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
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 16 17 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Individuals don't become new species, populations do.


And badly mutated individuals tend not to become populations. The sort of change you envisage is a lot of mutation and mutations tend to affect more than one system simultaneously. I don't see how you imagine that there have been enough mutations (considering the rate of mutation that exists -very low) in the correct cells (gametes -to be passed on) to produce every amazingly co-ordinated and complex design of species that exists on this planet - with no plan, just random mutations.

How do you define "amphibian"?  Is it a fish with lungs?  Is it a salamander with gills?


How do you know that the fish with lungs wasn't just an original design - like a platypus that doesn't fit in between any two things in any particular 'family tree.' How do you know that the fish mutated to produce lungs? If the fish with lungs is the precursor to the land animal but still in existence, then how do you know it is pre- anything? Show me that mutations can produce that kind of results -show me some positive mutations that have increased the information content of a genome and made something better from random mistakes. Don't show me the ape and the human and tell me that one evolved into the other unless you can show me that in principle it is possible for mutations to cause that sort of radical restructuring. When people imagine that scales can turn into feathers, they tend to imagine without all the other inconvenient changes like how the bones gradually became hollow from solid. Did the reptile-bird creature have a calcium deficiency or did it feel like flying and know that solid bones would be a bad idea? What about the respiratory system -how did it change via random mutations into that which it has to have in order to fly?
I know how you envisage this 'gradual' change to have happened, I just don't share your optimism or credulity, and it isn't scientific or evidential until you come with the evidence that mutations can produce anything that brings about co-ordinated change within an existing organism. We can demonstrate neutral changes, we can demonstrate detrimental changes, where are the demonstrable positive mutational changes? There should be loads of them but nobody can show me or anyone else any - not one.

Apoapsis
They are actually quite different, the cephalopod eyes have a much superior design to human eyes.


The point is that their design is much closer to that of the human eye than it is to the design of a fish eye. So are we descended from the octopus or the fish?

Fencer27
One species of fruit fly evolved into two separate species in the lab. One of the new species was able to withstand temperatures 10 degrees Celsius colder than the parent or the daughter species.


But morphologically it is still a fruit fly? So this is an example of variability of the genome for the purpose of survival -how do we know it can be anything apart from a fruit fly?

And DNA isn't a code, there's no symbolism, the message isn't separate from the material, it's chemicals reacting.


The message is separate from the material and it has to be interpreted -chemical reactions can't interpret and translate one string into another string totally unrelated in morphological terms. It is like a language with symbolism and that only comes from a mind.
Ask Dean Kenyon - he was the definitive expert on chemical evolution, he wrote the textbook "Chemical Predestination" that everyone had to read at university for about 20 years, he changed his mind because of the DNA coding which he realized couldn't have come from chemical attractions and basic chemical law. It didn't make him popular but at least he was being intellectually honest.

Ask Francis Crick why he favours panspermia over abiogenesis -it has to do with the DNA coding. He knows it couldn't put itself together without intelligence but, rejecting God, he prefers to blame it on advanced alien civilizations.

Why is Richard Dawkins not at all averse to the explanation of DNA originating from alien intelligence while the idea of the Judeo-Christian God being the originator makes him pop fuses? It that a scientific preference or a philosophical prejudice? Is he perhaps being ‘wilfully blind’ as the Bible explains it?

Even if all "coded information" we know about before coming across DNA is in fact created by a mind, that is no reason to think DNA was also created by a mind.


But it is the most plausible explanation even if it is not naturalistic, as naturalists prefer.

we have never seen any evidence to suggest that anything in nature is influenced by a mind of any kind.


I have a whole bunch of books on my desk next to me. They are written in code -a language. They all have authors who used their brains to write the books. I know that those authors exist even though I have never seen any of them - the ability to use coded information naturally infers intelligence.

Programs on computers require intelligence -all I see is my monitor, I can imagine the material parts require chemistry but the programs encoded therein require intelligence.
DNA is programmed information. Non-material and originating from intelligence.

It makes perfect sense to me.
















-------
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: 06:56 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we have never seen any evidence to suggest that anything in nature is influenced by a mind of any kind.

Lester
I have a whole bunch of books on my desk next to me. They are written in code -a language. They all have authors who used their brains to write the books. I know that those authors exist even though I have never seen any of them - the ability to use coded information naturally infers intelligence.

Programs on computers require intelligence -all I see is my monitor, I can imagine the material parts require chemistry but the programs encoded therein require intelligence.
DNA is programmed information. Non-material and originating from intelligence.


And since humans are a part of nature and making things like books and computers is a product of human nature than books and computers are just as natural as bird nests and termite mounds.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:32 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, I think you make good points here. I've been reading some of Perry
Marchall's points explaining exactly this stuff.

Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 20, 2009 :
Try to show me one case where coded information did not come from a
mind.


