Wednesday, October 13, 2010

For What Profit?

The 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case was a disaster for evolution. This may seem strange given that the ruling struck down the teaching of the opposing Intelligent Design idea. Evolutionists celebrated the decision, how could it be a disaster for them? It was a disaster because, as is sometimes the case in politics and law, the cost of victory is far greater than the spoils.

As I discussed here, here, here and here, evolutionists won the day in the Kitzmiller case. But their victory came at a cost. There were substantial legal costs, but evolutionists paid a far greater cost which can’t be measured in dollars. They gave up their soul.

In the Kitzmiller case evolutionists misrepresented science and their own theory. They issued a series of blatant lies in that very public forum for all to see. And later they celebrated their lies in books, videos and web pages.

Even now, years later, when I point out the misrepresentations and lies, evolutionists remain steadfast. The response of evolutionists is 100% indignant and 0% contrite. Consider this response from evolution expert Nick Matzke:

Cornelius, your arguments, if true, would also apply against paternity testing, DNA fingerprinting, etc. It's precisely the same concept -- shared genetic similarity is evidence of genetic relationship. Courts accept it routinely in the forensic situation -- where people's lives are literally on the line! -- yet it magically becomes "lies" all of the sudden when used in support of evolution.

You wonder why creationists keep on losing in court? Your post is an example of why. You couldn't critically examine your own argument or provide a balanced assessment of it if you tried. Which you don't. You have no sense of the weak spots, or the damage your arguments would do to vast areas of science, law, etc., which even you accept, if applied consistently...

But paternity testing and DNA fingerprinting are completely unrelated to the pseudogene example presented by evolutionist Ken Miller at the Kitzmiller trial. This comparison of forensic tests with evolutionary homologies is another common evolutionary canard that evolutionists use to mislead those not familiar with molecular biology.

Forensic tests are performed where genealogical relationships are known to exist because they are empirically observed. There’s no question that people have children, and those children’s DNA sequences derive from their parents, grandparents, and so forth. This we know.

Forensic tests do not rely on heroic hypotheses about unobserved biological phenomena. Forensic tests deal with relationships that are known to exist and the only question is, what are the particular relationships in the case at hand?

This is completely different from the evolutionist’s misrepresentations of how “shared errors” mandate common descent. In both cases DNA comparisons are made, but forensic tests check for genealogical relationships which are known, a priori, to be plausible. We know they exist.

Evolutionary homology tests, on the other hand, argue for common descent relationships that are not known to exist. We do not observe lower primates, as in the case at hand, evolving into humans. Indeed, the DNA comparisons are being used by evolutionists to argue for such types of relationships.

Furthermore, the type of evidence presented in the Kitzmiller trial can be found in cases where common descent doesn’t work and so even evolutionists must agree the DNA matches must have arisen independently.

And of course forensic testing has no built-in religious claims as evolution does. Criminal investigators are not hiding crucial metaphysical assumptions as did the evolutionists at the Kitzmiller trial.

Unfortunately, such facts don’t seem to matter to evolutionists as they continue with their false claims. At some point, however, the web we weave will snare us. Though it may have been a great victory at the time, ultimately the Kitzmiller trial will likely lead to a downfall for evolutionists. For what does a man profit if he gains the whole world but loses his very soul?

202 comments:

  1. I have never seen a better example of projection. Were I teaching a course in psychology, I would ask your permission to use it as a pedagogical example.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AHH but Shallit, you and all other atheists are teaching us all a lesson in psychology. You are showing us how denying the obvious now always leads to insanity later!

    Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: Forensic tests deal with relationships that are known to exist and the only question is, what are the particular relationships in the case at hand?

    This is completely different from the evolutionist’s misrepresentations of how “shared errors” mandate common descent. In both cases DNA comparisons are made, but forensic tests check for genealogical relationships which are known, a priori, to be plausible. We know they exist.


    And how is this different from the evolutionary case? Although evolution is a consequence of genetics, and genetics provides the most overwhelming evidence of descent from common ancestry, common descent and some of the mechanisms driving evolution had been elucidated long before sequencing technology was available. We know these relationships exist (we being relevant scientists) for the same reasons that they exist in the forensic case. The physical evidence for two people sharing ancestry 100 years ago is of the same nature as that for these same people sharing ancestry with frogs 400 million years ago. The evidence is compelling in each case; but if you are convinced that your god wouldn't want you to think of such things you could deny it. The possibility for convergence in sequence evolution comes from the nature of the mutations considered: usually point mutations, whereas in the forensic case it's Alu or other insertions. Furthermore, the time frame in which convergent mutations could arise is so much shorter in the forensic case, and there is only a small population from which the suspect or victim could reasonably be drawn.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John,

    Evo-devo is your position's last hope.

    And so far it ain't looking too good for you guys.

    The allged "evidence" for Universal Common Descent can be used as evidence for alternative positions- and that evidence doesn't say anything about mechanisms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius said:

    Evolutionary homology tests, on the other hand, argue for common descent relationships that are not known to exist.

    I don't get it. You yourself said that you accepted common descent for the 100,000 species of diatoms. So even you accept common descent in some cases, where it is supported by precisely this type of information!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Criminal investigators are not hiding crucial metaphysical assumptions as did the evolutionists at the Kitzmiller trial."

    Ahh, but by your criteria they are. They hold methodological naturalism is sufficient to yield a solution-to find the perpetrator and convict. They presume the evidence found was not planted by a supernatural demon in an indiscernible manner. The investigation is incomplete if this is the case. Why are we comfortable convicting persons on methodological naturalism?

    "Evolutionary homology tests, on the other hand, argue for common descent relationships that are not known to exist. We do not observe lower primates, as in the case at hand, evolving into humans. Indeed, the DNA comparisons are being used by evolutionists to argue for such types of relationships."

    Puzzling-because we haven't observed the evolution of proto-monkey to man and monkey in our lifetime, the fossil record and genetic data are false?

    "Furthermore, the type of evidence presented in the Kitzmiller trial can be found in cases where common descent doesn’t work and so even evolutionists must agree the DNA matches must have arisen independently."

    Where common descent 'doesn't work'? What is the example and reference of seemingly related 'DNA matches' arising independently? Really curious what you are getting at-maybe we should debate that instead of revisiting this trial.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RobertC:
    They hold methodological naturalism is sufficient to yield a solution-to find the perpetrator and convict.

    Prove it.

    I bet thney don't even care about methodological naturalism.

    They presume the evidence found was not planted by a supernatural demon in an indiscernible manner.

    Actually they assume they can tell the difference between agency involvement and nature, operating freely.

    As for Universal Common Decent- well evo-devo is your last hope and it ain't lookin' too good.

    Why do you think that is?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. People have always turned off their minds and appealed to the authority figures of the day, and here they are doing the same with science celebrities (Ken Miller). People are just as dumb and lazy as they always were, and just as enamored with the famous. This same fallacy is evident in just about every arena, from cereal box covers to political ads, to the latest pseudo science. (John L Smith)

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Evolutionists have lost their souls"

    ??????????

    Cornelius has moved from the realm of blustering rhetoric into full blown delusional crackpot mode.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This part of the poem from Walter Scott seems to describe the information presented at the trail by those evolutionists, perfectly!

    Oh! what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practise to deceive!

    You just couldn't make this stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you Creationists are so worried about scientists' souls, why don't you get off your lazy duffs and go do some scientific research yourselves? Come up with some testable hypotheses for special creation, go test them, come back and publish the positive results.

    One good repeatable experiment will do more to convince the scientific community than all the Bible thumping and pulpit pounding combined.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thorton,

    We are STILL waiting for you to produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    And you position doesn't have any good repeatable experiments that support it.

    Geez thorton you are an intellectual coward...

    ReplyDelete
  14. And BTW- there isn't any evidence that demonstrates genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to construct functioning multi-part systems.

    Why doesn't that count against your position?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Get a new act JoeTard. This one got old years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  16. IOW all thortard has is spewing and drooling...

    Yes thortard your evasions got old years ago.

    So why don't you try actually anteing up for a change?

    ReplyDelete
  17. So no evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functioning multi-part system and add a lack of a testable hypothesis.

    Yup next trial will be very interesting indeed...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Joe! Still struggling with nested hierarchies, my friend? Math is hard!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joe should sue The Designer for outfitting him with a malfunctioning irreducibly simple excuse for a brain. That should be an interesting trial.

    ReplyDelete
  20. oleg:
    Still struggling with nested hierarchies, my friend?

    Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  21. and momma's boy troy chimes in with its usual content-free evotardgasm...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi oleg- still struggling to provide positive evidence for your position I see.

    Oh well...

    ReplyDelete
  23. So no evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functioning multi-part system and add a lack of a testable hypothesis.

    Yup next trial will be very interesting indeed...

    I take it that bothers evolutionists- and it should.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I hope you find a job soon Joe. Venting your impotent anger on this board is unhealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bwahaha!

    Joe, nothing you say bothers anyone. We're all laughing at you. You're just a clown that gives ID an even worse name than it already has.

    Carry on!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Great using troy's and throtard's "logic" I am an idiot because they cannot provide a testable hypothess fr their position and they cannot produce any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functioning multi-part system.

    And troy imbeciles always laugh at their intellectual superiors.

    It is expected.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thorton

    Joe asked interesting question.

    So no evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functioning multi-part system and add a lack of a testable hypothesis.

    Why you or (somebody else here) give some logical scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  28. troy:
    Joe, nothing you say bothers anyone.

    Nothing you say bothers anyone- that is because everyone can see that you are an intellectual coward and a momma's boy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Maybe if I hadn't sold my soul to da Debbil by believin' all those lies for evilution I'd have more compassion for Joe's mental illness.

    But I did, so I don't.

    Anyone have some surplus kittens I can barbecue?

    ReplyDelete
  30. thortard- the only illness I have is dealing with evotards.

    But when I meet them I cure that petty quick.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh it hurts - Joe The Intellectual Giant calls me an intellectual coward and a mommy's boy.

    I pray Joe won't ask me to meet him in person for some mano-a-mano. I'd hate to clean my pants again.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Speaking of cats: I'm busy driving neighbor's cats crazy with my new green laser (I need it for astronomy but seems to be useful for entertainment ).
    Maybe I should get job ,too.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eugen said...

    Thorton

    Joe asked interesting question.

    So no evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functioning multi-part system and add a lack of a testable hypothesis.

    Why you or (somebody else here) give some logical scenario.


    You must be new to these parts. Joe G and his various sockpuppets have been haunting C/E boards for the better part of a decade making the same dumb claims and issuing the same dumb challenges. He's had so much evidence provided to him so many times he's become a joke. No one pays any attention to his angry ranting anymore, except to point and laugh.

    There are innumerable examples in the scientific literature of the evolution of multi-part systems. Do a Google search for "evolution of the mammalian ear" for example.

    Joe Gallien is a clown, we know he's a clown, he knows he's a clown. So he just keeps blustering the same tired IDC claims, making his tough guy threats, generally being an ass.

    Ho hum.

    ReplyDelete
  35. an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functioning multi-part system


    Well, either way Thorton...

    It is an interesting thing in general: can accumulation of any accidents construct bridge or a green laser?

    ReplyDelete
  36. thorton:
    He's had so much evidence provided to him so many times

    Liar.

    Thorton:
    There are innumerable examples in the scientific literature of the evolution of multi-part systems.

    Liar ad equivocator.

    Thorton:
    Do a Google search for "evolution of the mammalian ear" for example.

    Nothing in genetics nor evo-devo that supports that.

    Now thorton could just prove me wrong by proving that testable hypiothesis.

    Why doesn't she do that?

    And teh same goes forthat positive evidence that genetic ACCIDENTS can do what she claims.

    The problem is if she had such evidence than ALL biologists would be OK with the ToE.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Eugen said...

    an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functioning multi-part system

    Well, either way Thorton...

    It is an interesting thing in general: can accumulation of any accidents construct bridge or a green laser?


    The bridge, sure.

    Natural bridges

    The laser, maybe.

    SCIENTISTS DISCOVER FIRST NATURAL LASER IN SPACE

    Just because evolution can produce multi-part systems doesn't mean it will produce every multi-part system.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thorton:
    Just because evolution can produce multi-part systems doesn't mean it will produce every multi-part system.

    There isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie blind, undirected chemical processes- can construct a functioning multi-part system.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Equivocation and Evolution

    Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
    Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
    Function: intransitive verb
    Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
    1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
    2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says


    Evolution has several meanings*:

    1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

    2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

    4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

    5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.


    With the above in mind it is easy to see that the theory of evolution is really a theory of equivocation. That is any and all evidences for evolution 1-5 are always used as evidence for evolution #6.

    For example- the varying beak of the finch, anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, and genetic similarities (including alleged shared mistakes but regardless of the physiological & anatomical differences), are all used as evidence for evolution #6.

    It should also be noted that evolution #6, ie culled genetic accidents, does not produce any predictions beyond perhaps change and/ or stasis, nor is it objectively testable.




    * page 136-37 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

    ReplyDelete
  40. Equivocation and Evolution continued

    Last October I posted a piece I called Equivocation and Evolution, to highlight the blatant misrepresentation that evolutionists use in order to deceive anyone reading their comments.

    This equivocation has now filtered into mechanisms- so called evolutionary mechanisms.

    1. As I have pointed out many times, evolution is not being debated.

    2. Evolutionary mechanisms could very well be telic- ie designed, as in designed to evolve, with genetic accidents being a small part of the scenario. See Dr Spetner's Not By Chance

    And finally, as has been pointed out at least several thousand times, not one of the evolutionary mechanisms, nor any combination, has been demonstrated to do anything except provide slight, oscillating variations in an existing population.


    Note: Page 67 of “The Edge of Evolution” Dr Behe has Table 4.1- Varieties of DNA Mutations- substitution, deletion, insertion, inversion, gene duplication, genome duplication. IOW those evolutionary mechanisms are not ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Look Joe! A shiny thing! Over there!

    ReplyDelete
  42. The neurosurgeon comes into the room where throton/ troy has been anxiously awaiting the result of his cranial imaging.

    "I have the reults of your imaging and would lik to discuss thm with you. Please follow me."

    troy/ thorton slowly rises, stumbles a little, and follows the doctor.

