Talk about faith driving one's worldview...


And they are not 'letters.'  If you want to make people think you have a science-related doctorate, it would be best to stop relying on grade-school level metaphors and analogies when discussing scientific concepts.


They work like letters, Derwood and i'm surprised that you find these grade level metaphors so difficult to understand.


Really>  They spell words do they?

That is what letters do.

Do the word bat mat and pat all mean the same thing?  Because there are some amino acids that can be encoded by up to 6 DNA triplets...


Do you understand that 3 DNA 'letters' stand for one specific amino acid


So you're not familiar with wobble or degeneracy, I see...


which is like a word and if you string the words together you get a sentence that, like a protein, makes sense when folded up and ready to do what it is designed to do. Is that too difficult? Or is it too easy? Or do you just prefer not to acknowledge the comparison?


Let us be clear - I USE the language analogy when introducing freshman or sophomores to the concept.  But then I explain the limitations of the analogy and go on to use real science terms.

When I converse with colleagues, I most certainly do not use language analogies, and I've never encountered a graduate-prepared colleague who used such simplistic analogies when discussing the concepts with peers.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:56 AM on November 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:06 AM on November 13, 2009 :
 Chance and selection.  You people always want to leave out half the equation.


Selection selects only what already exists. It has no creative power at all.



Very good.

Mutations scramble existing information as evidenced by the many deleterious results.


Not so good.

What is the information that is being 'scrambled'?
It is easy to spot the deleterious results.  How do we spot the not-so deleterious?


Selection doesn't help chance mutations when chance mutations appear to be destructive for the most part - so it's hardly worth mentioning.Or should I say, it doesn't help at all.


Selection helps get rid of them. And when coupled with sexual recombination, the effect is magnified.


Also, you people want to insist that the extant genes were produced as-is all at once.  You also seem to think that only one particular DNA sequence will work to produce a functional protein.


Not extant genes -they are reproduced, not produced all at once.


And thus you presume what you set out to 'prove.'

Nobody says one particular DNA sequence will produce a functional protein as there are many different functional proteins but each one has a very specific outlay required to allow for folding in a particular manner to do a particular job whic is in co-ordination with all other proteins required for the cell or organism as a whole.

Yes, and if we remove the electric grid from NYC, the city would collapse.  Now.  Yet there was a time when NYC had no electricity at all.


No random layout could possibly have that effect. Throwing together amino acids willy nilly will not work.


Two unsupported assertions propped up by the usual effective dismissal of selection.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:46 PM on November 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

"Help Derwood explain whale evolution" does not say that you have tried and failed, it implies that I hope you still intend to try. As an evolutionism cultist it should be something you have the capacity to understand. So help me out, it makes no sense to me.


Lester, the evidence of the fossil record, embryology, anatomical, and genetics all nicely fit together to support whale evolution.  We have pointed that out to you in other threads.

Even the timing makes sense, occurring not too long after a mass extinction event, when ecological niches were open, providing perhaps the environmental conditions for such evolution to occur.  This last bit is just my observation.  I haven't actually read anything supporting how important this last factor would be, but it makes sense.


No, the ToE is based on faith.


This is such an absurd statement, its not worth even responding to.  

Lester

derwood

And they are not 'letters.'  If you want to make people think you have a science-related doctorate, it would be best to stop relying on grande-school level metaphors and analogies when discussing scientific concepts.


They work like letters, Derwood and i'm surprised that you find these grade level metaphors so difficult to understand. Do you understand that 3 DNA 'letters' stand for one specific amino acid which is like a word and if you string the words together you get a sentence that, like a protein, makes sense when folded up and ready to do what it is designed to do. Is that too difficult? Or is it too easy? Or do you just prefer not to acknowledge the comparison?


Lester, relating DNA to a letter analogy goes only so far.  We use letter combinations to make up specific words that we give meaning to.

DNA and amino acids are chemical molecules.  The DNA triplet codon combinations bind to specfic amino acids to form polypeptide chains, which form proteins.  

But what you seem to be implying is that only specific amino acid polypeptide chains will work to create a functioning protein that performs a specific task.  This would be similar to saying that there is a specific order and letter combination that make up words.

That assumption/analogy is incorrect.

Just because we see a specific protein performing a particular task doesn't mean that is the only protein that can accomplish the task.  In fact, the protein performing a particular task is not necessarily the BEST protein for the job.  

YEC use the specificity of proteins to argue, incorrectly, that this must prove that a designer was involved.  They argue that the  odds of coming up with this one particular protein combination is infinitestimally so small, as to be essentially zero.

However, they are misusing probability and presenting a bogus argument that they use to sway the uninformed lay person.

The basic flaw in this argument is the assumption  that there is one, and only one, protein that can perform any particular task or function.  In reality, there are a multitude of amino acid combinations that could have produced proteins that perform a task equally well, or even better.  But the protein set that we see in any particular species were the result of only one evolutionary path.  Only one path among a great many possibilities.  That's also why genetics shows the inter-relatedness of life, that we share a common ancestor.    

That is why applying the letter/word analogy to DNA/protein synthesis/evolution is a poor one.  It is folly to think of DNA as a 'code' that infers a designer.  Rather, the end result that we see in LIFE is just one of many, many possibilities.  But anthropocentrism leads you believe that our species MUST be somehow special.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:40 PM on November 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
If you reckon that some can be beneficial, that's all it takes.
The problem is to sift those few to non-existant beneficial ones out from amongst the neutral or outright harmful ones. Overall you're still going down.
Sigh... No, man. Things die. Those with bad mutations tend to die more often. That's what really happens, and that's all it takes for Evolution to work. Mutations and death (lots of it).
Well, not necessarily death. Any failure to reproduce will do (death is a pretty effective and the most usual way to cause this).

If things really went down, everything would have died by now, even if they were created only 6k years ago.
Specially since the ark megabottleneck event.

Show us your interest by starting a thread.

Start a thread and defend that claim, or take it back.

Start a thread and defend that claim, or hush.
I tell you what Wisp, you start a thread on anything you want and I'll go there if I feel like it.
A thread about what do you mean when you say that "creationism predicts gaps" would be awesome...



Wait... I made it already... You didn't bother to post. Not once.

You don't defend your claims, nor you take them back.

That's cowardice and dishonesty.

I'd also like to know what you mean when you say that we're not apes...

Wait... I made that thread too! I got nothing.

I also made a thread for you to explain why you say that similarities point to a common designer. You gave me nothing.

You also deserted the thread about information.
You didn't know if a rabbit warren had information, purpose, meaning, or if there was any intelligence in its design or making.
From that it follows that you don't know what you're talking about when you say:
1) Intelligence.
2) Purpose.
3) Meaning.
4) Information.

So you shouldn't use those anymore.

You're not defending your claim by telling me constantly to defend mine.
Er... What claim?

Tell me your problem with my claims rather than coming with empty repetition, and we can discuss it.
It's not empty. It's your claims that are empty, because you don't defend them.

My "empty" repetitions are reminders that you didn't defend those arguments you keep trying to use.

Look at this claim:
The Moon is like cheese. Ergo, it must smell.

That's exactly what you're doing with DNA/alphabet analogy.

You can't defend that analogy any more than i can defend mine about the smelly Moon (i say this because you deserted the thread about it).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:12 AM on November 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

You may want to look up, among other things, the definition of 'cult.'


Cult: Religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist or false.
There you go – creationists and ID proponents regard your religious beliefs as misguided, extremist and false.

What I have presented in terms of whale evolution is an up-to-date classification and an overview of whale evolution that is available on Wikipedia, which is fairly accurate.


That isn’t what I asked for. What I wanted was some kind of a logical explanation (if at all possible) for how random mutations (even with natural selection) could happen to produce, in one land mammal, loss of legs, ears, hair, tail and produce fins, flippers, fluke, blubber, blowhole etc etc –all things which work in a co-ordinated fashion for an aquatic existence.

Why do we find no fins with legs, tail with fins, fluke with legs, blowhole with tail –those sorts of things that would be undeniably intermediate. Each new item would require co-ordinated DNA changes without deleterious associated mutations. Why don’t we find these things that had to change over millions of years gradually.

Why did Muller and Meyer produce nothing but screwed up fruit flies for 17 years and 442 generations of fruit fly experimentation, if beneficial mutations is the way that evolution works? Why was not one unambiguous case of a beneficial mutation produced? Why did they give up if there was any hope at all? Where’s the evolution?

I say it is in the mind, a matter of faith and never ending optimism.

What you have presented is tales of competing museum displays and dubious quotes from a demonstrably incompetnet YEC propagandist.


Tales of competing museum displays just demonstrates the guess component of evolution and the supposedly incompetent YEC supporter is anything but incompetent.

No, the ToE is based on faith.
So you keep saying, so you're not able to support.  


Actually I am able to support it. Evolution is an historical concept. It happened long ago and far away when no people existed apparently. Fossils are dead bones in the sedimentary rock layers. Bones don’t speak. Bones are interpreted according to a worldview. You believe that the bones evolved from one form to a completely different one over a long period of time. You cannot demonstrate any new and functional organs or external body parts being formed over many many generations of fruit flies subjected to mutation and yet you believe that it is possible. In fact you believe that it has happened over and over again in the past. That is faith. There’s your religion.

Physicists cannot explain what gravity IS, yet we all accept that it is real 'on faith.'  


The effect of gravity can be observed and repeated ad infinitum. Thus we have reason to believe that gravity exists. Evolution is not even nearly in the same category. You make ridiculous comparisons.

See what I wrote earlier about denial and cognitive dissonance.


You are the one living in denial and as for cognitive dissonance, that is the domain of the theistic evolutionist.

YECs with actual doctorates have admitted that there is evidence for evolution, and your complete response tot hat was to call them names.


Two of these so called YEC’s have done so. How they can be YEC’s is beyond me but you will keep on bringing them up as if they are the proof of the pudding.

That is like me talking about two evolution-believing YEC’s that say that they can see the evidence for creation but are forced to believe that evolution is true despite it all. You would most definately be calling them names and stupid would be one of your milder adjectives. No double standards please Derwood. Anyway I don’t believe I called them names, it is more likely that I wondered what sort of evidence could possibly have forced them to end up in such a duplicitous situation.

They spell words do they?


I said they spell words in a metaphorical sense but apparently you can’t understand what I am trying to say. Don’t change my words to suit yourself please.

Because there are some amino acids that can be encoded by up to 6 DNA triplets...

There are also some English words that are spelled the same and mean different things. You still know what I am talking about. All metaphors have the potential to break down at some point. That doesn’t mean that they are not useful by way of explanation.

Do you understand that 3 DNA 'letters' stand for one specific amino acid
So you're not familiar with wobble or degeneracy, I see...


You might be impressing somebody Derwood, but I think it is a long shot. Do you understand the basic concept or not? I do not care to hear how advanced you are and how below you this all is.









-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:50 AM on November 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:50 AM on November 14, 2009 :

That isn’t what I asked for. What I wanted was some kind of a logical explanation (if at all possible) for how random mutations (even with natural selection) could happen to produce, in one land mammal, loss of legs, ears, hair, tail and produce fins, flippers, fluke, blubber, blowhole etc etc –all things which work in a co-ordinated fashion for an aquatic existence.


A false premise on your part, it did not happen in a single animal, it happened in thousands of animals over thousands of generations and millions of years.

Garbage in, garbage out.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:20 AM on November 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:50 AM on November 14, 2009 :
Derwood

You may want to look up, among other things, the definition of 'cult.'


Cult: Religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist or false.
There you go – creationists and ID proponents regard your religious beliefs as misguided, extremist and false.


As 'honest' YECs are often wont to do, you've left off some important criteria:

a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

We have no charismatic leader.  It is YECs that claim that we are 'Darwinists', and they do this to lie to those that dopn't know any better - by giving the acceptance of the ToE the name of a person, they can make it out to be more similar to their cultic worship and idolatry.

It is the big lie.