And DNA isn't a code, there's no symbolism, the message isn't seperate from
the material, it's chemicals reacting.



DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude
Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is  encoded  into messenger
RNA which is  decoded  into proteins.
DNA base pairs are "codes, or instructions, that specify the characteristics
of an organism, from a body's sex to the color of a pea" and says "the
discovery of DNA's structure unlocked the chemical code to heredity.

The molecule itself is the medium; the ordering of the base pairs defines the code. The question that naturalism can't answer is where the code came from.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 11:12 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 11:12 AM on June 21, 2009 :
Lester, I think you make good points here. I've been reading some of Perry
Marchall's points explaining exactly this stuff.

Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 20, 2009 :
Try to show me one case where coded information did not come from a
mind.


And DNA isn't a code, there's no symbolism, the message isn't seperate from
the material, it's chemicals reacting.



DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude
Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is  encoded  into messenger
RNA which is  decoded  into proteins.
DNA base pairs are "codes, or instructions, that specify the characteristics
of an organism, from a body's sex to the color of a pea" and says "the
discovery of DNA's structure unlocked the chemical code to heredity.

The molecule itself is the medium; the ordering of the base pairs defines the code. The question that naturalism can't answer is where the code came from.





Supernaturalism can't answer it either. You are arguing that because you can't explain something one way, you can automatically explain it another way. It is not scientific to conclude, "It must be supernatural because we don't yet have a natural explanation." All we can conclude is that we don't yet have an explanation. If scientists were as lazy and dogmatic as Lester Timbrx make them sound, they would be satisfied with the empty premise of naturalism and not attempt to investigate the actual methods that DNA could have come about. They aren't being lazy, though. Research is constantly being conducted on abiogenesis. There will more than likely be a time when the ID/Creationism advocates will have to eat their words about there being no natural explanation for the occurrence of life. They won't take anything back, of course. They'll keep on pretending they're in favor of science, when in reality the viewpoint they are pushing on abiogenesis right now is no more scientific than the viewpoint in the 1800's that human flight was positively impossible without magic.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:43 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:56 AM on June 21, 2009 :

Apoapsis
They are actually quite different, the cephalopod eyes have a much superior design to human eyes.


The point is that their design is much closer to that of the human eye than it is to the design of a fish eye. So are we descended from the octopus or the fish?


On what basis do you make this statement?  The design of a human eye is closer to that of a fish than of a cephalopod, indicating closer relationship to fish than octopus.



-------
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: 12:50 PM on June 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you define "amphibian"?  Is it a fish with lungs?  Is it a salamander with gills?
How do you know that the fish with lungs wasn't just an original design
Because we know about Evolution being right, and ancient myths being wrong. Because they fit smoothly between fish and reptiles.
like a platypus that doesn't fit in between any two things in any particular 'family tree.'
The connection between branches goes back in time. Always.

Do you understand?
The connection is vertical, not horizontal.

Thus no living creature has to be "in between" any two of anything (specially in a horizontal way).

How do you know that the fish mutated to produce lungs?
Because we know its ancestors and its descendants.
If the fish with lungs is the precursor to the land animal but still in existence, then how do you know it is pre- anything?
My mother's last name is Berbel. So i came from Berbels. Yet Berbels still exist.
There's no contradiction but in your imagination.

Show me that mutations can produce that kind of results -show me some positive mutations that have increased the information content of a genome and made something better from random mistakes.
"Information" exists also in your imagination. If you have more about the subject, post it in "Information". There's a specific thread.

Don't show me the ape and the human and tell me that one evolved into the other
Humans are apes.
unless you can show me that in principle it is possible for mutations to cause that sort of radical restructuring.
I don't see anything radical between humans and the rest of the apes. But there's a specific thread. If you have anything, post it there. It's called "Taxonomy and apes".

When people imagine that scales can turn into feathers, they tend to imagine without all the other inconvenient changes like how the bones gradually became hollow from solid.
What's the inconvenient?
Did the reptile-bird creature have a calcium deficiency or did it feel like flying and know that solid bones would be a bad idea?
Argumental fallacy: False dilemma.
I know how you envisage this 'gradual' change to have happened, I just don't share your optimism or credulity,
Remember: unicorns, dragons, people turning into salt, sun stopping in the sky, walking on water, water into wine, resurrection, etc.
and it isn't scientific
Na ah. You don't get to tell real scientists that they're not doing science. Specially having shown your ignorance about science.
or evidential until you come with the evidence that mutations can produce anything that brings about co-ordinated change within an existing organism.
Nylon digesting bacteria.
We can demonstrate neutral changes, we can demonstrate detrimental changes, where are the demonstrable positive mutational changes?
Nylon digesting bacteria.
There should be loads of them but nobody can show me or anyone else any - not one.
Tetrachromatic women.

Actually we're all mutants. In Europe you have more mutations due to smallpox and the Black Death.