    "We found something, here- points to a very small blotch on the image"

    "What is it doc?"

    "The good news is it isn't a tumor. The bad news is is that is your brain. But we had to remove it to run the bioposy- and the good thing about that is we used a very small needle to do so."

    "That's OK doc I didn't use it anyway" stumbles out of the room.....

    ReplyDelete
  43. yes throton, I understand the best you can do is try to distract from the fact that you just ain't got nuthin' but lyin'.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jeffry said,

    'I have never seen a better example of projection. Were I teaching a course in psychology, I would ask your permission to use it as a pedagogical example.'

    Is that the best you can do? No need to worry here. If this is all you can fault with CH's post then it must be bullet proof.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  45. "but evolutionists paid a far greater cost which can’t be measured in dollars. They gave up their soul."

    Not a problem for those of us luck enough not have a soul to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thorton:
    One good repeatable experiment will do more to convince the scientific community...

    Please define what you mean by a repeatable experiment. Calling for a repeatable experiment makes no sense with respect to historical theories.

    Both intelligent design, which posits a cause, and evolution, which posits a mechanism, are hypotheses that attempt to explain past events based on knowledge of present causes and effects.

    There are experiments that could be performed in real time that may lend support (or not) to a historical hypothesis, but it is impossible to perform a direct experiment in real time.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thorton

    Ok I will accept star laser but it would be too big to fit in my pocket. I think you know what green laser I meant. I would love them to occur naturally. Even better, popping into existence like Boltzmann brains.
    I guess thinking the same way we should accept rain as bath shower and north wind as an air condition.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eugen:
    I guess thinking the same way we should accept rain as bath shower and north wind as an air condition.

    I routinely bathe in the rain- much to the dismay of my neighbors.

    And my house just happens to face north and has 4 large front windows- plus the front door.

    Don't you get it Eugen?

    They can come up with an "answer" for just about anything...

    ReplyDelete
  50. JoeG reminds me of The Black Knight...only less reasonable. The Black Knight at least offered to call it a draw at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  51. How about an example from you VentureFree…

    It is an interesting thing in general: can accumulation of any accidents construct bridge or a green laser?
    Or air condition and bath shower?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Doublee: Calling for a repeatable experiment makes no sense with respect to historical theories.

    A recent example is Claudia Rubinstein's discovery of the oldest known fossil of terrestrial plants based on analysis of spores found in ancient sediments. Because of the importance of the finding, she had a colleague retest the samples. Another example would be searching for intermediate fossils to fill in gaps in the historical record. Such discoveries lend confidence to the original discoveries, as well as providing additional detail of the evolutionary transition.

    Doublee: There are experiments that could be performed in real time that may lend support (or not) to a historical hypothesis, but it is impossible to perform a direct experiment in real time.

    Yes, dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Eugen said...

    How about an example from you VentureFree…

    It is an interesting thing in general: can accumulation of any accidents construct bridge or a green laser?
    Or air condition and bath shower


    What in the world makes you think that biological evolution should be able to recreate human designed and built mechanical devices?

    ReplyDelete
  54. I think it should follow same logic. Other than that I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Doublee said...

    Please define what you mean by a repeatable experiment. Calling for a repeatable experiment makes no sense with respect to historical theories.


    By repeatable experiment I mean one whose results are objectively determined. That means the experiment may be rerun and the results may be verified by anyone.

    Anyone can do radiometric dating on geologic layers and will get the same objective ages. Anyone can do genetic studies and create objective phylogenetic trees based on the results. Anyone can do Bayesian analysis of phenotypic trends in the fossil record and see the objective clear patterns of descent.

    Contrast this to the purely subjective approach (" this looks designed to me, so it must be designed!") of the ID crowd. And please, don't crawl into the gutter with that stupid creationist "same evidence, different interpretation" cop out.

    There are experiments that could be performed in real time that may lend support (or not) to a historical hypothesis, but it is impossible to perform a direct experiment in real time.

    Once again, you don't have to recreate a historical event in real time to do repeatable experiments on the evidence left behind. Do you think the FAA crashes a second airplane every time they do an accident investigation?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Every time a gene is sequenced and compared with a corresponding gene in another species, (and the
    fact that there *is* a corresponding gene in another organism), this is an experimental test of the notion of common descent.

    Apparently, the notion is holding up.

    It is ok if you want to be the loyal opposition and do science to test these ideas, but to simply deny the facts, and continue publish nay-saying instead of science is not useful to anybody.

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This is absolutely hilarious! Joe G comes out of the closet!

    In the other thread about human/chimp chromosomes, Joe Gallien (Joe G) says this:

    Joe G said...

    IOW the original population of humans- Adam and Eve- had 48- then somewhere along that line the fusion occurred and became fixed just as you said.


    "the original population of humans- Adam and Eve-"

    Joe! All this time you told us that you weren't religious! And that ID wasn't about religion, no siree bob!

    Now you say the original humans were Adam and Eve.

    I'd love to see your non-religious, scientific evidence that Adam and Eve were the original humans!

    ReplyDelete
  59. thorton:
    By repeatable experiment I mean one whose results are objectively determined. That means the experiment may be rerun and the results may be verified by anyone.

    There aren't any experiments that support the claim that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct functional multi-part systems.

    Anyone can do radiometric dating on geologic layers and will get the same objective ages.

    Not really.

    Anyone can do genetic studies and create objective phylogenetic trees based on the results.

    Not so.

    Contrast this to the purely subjective approach (" this looks designed to me, so it must be designed!")

    Not so- we say it looks designed because it was designed and all data points to it being designed.

    Ya see the design inference CAN be tested.

    And all YOU have to do to refute it is by doing real science and fining positive evidence that demonstrates genetic accodents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to functioning multi-part systems.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Umm Thorton -

    I was just presenting the Creationist position to demonstrate that the argument for Common ancestry per the chromosome fusion is nonsense.

    But thanks for demonstrating that you are an ignorant knee-jerk monkey...

    ReplyDelete
  61. LOL! Hey Joe, how do we test

    "the original population of humans was Adam and Eve"?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Joe G said...

    Umm Thorton -

    I was just presenting the Creationist position to demonstrate that the argument for Common ancestry per the chromosome fusion is nonsense.


    LOL! No you weren't you liar. You didn't say anything about arguing the creationist position. You were arguing your position!

    Here's the whole post, before you try to delete it

    Joe G said...

    That said the fusion could be an actual event- something that did become fixed- 48 down to 46.

    Fine, but that still isn't evidence of common ancestry between chimps and humans.

    IOW the original population of humans- Adam and Eve- had 48- then somewhere along that line the fusion occurred and became fixed just as you said.

    Another possibility is the fusion was designd in as part of a package that provides reproductive isolation for similarly designed genomes/ organisms.

    And as for waving ahnds- that is what you guys do- you think you are jedi knights who can wave their hands and people will just take you word for it.

    That only works with weak-minded fools- troy, thorton, zachriel, et al....


    BWAHAHAHAH!!

    Joe Gallien the Biblical literalist!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thornton:
    Once again, you don't have to recreate a historical event in real time to do repeatable experiments on the evidence left behind. Do you think the FAA crashes a second airplane every time they do an accident investigation?

    For the most part I agree with this, but I do have some problems with your answer.

    The investigation of an airplane accident relies on direct data that have been accumulated over the years from previous accidents. All of what we can infer about the cause of a given accident is based on known physical laws (we know how an airplane flies and how the law of gravity works) supplemented by the data from previous accidents (plus some intuitive insights from the investigators).

    We have no direct experience with any major morphological transformation, so the analogy with an airplane crash investigation fails.

    I fail to see what kind of experiment you could perform on the evidence left behind that would confirm the mechanisms that caused the putative morphological transformation preserved in the fossil record.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I was just presenting the Creationist position to demonstrate that the argument for Common ancestry per the chromosome fusion is nonsense.

    Thiorton:
    LOL! No you weren't you liar.

    Yes I was you asshole.

    thortard:
    You didn't say anything about arguing the creationist position.


    Didn't think I had to that should have been obvious.

    You were arguing your position!

    No my position has nothing to do with the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "I fail to see what kind of experiment you could perform on the evidence left behind that would confirm the mechanisms that caused the putative morphological transformation preserved in the fossil record."

    We could identify the modern genes responsible for morphology, and swap them between organisms, altering their body plan:

    Evolving role of Antennapedia protein in arthropod limb patterning
    http://dev.biologists.org/content/129/15/3555.long

    We could even infer the sequence of an ancestral protein and test predictions regarding its function:

    Resurrecting the Ancestral Steroid Receptor: Ancient Origin of Estrogen Signaling
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5640/1714

    We could even take that ancestral protein (of different function) and determine a evolutionary pathway into a modern one (with new function):

    Crystal structure of an ancient protein: evolution by conformational epistasis.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1142819

    Not perfect 'proof', but better than throwing your hands up in the air. Also, none of this rules out an undetectable designer, or guiding hand. You're welcome to theistic evolution, but don't claim the 'theistic' part or ID add anything to the investigation. They just appropriate what is known, and tack on: "by God."

    ReplyDelete
  66. Doublee said...

    I fail to see what kind of experiment you could perform on the evidence left behind that would confirm the mechanisms that caused the putative morphological transformation preserved in the fossil record.


    We have lots of experimental evidence today of how genetic changes affect morphology. We have experimental evidence today of just how those genetic changes occur. That confirms the mechanism.

    We have lots of evidence from the fossil record that such large transitional morphological changes in lineages have indeed happened over time, and form a readily identifiable tree of common descent. That confirms the historical results.

    We have lots of evidence from the genetic record of today that form a readily identifiable tree of common descent. The independently derived genetic record nested hierarchy matches the fossil record derived one to an amazing degree, over 99.9999%. That confirms that the mechanism is responsible for the historical results.

    All that consilient evidence taken in total is what provides such strong positive evidence for the theory of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  67. RobertC:
    We could identify the modern genes responsible for morphology, and swap them between organisms, altering their body plan:

    Evolving role of Antennapedia protein in arthropod limb patterning
    http://dev.biologists.org/content/129/15/3555.long


    LoL!

    Putting aleg where an antenna goes doesn't help you.

    Why is it you can't go into a lab and mutate the heck out of those developmental genes and come up with something that supports your position?

    Why has evo-devo been a bust so far?

    ReplyDelete
  68. YEC Joe G said...

    No my position has nothing to do with the bible.


    LOL! Except you think Adam and Eve were the original human population.

    Anything else you want to come out of the closet on Joe?

    ReplyDelete
  69. thorton:
    We have lots of experimental evidence today of how genetic changes affect morphology.

    Deformaties that have no chance in the wild.

    We have lots of evidence from the fossil record that such large transitional morphological changes in lineages have indeed happened over time, and form a readily identifiable tree of common descent.

    No lineages in the fossil record.

    We have lots of evidence from the genetic record of today that form a readily identifiable tree of common descent.

    Except there isn't any evidence of such a tree:

    Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

    The independently derived genetic record nested hierarchy matches the fossil record derived one to an amazing degree, over 99.9999%.

    We would only expect a nested hierarchy with a common design.

    ReplyDelete
  70. No my position has nothing to do with the bible.

    thorton:
    Except you think Adam and Eve were the original human population.

    No I don't.

    I think you are a lying asshole and I have proven just that on several occasions.

    ReplyDelete
  71. thorton:
    Anything else you want to come out of the closet on Joe?

    Yeah your mother is a pretty good piece of ass...

    ReplyDelete
  72. The neurosurgeon comes into the room where throton/ troy has been anxiously awaiting the result of his cranial imaging.

    "I have the reults of your imaging and would lik to discuss thm with you. Please follow me."

    troy/ thorton slowly rises, stumbles a little, and follows the doctor.

    "We found something, here- points to a very small blotch on the image"

    "What is it doc?"

    "The good news is it isn't a tumor. The bad news is is that is your brain. But we had to remove it to run the bioposy- and the good thing about that is we used a very small needle to do so."

    "That's OK doc I didn't use it anyway" stumbles out of the room.....

    ReplyDelete
  73. LOL! Give it up YEC Joe. We know you're really a Creationist, and you know it too. Denying it only makes you look worse.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Yeah right lying evotard thorton-

    I have more evidence that your are a child molestor than you could ever get showing I am a YEC...

    ReplyDelete
  75. Do you believe in the talking snake too YEC Joe?

    ReplyDelete
  76. child molesting thorton:
    Do you believe in the talking snake too YEC Joe?

    I bet you talk to your boyfriend's "snake" every day...

    ReplyDelete
  77. How did the "Intelligent Designer" design the Tower of Babel YEC Joe?



    * I'm conducting a scientific experiment here. I'm trying to get Joe to generate enough flying spittle to short out his keyboard.

    ReplyDelete
  78. How did your boyfriend infect you with herpes and aids thorton?

    ReplyDelete
  79. doublee: We have no direct experience with any major morphological transformation, so the analogy with an airplane crash investigation fails.

    Let's try this again.

    Now, no one has seen a dinosaur roam. No one has seen a dinosaur lay an egg, or catch a meal, or feed its young. No one has seen a live dinosaur. Yet, dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Zachriel:
    Yet, dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

    So what?

    ReplyDelete
  81. YEC Joe G said...

    Zachriel:
    Yet, dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

    So what?


    In your Biblical beliefs Joe, did dinosaurs roam the Earth the same time as Adam and Eve?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Child molesting thorton is upset because it lost its "primo" job as a mall cop trainee because it was soliciting sex from little boys in the mall bathrooms.

    Get over it...

    ReplyDelete
  83. doublee: We have no direct experience with any major morphological transformation, so the analogy with an airplane crash investigation fails.

    Zachriel: Yet, dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

    Joe G: So what?

    We have no direct experience of living dinosaurs, yet the scientific evidence is conclusion: Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. We can clearly make and scientifically test historical claims.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joe G said...

    Child molesting thorton is upset because it lost its "primo" job as a mall cop trainee because it was soliciting sex from little boys in the mall bathrooms.


    I wonder if Dr. Hunter realizes that Joe G's infantile behavior has done more to kill serious discussion on this blog than all other factors combined. Even the UD IDiots won't come here anymore. Joe himself is way too self-obsessed to realize it.