What I have presented in terms of whale evolution is an up-to-date classification and an overview of whale evolution that is available on Wikipedia, which is fairly accurate.


That isn’t what I asked for. What I wanted was some kind of a logical explanation (if at all possible) for how random mutations (even with natural selection) could happen to produce, in one land mammal, loss of legs, ears, hair, tail and produce fins, flippers, fluke, blubber, blowhole etc etc –all things which work in a co-ordinated fashion for an aquatic existence.


You nevber asked for any such thing.  You are just shifting the goal posts to claim some sort of hollow victory, another patheitc YECism trick.

But I should once again like to point out your abject ignorance of basic vertebrate anatomy - which is odd, seeing as how you have claimed a background in anatomy.  
For example, you do not seem to understand that whales have hair.You do not seem to know that blubber is just fat.  You do not seem to understand that the blowhole is simply an external nares - human nares have muscle (vestigial), too.  

So, do you really not understand the anatomy, or do really understand it and prefer to toss out such disinformation to sway the ignorant, perhaps even to justify your own "skepticism"?


Why do we find no fins with legs, tail with fins, fluke with legs, blowhole with tail –those sorts of things that would be undeniably intermediate.

I asked before what that nonsense eans - you, chracteristically, did not respond.

"No fins with legs" - what is that even supposed to mean?

You claim higher education, yet your "questions" indicate, at best, a high school level knowledge of these issues.


Each new item would require co-ordinated DNA changes without deleterious associated mutations.

Please explain how you know this.  Please explain, with your clear grasp of genetics and development, why getting a flipper from a limb would require "co-ordinated DNA changes".  And please - no analogies.  Use legitimate, field-appropriate terminology and support your claims with verifiable references.  Explain how many mutations such a change would require, and explain how you know this.  I really, really hope that you do not think that, for example, each bone requires a specific suite of mutations ot alter its proportions/shape...


Why don’t we find these things that had to change over millions of years gradually.


And here we are, back at your general underlying assertion that you ran away from explaining previously.

What, EXACTLY, do you mean when you write "gradually", and provide some justification for this.  Do you mean that, for example, if we want to alter limb length - say, increase the length by 5 cm -  there should be a generation-to-generation slight increase of a few mm?  I really do not understand your reluctance to explain yourself.*

Why did Muller and Meyer produce nothing but screwed up fruit flies for 17 years and 442 generations of fruit fly experimentation, if beneficial mutations is the way that evolution works?

Let me guess - more Werner-speak?  I think we've established the veracity of anything found in his book - or is this from yet another YEC-authored book for the rubes?  Sanford's maybe?
Beneficial is dependant upon the environment - all mutations are not beneficial in all situations.  Unless you say something specific, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Why was not one unambiguous case of a beneficial mutation produced? Why did they give up if there was any hope at all? Where’s the evolution?


As far as I know, you are just making things up or paraphrasing from some YEC propaganda piece.  Can you provide any specifics?

What you have presented is tales of competing museum displays and dubious quotes from a demonstrably incompetnet YEC propagandist.


Tales of competing museum displays just demonstrates the guess component of evolution and the supposedly incompetent YEC supporter is anything but incompetent.

For someone with a claimed background in science, you sure do not seem to understand it at all.

And I'm sorry, but incompetence is in the air.

No, the ToE is based on faith.
So you keep saying, so you're not able to support.  


Actually I am able to support it.


Well lets see this amazing support for the first time.
Evolution is an historical concept. It happened long ago and far away when no people existed apparently. Fossils are dead bones in the sedimentary rock layers. Bones don’t speak. Bones are interpreted according to a worldview.


Sounds like you are cribbing from some YEC children's book...

Actually, bones are interpreted within a context - what the bone is, where it was found, etc.  Worldview has nothing to do with it.


You believe that the bones evolved from one form to a completely different one over a long period of time. You cannot demonstrate any new and functional organs or external body parts being formed over many many generations of fruit flies subjected to mutation and yet you believe that it is possible.

I accept that it is possible because the evidence indicates that it occurred.  There is a temporal progression and succession.  What we see does not in any way conform to a 6000 year old earth and a world-wide catastrophic flood ~4,500 years ago - which is absurd on its face since there are written records from more than one civilization that predate this timeframe!

As I indicated previously, that we have not mapped out out each and every step does not negate the overall pattern of evidence.
But even if it were mere belief, that would not constitute a 'religion.'  You are conflating 'faith' as in "confidence or trust in a person or thing" with Faith as in "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion."  And until one acknowledges this important distinction, there is really nothing more to be said about it.


In fact you believe that it has happened over and over again in the past. That is faith. There’s your religion.


See above.  Your mail-order degree clearinghouse should refund your money.  

Physicists cannot explain what gravity IS, yet we all accept that it is real 'on faith.'  


The effect of gravity can be observed and repeated ad infinitum.


Yes - the EFFECTS of it.
Thus we have reason to believe that gravity exists. Evolution is not even nearly in the same category.


It is solely your woprldview that says so.
You make ridiculous comparisons.

Yup - just like those ridiculous YECs that have the honesty to admit that there is evidence for evolution.

Of course, at least I do not rely on the ridiculous assertions of charlatans and frauds solely because they say things I agree with.

See what I wrote earlier about denial and cognitive dissonance.


You are the one living in denial and as for cognitive dissonance, that is the domain of the theistic evolutionist.

No you are.


YECs with actual doctorates have admitted that there is evidence for evolution, and your complete response to that was to call them names.


Two of these so called YEC’s have done so. How they can be YEC’s is beyond me but you will keep on bringing them up as if they are the proof of the pudding.


Much is beyond you.

It is quite funny - Wood predicted the very response you have engaged in.  The No True Scotsman fallacy is a YEC favorite.

That is like me talking about two evolution-believing YEC’s that say that they can see the evidence for creation but are forced to believe that evolution is true despite it all.

YECs do believe in evolution - they just put Scripture-based (i.e., imaginary) limits on it and dream up imaginary mechanisms to account for it.

About 8 years ago, a YEC - with his own website and everything! - declared that he and some of his YEC 'scientist' pals were on the verge of publishing a paper explaining the mechanism for post-flood hyperevolution, and that it would not have to rely on any evolution-friendly mechanisms.  Well, that paper never came out, just as the paper defining 'information' by Gitt and Fernandez has been advertized as coming out 'any day' for the last 5 years...

You would most definately be calling them names and stupid would be one of your milder adjectives.

Actually, I would just ask tyo see what evidence they had in mind.
You pretned to do the same for Wood and Wise, but the evidence that convinced them is available for all to see - and some of it has been discussed here on this very forum.  
I have yet to see anything that would indicate a 6,000 year old universe and a world-wide flood 4,500 years ago.

You know of any?

Anyway I don’t believe I called them names, it is more likely that I wondered what sort of evidence could possibly have forced them to end up in such a duplicitous situation.


You called them "ridiculous people".

Shall I show you?

They spell words do they?

I said they spell words in a metaphorical sense but apparently you can’t understand what I am trying to say.

Metaphors and analogies are instructional tools, not explanations among peers.  You wrote:

"They work like letters, Derwood and i'm surprised that you find these grade level metaphors so difficult to understand. "

The fact is, they do NOT work like letters.  


Don’t change my words to suit yourself please.
No need to.

Because there are some amino acids that can be encoded by up to 6 DNA triplets...

There are also some English words that are spelled the same and mean different things. You still know what I am talking about. All metaphors have the potential to break down at some point. That doesn’t mean that they are not useful by way of explanation.
It means that relying solely on such things is indicative of an inability to discuss the issue above an introductoy level.

Do you understand that 3 DNA 'letters' stand for one specific amino acid
So you're not familiar with wobble or degeneracy, I see...


You might be impressing somebody Derwood, but I think it is a long shot. Do you understand the basic concept or not? I do not care to hear how advanced you are and how below you this all is.


If I did not understand the basic concept, I would not be pointing out how often your prose does not take real life into account.

Again, as is so often the case, it is more instructive to see what you omit in your replies than what you do reply to...




~19% difference in nucleotide sequence in the cyt c gene between humans and chickens, yet both proteins are functional and work fine.

Who made the same gene with so many differences?


*actually, I do - to actually explain what he means would allow for a refutation of his position, and YECs will engage in whatever behaviors are necessary in order to avoid this

(Edited by derwood 11/14/2009 at 12:34 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:36 AM on November 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What I wanted was some kind of a logical explanation (if at all possible) for how random mutations (even with natural selection) could happen to produce, in one land mammal, loss of legs, ears, hair, tail and produce fins, flippers, fluke, blubber, blowhole etc etc –all things which work in a co-ordinated fashion for an aquatic existence.
Hahaha! No problem! =D

Here you go:
Posted by Lester10, at 07:24 AM on April 5, 2009
How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.
Nobody has any problem with loss if information due to mutational corruption. The lizard's original information was corrupted.
There. Nobody has any problem with loss.

If you want to call it "loss", be my guest. Any mutation is seen as a loss to you, so Evolution consists of a succession of losses.

Why do we find no fins with legs, tail with fins, fluke with legs, blowhole with tail –those sorts of things that would be undeniably intermediate.
Hahahaha! You liar! We showed you tail with wings, and claws with feathers, and teeth with wings, and you didn't say consider them "undeniably intermediate".

Your dishonesty is very transparent, Lester.

Anyway, what makes you think that the ToE predicts all those silly things you mention?

Each new item would require co-ordinated DNA changes without deleterious associated mutations.
Nah. Deleterious mutations happen. They always have, and they always will. What you really need is for their possessors to die more often.

And yes, each "item" would need co-ordinated DNA changes. But not every mutation needs them (lets talk about mutations, not "items").

Each beneficial mutation needs only one thing: to work well with preexisting genes.

That is unusual, but not prohibitively so.

Why don’t we find these things that had to change over millions of years gradually.
What things? All of those silly combinations you believe the ToE predicts?

derwood
Lester
No, the ToE is based on faith.
So you keep saying, so you're not able to support.
Actually I am able to support it.
I laugh every time you say "actually". xD
Evolution is an historical concept.
Just like "God". Still not supporting your claim.
It happened long ago and far away when no people existed apparently.
That is apparent, yes.
Fossils are dead bones in the sedimentary rock layers.
Not only bones, but yeah, pretty much.
Bones don’t speak. Bones are interpreted according to a worldview.
Evolution isn't about the whole World. It's about life.

Anyway, still nothing regarding faith.
You believe that the bones evolved from one form to a completely different one over a long period of time.
Yes. Still nothing about faith.
You cannot demonstrate any new and functional organs or external body parts being formed over many many generations of fruit flies subjected to mutation and yet you believe that it is possible.
Why would they develop new organs?

Anyway, we do see specialized organic tissues in many species. I'd say that those are likely precursors of organs.

What did you imagine we believed? A tiny little organ growing through many generations? A tiny little heart, and liver, and all of that appearing simultaneously or successively and growing in size?

You don't understand Evolution, Lester. You never did.

In fact you believe that it has happened over and over again in the past.
And in the present, yes.
That is faith.
Why?
There’s your religion.
Where?

You keep avoiding this issue: Darwin and Wallace found this "religion" separately. If any, that should be the distinction of the One and True Religion! Convert! Resistance is futile! =D

We have no priests (not a single evolutionist can be 100% right, and there is no divine inspiration anywhere). We don't have rituals. We don' believe things without evidence (yes, we can misinterpret them, we can be wrong, we WILL be wrong plenty of times, but still). It tells you nothing about how to live your life.
Find me another religion without any of those and you might have something.

The ToE is as much a religion as not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

Physicists cannot explain what gravity IS, yet we all accept that it is real 'on faith.'
The effect of gravity can be observed and repeated ad infinitum.
So can Evolution.

With gravity you make a prediction. If it's met, the theory passes the test.

With Evolution it's exactly the same.

Thus we have reason to believe that gravity exists. Evolution is not even nearly in the same category. You make ridiculous comparisons.
Haha! Man! We say a theory is like a theory. You say that DNA is like a book! xD

See what I wrote earlier about denial and cognitive dissonance.
You are the one living in denial and as for cognitive dissonance, that is the domain of the theistic evolutionist.
Can we cut it out with irrelevant claims that will lead to nothing and start focusing on facts?