Perhaps you know that there are some mutant people who are immune to AIDS.

Having these mutations...

...how could you prevent some cool ones happening from time to time?

Apoapsis
They are actually quite different, the cephalopod eyes have a much superior design to human eyes.
The point is that their design is much closer to that of the human eye than it is to the design of a fish eye.
What's your basis?

Support it or take it back.

And no, that's not "the point". The cephalopod eyes have a much superior design to human eyes. You can't escape from this fact by saying "the point is".

Does your god love cephalopods better?

So are we descended from the octopus or the fish?
The fish. Even if you were right about the design being closer between cephalopods and humans than humans and fish.
The thylacine looked more like a dog than a kangaroo, yet we KNOW that it was more closely related to this one.
We know because of taxonomy.
I have not performed the DNA test, but i'm perfectly confident that it will be no surprise.

Why is it that we get no big surprises?
Just details. Never something really big.

But morphologically it is still a fruit fly? So this is an example of variability of the genome for the purpose of survival -how do we know it can be anything apart from a fruit fly?
What trait, if changed, would make you change your mind?

Wings? Number of feet? Food? What?

If food was enough for you then nylon digesting bacteria would change your mind.

My guess is that nothing will ever be enough for you to drop your bronce age myths.

The message is separate from the material and it has to be interpreted
By whom?
-chemical reactions can't interpret and translate one string into another string totally unrelated in morphological terms. It is like a language with symbolism and that only comes from a mind.
And what does it mean?
"Sorry, forgot how to make the cephalopod's cool eye"?

Why is Richard Dawkins not at all averse to the explanation of DNA originating from alien intelligence
Not at all you say? Can you back this claim up?
while the idea of the Judeo-Christian God being the originator makes him pop fuses?
Nothing special about the Judeo-Christian god ("god" in lowercase). The Judeo-Christian myth is just one amongst thousands. Nobody ever presented a good reason to believe in it.

gluteus
DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is  encoded  into messenger RNA which is  decoded  into proteins.
That's just name calling. You can't change facts just by chosing names.

Discuss facts, not names.


(Edited by wisp 6/21/2009 at 7:45 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: 7:44 PM on June 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp -
My guess is that nothing will ever be enough for you to drop your bronce age myths.


Only too true.  Their minds are closed to seeing the facts, understanding the evidence that supports evolution.  Shoot, Lester can't even accept the fact that the Biblical writers obviously believed the earth was flat, immovable, and the center of the universe.  

Why?  Because if one thing in the Bible is proven incorrect, then what in the Bible is correct?  If the story in Genesis is wrong, then what in the Bible is right?  

Quite a dilemma people face when they take the Bible literally.  They paint themselves into a corner that they can't get out of.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:54 PM on June 21, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But what about DNA being coded. Where did this information come from?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:55 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a) There's no information.
b) From the environment.

Chose one.



-------
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: 8:18 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

from Entwicolin
Supernaturalism can't answer it either. You are arguing that because you can't explain something one way, you can automatically explain it another way.

No, we're arguing that since neither of us really knows, why must science completely and arbitrarily dismiss supernaturalism?

It is not scientific to conclude, "It must be supernatural because we don't yet have a natural explanation."

Neither is it scientific to conclude that "it must be natural since it can't be supernatural"


All we can conclude is that we don't yet have an explanation.

True. Or rather we don't yet KNOW the REAL explanation.
If scientists were as lazy and dogmatic as Lester Timbrx make them sound, they would be satisfied with the empty premise of naturalism and not attempt to investigate the actual methods that DNA could have come about.

As long as "scientists" are as biased and "PC" as Ecoli, we will never agree.

They aren't being lazy, though.

Just biased against anything outside of their limited understanding of nature.

Research is constantly being conducted on abiogenesis. There will more than likely be a time when the ID/Creationism advocates will have to eat their words about there being no natural explanation for the occurrence of life. They won't take anything back, of course. They'll keep on pretending they're in favor of science, when in reality the viewpoint they are pushing on abiogenesis right now is no more scientific than the viewpoint in the 1800's that human flight was positively impossible without magic.

Your right, Ecoli, we won't "take it back" because we know that even if humans create sustainable life (proving a creator) you can't empirically prove history.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:21 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx, please, let's avoid the word "prove". We're talking science here, not Mathematics.

And supernaturalism is not an explanation. It's the ultimate lack of an explanation. It's the ultimate "we're completely clueless".

Supernaturalism doesn't mean anything. I mean 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: 8:32 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx, please, let's avoid the word "prove". We're talking science here, not Mathematics.

You're right.  

And supernaturalism is not an explanation. It's the ultimate lack of an explanation. It's the ultimate "we're completely clueless".

You're half right. To term something as supernatural is to have no known natural explanation. But that doesn't mean that whatever is behind the phenomenon is not actually natural. Ghosts are natural to other ghosts. Miracles are natural to God.