    Good job Joe. You're still the most appropriate spokeman IDC ever had.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Dear Thornton, dinosaur organics were found in TWO separate fossils. Now, considering your evolutionary ilk stated for years, that organics could not last more than 100,000 years MAXIMUM, it makes it difficult to believe dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago. But hey, why let the unbiased, hard evidence influence you. You've got a myth to uphold, and praise darwin, you will do it!!

    I just don't have enough FAITH to believe we evolved from some ape-like creature.

    ReplyDelete
  86. hardy,

    Are you using your last sentence as an argument? It seems that you are and it is hard to take you seriously. Are you claiming there are different classifications of faith and that yours is not of the highest cru? And, therefor, faith in God requires less faith than other things we come across in life?

    just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  87. hardy said...

    Dear Thornton, dinosaur organics were found in TWO separate fossils.


    So? All that means is that we've discovered a rare, previously unknown form of preservation for tissues preserved deep within fossil bones. That in no way affects the dating of the specimens, or the thousands of other independent pieces of evidence that the last dino lived over 65MYO.

    Funny you should bring this up, because a new paper just came out in PLoS yesterday describing mechanisms whereby biofilms could permeate into the bones while they were decaying and create the long preservation.

    Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs.
    PLoS ONE 5(10): e13334. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013334

    "Abstract:

    Background

    Mineralized and permineralized bone is the most common form of fossilization in the vertebrate record. Preservation of gross soft tissues is extremely rare, but recent studies have suggested that primary soft tissues and biomolecules are more commonly preserved within preserved bones than had been presumed. Some of these claims have been challenged, with presentation of evidence suggesting that some of the structures are microbial artifacts, not primary soft tissues. The identification of biomolecules in fossil vertebrate extracts from a specimen of Brachylophosaurus canadensis has shown the interpretation of preserved organic remains as microbial biofilm to be highly unlikely. These discussions also propose a variety of potential mechanisms that would permit the preservation of soft-tissues in vertebrate fossils over geologic time.

    Methodology/Principal Findings

    This study experimentally examines the role of microbial biofilms in soft-tissue preservation in vertebrate fossils by quantitatively establishing the growth and morphology of biofilms on extant archosaur bone. These results are microscopically and morphologically compared with soft-tissue extracts from vertebrate fossils from the Hell Creek Formation of southeastern Montana (Latest Maastrichtian) in order to investigate the potential role of microbial biofilms on the preservation of fossil bone and bound organic matter in a variety of taphonomic settings. Based on these analyses, we highlight a mechanism whereby this bound organic matter may be preserved.

    Conclusions/Significance

    Results of the study indicate that the crystallization of microbial biofilms on decomposing organic matter within vertebrate bone in early taphonomic stages may contribute to the preservation of primary soft tissues deeper in the bone structure."

    I just don't have enough FAITH to believe we evolved from some ape-like creature.

    You mean you don't have enough education to understand the scientific findings. But I understand.

    ReplyDelete
  88. thorton:
    I wonder if Dr. Hunter realizes that Joe G's infantile behavior

    Nice projection you momma's boy.

    What really kills discussions is the evotards refusal t provie positive evidence for their position starting with a testable hypothesi.

    All you chumps cn do is erect strawman ater starwman and attck that.

    Then when you had enough of that you strt attacking us.

    You are pathetic..

    ReplyDelete
  89. thorton:
    You mean you don't have enough education to understand the scientific findings. But I understand.

    There aren't any scientific findings that demonstrate humans evolved from some ape-like creature.

    That is the whole problem.

    ReplyDelete
  90. So thorton lies like a rug, gets called out on its lies, refuses to change its lying ways and throws a hissy-fit when its tactics are used against it.

    What a typical cry-baby...

    ReplyDelete
  91. thorton:
    You're still the most appropriate spokeman IDC ever had.

    Seeing that IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant, I am not sure what your statement means.

    ReplyDelete
  92. There STILL isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie blind, undirected chemical processes- can construct a functioning multi-part system.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Thorton said...

    I wonder if Dr. Hunter realizes that Joe G's infantile behavior has done more to kill....

    ========================
    Does that include your infantile behaviour, as well Thorton?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Zachriel:
    We have no direct experience of living dinosaurs, yet the scientific evidence is conclusion: Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. We can clearly make and scientifically test historical claims.

    At the risk of parroting Joe G's rejoinder, "So what?"

    The question is not what animals once roamed the earth; the question is how did the animals that roamed the earth come to be?

    Even a series of fossils that appears to be in a morhphological sequence does not tell us anything about the mechanism that caused the sequence.

    So again, what repeatable experiment could be performed that would confirm or otherwise demonstrate the mechanism of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Doublee said...

    So again, what repeatable experiment could be performed that would confirm or otherwise demonstrate the mechanism of evolution?


    Genetic mechanics for evolution - point mutations, gene duplication, frame shifts, indels, etc. have been demonstrated in thousands of experiments.

    For example, go to Google Scholar and do a search for 'gene duplication'. You'll get thousands of papers like

    Evolution by gene duplication: an update

    Genome duplication, a trait shared by 22,000 species of ray-finned fish

    Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes

    Gene regulatory network growth by duplication

    Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion


    It sounds like a cliche, but there really is a mountain of evidence readily available on the demonstrated and confirmed mechanisms of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Doublee: The question is not what animals once roamed the earth; the question is how did the animals that roamed the earth come to be?

    The question we raised was your position on the scientific verification of historical claims.

    doublee: Calling for a repeatable experiment makes no sense with respect to historical theories.

    Doublee: We have no direct experience with any major morphological transformation, so the analogy with an airplane crash investigation fails.

    We can certainly make and test historical hypotheses. For instance, dinosaurs aren't just rocks that look like dragons. They walked. They struggled. They made nests and laid eggs. Some species even cared for their young.

    How do we know that maiasaura was a "caring mother lizard?" It's an interesting question, and the investigation is a fascinating bit of scientific detective work.

    Horner & Gorman, Digging Dinosaurs: The Search that Unraveled the Mystery of Baby Dinosaurs, Harper 1990.

    Doublee: Even a series of fossils that appears to be in a morhphological sequence does not tell us anything about the mechanism that caused the sequence.

    That's a typical misunderstanding of science. The greatest scientific findings are not obvious. If they were, they wouldn't be such a surprise! They are discovered and supported by indirect evidence. Propose a hypothesis, then test it. Then publish it so as to subject it to more testing by independent observers using independent methods. Evolutionary biology unifies observations in such disparate fields as geology to genetics.

    So what can a series of fossils tell us? If the Theory of Natural Selection is correct, then complex structures should evolve through incremental and selectable steps. We should also observe selection occurring in the modern world. Maybe we can even measure rates of evolution to see if they are consistent with what is posited to have occurred in geologically ancient times. And we have numerous examples of transitional fossils, such as the mammalian middle ear. So yes, we can discover a lot about mechanism from fossils.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "Persons who had a dogmatic belief in religions and adhered to the teachings of absolutist and perfectionistic religious groups, tended to be more frequently and more intensely emotionally disturbed than those who followed less dogmatic religion (Ellis, 1986). Authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism were positively correlated, with scores on authoritarianism significantly related to those on ethnic and racial prejudice, hostility toward homosexuals, and punitiveness in prison sentencing (Wylie & Forest, 1992). According to Parker (1990), dogmatism and orthodox belief were incompatible with ethical acuity."

    It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development.(Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities.
    "Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uniformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent" (p. 38).
    "Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uniformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent" McClosky, H. Conservatism and personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45

    ReplyDelete
  98. Thornton said: So? All that means is that we've discovered a rare, previously unknown form of preservation for tissues preserved deep within fossil bones

    Oh of course...when the facts contradict the darwinian myth, then there's something wrong with the facts. Suddenly, not only can organics last longer than 100,000 years MAXIMUM, but they can last 70 MILLION! Praise darwin!!

    ReplyDelete
  99. hardy said...

    Thornton said: So? All that means is that we've discovered a rare, previously unknown form of preservation for tissues preserved deep within fossil bones

    Oh of course...when the facts contradict the darwinian myth, then there's something wrong with the facts. Suddenly, not only can organics last longer than 100,000 years MAXIMUM, but they can last 70 MILLION! Praise darwin!!


    Please show me a scientific reference that proclaims it is IMPOSSIBLE for organic material to last more than 100,000 years.

    I can find plenty that say there's no known mechanism for organics lasting that long, and plenty that say there are no known samples past that age. But that's not what you are claiming.

    So please provide your reference. I think you're just making it up as you go, as all creationists are fond of doing.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hardy says:"Oh of course...when the facts contradict the darwinian myth, then there's something wrong with the facts."

    This news story on the finding has some discussion from the palaeontologists involved. Might clear up some of your misunderstandings:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

    ReplyDelete
  101. Thorton:

    "Joe G said...

    Child molesting thorton is upset because it lost its "primo" job as a mall cop trainee because it was soliciting sex from little boys in the mall bathrooms.
    ------

    "I wonder if Dr. Hunter realizes that Joe G's infantile behavior has done more to kill serious discussion on this blog than all other factors combined. Even the UD IDiots won't come here anymore. Joe himself is way too self-obsessed to realize it."
    ======

    Agreed. However having said this:

    http://www.floppingaces.net/upload/2007/10/Pot-calling-the-kettle-black-734818.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  102. There STILL isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie blind, undirected chemical processes- can construct a functioning multi-part system.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Zachriel:
    Propose a hypothesis, then test it.

    And your refusal to provide a testable hypothesis for your position is very telling.

    ReplyDelete
  104. thorton:
    Genetic mechanics for evolution - point mutations, gene duplication, frame shifts, indels, etc. have been demonstrated in thousands of experiments.

    Again with the equivocation.

    Is that all you evos have- equivocate a lie?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Eocene-

    Thorton has already admitted that he likes to poke people with sticks.

    He just gets really upset when someone takes it from him and beats him with it.

    That is why I like dealing with bullies- especially cyber-bullies like thorton, troy, oleg- et al- paper tigers...

    ReplyDelete
  106. Joe_G

    "Eocene-

    Thorton has already admitted that he likes to poke people with sticks.

    He just gets really upset when someone takes it from him and beats him with it.

    That is why I like dealing with bullies- especially cyber-bullies like thorton, troy, oleg- et al- paper tigers... "
    =====

    I understand what you are saying, but why drag yourself down to his level ??? You do know that's what they want ???

    The vulgarity approach is a part of their religious tradition and should be shunned by those claiming to be Christian, tho I'm not sure where you side with that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Paul, that link is old news. Since then, Schweitzer has defended her work against claims of contamination and biofilm. She stands firm.

    Trying to claim that organics, which could only last 100,000 years MAXIMUM according to evolutionists, can now suddenly last over 70 million years simply because they were found in dinosaur fossils, is absurd.

    Let the hard facts dictate the theory, don't try to MAKE them fit the theory. Organics cannot last more than 100,000 years, ergo, the dinosaur organics discovered by Schweitzer (by accident I might add...another example of how evolutionary thinking hurts science) proves dinosaurs walked the earth less than 100,000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  108. hardy said...

    Trying to claim that organics, which could only last 100,000 years MAXIMUM according to evolutionists


    Please support this claim. Provide a reference from the primary scientific literature anywhere that says organic materials can only last 100,000 years MAXIMUM.

    Not "oldest samples known are observed to last" but that science said it is impossible for them to last longer than 100K years.

    No support = you're pulling that strawman right out of your butt, AKA lying. As such it doesn't warrant any serious consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Joe G said...

    Eocene-

    Thorton has already admitted that he likes to poke people with sticks.


    Not people Joe, you personally. That's because you're the biggest arrogant yet clueless immature schmuck in the whole web-wide C/E community, and getting you to scream obscenities and make impotent physical threats is one of the funniest thing on line EVAH.

    You're the perfect poster boy for IDC.

    ReplyDelete
  110. thortard is still upset that I have exposed its ignorance on more than one occasion.

    The following ios just one such example:

    Thorton Exposes Its Ignorance Once again

    So now its only recourse is to try to discredit me.

    Well child molestor thorton you can do that by producing the scientific data which demonstrates that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct a functional multi-part system.

    Ya see butt-plug you don't have any evidence to support your position.

    You are an ignorant toad.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Despite all the evotard posteuring there STILL isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie blind, undirected chemical processes- can construct a functioning multi-part system.

    You guys can call me names but you sure as hell can't support your position.

    Sweet...

    ReplyDelete
  112. Thornton said: Please support this claim. Provide a reference from the primary scientific literature anywhere that says organic materials can only last 100,000 years MAXIMUM.

    Why don't you ask Mary Schweitzer, Thronton:

    "It has always been assumed that preservation of [dinosaur bones] does not extend to the cellular and molecular level," said co-author Mary Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University in Raleigh, US.

    "The pathways of cellular decay are well known for modern organisms. And extrapolations predict that all organics are going to be gone completely in 100,000 years, maximum."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6548719.stm

    But now ladies and gentlemen, we are to believe organics can not only last 100,00 years, but they can last 70 million years, simply because they were found in the fossil of a creature evolutionists claimed (without empirical evidence I might add) to have gone extinct 70 million years ago.

    Once again I challenge evolutionists: Let the evidence dictate the theory, don't try to make it fit your darwinian myth.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Hardy said...

    Thorton: " Please support this claim. Provide a reference from the primary scientific literature anywhere that says organic materials can only last 100,000 years MAXIMUM.

    Not "oldest samples known are observed to last" but that science said it is impossible for them to last longer than 100K years."

    Hardy: " Why don't you ask Mary Schweitzer, Thronton:

    "It has always been assumed that preservation of [dinosaur bones] does not extend to the cellular and molecular level," said co-author Mary Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University in Raleigh, US.

    "The pathways of cellular decay are well known for modern organisms. And extrapolations predict that all organics are going to be gone completely in 100,000 years, maximum."


    So exactly as I thought, you have no reference to anyone in science saying preservation over 100K is impossible, just that it was not expected.

    There's a huge difference, and it's quite dishonest of you to take that one statement and change the wording of the author to claim something completely different.