Derwood, you too, please. Each time you post something like that you know what Lester will reply: "No! That's you! I'm a mirror!"

Two of these so called YEC’s have done so. How they can be YEC’s is beyond me but you will keep on bringing them up as if they are the proof of the pudding.
I think you're right on this one, Lester.
That is like me talking about two evolution-believing YEC’s that say that they can see the evidence for creation but are forced to believe that evolution is true despite it all. You would most definately be calling them names and stupid would be one of your milder adjectives. No double standards please Derwood.
I'm still with you, Lester. It does sound like a double standard.

There might be some alleged relevance to it (for instance, saying that those YECs who hold PhDs are smarter, and the smarter YECs say that there's evidence for Evolution, but i still don't like it much).

If any evolutionist, with or without a PhD, said something stupid, such as "Humans don't come from reptiles because reptiles are still alive", i will call him stupid.

I'm not bound to agree with everything any evolutionist says, and you don't have to agree with everything every YEC says either.

It's like when orion posted a news that said that some study indicated that humans were closer to orangutans than to chimps. We didn't agree.

derwood
Schwartz has this bug up his butt about molecular data - since it contradicts his pet hypothesis, he has spent about the last 15-20 years trying desperately to 'debunk' it.

But you are right, bones truly do not trump DNA.  Schwartz is going to make a fool of himself one day.
Anyway I don’t believe I called them names, it is more likely that I wondered what sort of evidence could possibly have forced them to end up in such a duplicitous situation.
No name calling, but still.

So, Lester, whenever you say something worthy of a defense (not often), i'll defend you.

derwood
They spell words do they?
I said they spell words in a metaphorical sense but apparently you can’t understand what I am trying to say.
Yes we do. You're as easy to read as a children's book.
Don’t change my words to suit yourself please.
Man, that's what letters do. They spell words. If whatever you're comparing with letters don't do that, then your comparison has no worth.
All metaphors have the potential to break down at some point.
What if we drop them then, and talk about the real deal?
That doesn’t mean that they are not useful by way of explanation.
Are you trying to explain DNA to us? Thanks, but we don't need metaphors. If you understand it, talk about it with no metaphors. If you don't, well, don't.

DNA is like DNA. Let's go from there.

You might be impressing somebody Derwood, but I think it is a long shot. Do you understand the basic concept or not?
You stretch your naive concept beyond the breaking point.
Supposedly you use it to explain something about the DNA to us.
We don't need it. Thanks anyway. Drop it already.

Go address your dodges.


(Edited by wisp 11/14/2009 at 11:49 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:48 AM on November 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

Lester, the evidence of the fossil record, embryology, anatomical, and genetics all nicely fit together to support whale evolution.  We have pointed that out to you in other threads.


Sorry, the fossil record actually does not support evolution. The interpretation of the fossils is arrived at as a direct result of the underlying belief system including blatant wishful thinking. Take for example the addition of non-existent fins and fluke on Rodhocetus and presenting it as though it were fact when in fact it was speculative in advance of the actual evidence; the evidence later showed that fins and fluke did not after all exist on this animal but was mere wishful thinking and evolutionary indulgence. That is only one small problem with the so-called fossil evidence.
Embryological evidence –you are surely not talking of the speculative hypothesis about the gene that governs limb development beyond the elbows and knees are you? I hope not.
Anatomical evidence – you mean those vestigial legs that are actually different in males and females and thus have to do with reproduction and not with locomotion at all? Sorry not great evidence.
Genetics – this puts a hippo like ancestor closest on the family tree defying all homology based family trees –so which is it, the hippo like ancestor, the cat-like sinonyx or the hyena like pachyaena?

You point things out regularly but they regularly make no sense.

Even the timing makes sense, occurring not too long after a mass extinction event, when ecological niches were open, providing perhaps the environmental conditions for such evolution to occur.


What is the probability of random related mutations happening to produce fins, flippers, blowhole, fluke, blubber and so many other aquatic changes by chance? The organism cannot respond to the environment through its reproductive cells so it was just as likely to evolve wings by accidental mutation, while under water with legs and a fluke. This whole story is like an LSD produced illusion, interesting perhaps, even entertaining but ultimately ridiculous and not worthy of a place inside the corridors of real science. Please help this make sense to me. That is what I am asking Wisp and Derwood to do. Mere handwaving aside, they have failed to say anything that makes this scenario more believable.

providing perhaps the environmental conditions for such evolution to occur.  


Environmental conditions do nothing to reproductive cells that would produce so many co-ordinated aquatic changes to one animal. Random mutations are accidental not organized nor designed.

No, the ToE is based on faith.


This is such an absurd statement, its not worth even responding to.


No, I don’t think so. See my response to Derwood on this one.

But what you seem to be implying is that only specific amino acid polypeptide chains will work to create a functioning protein that performs a specific task.  This would be similar to saying that there is a specific order and letter combination that make up words.


Exactly

Just because we see a specific protein performing a particular task doesn't mean that is the only protein that can accomplish the task.  In fact, the protein performing a particular task is not necessarily the BEST protein for the job.


How would you know such a thing? Example please –I think that the comment is speculative at best and based on a belief that evolution is true and that proteins happened to come about by random trial and error (which would be true if naturalism were true.)

However, they are misusing probability and presenting a bogus argument that they use to sway the uninformed lay person.


Not if a specific order is required to produce specific folding to produce specific shapes that need to operate together or cooperate. We see that that happens in complex biochemical pathways. Evolutionists apparently believe that that occurred by chance. Take one element out of the blood clotting pathway and chances are you will bleed to death while nature is randomly happening to come up with this pathway. How did that occur by trial and error and random experimentation by natural processes and with no long term aim or purpose in mind? If you imagine it did then you would be speculating and in that case,I believe that the thousands of non-flying individual parts of an aircraft can be assembled into a flying whole by untrained people by chance with no particular plan or purpose in mind.

The argument is not bogus and the only ones the probability argument does not impress are the supposedly educated but hopelessly brainwashed evolution believers and their equally believing followers- the uninformed laypersons of the evolution persuasion.

.  But the protein set that we see in any particular species were the result of only one evolutionary path.  Only one path among a great many possibilities.


You think. But you would be speculative.

That's also why genetics shows the inter-relatedness of life, that we share a common ancestor.    


Genetics does not show that. That would be the evolution believer’s interpretation of the data. It could equally well be a common designer that would account for the commonality and inter-relatedness of life.

It is folly to think of DNA as a 'code' that infers a designer.  


Or perhaps it is folly to see that something clearly works via coded information and has no encoder. The most likely inference would be a designer.

But anthropocentrism leads you believe that our species MUST be somehow special.


And evolutionism leads you to believe that we are some kind of an ape.  











-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 1:31 PM on November 14, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just popped I to read a thread and read this one from beginning to end. Granted, I am somewhat biased but from as objective a reading as I can muster Lester has destroyed the competition in his last two posts. Derwood is busy nitpicking in order to maintain his delusion of flawless understanding and wisp is whining about not being satisfied with answers and demanding new threads for new rabbit trails so he can continue to obfuscate.

Well done Lester.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:47 PM on November 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

You point things out regularly but they regularly make no sense.


I'm not surprised, Lester.  You don't try, or want, things that you disagree with to make sense - especially if it is in regards to evolution.  But evolution makes sense to the mainstream scientific community, and to more than 99% of biologists.  The evidence and facts are stacked against YEC.


This whole story is like an LSD produced illusion, interesting perhaps, even entertaining but ultimately ridiculous and not worthy of a place inside the corridors of real science. Please help this make sense to me.


Lester, from all your replies to all the threads and topics, evidences, and facts dealing with evolution, it is quite apparent that you don't want it to make sense to you.  Look at all your responses to anything that supports evolution and contradicts YEC, you automatically reject it.  

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to make sense to you.

Lester

Orion

Just because we see a specific protein performing a particular task doesn't mean that is the only protein that can accomplish the task.  In fact, the protein performing a particular task is not necessarily the BEST protein for the job.


How would you know such a thing? Example please –I think that the comment is speculative at best and based on a belief that evolution is true and that proteins happened to come about by random trial and error (which would be true if naturalism were true.)


I have given examples of this in other threads.  Read the following article:

Scientist evolve new protein from scratch


To select the raw ingredients to create the proteins, Chaput's group (which includes Harvard collaborator Jack Szostak, and ASU colleagues Jim Allen, Meitian Wang, Matthew Rosenow and Matthew Smith) began their quest by further evolving a protein that had been previously selected from a pool of random sequences.

Jack Szostak and Anthony Keefe first made the parental protein in 2001. To achieve their feat, they stacked the odds of finding just one or two new proteins and generated a library of random amino acid sequences so vast -- 400 trillion -- that it dwarfs the number of items in the entire Library of Congress (134 million).

They started with a small protein stretch 80 amino acids long. This basic protein segment acts as a protein scaffold that can be selected for the ability to strongly clutch its target molecule, ATP.

There was only one problem, the parental protein could bind ATP, but it wasn't very stable without it.

Chaput's group decided to speed up protein evolution once again by randomly mutating the parental sequence with a selection specically designed to improve protein stability. The team upped the ante and added increasing amounts of a salt, guanidine hydrochloride, making it harder for the protein fragment to bind its target (only the top 10 percent of strongest ATP binders remained). After subjecting the protein fragments to several rounds of this selective environmental pressure, only the 'survival of the fittest' ATP binding protein fragments remained.

The remaining fragments were identified and amino acid sequences compared with one another. Surprisingly, Chaput had bested nature's designs, as the test tube derived protein was not only stable, but could bind ATP twice as tight as anything nature had come up with before.

To understand how this information is encoded in a protein sequence, Chaput and colleagues solved the 3-D crystal structures for their evolutionary optimized protein, termed DX, and the parent sequence.

In a surprising result, just two amino acids changes in the protein sequence were found to enhance the binding, solubility and heat stability. "We were shocked, because when we compared the crystal structures of the parent sequence to the DX sequence, we didn't see any significant changes," said Chaput. "Yet no one could have predicted that these two amino acids changes would improve the function of the DX protein compared to the parent.


Want another example?  How about looking at hemoglobin.  The structure of the hemoglobin molecule among different species alive today actually supports the evolutionary path that ToE predicts.

Evolution and Probability

This paper also points out the fatal flaws in the logic that Creationist present when discussing the improbability of evolution occurring.  Read it, and then come back and tell us if it makes sense to you or not.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:41 AM on November 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Flawless post, orion.

To be fair, actually Lester made a not that bad post (i thought it would be harder for you to answer it). Well, it can't be good (it has very risible strawmen), but it made a couple of good questions (i don't think Lester ever provided a good answer).

Let's address some points:
Lester
Sorry, the fossil record actually does not support evolution.
Lester, you need to ban the word "actually" from your vocabulary. It should be used before providing a substantial argument or pointing out something obvious. You gave nothing substantial to support that claim, and since this is the subject of our discussion it's obviously not obvious.

The interpretation of the fossils is arrived at as a direct result of the underlying belief system including blatant wishful thinking.
No. We make predictions. Those things you don't like to address.

Take for example the addition of non-existent fins and fluke on Rodhocetus and presenting it as though it were fact when in fact it was speculative in advance of the actual evidence;
Oh, yes. Speculation IS an educated guess before having complete evidence. An important part of any science.

You don't like Science, Lester.

the evidence later showed that fins and fluke did not after all exist on this animal but was mere wishful thinking and evolutionary indulgence.
Oh, and you trust them now? Couldn't they be wrong again? They're just scientists. Those guys whom you don't trust.