Supernaturalism doesn't mean anything. I mean it!

But it may ultimately prove (sorry) to be the crux of everything.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:04 PM on June 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 8:21 PM on June 22, 2009 :
why must science completely and arbitrarily dismiss supernaturalism?


Science is a method to understand the
natural world around us, not the supernatural, that is why science simply does not deal with the supernatural. If the supernatural does exist than science would not be able to explain it. So science must look for avenues beyond the supernatural.

Yet science does not rule out the supernatural, God(s), spirits and the like. That is why scientists are free to believe in whatever religion or spiritual undertaking they so choose.


-------
"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: 01:15 AM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 11:12 AM on June 21, 2009 :
Lester, I think you make good points here. I've been reading some of Perry
Marchall's points explaining exactly this stuff.


Bad source of informaiton.

You should look at his foray on the Internet Infidels board.  His claims were soundly refuted on the first few pages, but he went on for weeks and weeks refusing tro acknowledge it.

He's a Salem Hypothesis poster boy.

Quote from Demon38 at 8:37 PM on June 20, 2009 :
Try to show me one case where coded information did not come from a
mind.


And DNA isn't a code, there's no symbolism, the message isn't seperate from
the material, it's chemicals reacting.



DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude
Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is  encoded  into messenger
RNA which is  decoded  into proteins.
DNA base pairs are "codes, or instructions, that specify the characteristics
of an organism,

Um, sorry, no.

Genes encode proteins.



from a body's sex to the color of a pea" and says "the
discovery of DNA's structure unlocked the chemical code to heredity.

The molecule itself is the medium; the ordering of the base pairs defines the code. The question that naturalism can't answer is where the code came from.

The code is our human metaphorical description of the observation that there is a regular and predictable interaction between the bases in a gene and the production of mRNA and the mRNA's interaction with tRNAs.

Creationists put too much stoick in analogies and metaphors.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:37 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:55 PM on June 22, 2009 :
But what about DNA being coded. Where did this information come from?




The 'coding' and thus our perception/labelling of it containing 'information' is after-the-fact.

Provide a creationist 'information expert' with a DNA sequence and ask them to tell you how much informaiton it contains.  Guess what one of the first things you will be told?  You will be told that they cannot tell you unless they are told where the sequence comes from, i.e., if it is from a gene of not.

That is, they have to be told that the sequence 'has information' BEFORE they can tell you how much information it contains (and they can't really do that, either).


I know because I have done so on more than one occasion.

The 'information' can come from random processes - Shannon would agree.

The IDcreationist 'information' arguments are smokescreens - well planned bafflegab designed to hoodwink those not in the know.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:44 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So where does this sequencing of DNA come from?

And please indicate where his claims were refuted.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:49 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 8:37 PM on June 23, 2009 :
Creationists put too much stoick in analogies and metaphors.


LOL, and yet Genesis is full of metaphors and other literary devices while they try to retain a literal interpretation.  



-------
"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: 10:53 PM on June 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:49 PM on June 23, 2009 :
So where does this sequencing of DNA come from?

I don't understand what you are asking.  Nucleotides can be stuck together in any order, and a combination of ANY three nucleotides will encode an amino acid.  


And please indicate where his claims were refuted.

The thread starts here.


Marshall shows up and simply regurgitates the YEC gibberish formm his website and ignores all rebuttals and refutations.

His premises and specific arguments are all demolished within the first few pages.

Like most 'information' arguers, he relies on analogies and idiosyncratic, self-serving, tautologous 'definitions' and applications.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:21 AM on June 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is another thread on the general topic in which Marshall is mentioned (many pages into the thread).  It is a good discussion in that it is shown quickly and irrefutably that the creationist iniformaiton arguments are tautologous and/or generally illogical on their premises and false in thoer specifics.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:30 AM on June 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also, this page , the last one (so far) has some nice summary arguments, and a link to this post  is most informative - a very concise falsification of Marshall's main theme.

I get the feeling that internet creationists just have a need to latch onto anyone who puts on a good show and seems to prop up their faith, regardless of the merits of their arguments, which they likely do not understand anyway.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:35 AM on June 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Their arguments are not hard to demolish, but you do it remarkably well, derwood. Congrats.

There's just one thing i would disagree with:
DNA base pairs are "codes, or instructions, that specify the characteristics
of an organism,
Um, sorry, no.

Genes encode proteins.
They don't encode proteins either. They don't encode anything.

If you admit that they encode proteins (because proteins are formed as the result of a process that involves genes), then they encode physical structures too (that are the result of a process that involves proteins). And behaviors (as the result of a process that involves physical structures). They not only encode a rabbit, but its warren too (as the result of a process that involves behaviors).

If you decide to use this analogy (coding) you must take it to the extreme, or drop it entirely. That's what i think.
But perhaps it's me. I like the extreme.