    Sadly, such willful dishonesty seems to be standard operation procedure for most Creationists.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Despite all the evotard posteuring there STILL isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie blind, undirected chemical processes- can construct a functioning multi-part system.

    You guys can call me names but you sure as hell can't support your position.

    Sweet...

    ReplyDelete
  115. Thorton said: "There's a huge difference, and it's quite dishonest of you to take that one statement and change the wording of the author to claim something completely different.

    Sadly, such willful dishonesty seems to be standard operation procedure for most Creationists."

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

    Thorton, In situations such as this, I recommend you apply Hanlon's razor:

    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    The vast majority of creationists, especially the ones who are doing it to defend the faith and not to earn a living, would never, ever, intentionally lie in order to argue against evolution. But that's the problem. They (I can say we, in the past tense) actually believe the claims with every fiber of their/our being. Being that misinformed and deluded may be worse than lying in a way, but it's not the same thing. There is a difference between willful ignorance, and willful dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Evos always lie to defend tehor position.

    That is all they have- lies and more lies.

    Despite all the evotard posteuring there STILL isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie blind, undirected chemical processes- can construct a functioning multi-part system.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Thornton said: So exactly as I thought, you have no reference to anyone in science saying preservation over 100K is impossible, just that it was not expected.

    Ahhh yes, evolutionists LOVE to rewrite history when the evidence contradicts their previous 'facts'

    Tell me Thornton, why would Schweitzer state 100,000 years MAXIMUM if she and her fellow evolutionists were unsure how long organics could last????

    Also, why doesn't the existence of dinosaur organics prove evolutionists are wrong about when dinosaurs died out, instead of being wrong about how long organics can last???

    ReplyDelete
  118. hardy said...

    Tell me Thornton, why would Schweitzer state 100,000 years MAXIMUM if she and her fellow evolutionists were unsure how long organics could last????


    She was giving the current state of scientific knowledge based on past evidence, not saying preservation greater than 100K is impossible. Why do you think it's a problem that science should revise its understanding when new evidence arises? That's how science works.

    Also, why doesn't the existence of dinosaur organics prove evolutionists are wrong about when dinosaurs died out, instead of being wrong about how long organics can last???

    Because the dating of the dinosaurs' period of existence is based on a huge amount of other consilient evidence (i.e radiometric dating), not on the preservation of any trace organics.

    ReplyDelete
  119. thorton:
    Because the dating of the dinosaurs' period of existence is based on a huge amount of other consilient evidence (i.e radiometric dating), not on the preservation of any trace organics.

    said the mindless drone...

    ReplyDelete
  120. Thornton said: She was giving the current state of scientific knowledge based on past evidence, not saying preservation greater than 100K is impossible. Why do you think it's a problem that science should revise its understanding when new evidence arises? That's how science works.

    I have no problem with changes in science, I have a problem when something is declared to be factual when there is no empirical evidence to support it. Why do you evolutionists are so often 'surprised' at the new research? It's because their evolutionary fairytale stated something different.

    Organics do not last more than 100,000 years...that was an accepted conclusion PRIOR to finding dinosaur organics which upset the mythical evolutionary timeline.

    Because the dating of the dinosaurs' period of existence is based on a huge amount of other consilient evidence (i.e radiometric dating), not on the preservation of any trace organics.

    Thornton, radiometric dating has been shown to produce wildly erroneous results on samples of KNOWN age, so how could you verify a date on a sample of UNknown age? Also, please tell me how a date older than human history could be verified?

    Face it Thornton, there's no reason to believe organics could last more than 100,000 years 'MAXIMUM' (to quote Schweitzer) other than the fact dinosaur organics were discovered, and the evolution fairytale claims they died out 70 million years ago. It's always the same with evolutionists: When the facts contradict the evolution myth, change the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  121. hardy said...

    Organics do not last more than 100,000 years...that was an accepted conclusion PRIOR to finding dinosaur organics which upset the mythical evolutionary timeline.


    Since you avoided the question, I'll ask again. Why do you think it's a problem that science should revise its understanding when new evidence arises? That's how science works.

    Thornton, radiometric dating has been shown to produce wildly erroneous results on samples of KNOWN age, so how could you verify a date on a sample of UNknown age?

    No, it hasn't. Radiometric dating is a mature, well understood and well verified science that is based on the observable laws of nuclear physics. I assume you're talking about the bogus Creationist nonsense where they deliberately tested recent lava samples that has older xenoliths mixed in, then screamed bloody murder when the date of the older xenoliths showed up.

    Also, please tell me how a date older than human history could be verified?

    By using multiple independent lines of evidence to corroborate the date. A good example is the calibration of radiocarbon dating curves. You find physical processes that leave yearly markers, then calibrate against the measured C14/C12 ratio from the same strata. There are over a dozen such yearly markers used - dendrochronology, lake varves, ocean core samples, ice core samples, stalagmite layers, coral growth, etc. The net result is multiple corroborating data sets dating back over 40K years.

    ReplyDelete
  122. thorton the liar posts:
    Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation
    Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton
    Science 7 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101


    To try to demonstratethat blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part system.

    Obviously the tard didn't read the paper.

    Had he read the paper he would have read tht all they did was take an existing protein that strongly interacted with 3 kinds of hormones (aldosterone, cortisol, and 11-deoxycorticosterone).

    They then introduced simple mutations and that protein interacted weaker than it had before.

    They decreased the potein's functionality.

    that is it- nothing more.

    Gez evotars are so freakin' desperate they will post anything hoping people cannot read the actual paper.

    IOW yo don't have anything tat supports your claims you lying loser.

    ReplyDelete
  123. LOL! You can tell when Joe G has really been embarrassed (like by the Bridgham Carroll Thornton paper) by the volume of spittle he spews trying to deny scientific reality.

    On a scale of 1-10 I'd rate his meltdown here a 7.

    ReplyDelete
  124. ROTFLMAO-

    Thortard the lying loser gets caught spewing ignorance- AGAIN- and has nothing but to attack me.

    If anyone should be embarrassed by that paper it should be you however seeing taht you are already a lying loser nothing can embarrass you- what can embarrass an anonymous intellectual coward?

    Yup you score an 11 on that meltdown scale-

    Sweet...

    ReplyDelete
  125. So thortard the lying loser cites a paper it has never read and when I expose it for the nonsense it is it throws a little-girly hissy-fit.

    Life is good...

    ReplyDelete
  126. What is embarrassing is trying to have a discussion on scientific data with a scientifically illiterate loser like you.

    You embarrass evos and you don't even realize it...

    ReplyDelete
  127. Joe, may I humbly suggested that the number of posts a person has had deleted by the admin may suggest how much they "score on a meltdown scale"

    ReplyDelete
  128. Posts deleted by a moderator on Joe's side as well.

    How very amusing.

    Hey, Joe, what happened to the demonstration of the EF that you promised us all on the Amazon thread? Did your dog eat your homework? What's the hold up?

    Just to remind everybody what you said, I repost it below. You Quite clearly said that the EF can be used but for some strange reason you stopped posting on that thread when asked for some actual evidence of your claims.

    Here's what Joe said:
    "I say the ribosome is designed as determined by scientific inference:

    The ribosome is a genetic compiler.

    And again we have direct observations and experiences with intelligent agencies creating compilers and translation machines.

    We don't have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can do the same.

    And that is how science operates- we infer based on our knowledge which comes from observations and experiences.

    And yes we can use the EF to verify that inference."

    You can find that post here

    http://tinyurl.com/365enjj

    So, Joe, please use the EF to verify your inference. There are many many people that would like to see you try. Man up.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Amusingly a post or two up on this thread Joe said

    "IOW yo don't have anything tat supports your claims you lying loser."

    So, Joe, if you don't support your claim that the EF can be used to validated the inference that the ribosome is designed then I guess that makes you a lying loser, by your own rules.

    It is easy to prove me wrong, just do what you said you can do. Use the EF. Show your working!

    ReplyDelete
  130. Thornton said: Since you avoided the question, I'll ask again. Why do you think it's a problem that science should revise its understanding when new evidence arises? That's how science works.

    I DID answer it dear. It was my first sentence to you. Please try to read the responses before trying to refute them. I have no problem with changes in science, I have a problem when something is declared to be factual when there is no empirical evidence to support it.

    Tell me Thornton, why are you so averse to the possibility that evolutionists were wrong about when dinosaurs walked the earth, but are so quick and willing to concede they were so WAY OFF BASE about how long organics could last?

    It makes one wonder why you trust them so much. ;-)

    Thornton, radiometric dating has been shown to produce wildly erroneous results on samples of KNOWN age, so how could you verify a date on a sample of UNknown age?

    No, it hasn't. Radiometric dating is a mature, well understood and well verified science that is based on the observable laws of nuclear physics. I assume you're talking about the bogus Creationist nonsense where they deliberately tested recent lava samples that has older xenoliths mixed in, then screamed bloody murder when the date of the older xenoliths showed up.

    I'm also talking about the Mexican 'footprints' dated by your ilk. One group produced dates of 40,000 years for the footprints, the other group produced a date of 1.4 MILLION years. Which date is right Thornton and why are they so vastly different?


    By using multiple independent lines of evidence to corroborate the date. A good example is the calibration of radiocarbon dating curves. You find physical processes that leave yearly markers, then calibrate against the measured C14/C12 ratio from the same strata. There are over a dozen such yearly markers used - dendrochronology, lake varves, ocean core samples, ice core samples, stalagmite layers, coral growth, etc. The net result is multiple corroborating data sets dating back over 40K years.

    And how do you account or adjust for contamination that you weren't around to witness? Or the fact the sun can alter the rate of decay? How many tests are run on each sample to make sure the date is corroborated, or do evolutionists just cherry-pick the dates that coincide with their mythical timeline and throw out the rest as erroneous?

    ReplyDelete
  131. OM:
    So, Joe, please use the EF to verify your inference.

    Why is it that you don't do anything to support your position?

    As I said if I use the EF to verify my inference you will just say I cheated.

    So have at it.

    Show your work.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Rich:
    Joe, may I humbly suggested that the number of posts a person has had deleted by the admin may suggest how much they "score on a meltdown scale"

    You can suggest whatever you want.

    I would say the meltdown is counted by the number of initial attacks- and that number would weigh heavily in favor of you and your ilk.

    ReplyDelete
  133. And OM,

    If you are too stupid to do it then please tell me so and this is what I can do-

    Get those chumps from that discussion together- you and them- we can all get together and I will show you live and in person- eevn walk you through it.

    But first you have to admit that you are too stupid to use the EF and too cowardly to support your position.

    Once that is done we can continue.

    Deal?

    ReplyDelete
  134. hardy said...

    Tell me Thornton, why are you so averse to the possibility that evolutionists were wrong about when dinosaurs walked the earth, but are so quick and willing to concede they were so WAY OFF BASE about how long organics could last?


    I'm not adverse to any such possibilities at all. I only ask that any such claims be supported with positive empirical evidence. That's the stuff you creationists always are woefully short of. The new discovery of a mechanism for the long term preservation of trace organic materials in no way shape or form provides evidence for recently living dinosaurs.

    I'm also talking about the Mexican 'footprints' dated by your ilk. One group produced dates of 40,000 years for the footprints, the other group produced a date of 1.4 MILLION years.

    I assume you're talking about the discoveries in Puebla, Mexico a few years. The initial group of archaeologists who found the suspected prints weren't experts in dating and used an invalid thermoluminescence method on the samples, which returned an incorrect age. Their work was checked by other scientists and the age discrepancy was corrected, as well as the determination the marks were not hominid tracks but weathering of naturally occurring fissures and depressions. One group made a mistake, it was checked and corrected by other scientists. That's how science works. I notice AIG where you got your crap misinformation from hasn't updated their story either.

    And how do you account or adjust for contamination that you weren't around to witness?

    What contamination would that be? Do you have any evidence that every last sample was magically contaminated in just the proper amount to give consilient ages across all the samples?

    Or the fact the sun can alter the rate of decay?

    How does an altered C14 decay rate affect tree rings, or lake varves, or ice core samples?

    How many tests are run on each sample to make sure the date is corroborated, or do evolutionists just cherry-pick the dates that coincide with their mythical timeline and throw out the rest as erroneous?

    The last resort of the desperate Creto - claim scientific results they can't hand wave away are deliberately fraudulent.

    If you have any evidence of this deliberate fraud in every radiocarbon lab in the world, either present it or shut up with the slurs.

    ReplyDelete
  135. This is all highly amusing:

    1) The Disco 'Tuties are still crying 'we wus robbed' five years later.

    2) A courtroom answer is not a scientific journal article on a topic, let alone a library of all known scientific data on an issue. It is a short answer to a specific question. Giving said short answer does not mean that "they gave up their soul" -- as Cornelius Hunter's hysterical concern-trolling suggests. If the opposition does not like the short answer, then the correct thing to do is to interrogate in cross-examination -- NOT to blog on the subject over, and over, and over and and over again, long after the trial is over, the verdict is in and the perjuring-for-jesus defendants have been kicked out on their lying 'breathtakingly inane' arses.

    3) In spite of his untimely verbal diarrhoea on the subject, I would question whether Cornelius Hunter, a biophysicist (at an institution that values theological purity over scientific rigour) understand the specific "science and their own theory" better than the evolutionary biologists who actually work and publish in legitimate scientific publications on the subject.

    I would conclude by suggesting that Hunter, his fellow Disco 'Tuties and the Biola faculty quit complaining about ancient history, get off their arses and develop a 'Theory of ID' that entails (not simply vaguely suggests) hypotheses/predictions that have practical and unambiguous (not pie-in-the-sky and vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness) tests. The Theory of Evolution has made such hypotheses and predictions repeatedly, and has repeatedly been confirmed by them (examples available on request).

    ReplyDelete
  136. xn--hrfn-woa:
    The Theory of Evolution has made such hypotheses and predictions repeatedly, and has repeatedly been confirmed by them (examples available on request).

    I request such examples and I predict that you will produce something that has no relevance to blind, undirected chemical processes- the proposed mechanism of the ToE.

    My bet is that you will produce "predictions" and hypotheses based on the vague claim of common ancestry - and I would also bet I could take what you post and have it support alternative scenarios.