Embryological evidence –you are surely not talking of the speculative hypothesis about the gene that governs limb development beyond the elbows and knees are you? I hope not.
Not ONLY that. But this is not the place to discuss that in extenso.
If you want to know more about it, start a thread. Or you can even ask me to start one, and i will (if you commit to address it).
Anatomical evidence – you mean those vestigial legs that are actually different in males and females and thus have to do with reproduction and not with locomotion at all? Sorry not great evidence.
Are you talking about those vestigials you don't have a problem with?

Let me remind you of this:

Posted by Lester10, at 07:24 AM on April 5, 2009
wisp
How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.
Nobody has any problem with loss if information due to mutational corruption. The lizard's original information was corrupted.
So what are we discussing? You think that corruption can take your limbs away. Perhaps you even think it can take your head away.
Genetics – this puts a hippo like ancestor closest on the family tree defying all homology based family trees –so which is it, the hippo like ancestor, the cat-like sinonyx or the hyena like pachyaena?
Hippo like ancestor? Quote that, please. Who ever said that???

I'm not denying it. I just never heard of it. Perhaps from your YEC sources you get info that i don't. Perhaps they lie to you.
Can you give me some links?

I could find nothing of the sort.

Here you can find info on the hippo and its evolution.

You point things out regularly but they regularly make no sense.
So you say, and don't support. You just toss those claims around.

What is the probability of random related mutations happening to produce fins, flippers, blowhole, fluke, blubber and so many other aquatic changes by chance?
For practical purposes, none.

Stop being dishonest, Lester. You're just embarrassing yourself. Leaving natural selection out of the equation only shows how desperate you are.

The organism cannot respond to the environment through its reproductive cells
Of course. The organism doesn't evolve, silly!

so it was just as likely to evolve wings by accidental mutation,
In the water? Highly unlikely.

By a single mutation? Even more unlikely.

Your strawmen are childish, Lester.

This whole story is like an LSD produced illusion,
It doesn't sound like you know anything about the effects of LSD. I do. =D
interesting perhaps, even entertaining but ultimately ridiculous
Your representation of it, yeah. It is. That's why it only puts you in ridicule.

Don't respond to this before responding to my strawmen accusations, or it will be empty.

and not worthy of a place inside the corridors of real science.
I showed you that you don't like Science. You didn't respond.

Please help this make sense to me. That is what I am asking Wisp and Derwood to do. Mere handwaving aside, they have failed to say anything that makes this scenario more believable.
"This" scenario is a strawman. We can't make it believable.

providing perhaps the environmental conditions for such evolution to occur.
Environmental conditions do nothing to reproductive cells that would produce so many co-ordinated aquatic changes to one animal.

After all this time you still believe that evolution can happen to one animal?

Lester, please, stop embarrassing yourself... Enough is enough.

Random mutations are accidental not organized nor designed.
Of course. And your omission of natural selection shows your dishonesty and fear.

But what you seem to be implying is that only specific amino acid polypeptide chains will work to create a functioning protein that performs a specific task.  This would be similar to saying that there is a specific order and letter combination that make up words.
Exactly
And you're wrong, yet again.

Just because we see a specific protein performing a particular task doesn't mean that is the only protein that can accomplish the task.  In fact, the protein performing a particular task is not necessarily the BEST protein for the job.
How would you know such a thing?
Good question (only this made your post somewhat worthy). He answered it.
Example please –I think that the comment is speculative at best and based on a belief that evolution is true and that proteins happened to come about by random trial and error (which would be true if naturalism were true.)
What will you say now that orion answered to that?

I bet you'd like to shift the goalpost once more. You'd like to say "But intelligence was needed to do that", avoiding the real issue (that two amino acids changes improved the function of the DX protein compared to the parent).

However, they are misusing probability and presenting a bogus argument that they use to sway the uninformed lay person.
Not if a specific order is required to produce specific folding to produce specific shapes that need to operate together or cooperate.
You've been shown that it's false. Start a thread if you dare. You'll be left with nothing to say in yet another thread, and you'll say that it's because you kindly give us the last word we like so much (even though our 'last word' contains several questions that will go unanswered).

We see that that happens in complex biochemical pathways. Evolutionists apparently believe that that occurred by chance.
If you're completely clueless, yeah, it might appear that way.
Take one element out of the blood clotting pathway and chances are you will bleed to death while nature is randomly happening to come up with this pathway.
Like derwood said, take away a major city's electricity, and it will collapse. Will you conclude that it always had it?

We also need to consume vitamin C. We need it NOW. We used to be able to produce our own.

How did that occur by trial and error and random experimentation by natural processes and with no long term aim or purpose in mind?
Hum... I don't know. Someone else does, probably.

On the other hand, you know very little about Creationism.

If you imagine it did then you would be speculating and in that case,I believe that the thousands of non-flying individual parts of an aircraft can be assembled into a flying whole by untrained people by chance with no particular plan or purpose in mind.
Aircrafts don't reproduce, silly.

The argument is not bogus and the only ones the probability argument does not impress are the supposedly educated but hopelessly brainwashed evolution believers and their equally believing followers- the uninformed laypersons of the evolution persuasion.
So you say, and can't begin to try to support without embarrassing yourself.

But the protein set that we see in any particular species were the result of only one evolutionary path.  Only one path among a great many possibilities.
You think. But you would be speculative.
Er... No. We see several proteins that do the same job. No speculation there.

Or perhaps it is folly to see that something clearly works via coded information and has no encoder. The most likely inference would be a designer.
You abandoned the thread about information, so this phrase doesn't count.

But anthropocentrism leads you believe that our species MUST be somehow special.
And evolutionism leads you to believe that we are some kind of an ape.
You never posted in the thread about apes. I asked what you mean when you say we're not apes.

Click here and say what you have to say.

Otherwise, hush.

You don't like order. You fare better in disorder, hoping people don't remember what you said in other threads.


(Edited by wisp 11/15/2009 at 10:29 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:26 AM on November 15, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know, it becomes very laborious responding and repeating all this stuff over and over again.  

Lester

Sorry, the fossil record actually does not support evolution.


How does Creationism explain the fossil record then?  ToE explains the fossil record very nicely, and the fossil record supports evolution.  If you disagree with that, then present an alternative explanation.  Flood theory?  Flood theory is not a viable scientific theory.  Mainstream geology certainly doesn't go along with that story.  The geological evidence doesn't support it.


Embryological evidence –you are surely not talking of the speculative hypothesis about the gene that governs limb development beyond the elbows and knees are you? I hope not.

The Sonic Hedgehog gene is not a speculative hypothesis.  Experiments show that it is, in fact, involved in limb development when it is expressed during embryonic development.

How Ancient Whales Lost Their Legs, Got Sleek And Conquered The Oceans


In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales' hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today's spotted dolphins, they didn't have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt.

"By integrating data from fossils with developmental data from embryonic dolphins, we were able to trace these genetic changes to the point in time when they happened," Thewissen said.


and some more comments from the same article:


Researchers say the findings tend to support traditional evolutionary theory, a la Charles Darwin, that says minor changes over vast expanses of time add up to big changes. And while Sonic hedgehog's role in the evolution of hind limbs in ancient whales is becoming apparent, it is still not fully defined.

"It's clear when ancient whales lost all vestiges of the limb it was probably triggered by loss of Sonic hedgehog," said Clifford Tabin, Ph.D., a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the research. "But it's hard to say for certain because you're looking at events long after they occurred. As they suggest, there could have been a continual decrease in Sonic as the limbs reduced until the modern version of the animal arrived."


Experimental evidence shows that the expression of the Sonic Hedgehog gene plays a direct role in limb developement.  It can be turned on or off by other genes.

You really should read about it, it is a facinating topic.  Neal Shubin touches upon it in his book 'Your Inner Fish'.

Wisp

Lester

Genetics – this puts a hippo like ancestor closest on the family tree defying all homology based family trees –so which is it, the hippo like ancestor, the cat-like sinonyx or the hyena like pachyaena?


Hippo like ancestor? Quote that, please. Who ever said that???


As Wisp points out, no one has ever said that whales evolved from 'hippo-like' ancestors.  Only you, Lester, has made that claim on this forum.

As Derwood and Wisp have pointed out, you conflate the facts.  Hippos are NOT ancestral to whales.  Rather, hippos and whales share a common ancester in the distant past.  Just like chimps are not our ancesters.  But humans and chimps DO share a common ancester that lived roughly 7 million years ago.

YECs are good at conflating facts to the general public and misrepresenting current scientific understanding.

Wisp

Lester

and not worthy of a place inside the corridors of real science.

I showed you that you don't like Science. You didn't respond.


Yes indeed.  Under Lester's definition of 'real science' we would have to throw out the basic foundation of not only biology, but geology too.  Basic tenets of physics and chemistry, not to mention astronomy, would also be thrown out the door.

Wisp says it all!  :0)


Lester -
Environmental conditions do nothing to reproductive cells that would produce so many co-ordinated aquatic changes to one animal.


(fustrated and incredulous face!)  :0)

After all this time you still believe that evolution can happen to one animal?



Wisp

Random mutations are accidental not organized nor designed.


Of course. And your omission of natural selection shows your dishonesty and fear.


Quite true, Wisp.  He neglected natural selection once again.  He is ALWAYS implying in his comments that ToE only involves random mutations - always leaving out natural selection.  It is the simple, but powerful, process of natural selection that drives evolution.  And the environment/ecology certainly DOES have an affect on the direction that evolution takes.  

I think it is safe to say that if the castatrophe that wiped out a good portion of life 65 million years ago didn't occur, we wouldn't be here today.  Environmental changes/conditions is a big factor driving evolution via natural selection.  It continues to happen today.


The argument is not bogus and the only ones the probability argument does not impress are the supposedly educated but hopelessly brainwashed evolution believers and their equally believing followers- the uninformed laypersons of the evolution persuasion.


Probability is misused by Creationists to impress the lay public.  Lester, try presenting this simple probability problems to your friends, and let's see how many come up with the correct answer.

Back when I was growing up during the 60's, there was a game show on TV called 'Let's Make a Deal'.  Towards the end of the show the host, Monte Hall, would offer the lucky contestant a choice of three doors - door #1, door #2, or door #3.

Now, there is a nice big and expensive prize waiting behind only one of the three doors.  The other two doors contain a silly scene - a ZOK, such as a goat, or some such silly thing.

The contestant chooses one of the three doors, hoping that he/she has chosen correctly - door X.

Monte then announces to the audience "Now before we show (Sally/whoever) what is behind door X, let's see what is behind door Y."

They open up and there would be a ZOK - a silly scene.  Everyone would laugh uproariously.  Boy, good thing Sally didn't pick door Y.  Everyone is relieved at that because we all want Sally to win the big prize.

So now we are down to 2 doors - door X and door Z.   But before it is revealed what is behind the door that Sally picked (door X), our gracious game show host offers another choice to Sally.

"Sally", Monte says, "before we show you what is behind door X, I am going to offer you one final choice.  We have two doors left.  You may either keep your door (door X), or you may trade your door for the other door (door Z)."




Here is the question.  Should Sally trade her door for door Z, or does it make no difference?  That is, is there a difference in probability to which door contains the BIG prize, or is the probability the same for each door?

Pose this question to your friends, and let's see how they answer.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:56 PM on November 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
wisp
Lester
and not worthy of a place inside the corridors of real science.
I showed you that you don't like Science. You didn't respond.
Yes indeed.  Under Lester's definition of 'real science' we would have to throw out the basic foundation of not only biology, but geology too.  Basic tenets of physics and chemistry, not to mention astronomy, would also be thrown out the door.

Wisp says it all!  :0)
Actually, i meant to say more than that. Something more fundamental.

He doesn't like change.
He doesn't like imagination.
He doesn't like speculation.
He doesn't like trial and error.
He doesn't like to admit mistakes.
He doesn't like to leave the supernatural out.
He doesn't like different views.
He doesn't like to go ‘back to the drawing board’.
He likes the unchanged eternal Truth.
Hence, Lester doesn't like Science.

I think it is safe to say that if the castatrophe that wiped out a good portion of life 65 million years ago didn't occur, we wouldn't be here today.
Indeed.
I think it's quite safe to say that if a dimetrodon had farted towards the east instead of north, we wouldn't be here today.