-------
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: 6:28 PM on June 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:28 PM on June 24, 2009 :
Their arguments are not hard to demolish, but you do it remarkably well, derwood. Congrats.

There's just one thing i would disagree with:
DNA base pairs are "codes, or instructions, that specify the characteristics
of an organism,
Um, sorry, no.

Genes encode proteins.
They don't encode proteins either. They don't encode anything.

If you admit that they encode proteins (because proteins are formed as the result of a process that involves genes), then they encode physical structures too (that are the result of a process that involves proteins). And behaviors (as the result of a process that involves physical structures). They not only encode a rabbit, but its warren too (as the result of a process that involves behaviors).

If you decide to use this analogy (coding) you must take it to the extreme, or drop it entirely. That's what i think.
But perhaps it's me. I like the extreme.





I use 'encode' as shorthand, not an all encompassing uber-metaphor as creationists do.







-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:12 AM on June 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, yes, yes, that's crystal clear!

Well... Except for creationists... They don't seem to know the difference...

But what i mean is that the same shorthand that might seem ok to apply to proteins can be extended to traits (like the always wrong gluteus did), structures, behaviors and contraptions (like a beaver's dam).

To me saying that there's a distinction doesn't seem very different from creationists trying to tell micro from macroevolution.

That's why i chose to avoid that term, or to take it to such an extreme that creationists don't like it anymore (both seem equally valid to me).



-------
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: 9:25 PM on June 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 06:56 AM on June 21, 2009 :

Apoapsis
They are actually quite different, the cephalopod eyes have a much superior design to human eyes.


The point is that their design is much closer to that of the human eye than it is to the design of a fish eye. So are we descended from the octopus or the fish?


On what basis do you make this statement?  The design of a human eye is closer to that of a fish than of a cephalopod, indicating closer relationship to fish than octopus.




And another issue dropped like a hot potato.


-------
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: 5:31 PM on June 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 5:31 PM on June 27, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 06:56 AM on June 21, 2009 :

Apoapsis
They are actually quite different, the cephalopod eyes have a much superior design to human eyes.


The point is that their design is much closer to that of the human eye than it is to the design of a fish eye. So are we descended from the octopus or the fish?


On what basis do you make this statement?  The design of a human eye is closer to that of a fish than of a cephalopod, indicating closer relationship to fish than octopus.




And another issue dropped like a hot potato.



We should keep a list.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:28 PM on June 27, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do all living things evolve?( in your opinion)
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:11 PM on June 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha!
A list would be nice.

Gluteus, do rabbit warrens show intent, purpose or information?( in your opinion)



-------
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: 8:50 PM on June 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:11 PM on June 29, 2009 :
Do all living things evolve?( in your opinion)



Yes, and some things evolve, kind of, that are not living. Like proto-cells which have certain characteristics of natural selection which essentially changes the overall allele frequency among the population, which is by definition evolution.


-------
"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: 12:15 AM on June 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:11 PM on June 29, 2009 :
Do all living things evolve?( in your opinion)



It is almost as if there were not several paragraph(+)-length posts above responding to your previous claims.

Did you read any of the refutations of Marshall's confabulations?

Or are you just going to pull a creationist and simply ignore reality?
I don't see why anyone bothers replying to you when your M.O. is to just ignore what others write and trot out a new question/assertion.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:47 AM on June 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed. Gluteus, you made a question, derwood answered in detail, and now you play dumb.

Until you make a comment about it, you'll get no replies, at least from me. You clearly don't deserve them.



-------
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: 12:19 PM on June 30, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, Does a design plan for your body occur naturally? DNA is a design plan, a code but you chose not to refer to it as a code. A language is a code that when decoded, has meaning / information.  DNA fits this example. So DNA occurred naturally?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:49 PM on June 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes


-------
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: 10:49 PM on June 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does a design plan for your body occur naturally?
Yes


How can you know that??

We know that it doesn't occur naturally.

Evolution faith vs creation faith.


-------
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: 10:27 AM on July 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, that's easy.
Because every animal ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life. That kinda makes you believe in the phylogenetic tree of life.

If we find some animal that seems like a mixture, you say that it's an original design, and we say that it's probably a transitional (or descends from one).

How come no original designs go against the phylogenetic tree of life? I mean... Why not?

You don't know that we'll never find a feathered mammal. We do.

You presume to know God's mind, and yet it is us who make the right guesses and predictions.
Do we get help from the Devil or what?



-------
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: 10:42 AM on July 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because every animal ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life.


No, they don't. Molecular biology gives us different and contradictory trees of life from the expected morphological tree of life. So which should we believe? We've discussed this before so lets not ignore the reality of the situation and default to what we prefer to believe.