    So please let us see your -ahem- examples.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Joe G:

    1) Universal Common Descent is a very strong, and very SPECIFIC prediction. This places it in stark contrast to ID's "very vague claim" that at some unknown time and in some unknown place, an unknown designer did unknown things to (a heavily equivocated about) set of lifeforms.

    1a) Further, UCD made the SPECIFIC prediction that, as humans have 23 chromesomes and other great apes have 24, that this will ENTAIL that either two of the human chromesomes fused, or that one of the ape chromesomes divided. Recent DNA analysis has confirmed this, by finding evidence of a telomere-to-telomere fusion on chromesome 2 of the human DNA.

    2) If you misrepresent and cherry-pick data (as creationists have done at least since the days of George McCready Price), you can force it to "support" any "alternative scenarios" you like, no matter how bizarre. Cranks do this every day to support bizarre "scenarios" such as geocentricism, flat-earthism, 9-11 was a government hoax, the Duke of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays, etc, etc. This does mean that such tendentious interpretations have any merit.

    3) Returning to testability. The Theory of Evolution (and specifically the mechanism of Gene Flow) made the prediction that sub-populations of a species will at times, in accordance with specified factors such as geographic isolation and genetic drift, experience increasingly reduced ability to interbreed, leading to speciation (the first step of macroevolution -- that is evolution at above the species level). This prediction has been observed multiple times, both in the field and in the lab.

    ReplyDelete
  138. xn:
    1) Universal Common Descent is a very strong, and very SPECIFIC prediction. This places it in stark contrast to ID's "very vague claim" that at some unknown time and in some unknown place, an unknown designer did unknown things to (a heavily equivocated about) set of lifeforms.

    1- ID does not argue against UCD

    2- I can take those alleged predictions for UCD and use them for alternative scenarios

    3- Nothing about a mechanism in any predictions about UCD- that means thet cannot possibly support your position

    xn:
    2) If you misrepresent and cherry-pick data (as creationists have done at least since the days of George McCready Price), you can force it to "support" any "alternative scenarios" you like, no matter how bizarre. Cranks do this every day to support bizarre "scenarios" such as geocentricism, flat-earthism, 9-11 was a government hoax, the Duke of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays, etc, etc. This does mean that such tendentious interpretations have any merit.

    Your interpretaion- as supporting your position- doesn't have any merit.

    Ya see xn you don't even have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT functional multi-part systems.

    xn:
    3) Returning to testability. The Theory of Evolution (and specifically the mechanism of Gene Flow) made the prediction that sub-populations of a species will at times, in accordance with specified factors such as geographic isolation and genetic drift, experience increasingly reduced ability to interbreed, leading to speciation (the first step of macroevolution -- that is evolution at above the species level). This prediction has been observed multiple times, both in the field and in the lab.

    Even YEC accepts that speciation occurs.

    But thanks for demonstarting that your "predictions" are totally nonsense and have nothing to do with your position.

    ReplyDelete
  139. 1- ID does not argue against UCD

    Yes, ID doesn't argue for or against UCD, an Old Earth or anything much really -- other than the fact that somehow, in some way, evolution must be wrong (otherwise Jesus would cry).

    2- I can take those alleged predictions for UCD and use them for alternative scenarios

    As I stated in (2) above, who the hell cares? Robert Sungenis "can take" the "alleged predictions" of heliocentrism and twist "them for [the] alternative" scenario of geocentricism. This does not mean that he in not a deluded crank. And it does not mean that you're not one.

    3- Nothing about a mechanism in any predictions about UCD- that means thet cannot possibly support your position

    This sentence is mangled beyond recognition. In any case, it appears to be (an attempt at) some sort of bare, unsubstantiated, assertion. It is therefore doubly meaningless.

    Your interpretaion- as supporting your position- doesn't have any merit.

    No. This is the "interpretation" (actually the expert opinion) of the overwhelming majority of scientists, dating back to David Starr Jordan (who stated that Prices creationist claims were "based on scattering mistakes, omissions, and exceptions against general truths that anybody familiar with the facts in a general way can not possibly dispute"). That a tiny, overwhelmingly religiously-motivated minority of scientists (of the order of hundreds, out of hundreds of thousands) disagree does not alter this fact.

    [contd]

    ReplyDelete
  140. [contd]

    Ya see xn you don't even have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT functional multi-part systems.

    No Joe G. What "[I] see" is a wilfully-blind religious crank, who simply ignores the mountains of evidence (genetic, fossil & biogeographical) that evolution explains but that creationism (YEC, OEC or ID) fails to even attempt to engage.

    I see you fail to even attempt at one of your tendentious "alternative scenarios".

    I see that you do not even attempt to show "a 'Theory of ID' that entails ... hypotheses/predictions that have practical and unambiguous ... tests."

    Even YEC accepts that speciation occurs.

    Yes, no macroevolution before the flood, but massive amounts since it, to provide the millions of species that we see today from the pitiful number of 'kinds' that would have fitted into the ark. How does YEC explain this sudden explosion of genetic diversity since the flood? For that matter how does it explain how the pitifully few representatives of each 'kind' on the Ark didn't lead to almost-immediate extinction due to massive in-breeding?

    YEC "accepts" all sorts of things, including no end of fanciful claims -- but it does not explain anything that we actually see in the world.

    But thanks for demonstarting that your "predictions" are totally nonsense and have nothing to do with your position.

    Thank you for demonstrating that you are a blinkered, bigoted religious fanatic, with neither interest in science nor the mountains of scientific evidence that supports evolution.

    You are the very model of a modern fundergelical.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Oh and Joe G.:

    An interesting example for you of something that the Biogeography (a synthesis of evolution and plate tectonics) explains very well, but that I suspect neither YEC, OEC or ID can provide any meaningful explanation for: the Wallace Line (and, relatedly, Lydekker's Line).

    Likewise the very specific distribution of Ratites: Africa's Ostrich, Madagascar's Elephant Bird, Australia's Emu and Cassowary, New Zealand's Kiwi and Moa and south America's Rhea.

    ReplyDelete
  142. xn:
    Yes, ID doesn't argue for or against UCD, an Old Earth or anything much really -- other than the fact that somehow, in some way, evolution must be wrong

    Wrong again- keep grasping though your ignoarnce is entertaining.

    Ya see xn you don't even have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT functional multi-part systems.

    xn:
    No Joe G.

    It is true.

    xn:
    What "[I] see" is a wilfully-blind religious crank, who simply ignores the mountains of evidence (genetic, fossil & biogeographical) that evolution explains but that creationism (YEC, OEC or ID) fails to even attempt to engage.

    I am not religious and there isn't any evidence to ignore.

    The genetic evidence- well nothing that demonstrates blind, undirected chemical process can construct a functional multi-part system.

    Your bluster and chest thumping may impress your mother but it doesn't work in a discussion about scientific evidence.

    xn:
    I see you fail to even attempt at one of your tendentious "alternative scenarios".

    I see that you do not even attempt to show "a 'Theory of ID' that entails ... hypotheses/predictions that have practical and unambiguous ... tests."


    I have done so and so has many other IDists.

    Even YEC accepts that speciation occurs.

    xn:
    Yes, no macroevolution before the flood,

    LoL! Where did you get that from?

    xn:
    but massive amounts since it, to provide the millions of species that we see today from the pitiful number of 'kinds' that would have fitted into the ark.

    That is the power of a targeted search in new niches.

    But anyway thanks for proving to be another imbecilic lying evotard.

    As if the world needs more of those...

    ReplyDelete
  143. and xn I fixed this for ya:

    The theory of evolution- that at some unknown time and in some unknown place, an unknown mechanism did unknown things to (a heavily equivocated about) set of lifeforms.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Thornton said: hardy said...

    I'm not adverse to any such possibilities at all. I only ask that any such claims be supported with positive empirical evidence. That's the stuff you creationists always are woefully short of. The new discovery of a mechanism for the long term preservation of trace organic materials in no way shape or form provides evidence for recently living dinosaurs.


    But that's the point, we CAN test how long organics last...how can you test when dinosaurs died out? (Barring a time machine, of course)

    BTW, what 'positive empirical evidence' exists
    for common descent over a common Creator?
    For the record, I'm asking for evidence that DOESN'T first require I accept neo-darwinian evolution as a given.

    I assume you're talking about the discoveries in Puebla, Mexico a few years. The initial group of archaeologists who found the suspected prints weren't experts in dating and used an invalid thermoluminescence method on the samples, which returned an incorrect age. Their work was checked by other scientists and the age discrepancy was corrected, as well as the determination the marks were not hominid tracks but weathering of naturally occurring fissures and depressions. One group made a mistake, it was checked and corrected by other scientists. That's how science works. I notice AIG where you got your crap misinformation from hasn't updated their story either.

    I didn't get that info from AIG....you're already batting zero. As for the footprints, they were originally dated at 40,000 years...then because that date contradicted the mythical evolutionary timeline, other scientists wanted to check the results. Renne used argon-argon dating which has proven to produce erroneous results in the past. So, how can allegedly qualified or competent scientists be so outrageously off with their dating? Also, what would have happened had Gonzales' team returned a date of say 10,000 years instead of 40,000?

    I'll tell you what would have happened. You and your ilk would never have re-tested the footprints and would have touted them as clear evidence humans walked in N America 10,000 years ago. It proves my point: The dates produced are UNreliable and cherry-picked by evolutionists.

    What contamination would that be? Do you have any evidence that every last sample was magically contaminated in just the proper amount to give consilient ages across all the samples?

    That's the point, my dear...how do we know what contamination occurred, if any? These are the UNKNOWABLE factors that taint the dating results.

    How does an altered C14 decay rate affect tree rings, or lake varves, or ice core samples?

    Do you think those methods are 100% accurate?
    Read the research child...you're in a for shock. Evolutionists cherry-pick the dates they want and discard those that contradict their mythical timeline as 'contaminated' If creationists did that, we could also claim the dates support our position.

    BTW, how many fossil samples are measured against tree rings?

    The last resort of the desperate Creto - claim scientific results they can't hand wave away are deliberately fraudulent.

    Ah yes, the old 'don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain' routine. Do evolutionists EVER get tired or ashamed of using it?

    If you have any evidence of this deliberate fraud in every radiocarbon lab in the world, either present it or shut up with the slurs.

    The aforementioned footprints for one. But besides that, the fact ONLY dates for the mythical evolutionary timeline are accepted is all the evidence I need.

    BTW, I find it amusing that you demand empirical evidence yet adhere religiously to the neo-darwinian 'theory' which is a historical worldview, not an empirical one.

    ReplyDelete
  145. hardy said....

    But that's the point, we CAN test how long organics last...


    Really? I'd be pretty interested to see your test that gives a maximum age organics can last. Please describe such a test, and provide a link to where it was done.

    BTW, what 'positive empirical evidence' exists for common descent over a common Creator?

    The consilience of all the evidence taken in total, which shows that a common Creator is not necessary. It's easy to think of examples that if discovered would falsify the hypothesis of evolution through common descent. Having the fossil phylogenetic tree not match the genetic one for example. It's impossible to falsify the claim that a common Creator poofed everything into existence. That's one big reason why ID is not scientific.

    So, how can allegedly qualified or competent scientists be so outrageously off with their dating?

    The folks who tried to apply the thermoluminescence technique to the footprints were neither qualified nor competent to use it. That's why their work was overturned when it was checked.

    That's the point, my dear...how do we know what contamination occurred, if any? These are the UNKNOWABLE factors that taint the dating results.

    You could make the same stupid argument against every scientific measurement ever made in any field. The simple fact is - if there's no evidence of contamination, there's no reason to suspect contamination.

    Do you think those methods are 100% accurate?
    Read the research child...you're in a for shock. Evolutionists cherry-pick the dates they want and discard those that contradict their mythical timeline as 'contaminated' If creationists did that, we could also claim the dates support our position.


    Provide evidence of this deliberate fraud by everyone doing radiometric dating or STFU you lying sack. Nothing ticks me off quicker that Cretos who run around libeling honest scientists with these unfounded accusations of professional misconduct.

    The aforementioned footprints for one.

    The marks were determined to not be footprints. Quit getting your 'science' from AIG, it will only make you look like a gullible fool.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Wrong again- keep grasping though your ignoarnce is entertaining.

    Bald assertion, without any attempt at substantiation -- utterly worthless.

    Ya see xn you don't even have any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT functional multi-part systems.

    Bald assertion, without any attempt at substantiation -- utterly worthless. Also, from somebody lacking a very serious academic background in evolutionary biology, it is an argument from personal incredulity/ignorance.

    And "ya see" John G, when some idiot says "ya see" followed by some worthless, science-denying drive, what I "see" in my mind's eye is some redneck in the furthest depths of the Appalachians, playing his banjo and sipping moonshine, before going off to futter his sister. Irritating folksiness to somebody who considers your position to be denuded of factual or logical merit simply evokes contempt. Ya see?

    I am not religious...

    It was a reasonable assumption that you were as:

    1) The overwhelming majority of ID advocates are.

    2) If evolution didn't do it, and God didn't do it then who/what did? ("It" being bringing forth the enormous biodiversity that we see in the world.)

    Answer this question John G. You know my answer (which is the answer of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, including those researching this exact topic) and you know the answer of religious creationists. What's your answer?

    ...and there isn't any evidence to ignore.

    ROFLMAO! There are whole libraries of evidence, whole journals whose entire output is devoted to this evidence. Just because you choose either to ignore this evidence or dispute it doesn't mean that there "isn't any evidence". Even intelligent YECs like Kurt Wise admit that this evidence exists -- but he hopes that, one day, a young Earth framework will develop that explains it better than evolution does.

    [contd]

    ReplyDelete
  147. [contd]

    The genetic evidence- well nothing that demonstrates blind, undirected chemical process can construct a functional multi-part system.

    More argument from ignorance. You DO NOT get to argue "nothing" until you have read and comprehended EVERYTHING science has written on the subject. From what I've heard, a good place to start would be Daniel J. Fairbanks's Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA.

    Your bluster and chest thumping may impress your mother but it doesn't work in a discussion about scientific evidence.

    Scientific evidence of evolution: human chromosome fusion.

    Rebuttal from Joe G: zero.