But it's oh so easy to indulge our pride and conclude that we're the pinnacle of Creation/Evolution!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:38 AM on November 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah - the clueless Dunning-Krugerite slithers from his hole to spew some goo at the altar of his fellow Bible-worshipping credential embellisher...
Quote from timbrx at 11:47 PM on November 14, 2009 :
I just popped I to read a thread and read this one from beginning to end. Granted, I am somewhat biased but from as objective a reading as I can muster Lester has destroyed the competition in his last two posts.


Now, this is the same Lester who claims a science-related PhD that did not know what phenotype means?



Derwood is busy nitpicking in order to maintain his delusion of flawless understanding


I'm so deluded - this from the cowardly intellectual midget who runs away at the first sign that his laughable reliance upon bronze-age nomads as his true source of ultiumate knowledge is not up to competing with reality...
The same mental midget who decided that calling me names and running off really showed me...



and wisp is whining about not being satisfied with answers and demanding new threads for new rabbit trails so he can continue to obfuscate.

Well done Lester.




Yeah - well done blind leading the blind!


Hey Timmy - I know you fellows relish patting each other on the back as if you actually know enough to tell whether or not each others disinformation is relevant, but if you can't contribute, how about restricting your homoerotic cheerleading to private messages instead of cluttering the threads with ignorant nonsense?

(Edited by derwood 11/16/2009 at 7:32 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:29 PM on November 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

Ah - the clueless Dunning-Krugerite slithers from his hole to spew some goo at the altar of his fellow Bible-worshipping credential embellisher...


That's hilarious, but so true!  I'll admit, I had to look up what 'Dunning-Krugerite' meant.  

From Wiki:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it". The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than actuality; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than relatively more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:47 PM on November 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
I just popped I to read a thread and read this one from beginning to end. Granted, I am somewhat biased
Haha! Indeed!
but from as objective a reading as I can muster Lester has destroyed the competition in his last two posts. Derwood is busy nitpicking in order to maintain his delusion of flawless understanding
I'm not sure of what you're saying. Doesn't look like "destroying" in any case.
and wisp is whining about not being satisfied with answers and demanding new threads for new rabbit trails so he can continue to obfuscate.
So, is not providing answers the way to destroy the competition? Is that what you're saying?

Sounds quite easy, but something seems to be wrong about your appreciation of the situation.

To me the saddest part is that Lester chooses his fights very carefully (in a way that looks suspiciously like coward weaseling), and still doesn't fare too well in any of them.
Well done Lester.
I think your guilt about leaving him alone makes you say those things.

Anyway, i'm going to add one entry to my list of definitions.

DESTROYING THE COMPETITION: Not providing answers, and saying things as questionable as to be nitpicked.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:23 AM on November 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 1:31 PM on November 14, 2009 :

Sorry, the fossil record actually does not support evolution.


Another mantra devoid of rationale.

The interpretation of the fossils is arrived at as a direct result of the underlying belief system including blatant wishful thinking.

Actually, it is based on well understood phenomena like the law of superposition and functional anatomy.
Take for example the addition of non-existent fins and fluke on Rodhocetus and presenting it as though it were fact when in fact it was speculative in advance of the actual evidence; the evidence later showed that fins and fluke did not after all exist on this animal but was mere wishful thinking and evolutionary indulgence. That is only one small problem with the so-called fossil evidence.

Since fin and fluke are essentially soft-tissue structures - as I demonstrated with your inability to discern the identity of seal and manatee forelimb bones - that argument seems a bit lame.

Embryological evidence –you are surely not talking of the speculative hypothesis about the gene that governs limb development beyond the elbows and knees are you? I hope not.

Gee, tell us all more about that, Les.  I've not heard what you mention, though I would say that the dismissive tone of your statement seems to support your earlier forays into genetics  - not a good place for you to go.  And paraphrasing YEC books and websites will likely not be of much help.

Anatomical evidence – you mean those vestigial legs that are actually different in males and females and thus have to do with reproduction and not with locomotion at all?

I see that you, like so many creationists, do not seem to really understand what vestigial means.

Genetics – this puts a hippo like ancestor closest on the family tree defying all homology based family trees –so which is it, the hippo like ancestor, the cat-like sinonyx or the hyena like pachyaena?


Here is what it is - your inability to interpret phylogenetic trees.



You point things out regularly but they regularly make no sense.


Projection.
What is the probability of random related mutations happening to produce fins, flippers, blowhole, fluke, blubber and so many other aquatic changes by chance?

What is the probability of any event looked at after the fact?

 This whole story is like an LSD produced illusion, interesting perhaps, even entertaining but ultimately ridiculous and not worthy of a place inside the corridors of real science.

Yeah, and on this one trip, I envisioned thise really iold dude and a couple of his kids making this ginormous boat that held a pair, no 7 each of all the air-breathign animals on earth, cuz this really awesome powerful space demon was gonna flood the whole earth with water!
Wicked awesome!  Now THAT is the truth, man!  


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:08 AM on November 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can almost smell Lester choosing his fights right now...


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:41 AM on November 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Take one element out of the blood clotting pathway and chances are you will bleed to death while nature is randomly happening to come up with this pathway.
Take the crack away from a crackhead and he will collapse. Ergo, he always needed crack.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:49 AM on November 18, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 1:31 PM on November 14, 2009 :
Sorry, the fossil record actually does not support evolution. The interpretation of the fossils is arrived at as a direct result of the underlying belief system including blatant wishful thinking. Take for example the addition of non-existent fins and fluke on Rodhocetus and presenting it as though it were fact when in fact it was speculative in advance of the actual evidence; the evidence later showed that fins and fluke did not after all exist on this animal but was mere wishful thinking and evolutionary indulgence. That is only one small problem with the so-called fossil evidence.


The Bible speaks of giants, and from the awesome theology of YEC, they came from demons impregnating humans. So I must ask, where are the fossils of these gigantic human-demon hybrids?

Embryological evidence –you are surely not talking of the speculative hypothesis about the gene that governs limb development beyond the elbows and knees are you? I hope not.


I just hope you don't start claiming that all the asteroids and comets came from Earth and were launched into space from Noah's flood.  

Anatomical evidence – you mean those vestigial legs that are actually different in males and females and thus have to do with reproduction and not with locomotion at all? Sorry not great evidence.


At least your not asserting the Bible predicts red-shift from Issiah; when God stretched out the heavens like a tent over the Earth. And the big bang can't explain/predict red-shift, or CMBs, but the Bible does with that passage from Issiah. Then asserting that light always stretches out, despite our observance of blue-shift having the opposite effect.

Genetics – this puts a hippo like ancestor closest on the family tree defying all homology based family trees –so which is it, the hippo like ancestor, the cat-like sinonyx or the hyena like pachyaena?


And dinosaurs are the genetic experiments of the devil. This one was actually proposed by ICR, another pinnacle achievement of both theology and science thanks to YEC comprehension.

You point things out regularly but they regularly make no sense.


Does claiming veggie mats floating on open water that preserved some species of plants and insects that weren't on the grand ark during the flood count? Yet another triumph of YEC thinking.

What is the probability of random related mutations happening to produce fins, flippers, blowhole, fluke, blubber and so many other aquatic changes by chance?


You might want to check out the argument, "How do mutations add up?" It basically goes like this: How does an organism gain all the right mutations at the right spot at the right time to create complex structures and features such as echo location, wings, fins ect.

The organism cannot respond to the environment through its reproductive cells so it was just as likely to evolve wings by accidental mutation, while under water with legs and a fluke.


Actually you are correct, evolution is a passive process. However you neglect the importance of natural selection.

This whole story is like an LSD produced illusion, interesting perhaps, even entertaining but ultimately ridiculous and not worthy of a place inside the corridors of real science. Please help this make sense to me.


Clearly you've never done acid. Although I doubt he was a YEC, but Dr. John C. Lilly took LSD over 100 times while doing scientific experiments to increase human consciousness. He was also into dolphins, and thought they were key to unlocking the human consciousness. He did this by trying to teach dolphins English, and establishing a working communication system. He also was an advocate of creating a cetacean nation that would be represented at the UN. You can watch the whole video, I think it is hilarious, but they talk about Dr. Lilly starting at 5:55. P&T BS

This is two quotes of Dr. Lilly:
"If you get into these spaces [non-ordinary states of consciousness] at all, you must forget about them when you come back. You must forget you're omnipotent and omniscient and take the game seriously so you'll engage in sex, have children, and participate in the whole human scenario. When you come back from a deep tank session -- or a coma or psychosis -- there's always this extraterrestrial feeling. You have to read the directions in the glove compartment so you can run the human vehicle once more."
"At the highest level of satori from which people return, the point of consciousness becomes a surface or a solid which extends throughout the whole known universe. This used to be called fusion with the Universal Mind or God. In more modern terms you have done a mathematical transformation in which your center of consciousness has ceased to be a traveling point and has become a surface or solid of consciousness... It was in this state that I experienced "myself" as melded and intertwined with hundreds of billions of other beings in a thin sheet of consciousness that was distributed around the galaxy. A "membrane"."

That is what I am asking Wisp and Derwood to do. Mere handwaving aside, they have failed to say anything that makes this scenario more believable.


I am actually waiting on YEC proponents to do the same thing. Anyone else see projection here? I find it quite interesting how many YECs say that evolution claims we just came from a pile of mud, yet the Bible says we came from dust.

Environmental conditions do nothing to reproductive cells that would produce so many co-ordinated aquatic changes to one animal. Random mutations are accidental not organized nor designed.


Actually research shows that environmental conditions, absent of mutations, can turn genes on and off that give the organism a better chance of survival. How this is done is a mystery as far as I know, but it is quite interesting.

No, the ToE is based on faith.


Your "response" to Derwood on this was quite a childish interpretation of ToE. It is up there with the understanding you see from people who say things like, "ToE is just a theory", "the Grand Canyon was formed in about 5 minutes (from the flood)", "There is zero water outside of Earth", "I believe in a 6,000 year old universe and you can't use carbon dating past 50,000 years [before it is invalid]", "I understand genetics, and there is no way micro evolution is valid", "the big bang was an explosion", "from one (human) chromosome you have [a person's genome]", explaining how you get your DNA from your parents: "your (parent's) DNA unwinds... and is split in the middle... you get one side from your mom, and the other from your dad... then your DNA winds back up [into a double helix]".
The last two are from a YEC who also claims a doctorate in the sciences.

Genetics does not show that. That would be the evolution believer’s interpretation of the data. It could equally well be a common designer that would account for the commonality and inter-relatedness of life.


What is your position on the hox genes? Many organisms that are definitely not the same "kind", like the chicken and the fly, can switch their hox genes and work perfectly well. Or ERVs, you can only get them from a common ancestor, unless you want to go with the God is testing us, or the devil is deceiving us. Unless you want to invoke it is all coincidence, which will basically null all your arguments against mutations.

Or perhaps it is folly to see that something clearly works via coded information and has no encoder. The most likely inference would be a designer.


If you see a painting you know there was a painter. If you see a building you know there was a builder. A building can't form on its own, there must be a designer. "I can 100%, scientifically prove there was a creator."

And evolutionism leads you to believe that we are some kind of an ape.


"If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Ape: Usually refers to any organism in the superfamily Hominoidea. If you are human, you are also an ape!

I have to ask, did you get your doctorate from the same place Dr. Dino did? Did you also write your dissertation in crayon?

P.S. Yes, everything that I wrote about claims made by YECs, and quotes by YECs are real things that I have heard from YECs, and they were all 100% serious in their claims.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:37 PM on November 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Amazing post, Fencer.

Will write more about it after i finish watching some episodes of 24 with my girl.

Edit:
The Bible speaks of giants, and from the awesome theology of YEC, they came from demons impregnating humans. So I must ask, where are the fossils of these gigantic human-demon hybrids?
I find it embarrassing for them to ask for us to find every single "step" in the evolutionary history when no giants or unicorns have ever been found.