If we find some animal that seems like a mixture, you say that it's an original design, and we say that it's probably a transitional


You only see what you want to see. So many fossils, so few intermediates - oh and lets not forget that we don't have a mechanism for all this prodigious change so the whole theory is dead in the water. Demonstrate change between one 'kind' and another and I'll concede defeat but don't bother to go with finch beaks or bacteria or any of the usual suspects because we all know that what is demonstrated there is within the 'kind'.

You don't know that we'll never find a feathered mammal. We do.


But if you ever do, we know that with a little bit of original naturalistic thinking, you'll fit it into your unfalsifiable all encompassing theory.



-------
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: 11:03 AM on July 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:03 AM on July 1, 2009 :
Because every animal ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life.


No, they don't. Molecular biology gives us different and contradictory trees of life from the expected morphological tree of life. So which should we believe? We've discussed this before so lets not ignore the reality of the situation and default to what we prefer to believe.


Give an example.



-------
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: 11:31 AM on July 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because every animal ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life.
No, they don't. Molecular biology gives us different and contradictory trees of life from the expected morphological tree of life. So which should we believe? We've discussed this before so lets not ignore the reality of the situation and default to what we prefer to believe.
Now is the time for you to back that up.

Why do i even have to ask?

If we find some animal that seems like a mixture, you say that it's an original design, and we say that it's probably a transitional
You only see what you want to see.
No, we see everything. Name just one thing we don't want to see. "Information" doesn't count.
So many fossils, so few intermediates
So few? What do you mean? Most of what we find is an intermediate between its parents and its offspring.
- oh and lets not forget that we don't have a mechanism for all this prodigious change
Let's not forget about natural selection. ;)
so the whole theory is dead in the water.
Bla bla bla.
Demonstrate change between one 'kind' and another
No problem. Just demonstrate kinds, and we will.
and I'll concede defeat
Not true. I've shown you clear transitionals between land mammals and whales.
but don't bother to go with finch beaks or bacteria or any of the usual suspects because we all know that what is demonstrated there is within the 'kind'.
How could it be? You never demonstrated an ability to tell what a 'kind' is.

You don't know that we'll never find a feathered mammal. We do.
But if you ever do, we know that with a little bit of original naturalistic thinking, you'll fit it into your unfalsifiable all encompassing theory.
'If' we do?
There's no way, man. Such an animal wouldn't fit into the phylogenetic tree. All the millions we've already found do fit, and that's a strong evidence supporting the notion that they always will.
But 'if' we do find such a thing... An angel, let us say... I'll change my mind. You have my word.



-------
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: 12:37 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:03 AM on July 1, 2009 :
wisp:
Because every animal ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life.


No, they don't. Molecular biology gives us different and contradictory trees of life from the expected morphological tree of life. So which should we believe? We've discussed this before so lets not ignore the reality of the situation and default to what we prefer to believe.


This was discussed in another thread (human-orangutan) and DNA wins. As I said in the other thread, you can have similar morphological characteristics between two species without common ancestry for that trait. Besides, in the end morphology and DNA evidence doesn't contradict each other. If it did biology and paleontology would have some major problems.


-------
"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: 04:10 AM on July 2, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do all living things evolve?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:08 PM on July 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you read replies?

Because you made a question, and derwood provided a complete answer. You did not refer 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: 9:41 PM on July 2, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:08 PM on July 2, 2009 :
Do all living things evolve?



Nice job

Well, technically organisms don't evolve, populations do.

(Edited by Fencer27 7/2/2009 at 10:17 PM).


-------
"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: 10:14 PM on July 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because every animal ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life.

No, they don't. Molecular biology gives us different and contradictory trees of life from the expected morphological tree of life. So which should we believe? We've discussed this before so lets not ignore the reality of the situation and default to what we prefer to believe.

Now is the time for you to back that up.

Why do i even have to ask?

I suppose I assumed you were around when we discussed this previously and recently and didn’t need to be reminded. I did speak of the Whippo hypothesis where similarities in fossils originally suggested that hippos were evo sisters of pigs and camels but far removed from whales. Similarities in molecules now suggest that hippos are evo sisters of whales but far removed from pigs and camels.
Convergent evolution is the term used for similarities that are not thought to be due to common ancestry. But if similarities are the primary evidence for common ancestry, how can we know when they are not due to common ancestry?
It now seems, according to the example above, that the fossil similarities on which Darwinists originally relied were never evidence for common ancestry at all. If the original fossil similarities were not evidence for common ancestry, how do we know that the molecular similarities are? Why should we trust either hypothesis?
In 1999, evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch wrote: “ Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees.”
In 2005, biologist Antonis Rokas and colleagues used 2 different methods to analyze fifty genes from 17 animal groups. They noted that “different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradictory inferences with absolute support.” and concluded that the evo relationships among the phyla “remain unresolved.”
Yet the main problem with molecular phylogenies is not that they conflict with the morphological evidence nor with each other. Their main problem is that they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove.