    Scientific evidence of evolution: speciation.

    Rebuttal from Joe G: zero.

    Scientific evidence of evolution: Wallace/Lydekker's lines.

    Rebuttal from Joe G: zero.

    Scientific evidence of evolution: Ratite biogeography.

    Rebuttal from Joe G: zero.

    Oh, and wittering on about what various forms of creationism 'accept' doesn't count as rebuttal. Creationism would likewise 'accept' that all lifeforms are pink if that turned out to be true -- or blue, or green with pink polka-dots. Creationism accepts most any old thing (baring evolution), evolution predicts specific observations.

    LoL! Where did you get that from?

    From the fact that Noah could fit all the 'kinds' into the Ark.

    That is the power of a targeted search in new niches.

    A biological "targeted search" requires genetic diversity to traverse the search-space. Under an Ark "alternative scenario" this genetic diversity does not exist.

    But anyway thanks for proving to be another imbecilic lying evotard.

    ROFLMAO! Joe G, given that I doubt that you'd find a biologist who would find your argumentation intelligent, in the least bit honest or anything but ignorant. I doubt if even a creationist biophysicist like Hunter could defend your argumentation without severe equivocation.

    Thank you for providing a perfect example of creationist projection. :D

    ReplyDelete
  148. Another piece of scientific evidence, that I would like to see Creationism (YEC, OEC or ID) explain ( as opposed to merely 'accepting') is the fact that Alejandro Selkirk Island contains all sorts of weird fauna (including a 5-inch hummingbird and the critically endangered Masafuera Rayadito) but no native amphibians, reptiles, or (land) mammals (it does have a species of fur seal).

    This situation is exactly what you'd expect from orthodox biogeography (and thus evolution and plate tectonics), but is inexplicable from a YEC/OEC "alternative scenario", and even from a progressive creationism/ID "alternative scenario" would appear to be only explicable by claiming that 'this one the creator/designer left to evolution to do on its own' -- adding to the scientific evidence that evolution explains, and that a creator/designer is superfluous for.

    ReplyDelete
  149. On a similar vein, how does YEC/OEC/ID explain (as opposed to merely 'accept') this observation from Charles Darwin himself:

    Although terrestrial mammals do not occur on oceanic islands, aërial mammals do occur on almost every island. New Zealand possesses two bats found nowhere else in the world: Norfolk Island, the Viti Archipelago, the Bonin Islands, the Caroline and Marianne [Mariana] Archipelagoes, and Mauritius, all possess their peculiar bats. Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands? On my view this question can eas- ily be answered; for no terrestrial mammal can be transported across a wide space of sea, but bats can fly across.

    ReplyDelete
  150. and xn I fixed this for ya:

    The theory of evolution- that at some unknown time and in some unknown place, an unknown mechanism did unknown things to (a heavily equivocated about) set of lifeforms.


    No, you broke it.

    The Theory of Evolution states that at a specific time (in the last ten million years) and in a specific location (Africa) one of two specific events on one or a small group of specific species (the fusion of two human chromosomes or the splitting of an ape chromosome) must have occurred, by a specific mechanism (mutation).

    ID by contrast never states when, where, how, (with an specificity)on what or (as it posits a mysterious 'designer') by whom anything occurred.

    ReplyDelete
  151. (Parenthetically, we now know that the human-fusion scenario is the one that makes most sense, as humans split from chimpanzees after they both split from the other Great Apes -- meaning that a Great Ape chromosome split mutation would have had to have happened to multiple populations independently -- which is far more improbable than a single fusion.)

    ReplyDelete
  152. Thorton said:

    Really? I'd be pretty interested to see your test that gives a maximum age organics can last. Please describe such a test, and provide a link to where it was done.


    Wait a minute...why didn't you question that declaration when evolutionists were telling us it for YEARS? Also, ever hear of C-14 dating? Why is it only 'reliable' up to approx 50,000 years?

    The consilience of all the evidence taken in total, which shows that a common Creator is not necessary. It's easy to think of examples that if discovered would falsify the hypothesis of evolution through common descent. Having the fossil phylogenetic tree not match the genetic one for example. It's impossible to falsify the claim that a common Creator poofed everything into existence. That's one big reason why ID is not scientific.

    How can you falsify the 'theory' of common ancestry evolution when it's the only 'theory' allowed? Whatever happened/happens is attributed to it no matter how outrageous it is.

    How many falsified predictions must occur before you realize your darwinian myth is wrong? How many times must evolutionists be surprised or shocked at what the data shows before you stop having blind faith in them? BTW, just to be clear, you DIDN'T provide any empirical evidence for common descent. What a surprise.

    The folks who tried to apply the thermoluminescence technique to the footprints were neither qualified nor competent to use it. That's why their work was overturned when it was checked.

    Gee, then how many other unqualified or incompetent evolutionists are making claims as if they were 'factual' and how do we know which ones to 'trust'??

    BTW, care to prove the date Renne produced is accurate???

    You could make the same stupid argument against every scientific measurement ever made in any field.

    Not at all...only those that deal with assumptions made prior to human history.

    The simple fact is - if there's no evidence of contamination, there's no reason to suspect contamination.

    Yeahhhhhh, ummmm how would you know if contamination occurred dear? The sample doesn't come with a warning label declaring "a few million years ago, I incurred contamination which will affect the date I give"

    Provide evidence of this deliberate fraud by everyone doing radiometric dating or STFU you lying sack. Nothing ticks me off quicker that Cretos who run around libeling honest scientists with these unfounded accusations of professional misconduct.

    You don't get it child...they were indoctrinated.
    They can ONLY accept dates that coincide with the mythical evolutionary timeline because that's the only 'theory' they were taught.
    If they want to continue working in the mainstream 'scientific' field, they will have to conform to the darwinian myth. Watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and you will find all the evidence you need of how evolutionists protect their darwinian myth from scientific scrutiny.

    The marks were determined to not be footprints. Quit getting your 'science' from AIG, it will only make you look like a gullible fool.

    As I said dear, it wasn't from AIG...you need to read and comprehend what people write. BTW, originally, there was no question those marks were 'footprints'...oh, until the date they produced contradicted the mythical evolutionary timeline...then all hell broke loose. They HAD to re-date them until they 'disproved' them using their biased, fallible dating methods they claim produced the 'faulty' date in the first place. That makes sense. {rolls eyes}

    ReplyDelete
  153. hardy said...

    Thorton: Really? I'd be pretty interested to see your test that gives a maximum age organics can last. Please describe such a test, and provide a link to where it was done.

    Wait a minute...why didn't you question that declaration when evolutionists were telling us it for YEARS?


    So you have no way to test the maximum age organics can last. You were making that up.

    No one in the scientific community ever declared there was a MAXIMUM age. You're making that up too.

    Also, ever hear of C-14 dating? Why is it only 'reliable' up to approx 50,000 years?

    C14 dating is based on measuring the ratio of the radioisotope C14 to the stable C12/C13 amount in the sample you nitwit, not on the detection of trace organics. As the C14 decays at its known rate, the ratio gets smaller and smaller. 50K years (actually a bit older) is the lower limit for our ability to detect the C14 above the background radiation. An organic sample 80K years old can still have plenty of C12/C13 but no detectable C14.

    How can you falsify the 'theory' of common ancestry evolution when it's the only 'theory' allowed?

    I gave you a way to falsify the current theory. Another would be to find that each species had its own form of DNA that was not compatible with any other species. Your bluster is wrong, other theories would certainly be allowed too. The requirement is they must explain the empirical evidence better than the accepted theory and be falsifiable. IDC can't do it.

    T: You could make the same stupid argument against every scientific measurement ever made in any field.

    Not at all...only those that deal with assumptions made prior to human history.


    So you only make this stupid argument against scientific evidence that disagrees with your YEC beliefs. Got it.

    T: The simple fact is - if there's no evidence of contamination, there's no reason to suspect contamination.

    Yeahhhhhh, ummmm how would you know if contamination occurred dear?


    You check for consilience with all the other thousands of independent measurements. It's pretty easy to tell when thousands of results from across the world agree and one sample is vastly skewed. There would also be physical evidence of the contamination, as in the case of the xenoliths in the 'old' dated young lava.

    snip the rest of your YEC blithering

    If all you've got are the usual baseless YEC claims that scientists are deliberate frauds, the go get at the back of the line with the other clueless YEC idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Thorton said: So you have no way to test the maximum age organics can last. You were making that up.

    No one in the scientific community ever declared there was a MAXIMUM age. You're making that up too.


    Why are you lying Thorton(aside from the fact you're an evolutionist who HAS to lie to defend his myth)? I already showed you the quote from Schweitzer in the post above dated: October 16, 2010 12:30 PM

    So, why did you accept their declarations prior to finding dinosaur organics? And if evolutionists can make declarations without evidence to support them (as you imply by asking for the evidence to show organics cannot last more than 100,000 years, maximum) then what else are evolutionists declaring as 'fact' that we should reject? Besides their whole 'theory' I mean?

    C14 dating is based on measuring the ratio of the radioisotope C14 to the stable C12/C13 amount in the sample you nitwit, not on the detection of trace organics. As the C14 decays at its known rate, the ratio gets smaller and smaller. 50K years (actually a bit older) is the lower limit for our ability to detect the C14 above the background radiation. An organic sample 80K years old can still have plenty of C12/C13 but no detectable C14.

    Oh child...are you for real? Are you trying to tell me C-14 contamination is impossible? BTW, you DO know C-14 has been found in diamonds, right?

    I gave you a way to falsify the current theory. Another would be to find that each species had its own form of DNA that was not compatible with any other species. Your bluster is wrong, other theories would certainly be allowed too. The requirement is they must explain the empirical evidence better than the accepted theory and be falsifiable. IDC can't do it.

    Nonsense thorton, all that would mean is that evolutionists have a lot more to learn about how evolution works...it can do ANYTHING. It happens gradually, except when it doesn't. It conserves except when it doesn't. Whatever happens/happened is attributed to it because it's the only 'theory' allowed.

    So you only make this stupid argument against scientific evidence that disagrees with your YEC beliefs. Got it.

    Watch this thorton, pay close attention:
    So you only make this stupid argument against scientific evidence that disagrees with your evolutionary beliefs. Got it.

    Look, I just refuted your argument.

    You check for consilience with all the other thousands of independent measurements. It's pretty easy to tell when thousands of results from across the world agree and one sample is vastly skewed. There would also be physical evidence of the contamination, as in the case of the xenoliths in the 'old' dated young lava.

    How many times do you think evolutionists will go out and look for corroborating 'evidence' when they get a date that corresponds to their mythical evolutionary timeline? Don't you know by now that those dates are considered 'true' (wink wink) just by the fact they correspond to the evolution fairytale?

    Your darwinian myth is just smoke and mirrors thorton. That's why you and your ilk have to defend it against scientific scrutiny. Very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  155. hardy said...

    Thorton said: So you have no way to test the maximum age organics can last. You were making that up.

    No one in the scientific community ever declared there was a MAXIMUM age. You're making that up too.

    Why are you lying Thorton(aside from the fact you're an evolutionist who HAS to lie to defend his myth)? I already showed you the quote from Schweitzer in the post above dated: October 16, 2010 12:30 PM


    You're an idiot and a liar.

    Schweitzer said that based on current knowledge that 100K years was a maximum predicted age for trace organics to last, not that it was impossible for them to last longer.

    Since you're just another scientifically illiterate YEC liar, go stand in line with the rest of the YEC mouth breathers who love to wallow in their ignorance. You're a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  156. It wasn't just Schweitzer Thorton, although she did also say this:

    "It's very, very, very controversial because most people have gone on record saying there's an absolute time limit to anything that's protein or DNA,"
    Mary Schweitzer,molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University.

    http://xr.com/nakc

    Here's others stating the same thing:

    "In most cases, all the DNA is probably gone after 50,000 to 100,000 years."

    http://www.unl.edu/rhames/neander/neander.htm

    "This is possible because DNA fragments can survive for 50,000 to 100,000 years."

    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml

    Isn't it funny how evolutionists claimed organics could not last more than 100,000 years MAXIMUM UNTIL they found DINOSAUR organics? Suddenly, organics could last not only 100,000 years, but 70 million. When the facts contradict the darwinian myth, throw out the facts.

    R.I.P science

    ReplyDelete
  157. hardy said...

    It wasn't just Schweitzer Thorton, although she did also say this:

    (snip the rest of the steaming pile)


    You're still a liar and an idiot, not necessarily in that order.

    Not a single one of those references you cite says it's IMPOSSIBLE for trace organics to last more than 100K years. Every one says the same thing, that previous to this time the maximum KNOWN was 100K years.

    But you're a lying YEC, so I'm sure you'll keep pushing the same dishonest crap without a twinge of conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Poor Thorton, I know that you're an evolutionist and therefore have an aversion to the truth, but you're only hurting yourself by ignoring it, dear.

    Like I said before, when the facts contradict the evolutionary myth, change the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Poor Hardy, I know that you're a Creationist and therefore can't stop yourself from lying, but you're only hurting yourself by doing it, dear.

    H: Like I said before, when the facts contradict the evolutionary myth, change the facts.

    "It is impossible for organics last more than 100K years" was never claimed to be a fact by anyone in the scientific community. You're lying when you say that.

    Before this discovery, "the oldest trace organics known are 100K years old" was the fact.

    After this discovery "the oldest trace organics known are well over 100K years old" is a fact.

    Sorry that you're too dense to get that scientific understanding can change with new evidence. But that's your problem, not science's.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Hardy, yeah that Thorton's ace in the hole.

    In other words, "Catch me if you can!"

    This just in:

    "Evo-Devo' action hero Thorton was just seen in action again, dangling from a most precarious nano-thread of probability.

    Once again, our hero Thorton escapes unscathed to rescue Neo-Darwinism from the jaws of intelligent design.

    Hurray for humanity!!!"

    LOL!.

    Thorton: "Not a single one of those references you cite says it's IMPOSSIBLE for trace organics to last more than 100K years. Every one says the same thing, that previous to this time the maximum KNOWN was 100K years."

    Thorton: "Sorry that you're too dense to get that scientific understanding can change with new evidence."