I mean, we know what they try to imply: "If you don't find them, they never existed."

Don't you believe that, being a Christian, you have at least some of that, Fencer? You only reason because you feel like it. Faith absolves you from doing such a thing (as Lester demonstrates).

Clearly you've never done acid.
That's apparent.
Although I doubt he was a YEC, but Dr. John C. Lilly took LSD over 100 times while doing scientific experiments to increase human consciousness.
Evolution gave us this massive brain so that our responses to the environment were the richest of all animal kingdom. But this responses were harnessed in order to do one thing: to make us propagate our genes.
Our view of the world is such that we can do that better.

Our genes don't care much for our individual selves. They gave us our "selves" only because that turned out to be good for them.
Our genes will try to make us miserable when we don't serve their purposes. But they don't want for us to kill ourselves either.

The agonizing genes in the suicide guy say:
-Damn, we screwed.
-Yeah, we overdid it...
-I told you not to get him THAT depressed about not getting a girlfriend!

We see things in a useful way. Useful for our genes, that is!

The basic primitive classification of things was:
*I can eat it.
*It can eat me.
*I can mess it.

And we grew.
*It can be a shelter.
*It can make me sick.

And we grew.
*It can make me popular.

And we grew.
*It's gratifying.

And we grew.
*It can teach me something.

And this is the best we have achieved. It normally has to do with something in previous categories, but sometimes it doesn't.

When we learn about Physics our genes let us because they believe that we'll get more chicks that way (either by getting more popular or by somehow living longer thanks to this knowledge).

Our genes have no idea of how useless (or even damaging) a big part of our knowledge is for them (like our knowledge about condoms).

LSD gives you just that. Your genes hush. The genetic conditioning vanishes. Things are not useful-to-you.

When they have absolutely no use for you, things vanish. You realize that there's no such a thing as a "thing". Nothing is separate, except for our need. And our needs are things too. And they, too, don't exist. You don't either. Everything is one.

It's pretty hard to explain.
He was also into dolphins, and thought they were key to unlocking the human consciousness.
Hahaha! I don't see how. Perhaps i didn't take enough LSD.
He did this by trying to teach dolphins English, and establishing a working communication system. He also was an advocate of creating a cetacean nation that would be represented at the UN. You can watch the whole video, I think it is hilarious, but they talk about Dr. Lilly starting at 5:55. P&T BS
Ok, let's see your vid... Oh! Penn & Teller! I love them!
---
Haha! That was hilarious.

This is two quotes of Dr. Lilly:
"If you get into these spaces [non-ordinary states of consciousness] at all, you must forget about them when you come back.
That alone tells me he has tasted those states. I have too. Even before the LSD.
You must forget you're omnipotent and omniscient and take the game seriously so you'll engage in sex, have children, and participate in the whole human scenario.
Hahaha! You're not omnipotent or omniscient, but it does feel like that sometimes. I mean, being a part of everything is omniscience in some way. But since certain information doesn't reach your terminal (your "self"), it's as good as not knowing it.
But yeah, as you climb down you realize how primitive your human urges are. And then you forget it. You have to. The conditioning takes over, so you can keep eating, etc. But you had a glimpse.

This crazy whacko had it too.


Lester
That is what I am asking Wisp and Derwood to do. Mere handwaving aside, they have failed to say anything that makes this scenario more believable.
I am actually waiting on YEC proponents to do the same thing. Anyone else see projection here?
Haha! Indeed! Lester has managed to project so much that he even projects projection (he said that we project, but not before i told him he was projecting).

Now that i said that he'll begin to project the projection of a projection.
I find it quite interesting how many YECs say that evolution claims we just came from a pile of mud, yet the Bible says we came from dust.
Indeed. It looks like a rage. They know we think they're deluded and believe in magic, and they resent it so much that they must say it's US who do that.

Literally pathetic.

That resentment leads them to treat faith as something stupid.

They are people of faith, but their scorn at our "faith" is very revealing.
They're ashamed of their faith, their imagination, their delusion, their stories, their magic.

If they truly believed that faith is a good thing they wouldn't sneer at our "faith".

You see, Fencer? That's the problem with faith. Your faith always tells you that it's right.

You can't respect faith. Because my faith could tell me that you're always wrong, and that i should do something about it. My faith could even tell me that the women in your family are Yahweh's gift for me, or something like that.

I'm not exaggerating. It's in the Bible.

(...) explaining how you get your DNA from your parents: "your (parent's) DNA unwinds... and is split in the middle... you get one side from your mom, and the other from your dad... then your DNA winds back up [into a double helix]".
Hahahahahahahahahaha! Each couple could only have four different children!
The last two are from a YEC who also claims a doctorate in the sciences.
Get out of here!
___

Now that i think about it...
Lester
Genetics does not show that. That would be the evolution believer’s interpretation of the data. It could equally well be a common designer that would account for the commonality and inter-relatedness of life.
Equally well???? You said our position was ridiculous faith based deluded crap!
By saying "equally well" it means one of two things:
a) That you believe creationism is also ridiculous faith based delude crap.
b) (More likely) That you lied when you expressed those opinions about Evolution.

Perhaps a little bit of both, but you wouldn't admit that to yourself.

I'm certain that Lester lies. We've caught him more than once.

He lies when he claims that the ToE says Evolution happens by random chance (he understand that it doesn't); he lies when he says that understood concepts that were clearly wrong (he didn't).

I'm almost sure that he resents our lack of need for lies.

Lester, i feel bad for you. But you need to be confronted with these things.

Lester, God can't be wrong! If the stories you thought came from him don't add up, drop them! Since God can't be wrong, the stories must! Choosing stories over God is idolatry! Repent! Open your heart!
Lester
And evolutionism leads you to believe that we are some kind of an ape.
Knowledge does. Because it's a fact, and there's no way around it.

You people demand that we present a half man half ape, which is as dumb as to ask for a half chicken half bird.


The thing you have with the word "apes" is clearly psychological. There's nothing more to it.

When we say that we're vertebrates (or that we're mammals, or that we're alive) you don't scream with disgust.

But the word "apes" gets to your nerves.

When we say that we're apes we're doing the same thing as when we say we're vertebrates.

Oh, creos also have a problem with the word "animal". We can be vertebrates and mammals, but not animals or apes.

Really stupid, for lack of a softer word to describe it.

We're animals, bilateria (we're symmetrical), coelomata (we have a tubular digestive tube), deuterostomia (the development of our digestive tract begins with the opening of the anal orifice before the one for the mouth, which would be a weird thing to have in common with every other higher life form, if we weren't related), etc.

Well, let's make it more orderly, by underlining what we are (and at any times every clade belongs to the previously underlined clade):

Eukarya

Opisthokonta
- Bikonta

Animalia - Fungi - Choanoflagellates

Eumetazoa - Porifera

Bilateria - Placozoa - Ctenophora - Cnidaria - Myxozoa

Coelomata - Acoelomata - Pseudocoelomata

Deuterostomia (the mouth appears second, hence "deutero") - Protostomia (the mouth appears first, funny no one mentions the anus)

Chordata (with a spine)- Echinodermata - Hemichordata

Craniata (brain in a skull) - Cephalochordata - Urochordata

Vertebrata - Hyperotreti

Gnathostomata (we have a jaw bone) - Hyperoartia - Euconodonta - Pteraspidomorphi - Thelodonti - Anaspida - Galeaspida - Piturispida - Osteostraci

Teleostomi (our skeletons are calcified, nor cartilage) - Placodermi - Chondrichthyes

Osteichthyes - Acanthodii

Sarcopterygii (we have lungs and legs) - Actinopterygii

Stegocephalia (we have fingers) - Onychodontiforms - Coelacanthimorpha - Porolepimorpha - Dipnoi - Rhizontimorpha - Osteolepimorpha

Tetrapoda - (and other transitionals)

Anthracosauria (our fingers are five) - Amphibia

Amniota (we have this amnion, that allowed the transition from sea to land) - Solenodonsaurus - Diadectomorpha

The next division is about how many holes we have in our skulls.

Synapsida (one temporal fenestra) - Sauropsida (the traditional reptiles)

Eupelycosauria - Casesauria

Sphenacodontia - Edaphosauridae - Ophiacodontidae - Varanopseidae

Therapsida - Sphenacodontidae

Theriodontia - Biarmosuchia - Dinocephalia - Anomodontia

Cynodontia (therapsids with canine teeth) - Gorgonopsia - Therocephalia

Eucynodontia - Procynosunchidae - Galesauridae

Probainognathia - Cynognathia

Mammaliformes - Trithelodontidae

Morganucodontidae - Allotheria

Hadrocodium - Docodonta

Mammalia (getting close!) - Symmetrodonta

Cladotheria - Australosphenida (includes the monotremes) -Triconodonta - Sphalacotheroidea

Theria - Dryolestoidea

Eutheria (placentals) - Metatheria (marsupials)

Epitheria - Xenarthra - Pholidota

Euarchontoglires - Asioryctitheria - Leptictida - Insectivora - Laurasiatheria

Archonta - Anagalida

Primatomorpha - Scandentia

Primates - Plesiadapiformes

This is objective. “Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle (video source).

All of those things are objective, and they make us apes.

Are you angry at your god for making you an ape? Well, not our fault.

You call birds "birds", whether they are ostriches or hummingbirds (which are much more different from each other than we are to chimps).
Your lack of wit doesn't let you see that they share a common ancestor, yet that doesn't stop you from calling them "birds". Your story says that Yahweh chose to make several "kinds" of birds. Whatever. So there's something objective that makes you call them that even if they don't have a common ancestor.

Why not apply the same to us? I've shown you very objective parameters.

When your god chose to give you all of those traits, he chose to make you an ape. Deal with it. Stop pouting and grow up.

Carl Linn, (Carolus Linnaeus), the "father of taxonomy", on February 14, 1747, 6:37 p.m.
I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character (...) by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a nauralist I ought to have done so.
This is the guy who set out to find the biblical "kinds", and found reality instead.


(Edited by wisp 11/20/2009 at 03:02 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:28 PM on November 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
Since fin and fluke are essentially soft-tissue structures - as I demonstrated with your inability to discern the identity of seal and manatee forelimb bones - that argument seems a bit lame.


A fluke needs a ball vertebra followed by several flat bones for attachment of the fluke. Fins were speculated on before the bones of the forelimbs were found.
The argument is based on bones, not soft tissue.

What is the probability of random related mutations happening to produce fins, flippers, blowhole, fluke, blubber and so many other aquatic changes by chance?
What is the probability of any event looked at after the fact?


You’re not answering the question. It’s a tough one, I don’t blame you really.

Fencer
The Bible speaks of giants, and from the awesome theology of YEC, they came from demons impregnating humans. So I must ask, where are the fossils of these gigantic human-demon hybrids?


There are not many human remains in the fossil record, Fencer. A good 95% of all the fossils are marine life. The humans were just a bit more alert; when the rain started to pour down, they started to make a plan, find something to float on perhaps. When they finally succumbed, they were drowned and most likely their bodies were scavenged long before they had the possibility of being fossilized.  Marine life is already wet and they most likely didn’t see the sediment coming so they got fossilized. You should really give up on the Bible Fencer. If it is just a book that you take parts from, if it is not inspired and not to be taken as God’s Word, why do you bother with it at all?
A lot of things were much bigger in the past as evidenced by enormous insects for one.

Someone once asked whether belief in a literal creation was essential to salvation. The conclusion reached was ‘no’ (the short answer) and ‘no, but…’(the long answer).
No, it’s not essential - but choosing to believe in only that which you prefer to believe puts you on the slippery slope to disbelief and ultimately atheism. It’s a bigger problem than you think and many have travelled down that slippery slope before you.

And dinosaurs are the genetic experiments of the devil. This one was actually proposed by ICR, another pinnacle achievement of both theology and science thanks to YEC comprehension.


Please give me a link –I’ve never heard such rot.

What is the probability of random related mutations happening to produce fins, flippers, blowhole, fluke, blubber and so many other aquatic changes by chance?
You might want to check out the argument, "How do mutations add up?"