No, we see everything. Name just one thing we don't want to see.


That the fossil record doesn’t support gradualism? You said one, I’d love to carry on.
So few? What do you mean? Most of what we find is an intermediate between its parents and its offspring.


Rubbish. Fossils prove that the earth was once populated with animals that are no longer with us. According to Darwin’s theory the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. If Darwin’s theory were true, the major differences –represented by the phyla - should make their appearance at the top of the ‘great tree of life’ –but the fossil record shows the opposite. Take a look at the Cambrian explosion for some enlightenment on this problem. (Draw a tree and see what a real one should look like.)
How do you know what an intermediate is and what it looks like? How do you know that something you label as intermediate is anything of the sort? Fossils are dead bones found in the ground. All we ever see these days are that like gives rise to like and it’s entirely obvious. How do you know that those fossils from the past could do something that organisms today can’t do and that is produce something entirely different given no plan and even given endless time?

If one assumes that Darwin’s theory is true, fossils showing features that appear to be intermediate between land mammals and whales can be placed in a series, but it is not a series of ancestors and descendents. No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. It is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way. It is a human invention based on the philosophy of naturalism, the belief that natural causes link the fossils in some way.

- oh and lets not forget that we don't have a mechanism for all this prodigious change

Let's not forget about natural selection. ;)


Let’s not forget that natural selection only selects from what already exists.

I've shown you clear transitionals between land mammals and whales.


You have got to be joking. A few bones dug up out of the dirt that have a few superficial similarities and you’ve got ‘clear’ evidence?

You don't know that we'll never find a feathered mammal. We do.


Confirming Linnaeus, not Darwin.

All the millions we've already found do fit, and that's a strong evidence supporting the notion that they always will.


Niles Eldredge: “…fossils, rather than exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist virtually unchanged. This extraordinary conservatism looked, to the paleontologist keen on finding evolutionary change, as if no evolution had occurred. Thus studies documenting conservative persistence, rather than gradual evolutionary change were considered failures and, more often than not, were not even published. Most paleontologists were aware of the stability, the lack of change we call stasis..but insofar as evolution itself is concerned, paleontologists usually saw stasis as ‘no results’ rather than as a contradiction of the prediction of gradual progressive evolutionary change. Gaps in the record continue (to this day) to be invoked as the prime reason why so few cases of gradual change are found.”

Gould wrote: “When Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, we did so to grant stasis in phylogenetic lineages the status of ‘worth reporting’ – for stasis had previously ignored as non-evidence of evolution though paleontologists knew its high relative frequency.”

Phil Johnson –Darwin on Trial
“No doubt a certain amount of evolution could have occurred in such a way that it left no trace in the fossil record, but at some point we need more than ingenious excuses to fill the gaps. The discontinuities between the major groups –phyla, classes, orders –are not only pervasive, but in many cases, immense. Was there never anything but invisible peripheral isolates inbetween?”

I don’t know Wisp, these few quotes don’t seem to agree with your contention of millions of fitting intermediates. I could give you SOOOO many more but what you’re saying I have heard before –but only from people that read evolutionists websites of denial and exaggerated rubbish.






-------
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: 05:58 AM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:58 AM on July 3, 2009 :

In 2005, biologist Antonis Rokas and colleagues used 2 different methods to analyze fifty genes from 17 animal groups. They noted that “different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradictory inferences with absolute support.” and concluded that the evo relationships among the phyla “remain unresolved.”


Try reading the source rather than Moonie Wells.

The use of single or few genes is now recognized to be insufficient for the confident resolution of many clades (4, 11, 12). In contrast, analyses of larger amounts of data have robustly resolved relationships in many taxonomic groups (11–14), even after allowance for a high percentage of missing data (12–14). Thus, to increase resolution of metazoan relationships, we used experimental and bioinformatic approaches to assemble a data matrix composed of 50 genes from the 17 selected taxa (15).

So an experimental technique is unable on the first try to resolve the relationship between all life?  Let's see how it works after a few years.

Now, Wells wouldn't do any quote mining would he?  Let's see where "remain unresolved" comes from.

Currently,with the exception of the well-resolved phylogenetic history of the deuterostomes (1), the relationships between and within protostome and diploblastic metazoan phyla remain unresolved(2–5). The uncertainty surrounding metazoan relationships may result from analytical and biological factors such as insufficient amounts of available sequence data, mutational saturation, the occurrence of unequal rates of evolution between lineages, or the rapidity with which metazoan phyla diversified (3–7).

Only one of the phyla in deuterostomes are the chordates, so those are well resolved.

Give it up Lester, your handlers are lying to you and making you look foolish.

(Edited by Apoapsis 7/3/2009 at 10:12 PM).


-------
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: 10:09 PM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
Give it up Lester, your handlers are lying to you and making you look foolish.