    ReplyDelete
  161. by the way Hardy, keep up the good work. Never seen Thorton this bothered.

    His 'idiot!' and 'liar!' tantrums seems to increase dramatically in proportion with his level of hubris.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Unlike you Thorton, I produced the evidence for my claims. But then again, you're an evolutionist...you don't have any evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Steve said:

    Hardy, yeah that Thorton's ace in the hole.

    In other words, "Catch me if you can!"

    This just in:

    "Evo-Devo' action hero Thorton was just seen in action again, dangling from a most precarious nano-thread of probability.

    Once again, our hero Thorton escapes unscathed to rescue Neo-Darwinism from the jaws of intelligent design.

    Hurray for humanity!!!"

    LOL!.


    ROFL...you nailed him, Steve.

    Take care, mon ami

    ReplyDelete
  164. Yep, I freely admit that having YECs hand-wave away scientific evidence by claiming the scientists doing the research engaged in deliberate fraud gets me angry. People like hardy who engage in such actions are the lowest form of despicable scum. But other YECs like you won't call him on it, because to you the end goal of pushing your religion justifies the scurrilous and unfounded accusations. The term "Liar-for-Jesus" was coined just for folks like you.

    BTW Steve, feel free to add any scientific points to the discussion instead of standing on the sidelines fondling yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  165. hardy said...

    Unlike you Thorton, I produced the evidence for my claims..


    No, you didn't. You produce three quote that didn't support at all what you claimed, and tossed in a couple of stupid YEC PRATTs for good measure.

    The best summation of Creationism:

    "In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must." --William J. Bennetta, The Textbook Letters, 1996

    ReplyDelete
  166. hardy said...

    But then again, you're an evolutionist...you don't have any evidence.


    hardy, virtually every major college and university in the country offers undergrad courses in evolutionary biology. Many offer Masters and PhD programs.

    If there is no evidence for evolution, what do you suppose they teach in those evolution classes all semester? How to solve Sudoku?

    ReplyDelete
  167. You want quotes Thorton? Here's two quotes for you. The first is a response to your claim about colleges teaching evolutionary biology ( BTW, do you think that makes it true, simply because the majority preaches it?)

    In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.

    Jerry Coyne; Of Vice and Men The New Republic April 3 2000 p.27

    "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

    Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
    Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    Common ancestry evolution is a myth of smoke and mirrors...nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  168. hardy said...

    You want quotes Thorton? Here's two quotes for you. The first is a response to your claim about colleges teaching evolutionary biology ( BTW, do you think that makes it true, simply because the majority preaches it?)


    Oh boy! When backed into a corner and faced with overwhelming evidence he can't explain, you can always count on a creationist to whip out some mighty out-of-context quotes to save the day!

    Everyone knows that in Creto fantasyland one good quote-mind quote is worth a hundred peer-reviewed scientific papers!

    Dr. Jerry Coyne is a full professor of biology at the U. of Chicago and has also authored a best selling book entitled Why Evolution Is True. Tell me hardy, do you think Dr. Coyne agrees with you there's no evidence for the theory of evolution?

    Wolfgang Smith is a physicist and philosopher with zero training in the biological sciences. Why do you think his opinion on evolution carries any weight at all?

    BTW hardy, I didn't ask you if you though the teachings in all those undergrad and grad courses were true. I asked you to tell me what they teach that takes 4-8 years of dedicated study and research to become knowledgeable in. Well?

    ReplyDelete
  169. Thorton, I know Coyne is a darwiniac, that's what makes his quote more damning. His faith in the ability of blind, random chance to create miraculous life and then make it MORE complex by means of genetic MISTAKES, would make a muslim envious.

    As for Wolfgang Smith, I guaranetee he knows more about biology that darwin did...DNA hadn't even been discovered during darwin's time...yet you follow what he says.

    Now, since you don't seem too fond of Wolfgang Smith (he calls your bluff, no wonder you don't like him) care to tell us which scientist(s) moved darwin's fairytale from hypothetical to allegedly factual and what experiment they used to do so? Such a person would be worshipped more than dear old darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  170. hardy said...

    Thorton, I know Coyne is a darwiniac, that's what makes his quote more damning. His faith in the ability of blind, random chance to create miraculous life and then make it MORE complex by means of genetic MISTAKES, would make a muslim envious.


    LOL! Along with dishonest quote-mining, you can always count on an ignorant Creationist to start screaming about evolution working by MISTAKES and BLIND CHANCE, always leaving out the filtering effect of SELECTION in the environment on heritable traits. The clowns will never learn.

    As for Wolfgang Smith, I guaranetee he knows more about biology that darwin did...DNA hadn't even been discovered during darwin's time...yet you follow what he says.

    I 'follow' Darwin's ideas only with the broadest of concepts, the same way I 'follow' the Wright brothers every time I fly in a modern jet aircraft. I do both because both have been empirically demonstrated to be correct.

    Now, since you don't seem too fond of Wolfgang Smith (he calls your bluff, no wonder you don't like him) care to tell us which scientist(s) moved darwin's fairytale from hypothetical to allegedly factual and what experiment they used to do so? Such a person would be worshipped more than dear old darwin.

    That list would span 150+ years in dozens of scientific fields with hundreds of thousands of scientists and millions of experiments. Like I told Tedford, there isn't any one 'best' experiment to demonstrate ToE. It's the consilience of ALL the evidence that makes the theory so robust.

    Being a scientifically illiterate Creationist and being religiously indoctrinated that all 'TRUTH' is handed down from a single source, you wouldn't understand that though.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Thorton my dear, selection can only 'select' for what is present, it can't create complex genetic patterns no matter how much faith you place in it.

    That list would span 150+ years in dozens of scientific fields with hundreds of thousands of scientists and millions of experiments. Like I told Tedford, there isn't any one 'best' experiment to demonstrate ToE. It's the consilience of ALL the evidence that makes the theory so robust.

    That's because NONE exist. The myth of evolution is nothing but a faith-based world view built on smoke and mirrors, which is why your darwinian ilk can't allow it to be questioned or scrutinized, lest the smoke be blown away.

    ReplyDelete
  172. hardy said...

    Thorton my dear, selection can only 'select' for what is present, it can't create complex genetic patterns no matter how much faith you place in it.


    Random genetic changes by themselves can't create.

    Selection by itself can't create

    But the process of random genetic changes filtered by selection and used for each subsequent generation can create amazingly complex things.

    Why are you so stupid you can mention one, or the other, but never both halves of the process at the same time?

    That's because NONE exist.

    LOL! Tell that to the thousands of college, university, and professional research labs that provide new scientific evidence every day. Tell that to the natural science museums where you can see the evidence first hand. Tell that to the scientific journals that publish hundreds of new articles with evidence every week and who keep millions of archived research papers readily accessible online to anyone who cares to look.

    But do keep your head firmly buried in the sand. After all, if you can't see that scary reality then the scary reality can't hurt you, right?

    ReplyDelete
  173. thorton,

    You continue to make an argument from authority and an argument from labor.

    Circumstantial evidence is no substitute for hard evidence. Like Joe G keeps challenging, just provide one piece of solid evidence that shows NS acting on variation building anything.

    On the contrary, NS acting on variation has only provided genomic stability (at a cost) but certainly no genomic transformations.

    Why do YOU keep doing the ostrich routine when faced with the evidence?

    The construction site locked its doors long ago. It's a repair/maintenance shop now.

    BTW, the shop is not offering any discounts at this time. In fact, it charges a premium for its services. And there is no warranty. Pay up front and no refunds, but exchanges will be considered based on the severity of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Steve: Like Joe G keeps challenging, just provide one piece of solid evidence that shows NS acting on variation building anything.

    We have many observations of natural selection, but if you want to consider the broad historical changes, then we have to establish the history of those changes; and that means the nested hierarchy, Common Descent, and the succession of fossils.

    Do you understand that the leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem?

    ReplyDelete
  175. Steve said...

    Circumstantial evidence is no substitute for hard evidence. Like Joe G keeps challenging, just provide one piece of solid evidence that shows NS acting on variation building anything.


    Easy.

    Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish
    Seehausen et al
    Nature, 455, 620-626 (2 October 2008)

    Abstract: Theoretically, divergent selection on sensory systems can cause speciation through sensory drive. However, empirical evidence is rare and incomplete. Here we demonstrate sensory drive speciation within island populations of cichlid fish. We identify the ecological and molecular basis of divergent evolution in the cichlid visual system, demonstrate associated divergence in male colouration and female preferences, and show subsequent differentiation at neutral loci, indicating reproductive isolation. Evidence is replicated in several pairs of sympatric populations and species. Variation in the slope of the environmental gradients explains variation in the progress towards speciation: speciation occurs on all but the steepest gradients. This is the most complete demonstration so far of speciation through sensory drive without geographical isolation. Our results also provide a mechanistic explanation for the collapse of cichlid fish species diversity during the anthropogenic eutrophication of Lake Victoria.

    From the paper:

    "Lake Victoria is spatially highly heterogeneous in water clarity and ambient light7, and there is much evidence that the cichlid visual system has been under strong diversifying selection during the adaptive radiation of cichlids into several hundred species in Lake Victoria"

    So we have natural selection producing multiple different species by building different genomes. These different genomes produce different coloring, different habitats, different behavioral patterns. Of course you'll now do your stupid Creationist yell "but they're still fish!!! I want to see evolution make a cow grow wings!!"

    You may now go back to your corner and resume your self-fondling.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Thorton said:

    Random genetic changes by themselves can't create.

    Selection by itself can't create

    But the process of random genetic changes filtered by selection and used for each subsequent generation can create amazingly complex things.


    Really? My, what great faith you have. Of course, you do realize you didn't solve the problem, don't you? You're claiming that by means of genetic mistakes, something better can come about...we all know how much better mistakes make things. ;-)

    Also, since most functions in the cell require multiple proteins, simply changing one protein will not usually lead to some brand new function that would allow the organism to be selected for preferentially in a given environment.

    Therefore, if by some miracle a protein for a certain trait was created (by mistake,) we would then have to believe that this protein was retained without the benefit of natural selection while waiting for the other proteins required for that certain trait, to be created AGAIN by mistake. I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

    LOL! Tell that to the thousands of college, university, and professional research labs that provide new scientific evidence every day.

    Such as?

    BTW, I want 'evidence' that doesn't first require that I ASSUME common ancestry evolution is true.

    Can't wait to see this alleged 'evidence' ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  177. hardy said...

    Thorton said:

    Random genetic changes by themselves can't create.

    Selection by itself can't create

    But the process of random genetic changes filtered by selection and used for each subsequent generation can create amazingly complex things.

    Really? My, what great faith you have. Of course, you do realize you didn't solve the problem, don't you? You're claiming that by means of genetic mistakes, something better can come about...we all know how much better mistakes make things.


    Sorry hardy but your pitiful scientific ignorance is showing again. In biology mutations aren't mistakes. 'Mistake' implies a harmful result different from a pre-conceived 'correct' result. Evolution has no pre-conceived plan, all it has is copying with variation. Most genetic variations are neutral, some are deleterious, but some are beneficial to the possessor. And wouldn't you know it, over many generations the harmful ones tend to get selected out while the beneficial ones tend to accumulate.

    You can use the unscientific term 'lucky' for the beneficial mutations if you like, but you'll just make yourself look even more foolish.

    BTW, I want 'evidence' that doesn't first require that I ASSUME common ancestry evolution is true.

    None of the evidence assumes common ancestry. That common descent is correct is the most parsimonious conclusion from the consilience of all the evidence.

    I bet your local community college offers a course in Biology 101. You should take one so you won't make such dumb claims.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Thorton said: In biology mutations aren't mistakes. 'Mistake' implies a harmful result different from a pre-conceived 'correct' result. Evolution has no pre-conceived plan, all it has is copying with variation. Most genetic variations are neutral, some are deleterious, but some are beneficial to the possessor. And wouldn't you know it, over many generations the harmful ones tend to get selected out while the beneficial ones tend to accumulate.

    Oh man, you are too funny Thorton! A mutation is a genetic mistake...I know it hurts you to realize that because it makes it much more difficult to have faith in your evolutionary myth, but its true. What do you think happens when a cell divides and a copying error (MUTATION)is made?

    Thank GOD we have the DNA repair mechanism in place to check most of the mutations, otherwise we would not survive. BTW, do you think the DNA repair mechanism came about by pure random chance as well? Puh-lease.

    None of the evidence assumes common ancestry. That common descent is correct is the most parsimonious conclusion from the consilience of all the evidence.

    SO I take it you can't produce any evidence that doesn't first require I assume your evolutionary myth to be true? Your faith is admirable, but misplaced. No wonder Dr Hunter always says: "religion drives science, and it matters"

    ReplyDelete
  179. hardy said...

    Thorton said: In biology mutations aren't mistakes. 'Mistake' implies a harmful result different from a pre-conceived 'correct' result. Evolution has no pre-conceived plan, all it has is copying with variation."

    Oh man, you are too funny Thorton!


    LOL! Not half as funny as boneheaded Creationists like you and Tedford and Eocene and Fondler Steve who keep making the same sad arguments from ignorance. When will you be telling me what all those major colleges and universities teach in their evolution undergrad and grad courses?

    Thank GOD we have the DNA repair mechanism in place to check most of the mutations, otherwise we would not survive. BTW, do you think the DNA repair mechanism came about by pure random chance as well? Puh-lease.

    That's what the evidence shows, not that you'll actually bother to read and learn anything. Might hurt your closed Fundy brain.

    Mechanisms and functions of DNA mismatch repair
    Guo-Min Li
    Cell Research (2008) 18:85–98

    Abstract: DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is a highly conserved biological pathway that plays a key role in maintaining genomic stability. The specificity of MMR is primarily for base-base mismatches and insertion/deletion mispairs generated during DNA replication and recombination. MMR also suppresses homeologous recombination and was recently shown to play a role in DNA damage signaling in eukaryotic cells. Escherichia coli MutS and MutL and their eukaryotic homologs, MutSα and MutLα, respectively, are key players in MMR-associated genome maintenance. Many other protein components that participate in various DNA metabolic pathways, such as PCNA and RPA, are also essential for MMR. Defects in MMR are associated with genome-wide instability, predisposition to certain types of cancer including hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, resistance to certain chemotherapeutic agents, and abnormalities in meiosis and sterility in mammalian systems.