Where would I find this argument? I’d love to see what the explanation could possibly be.

The organism cannot respond to the environment through its reproductive cells so it was just as likely to evolve wings by accidental mutation, while under water with legs and a fluke.
Actually you are correct, evolution is a passive process. However you neglect the importance of natural selection.


Ohhhh –well that makes all the difference. What??! Natural selection can’t help you here, I’m afraid. You still need lots of coincidentally related accidents coming together into a co-ordinated whole and all the flops must die. Where are their fossilized remains?

Dr. John C. Lilly took LSD over 100 times while doing scientific experiments to increase human consciousness.


Sad what some people get up to. Everything he had to say was nonsensical. What was its purpose in this conversation?

I find it quite interesting how many YECs say that evolution claims we just came from a pile of mud, yet the Bible says we came from dust.


The difference is that evolution’s mud apparently organized itself while God’s dust needed organization of its parts via intelligence.
Have you ever seen a dead frog? What makes it alive? All the parts are there but no life. What animates it?

research shows that environmental conditions, absent of mutations, can turn genes on and off that give the organism a better chance of survival.


Only genes that already exist in the genome. Land mammals do not have genes for flippers and fins just as switching on a washing machine will not give you music.(You need a radio or DVD player for that.) It’s interesting to you only because it’s vague and you can supplement the claim with imagination.

Many organisms that are definitely not the same "kind", like the chicken and the fly, can switch their hox genes and work perfectly well.


Because hox genes are only switches and they can only switch on and off what is already there, not make something new.

Or ERVs, you can only get them from a common ancestor


There are numerous instances where these small transposable elements have been found to have functions which invalidates the random retrovirus insertion claim.  They are used to aid transcription in over 20% of the human genome.

I have to ask, did you get your doctorate from the same place Dr. Dino did? Did you also write your dissertation in crayon?


Not the same place, no. Where I was, we were allowed to use crayon but not everyone opted in.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:19 AM on November 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't you believe that, being a Christian, you have at least some of that, Fencer? You only reason because you feel like it. Faith absolves you from doing such a thing (as Lester demonstrates).


Projection. There we go, that was easy.

But this responses were harnessed in order to do one thing: to make us propagate our genes.
Our view of the world is such that we can do that better.


Imagination based on faith in ‘evolution’.

Our genes don't care much for our individual selves. They gave us our "selves" only because that turned out to be good for them.
Our genes will try to make us miserable when we don't serve their purposes. But they don't want for us to kill ourselves either.


Imagination based on faith. You must be a Richard Dawkins supporter!

When we learn about Physics our genes let us because they believe that we'll get more chicks that way (either by getting more popular or by somehow living longer thanks to this knowledge).


Imagination.

Our genes have no idea of how useless (or even damaging) a big part of our knowledge is for them (like our knowledge about condoms).


If religion has no place in science, then fairy tales must also be banned.

When they have absolutely no use for you, things vanish. You realize that there's no such a thing as a "thing". Nothing is separate, except for our need. And our needs are things too. And they, too, don't exist. You don't either. Everything is one.


Oh Wisp, the old lie has sucked you in. Hinduism aka New Age movement – drugs really help you see the ‘there is no reality’ scenario. When somebody steals your wallet, I hope you’ll say, “never fear, it didn’t happen, there is no reality” in order to be consistent.
It's pretty hard to explain.


Yes because it’s pretty ridiculous and requires vast imagination. What it boils down to is ‘there is no reality, all is one’ and soon we’ll have a New World Order and a one world government to prove it – just what Satan the old devil always planned to have in order to rule supreme. For that, he needs the people to buy into this lie so that they can get ready to worship him.

That alone tells me he has tasted those states. I have too.


That much is obvious.

Indeed. It looks like a rage. They know we think they're deluded and believe in magic, and they resent it so much that they must say it's US who do that.


Indeed. We don’t just say that you are deluded, we believe that it is true. And you do believe in magic –land mammals to whales, reptiles to birds, it’s all magic and faith; frog to prince stories. You don’t have the evidence for that.

They are people of faith, but their scorn at our "faith" is very revealing.


The difference is that we have an intelligent faith based on the evidence. We see that fruit flies only ever beget fruit flies no matter what, and we believe that thus there are limits to variation. You see fruit flies remaining fruit flies no matter what and you imagine that via some kind of magical process not in evidence in the real world, they could one day convert into something completely different. ‘Evolution’ isn’t happening, you just have to imagine that, once upon a time, it did.

They're ashamed of their faith, their imagination, their delusion, their stories, their magic.


We’re horrified that supposedly intelligent people believe the things you do. The New Age movement is like that as well. They talk to their spirits and become fully deluded. The spirits all contradict one another and they don’t mind because apparently reality is in the eye of the beholder, my reality is not your reality and other such ridiculous garbage.

Lester Genetics does not show that. That would be the evolution believer’s interpretation of the data. It could equally well be a common designer that would account for the commonality and inter-relatedness of life.
Wisp Equally well???? You said our position was ridiculous faith based deluded crap!
By saying "equally well" it means one of two things:
a) That you believe creationism is also ridiculous faith based delude crap.
b) (More likely) That you lied when you expressed those opinions about Evolution.


My apologies, you are correct in this. Not ‘equally well’, just another potential explanation for the same thing – not a good explanation, just another possibility on a superficial level of appraisal.

I'm certain that Lester lies. We've caught him more than once.


If you were certain, you would not express yourself this way. You sound somewhat uncertain which is a good thing, since if you said ‘I know that Lester lies’ , you would be wrong.

He lies when he claims that the ToE says Evolution happens by random chance (he understand that it doesn't)


Mutation is the random component and natural selection does not change that randomness, it just deletes the random changes it doesn’t like or the unlucky ones. Does that mean that mutation is a directed thing?

I'm almost sure that he resents our lack of need for lies.


I pity your delusions, that is all.
When we say that we're apes we're doing the same thing as when we say we're vertebrates.


When we say we are primates and vertebrates, that is a classification system that works in general. When you say we are apes, you literally mean that our great great great……..grandparents were some kind of ape. We don’t believe in macroevolution, remember. We believe that humans are a different created ‘kind’ completely separate from the apes.

Oh, creos also have a problem with the word "animal". We can be vertebrates and mammals, but not animals or apes.


It’s all part of a classification problem. If you divide things into plants and animals then in that sense we are not plants BUT we draw the line at believing that we are evolved from lower order animals, not because we don’t want to be related, but because we don’t believe we are.








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:31 AM on November 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
derwood
Lester
What is the probability of random related mutations happening to produce fins, flippers, blowhole, fluke, blubber and so many other aquatic changes by chance?
What is the probability of any event looked at after the fact?
You’re not answering the question. It’s a tough one, I don’t blame you really.
You don't understand, Lester.

What's the probability that your father produced your exact sperm, and that your mother produced your exact egg? What's the probability that those two met? That your sperm beat the other 20 million sperms? Divide that by the chance that your father met your mother. Divide that by the chance that your grandparents produced your parents.

Chances are you don't exist, Lester.

It's the sharpshooter's fallacy.

But in any case it's astronomically more likely for a pakicetus to turn into a whale (not THAT unlikely) than that you should be here.

You should really give up on the Bible Fencer. If it is just a book that you take parts from, if it is not inspired and not to be taken as God’s Word, why do you bother with it at all?
I'm with you on this one, Lester. All the way.

That's what we need to teach every Christian! Spread the word!

No, it’s not essential - but choosing to believe in only that which you prefer to believe puts you on the slippery slope to disbelief and ultimately atheism.
Yeeeah! Slippery slope! I love that fallacy.

Anyway, in this case it's not a fallacy. The slope IS slippery.Critical thinking does lead people away from Yahweh, Zeus and Silvia Brown).

Lester
FencerAnd dinosaurs are the genetic experiments of the devil. This one was actually proposed by ICR, another pinnacle achievement of both theology and science thanks to YEC comprehension.
Please give me a link –I’ve never heard such rot.
No problem, Lester. Here you go:
We might think that the world is a cruel place now, but millions of years ago the dinosaurs lived in a world without mercy, "a freakish, hellish nightmare world drenched in the blood and gore of violence, death and destruction" inhabited by "abnormal, grotesque creatures and monstrosities" hellbent on destruction. It was a world invented by the Devil himself, according to Damien Royce and Jason Zolot, the authors of Did God Destroy the Dinosaurs?
Click on any word to follow the link.

I'm surprised you never heard of it. I mean, dinosaurs are ugly! Look at those nasty teeth! They can't be the work of sweet and tender Yahweh!

Lester
Fencer
Dr. John C. Lilly took LSD over 100 times while doing scientific experiments to increase human consciousness.
Sad what some people get up to.
That's subjective.
Everything he had to say was nonsensical. What was its purpose in this conversation?
To demonstrate that you like to talk about things you don't know about, i bet.

Did i get it right, Fencer? =D

The difference is that evolution’s mud apparently organized itself while God’s dust needed organization of its parts via intelligence.
Have you ever seen a dead frog? What makes it alive? All the parts are there but no life. What animates it?
Tell us. Is it magic?

You don't like Science, Lester.

Lester
Don't you believe that, being a Christian, you have at least some of that, Fencer? You only reason because you feel like it. Faith absolves you from doing such a thing (as Lester demonstrates).
Projection. There we go, that was easy.
Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.
But this responses were harnessed in order to do one thing: to make us propagate our genes.
Our view of the world is such that we can do that better.
Imagination based on faith in ‘evolution’.
Blah blah blah. "Blah" blah, blablablah.
Our genes don't care much for our individual selves. They gave us our "selves" only because that turned out to be good for them.
Our genes will try to make us miserable when we don't serve their purposes. But they don't want for us to kill ourselves either.
Imagination based on faith.
Blah blah.
You must be a Richard Dawkins supporter!
Blah?
<<< Blah blah blah!

When we learn about Physics our genes let us because they believe that we'll get more chicks that way (either by getting more popular or by somehow living longer thanks to this knowledge).
Imagination.
Blah blah.

Our genes have no idea of how useless (or even damaging) a big part of our knowledge is for them (like our knowledge about condoms).
If religion has no place in science, then fairy tales must also be banned.
Blahahahaha!

When they have absolutely no use for you, things vanish. You realize that there's no such a thing as a "thing". Nothing is separate, except for our need. And our needs are things too. And they, too, don't exist. You don't either. Everything is one.
Oh Wisp, the old lie has sucked you in. Hinduism aka New Age movement – drugs really help you see the ‘there is no reality’ scenario.
Oh, you started to speak! I'll start too then.

I don't care for those movements. But i do believe that realizing the oneness helps you being good to your neighbor far better than the Bible ever could.
When somebody steals your wallet, I hope you’ll say, “never fear, it didn’t happen, there is no reality” in order to be consistent.
And i hope that they don't have to steal it from you, and that you'll give it willingly, just like Matthew 5:42 commands you, in order to be consistent.

I also hope you love derwood, like Luke 6:35 tells you to.

If you do, it doesn't show.

What it boils down to is ‘there is no reality, all is one’ and soon we’ll have a New World Order and a one world government to prove it – just what Satan the old devil always planned to have in order to rule supreme. For that, he needs the people to buy into this lie so that they can get ready to worship him.
I don't believe in the evil deity of the Old Testament (which is scarcely more evil than the "good" one).

I rather have you believe that i'm deluded than dishonest.

They are people of faith, but their scorn at our "faith" is very revealing.
The difference is that we have an intelligent faith based on the evidence.
Your neglect of every single topic tells me that there is no such thing.
We see that fruit flies only ever beget fruit flies no matter what,
That would be name calling.

Organisms don't care what you call them. You'll keep calling them "fruit flies" even if they grow, walk on two feet and accept Jesus into their hearts.
and we believe that thus there are limits to variation.
If i start a thread about that, would you post? Because i don't know what you're talking about, and my guess is that you don't either.
You see fruit flies remaining fruit flies no matter what
You mean "we'll call them that no matter what".
and you imagine that via some kind of magical process
What part of the process is magical, according to you?