Actually it is your handlers that are making you look foolish, you just haven't noticed yet. As for your ad hominem against Wells, whenever I see an ad hominem, I take Phil Johnson's advice and look to see why attention is being diverted from science to personal insults. So how about you answer all the other charges that say that the morphological trees contradict the phylogenetic trees and various different molecules in the same organism contradict one another and let's not forget:

.... the main problem with molecular phylogenies is not that they conflict with the morphological evidence nor with each other. Their main problem is that they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove.

 



-------
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: 03:58 AM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually it is your handlers that are making you look foolish, you just haven't noticed
yet.


As usual, you can't answer the specific claims, all you can do is make vague, illogical rants that don't address the facts.

.... the main problem with molecular phylogenies is not that they conflict with the morphological evidence nor with each other. Their main problem is that they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove.

They don't assume anything, they support the claim of common ancestry.  Funny how you still can't understand that.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:04 AM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:58 AM on July 5, 2009 :

.... the main problem with molecular phylogenies is not that they conflict with the morphological evidence nor with each other. Their main problem is that they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove.


But as the article Wells quotes states, they work perfectly for everything with a spinal cord.

Taxonomy it a lot tougher without details to look at.

Wells is trying to smokescreen how well molecular phylogenetics works by selective quoting, typical technique to sell snake oil to the faithful.


(Edited by Apoapsis 7/6/2009 at 9:17 PM).


-------
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: 10:02 AM on July 5, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WHAT ABOUT ANTS? Warning CUT&PASTE AHEAD
***

Darwin's problem was with the worker ants. Even though they are products of sexual reproduction, they differ greatly from their parents. They are each specialized with features their parents don't have so they can carry out their designated tasks in the nest. The problem is that these workers are sterile females, so they cannot pass on the traits that are unique from their parents. Modern evolutionists theorize that perhaps there were some lucky mutations that took place in queen ants through their evolutionary history. However, this explanation is not very credible since the oldest fossilized ants are identical to today's ants. That means that there is no evidence of evolution in ants over a period of 70 million "evolutionary" years
Perhaps God, in His foreknowledge, designed ant society this way to foil Darwin and those who have thought like him throughout history. Whatever the case, here is evidence that the ant neither evolved nor could have possibly evolved.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:48 PM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's too bad you don't have something to say by yourself.  :-(


-------
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: 10:04 PM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:48 PM on July 6, 2009 :
WHAT ABOUT ANTS? Warning CUT&PASTE AHEAD
***

Darwin's problem was with the worker ants. Even though they are products of sexual reproduction, they differ greatly from their parents. They are each specialized with features their parents don't have so they can carry out their designated tasks in the nest. The problem is that these workers are sterile females, so they cannot pass on the traits that are unique from their parents.


First of all, not all workers are sterile. Some do have the ability to reproduce and are called gamergates. For all the ant species that I know of the differentiating between queens and workers are not set a birth, but come later. So as long as the ant is fertile, it essentially has the same DNA if it was either a worker or a queen.

Modern evolutionists theorize that perhaps there were some lucky mutations that took place in queen ants through their evolutionary history.


Who ever you're quoting from doesn't know too much about ants, their evolution or evolution in general. Either that or he expects you not to know and not check it out for yourself. As evident in the next thing he says

However, this explanation is not very credible since the oldest fossilized ants are identical to today's ants. That means that there is no evidence of evolution in ants over a period of 70 million "evolutionary" years


I found a 1998 NY Times article saying that the oldest real ants found were from 90 million years ago, way to be current. You're at least 10 years behind. But on the point that I want to make, not all mutations affect skeletal structure. A beneficial mutation could happen that increased the production of an enzyme that helps break down an essential component of food for the ants. Or a mutation affecting the brain, making the ants better able to work together. Not all mutations change skeletal structure.

Perhaps God, in His foreknowledge, designed ant society this way to foil Darwin and those who have thought like him throughout history.


Maybe God in his infinite wisdom allowed that which He created to be changed through natural processes to such a degree that ants have over 12,000 known species and have colonized all the continents except Antarctica.

Whatever the case, here is evidence that the ant neither evolved nor could have possibly evolved.


Is it just me, or did he repeat himself in the same sentence? Redundancy is not a sign of scholarly work.


-------
"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: 02:41 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If anyone is interested here is a short article from physorg.com taken from the University of Texas in Austin about the oldest known ant species, ruffly 120 million years old.
http://www.physorg.com/news140716045.html

'The new ant is named Martialis heureka, which translates roughly to "ant from Mars," because the ant has a combination of characteristics never before recorded. It is adapted for dwelling in the soil, is two to three millimeters long, pale, and has no eyes and large mandibles, which Rabeling and colleagues suspect it uses to capture prey.'

(Edited by Fencer27 7/7/2009 at 03:19 AM).


-------
"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: 03:17 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 16 17 ... 29 30 ]
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.