    100% repair = no genetic diversity, no adaptability.

    No repair = evolutionary fitness level lowered too much, lower rate of survival.

    Cells have evolved the ability to do *some* DNA repair at a level that balances adaptability with survivability.

    SO I take it you can't produce any evidence that doesn't first require I assume your evolutionary myth to be true?

    That's not what I said at all, but I fully expect you to put a dishonest Creationist spin on everything. What about the paper I linked to on cichlid evolution? You and Fondler Steve sure shut up quick when I presented it. Why don't you read the paper, then tell me what the authors got wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Check out Thumpin' Thorton at it again. How many lines in between has he read into his latest abstract?

    LOL. No wonder evolution can do anything. We have Thorton interpreting the Word of Evolution. Get this, even when the WoE is not there!

    The world needs you Thumpin. Help us to understand the sublime capabilities of evolution. It is so hard for us to comprehend when the genome knows it needs to repair itself to say maybe 80~90%, leaving some repairs unmended for NS, and when it rolls up the garage door for most of the day except maybe just before sunset just to make sure the local economy does die.

    Reverend Thumpin', we humbly thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Dr. Hunter, please confirm you back up your server. I want to make sure all posts are saved.

    Thumpin's last post is a keeper.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Oh, by the way Thumpin', your article on Cichlids is quite interesting.

    And yes, you are right. Cichlid fish speciation is not contested by ID. It's within its genomic range of variation. But that's not what you mean, right?

    What new function, what new appendage, what new system has the Cichlid fish created? Is a tweak in its vision system a new function IYO? Are new colored spots new appendages? Does it now have two stomachs?

    Ready for the interpretation, Rev.

    Go!

    ReplyDelete
  183. Thorton dear, I already stated we had DNA repair, please pay closer attention when reading a post before you respond to it....you'll look a LITTLE less foolish. The issue at hand is whether one chooses to believe such a complex repair mechanism came about by pure random chance....I just don't have enough FAITH to believe that.

    BTW, which allegedly came first Thorton...DNA or DNA repair?

    As for your alleged 'evidence', it fits the Creation or I.D models perfectly. Is it molecule to man evolution or variation within a kind?

    Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells:

    Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

    ...
    "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..."


    Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED

    Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis
    http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/

    Where's the alleged evidence for common ancestry that DOESN'T require I first assume it to be true???

    ReplyDelete
  184. Steve: What new function, what new appendage, what new system

    An excellent example is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear from reptilian jaw bones. It demonstrates cooption, irreducible complexity and selectable improvement in function. We have support from fossils, embryos and genetics.

    ReplyDelete
  185. LOL!

    Fondler Steve demands evidence for evolution, I provided exactly what he asked for and predicted

    T: " Of course you'll now do your stupid Creationist yell "but they're still fish!!! I want to see evolution make a cow grow wings!!"

    So what does the Fondler do...?

    Fondler Steve said...

    What new function, what new appendage, what new system has the Cichlid fish created? Is a tweak in its vision system a new function IYO? Are new colored spots new appendages? Does it now have two stomachs?


    Your ignorant YEC clown script is way too predictable. Get a new writer.

    ReplyDelete
  186. hardy said...As for your alleged 'evidence', it fits the Creation or I.D models perfectly. Is it molecule to man evolution or variation within a kind?

    Please provide a scientific definition of 'kind'. Please list the number of 'kinds'. Please define the criteria for deciding what 'kind' an animal is. Please explain the magic barrier that limits evolution in 'kinds'.

    Where's the alleged evidence for common ancestry that DOESN'T require I first assume it to be true???

    This is where it gets frustrating dealing with you clowns you are too lazy / afraid / dumb to learn anything at all about the theory you're attacking.

    I'll try again with an analogy to explain why your question makes no sense.

    The theory of evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle with millions of pieces. Darwin was the first 150 years ago to put together enough of the pieces to detect the overall picture - the real history of life on Earth. In the following 150 years scientists from dozens of disciplines have been busy putting together much more of the picture than Darwin's original framework. New pieces are still being found, but so far they all still fit in one consilient picture. While there are still the occasional missing pieces and small gaps in the details, enough of the whole picture is known to remove any scientific doubt that the picture shows evolution by common descent over the last 3.3+ billion years.

    Now you clowns come along and want science to only look at each piece of the puzzle completely separately, with no regard for how it fits with the other million pieces or what the other pieces show. You want to take each discovery to another room and demand science now show you the whole puzzle picture based on that one single piece.

    If you want to not get laughed at by the scientifically knowledgeable (and that's all that happens on this little backwater blog I assure you), get an education. With all the scientific info on the internet readily available there is no excuse for remaining as dirt ignorant as you are.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Look who's talking. Please do the same for species and genus and family, etc. What is the criteria used to determine when something is the same species, family, genus, etc?

    This is where it gets frustrating dealing with you clowns you are too lazy / afraid / dumb to learn anything at all about the theory you're attacking.

    In other words, you can't produce any empirical evidence of common ancestry evolution. What a surprise. What you fail to realize dear little Thorton, is that you are placing your FAITH in what you BELIEVE happened. Unless you were there (or have a time machine,) you have nothing to support your darwinian myth....but you have your FAITH.

    ReplyDelete
  188. hardy: What is the criteria used to determine when something is the same species, family, genus, etc?

    Species are populations that maintain their genetic distinctiveness, but as Darwin knew, the boundaries between species and varieties can be chaotic.

    Family and genus are levels of classification that are formed for convenience. A clade is the more technical biological grouping, being based on common ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  189. hardy said...

    T: "This is where it gets frustrating dealing with you clowns who are too lazy / afraid / dumb to learn anything at all about the theory you're attacking."

    In other words, you can't produce any empirical evidence of common ancestry evolution.


    The observed pattern of endogenous retroviruses are empirical evidence of common ancestry evolution.

    Genomewide screening for fusogenic human endogenous retrovirus envelopes identifies syncytin 2, a gene conserved on primate evolution
    Blaise et al
    PNAS October 28, 2003 vol. 100 no. 22

    Abstract: Screening human sequence databases for endogenous retroviral elements with coding envelope genes has revealed 16 candidate genes that we assayed for their fusogenic properties. All 16 genes were cloned in a eukaryotic expression vector and assayed for cell–cell fusion by using a large panel of mammalian cells in transient transfection assays. Fusion was observed for two human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) envelopes, the previously characterized HERV-W envelope, also called syncytin, and a previously uncharacterized gene from the HERV-FRD family. Cells prone to env-mediated fusion were different for the two envelopes, indicating different receptor usage. A search for the FRDenv gene in primates indicated that the corresponding proviral element is present in all simians, from New World monkeys to humans, being absent only in prosimians. Cloning of the corresponding env genes in simians disclosed conservation of the fully coding status of the gene, and most remarkably, conservation of its fusogenic property. Finally, a Northern blot analysis for the expression of the FRD family among a series of human tissues demonstrated specific expression in the placenta, as previously demonstrated for the other fusogenic human envelope of the HERV-W family. Altogether, the present data have identified a previously uncharacterized envelope (that we propose to name syncytin 2 after renaming syncytin as syncytin 1) with a potential role in placenta formation, and the identification of the complete set of retroviral envelopes with fusogenic properties now allows a definite analysis of the possible role of HERV in this physiological process, via classical genetic approaches.

    Please read the paper, tell me specifically what the researchers got wrong.

    ERV phylogenetic relationship diagram

    I assume you enjoy having people laugh at your ignorance, since you are so keen on continually demonstrating it.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Once again Thorton, you're showing your ignorance. Using a retrovirus as an example of common ancestry evolution ASSUMES that it has no purpose...when just the opposite has been shown.
    Obviously, if it serves a function, then it's evidence it was placed there for a reason.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911233630.htm

    Much like alleged vestigial organs and alleged junk DNA, retroviruses are making monkeys out of evolutionists. Pardon the pun ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  191. hardy said...

    Once again Thorton, you're showing your ignorance. Using a retrovirus as an example of common ancestry evolution ASSUMES that it has no purpose


    No it doesn't. It's not the function / non function that matters, it's the patterns of distribution that form a nested hierarchy.

    If you think the function matters, then show me where the same sheep enJSRV had the same function in multiple other species. Show me where the human HERV-FRD retrovirus investigated in the paper in provided has not only a function, but the same function across all its common primate possessors.

    Feel free to offer a meaningful explanation for the observed hierarchical pattern. "The Designer works in mysterious way" doesn't quality.

    I bet you were too lazy to even read the ERV paper. You're a Creationist so you already learned all the science you need from the Bible, right?

    ReplyDelete
  192. Like I said, you're showing your ignorance Thorton. Did you learn nothing from the fiasco
    your fellow darwiniacs caused by claiming most of our genome was junk? Or that we had approx 180
    vestigial organs? Like I said, you can't ASSUME there is no function for a retrovirus especially when we have seen that certain retroviruses are REQUIRED.

    Try again, Thorton. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  193. hardy said...

    Like I said, you're showing your ignorance Thorton. Did you learn nothing from the fiasco your fellow darwiniacs caused by claiming most of our genome was junk? Or that we had approx 180 vestigial organs? Like I said, you can't ASSUME there is no function for a retrovirus especially when we have seen that certain retroviruses are REQUIRED.


    The ERV evidence for common descent doesn't assume or require ERVs have no function. The distribution pattern that forms a clear nested hierarchy that arises through common descent is still there.

    Since you've been too slow to understand any of the other facets of evolutionary theory you've seen presented, and too lazy to read the technical papers, I suppose that comes as no surprise.

    BTW hardy, since you seem to be woefully ignorant on human anatomy too, we do have roughly 180 vestigial features. Vestigial doesn't mean useless, it means having lost or decreased its original function. A feature can have a function and still be vestigial.

    Keep spouting the stupid 'facts' you get from Creationist websites and you'll keep looking like a moron. The choice is yours.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Steve: What new function, what new appendage, what new system...

    Zachriel: An excellent example is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear from reptilian jaw bones. It demonstrates cooption, irreducible complexity and selectable improvement in function. We have support from fossils, embryos and genetics.

    Zach, are the cichlid's reproductive habits evidence of cooption, irreducible complexity and selective improvement in function?

    Here's a key take-away. In an interview with Ole Seehausen, he mentions that his research showed evidence of (in his words) speciation as well as reverse speciation in cichlid populations. (I found this interview in lieu of the original article, which unfortunately is behind a paywall)

    http://sciencewatch.com/dr/fmf/2010/10marfmf/10marfmfSeeh/).

    In other words, he is confirming what an earlier article mentions about cichlid reproduction where it shows evidence that cichlid reproductive behavior is not after all that isolated and depends on water conditions. So no definitive speciation taking place.

    http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/fishec/publikationen/pub%2006/2006_maan_ole_american_naturalist.pdf

    So it seems there is a continuation of the equivocation on the definition and evidence of species in addition to a continued struggle to pin down a hedge-free definition of speciation.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Steve: are the cichlid's reproductive habits evidence of cooption, irreducible complexity and selective improvement in function?

    The study concerns species divergence, not adaptation.

    Steve: So no definitive speciation taking place.

    If by speciation, you mean permanent reproductive isolation, that usually happens only over very long time scales. However, the study does show 'microspeciation'. Darwin discusses this way back in 1859, "sterility various in degree".

    Keep in mind that Darwin couldn't directly observe microevolution or microspeciation. He observed the evidence of macroevolution and various degrees of reproductive isolation. He *predicted* microevolution and microspeciation, and these observations are confirmations of the latter.

    Steve: So it seems there is a continuation of the equivocation on the definition and evidence of species in addition to a continued struggle to pin down a hedge-free definition of speciation.

    There can't be a precise definition of species. That's because the boundaries of a species are not always well-defined. Biologists generally consider a population that maintains distinctive characteristics to be a species, a result of reproductive isolation. This isolation can have a number of reasons; behavioral, physical, genomic, etc. But reproductive isolation is not always complete or absolute.

    A horse and a donkey can interbreed and produce offspring (mule or hinny), but the offspring are often sterile due to genomic incompatibility. Birds frequently hybridize, but still maintain distinctive species because of an array of behavioral characteristics, such as birdsong.

    This tenuous boundary between species is crucial evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Darwin's Origin of Species includes an entire chapter on hybridization.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Hey Fondler Steve, here is your original challenge, remember?

    Fondler Steve said...

    Circumstantial evidence is no substitute for hard evidence. Like Joe G keeps challenging, just provide one piece of solid evidence that shows NS acting on variation building anything.


    Nothimg abut building few organs, or IC structures.

    The cichlid paper shows exactly what you asked for. All you're doing now is getting out your Creto issued rocket powered goal posts and moving them as fast as you can.

    BTW, the paper showed actual evolution of the LWS opsin gene for color recognition that went along with the evolution of color patters accompaning the depth segregation between diverging populations. So yes, the paper did indeed show selective improvement in function.

    Go back to playing pocket pool.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Fondler Steve said...

    I found this interview in lieu of the original article, which unfortunately is behind a paywall


    LOL! That's another thing that makes you wacky Creationists so precious. You didn't actually read the paper, but you just know the paper is wrong.

    Tell us Steve - this psychic ability you have to know what things say without actually reading them, was it a gift from God?

    ReplyDelete
  198. Thorton, are you thick child? You're ASSUMING the ervs have/had no beneficial function. We've already seen evidence that they do.


    As for the phylogeny, humans and chimps are supposed to be more closely related than chimps and gorillas...and yet:

    We identified a human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) provirus that is present at the orthologous position in the gorilla and chimpanzee genomes, but not in the human genome. Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus. These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11378389

    Also, portions of ERVs known as CERV 2 and CERV 1 elements are present in chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla (non-orthologous) but are absent in human, orangutan, old world monkeys, new world monkeys.

    Polavarapu N, Bowen NJ, McDonald JF. Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses. Genome Biol. 2006;7(6):R51.

    SO basically Thorton, ervs show common ancestry, except when they don't. That's quite a 'scientific theory' you got there. <---sarcasm

    ReplyDelete