To me you're just lying through your teeth. You know there's no magic.
not in evidence in the real world, they could one day convert into something completely different. ‘Evolution’ isn’t happening, you just have to imagine that, once upon a time, it did.
You started blahbling again.

Support your claims, or keep them to yourself, Lester.
We’re horrified that supposedly intelligent people believe the things you do.
Supposedly? Can you come up with any objective way to test for intelligence? An IQ test perhaps?

Anyway, yes, that's the way it is. Smarter people tend to believe in Evolution. I'm not saying (right now) that Evolution is right. But that fact still has to mean something.

"Intelligence >>> arrogance >>> ToE" doesn't sound quite likely.
The New Age movement is like that as well. They talk to their spirits and become fully deluded.
I don't know what you're saying. I don't know much about the New Age. Frankly, i don't care.


Lester
Wisp
Lester
Genetics does not show that. That would be the evolution believer’s interpretation of the data. It could equally well be a common designer that would account for the commonality and inter-relatedness of life.
Equally well???? You said our position was ridiculous faith based deluded crap!
By saying "equally well" it means one of two things:
a) That you believe creationism is also ridiculous faith based delude crap.
b) (More likely) That you lied when you expressed those opinions about Evolution.
My apologies, you are correct in this.
W... What??? Oh... Wau!!

Lester, you've earned three respect points. Seriously. No buts.
Not ‘equally well’, just another potential explanation for the same thing – not a good explanation, just another possibility on a superficial level of appraisal.
Nothing you say will take away the merit of your admittance.

We all make mistakes, and i'm glad you admitted at least one.

I'm certain that Lester lies. We've caught him more than once.
If you were certain, you would not express yourself this way.
I understand. You're wrong though. I'm fully aware that when people say "surely" they mean that they're not sure. That's not me.
You sound somewhat uncertain which is a good thing, since if you said ‘I know that Lester lies’ , you would be wrong.
I do know. You're not THAT deluded, so you have to be lying about some stuff. It shows clearly when you try to cover it up (like the fact that you didn't know what homology was).

He lies when he claims that the ToE says Evolution happens by random chance (he understand that it doesn't)
Mutation is the random component
I know that.
and natural selection does not change that randomness,
The randomness of the mutation? No, of course not.

And yet the process is not random. We can make many predictions about its development. So no, not random.
it just deletes the random changes it doesn’t like or the unlucky ones.
Let's go with the first. We know what it tends not to like. Thus, not random.
Does that mean that mutation is a directed thing?
No. And the opposite of "random" isn't "directed". You're just playing with words because facts don't come to your aid.

I'm almost sure that he resents our lack of need for lies.
I pity your delusions, that is all.
Ok, so be it. Our delusions allow us to tell the truth about what we think. Your "truth" strangely drives you to lie.

You know Evolution isn't a random process. If you really believed such a thing you wouldn't need to maliciously exclude Natural Selection from the equation.


When we say that we're apes we're doing the same thing as when we say we're vertebrates.
When we say we are primates and vertebrates, that is a classification system that works in general.
It goes back to say we're animals, it goes forward to say we're apes. It's the same thing. "Animals" is a classification. "Apes" is a classification.
When you say we are apes, you literally mean that our great great great……..grandparents were some kind of ape.
Yeah. They were called "humans". That's the kind of apes my great grandparents were.

We ARE apes, Lester.

Imagine a bird saying "When you say we're birds you literally mean that our great great great grandparents were some kind of bird". Well d'oh!

We don’t believe in macroevolution, remember.
That doesn't matter. We knew we were apes before knowing about Evolution or common ancestors.

We're objectively apes. We're gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle (primates so far), with no tail (apes).

It IS a classification system, whether it implies that we have a common ancestor or not.
We believe that humans are a different created ‘kind’ completely separate from the apes.
Yeah, and that hummingbirds and ostriches are separated kinds of birds too. You still call them "birds", even if they are far more different from each other than we are to chimps.

Whether you define "apes" from an anatomic point of view, from a genetic point of view or from an Evolutionary point of view, the results are exactly the same.

Pick any definition you like. We're apes.

Are you mad at Yahweh for making you an ape? Don't take it on Science.

Oh, creos also have a problem with the word "animal". We can be vertebrates and mammals, but not animals or apes.
It’s all part of a classification problem. If you divide things into plants and animals then in that sense we are not plants BUT we draw the line at believing that we are evolved from lower order animals, not because we don’t want to be related, but because we don’t believe we are.
Pick any scientific definition of "animal". You're it. Period.


(Edited by wisp 11/21/2009 at 4:19 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:07 PM on November 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
And dinosaurs are the genetic experiments of the devil. This one was actually proposed by ICR, another pinnacle achievement of both theology and science thanks to YEC comprehension.
Lester Please give me a link –I’ve never heard such rot.
Wisp No problem, Lester. Here you go:
Pacifier.comcourtesy of Wisp. "We might think that the world is a cruel place now, but millions of years ago the dinosaurs lived in a world without mercy"


Well there’s a clue screaming out of the page –millions of years ago…. What did Fencer say – ICR?…but it comes from a site called pacifier.com so what has that got to do with ICR? Is pacifier.com allied to ICR? Are these men who apparently wrote this allied to ICR? This sounds very much like the theistic evolution that Fencer believes in, nothing to do with creationism since these people believe in millions of years and creationists don’t.

Their inevitable conclusion--that Satan created the dinosaurs and that God destroyed them--is a reconciliation, they claim, between science and the Bible.


Aha –reconciliation between ‘science’ and the Bible –there’s the theistic evolutionist mindset creeping in again. We take the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, not a story that men can theorize about and change if they feel like it. There are no millions of years in the Bible as the comprehensive genealogies clearly show.

More sophisticated than evangelical satan-bashers, Royce and Zolot borrow freely from Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism and Paganism to form a Christian heresy that features an obsession with dinosaurs.


There we go, ‘Christian heresy’, in the same vein as theistic evolution. Are ICR into Christian heresy? Don’t know much about ICR but if this is their stuff, then they are not creationists. Sorry, nice try.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:42 AM on November 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:42 AM on November 22, 2009 :
We take the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, not a story that men can theorize about and change if they feel like it. There are no millions of years in the Bible as the comprehensive genealogies clearly show.


And since you cannot be wrong, reality must bend to your personal interpretations.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 02:36 AM on November 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
What's the probability that your father produced your exact sperm, and that your mother produced your exact egg? What's the probability that those two met? That your sperm beat the other 20 million sperms? Divide that by the chance that your father met your mother. Divide that by the chance that your grandparents produced your parents.

Chances are you don't exist, Lester.


Well let’s face it Wisp, some sperm found some egg – since there are billions of sperm and the egg is pretty big and the sperm are heading in the right direction, I’d say they had a great chance especially since my parents were practicing a lot most likely, had loads of opportunity and every practice involved billions more sperm.

So can we get back to the chances that a land mammal would accidentally mutate all the correct equipment for underwater life?

Lester You should really give up on the Bible Fencer. If it is just a book that you take parts from, if it is not inspired and not to be taken as God’s Word, why do you bother with it at all?
Wisp

I'm with you on this one, Lester. All the way.

That's what we need to teach every Christian! Spread the word!


The only difference is that I believe that Fencer is doing the wrong thing compromising on God’s Word for the fallible words of fallen man that prefer to believe what they prefer to believe. So, don’t give up on the Bible, Fencer, just the heresy.

Lester
The difference is that evolution’s mud apparently organized itself while God’s dust needed organization of its parts via intelligence.
Have you ever seen a dead frog? What makes it alive? All the parts are there but no life. What animates it?
Wisp Tell us. Is it magic?


No, it is called organization. When you put a frog in a blender, you disorganize it. The parts no longer work flawlessly together as they were designed to. The nanomachinery needed to produce vast amounts of ATP for every reaction occurring in every cell is graunched, bent and twisted and like a car after an auto accident the parts can no longer do the mechanical things they were designed to do in combination with all the other parts that they were designed to work with.

You don't like Science, Lester.


Oh I love science plenty Wisp. It’s the hidden philosophies that I don’t like.

Wisp
Blahahahaha! Blahahahaha! Blahahahaha! Blahahahaha!


You’re right, all your evo-garbage was blahahahahahahahaha Wisp!

I don't care for those movements. But i do believe that realizing the oneness helps you being good to your neighbor far better than the Bible ever could.


How does materialistic evolution back up this oneness scenario Wisp?

And i hope that they don't have to steal it from you, and that you'll give it willingly, just like Matthew 5:42 commands you, in order to be consistent.


No, the Bible actually condemns stealing Wisp. Matthew 5:42 mentions that if somebody asks you for something, you should give it to them. That’s not the same thing. Thieves don’t generally ask.

I also hope you love derwood, like Luke 6:35 tells you to.


Oh I try, it’s a challenge, but luckily I don’t hate anybody in anycase.

If you do, it doesn't show.


I’m so sorry Wisp – perhaps I am not perfected yet? In fact nobody is, so I’ll just have to work on that one. Have you never been sarcastic to somebody you loved? Did you love them less for noticing their idiocies? Ok so perhaps Derwood has been put in my path to test me as a very trying case….I will ask the Lord for forgiveness and the capacity to care more for Derwood.

I rather have you believe that i'm deluded than dishonest.


Ok fine, you’re deluded then.

Lester We see that fruit flies only ever beget fruit flies no matter what,
Wisp That would be name calling.


So do names mean nothing then? Can you call a spider a fruit fly just as easily?

Lester
and we believe that thus there are limits to variation.
Wisp
If i start a thread about that, would you post? Because i don't know what you're talking about, and my guess is that you don't either.


Sure Wisp, anytime.

Lester
You see fruit flies remaining fruit flies no matter what

Wisp
You mean "we'll call them that no matter what".


Even a retarded or deformed human is still a ‘human’ Wisp. We know what they are even if they have a foot growing out of their chest or an eye malpositioned under their chin.

Evolutionists play name games only because they don’t know where to draw the line. In fact, contrary to what they observe, they don’t think there are any lines to draw because they believe that, in some sense, all is one, related via a common ancestor via many many accidental mutations over a very long period of time.

Lester
and you imagine that via some kind of magical process
Wisp
What part of the process is magical, according to you?


The part where the co-ordinated information for fins spontaneously arises in place on the information that codes for arms via a series of accidental mutations followed by the spontaneous and accidental arising of the information for a fluke where previously there was information coding for the putting together of a tail.

And so on and so forth.

To me you're just lying through your teeth.


Now Wisp, that’s exceedingly ugly. Since we are all one and you are better able to love your neighbour for that reason, you should avoid these subjective opinions of yours.

Lester We’re horrified that supposedly intelligent people believe the things you do.
Wisp
Supposedly? Can you come up with any objective way to test for intelligence? An IQ test perhaps?


I think that knowing that you can string a coherent sentence together and that you apparently qualified for a tertiary education is enough to convince me that, deceptive philosophies aside, you are capable of using your brain.

Wisp
Anyway, yes, that's the way it is. Smarter people tend to believe in Evolution. I'm not saying (right now) that Evolution is right. But that fact still has to mean something.


It means that the people that get into tertiary education facilities are being methodically brainwashed into a deceptive philosophy called evolution. They generally don’t specialize in it but are persuaded to believe it more particularly at University - though the brainwashing really starts far younger at the National Geographic and Star Trek level.

A lot of people leave the church because of that early conditioning received on the television and the church has no idea why, for the most part. It happened to me, I know these things from personal experience.

People honour ‘human wisdom’ far too easily when they don’t believe in God and are thus like boats without a rudder picking up garbage wherever they go and trusting in fallen man’s fallible opinions. Once a university student accepts the evolution philosophy, he or she can even actively participate in making up the fairy tales that flesh out the big picture. It’s fun for the whole family.

Got to go. I’ll be back.

   


 



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:24 AM on November 22, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.