Multiplying Entities
When young damsel fish (
Pomacentrus amboinensis) are in danger their eyes shrink while they grow false eyespots on their tail to fool their predators. They also undergo other morphological and behavior changes to escape attack.
Research out of Australia not only elucidated these tactics but demonstrated that they work, increasing the survival rate of the young fish by an amazing five-fold. And while the researchers
had to admit that all of this was “an amazing feat of cunning for a tiny fish,” they nonetheless ignored Occam’s advice and multiplied entities when they added nothing to the science by ascribing it all to random chance (No natural selection does not induce the good mutations to occur, it merely kills off the bad ones—every mutation leading up to the damsel and its “amazing” capabilities must be random with respect to need. Selection doesn’t magically make fantastic designs appear.):
It all goes to show that even a very young, tiny fish a few millimetres long have evolved quite a range of clever strategies for survival which they can deploy when a threatening situation demands.
It all goes to show? In fact, to be a bit more precise,
none of it shows the damsel evolved. That’s right, even though the evolutionists claim that “it all goes to show” that the clever strategies evolved, from an empirical science perspective, none of the evidence shows any such thing.
All versus none—that’s quite a gap between evolutionary thought and science. As usual evolution is the contra indicator. It abuses science, turning it upside down to support its preconceived, mandated result.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Cornelius.
ReplyDeleteI think you're quite right to point out their assertion these fishes have "evolved" all these strategies stem from their Darwinian presuppositions and not from an objective look at the evidence.
But ID proponents have the burden of proof to show that these fishes could NOT have evolved these features.
Due to the enormous time span involved here, I don't see how a creationist can achieve this.
Friendly greetings from Germany.
Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com
Cornelius Goebbels
ReplyDeleteIt all goes to show? In fact, to be a bit more precise, none of it shows the damsel evolved.
You're right Herr Cornelius. This one individual paper doesn't show all the evidence for evolution. You'd have to read the rest of the millions of scientific papers in hundreds of scientific disciplines published in the last 150 years to see all of the evidence.
I'm not following the "logic" of your post.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you start out by explaining how the knowledge of how to build the biological adaptations in Damsel fish was created, then point out how evolution doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific.
Oh, that's right. You think that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources. As such, this knowledge wasn't created and it couldn't have come from a non-authorative source, such as Darwinism.
IOW, no explanation is possible, in practice, because of your specific epistemological view on the origin of biological knowledge in an organism's genome.
Of course, if I'm mistaken, then please point out exactly where I got it wrong by disclosing what your epistemological view actually is. Again, please be specific.
Cornelius, if you're really interested in presetting genuine criticism...
ReplyDeleteClaim: Evolutionary theory isn't science but religion.
But, as I've pointed out to Jeff, this commits the Tu quoque fallacy unless you actually step up and disclose what you mean by science, why it's not possible to criticize the religious claims of others, etc.
- Knowledge grows through theory of epistemology V
- in V, science is demarcated by philosophy of science W with methodology X
- In X the role of evidence is Y
- Evidence consists of information, which is defined as Z
Therefore, evolution isn't science.
And that just half of the claim.
- The criteria for a religious claim is X
- Criticism of religious clams are differentiated from actually making religions claims themselves by criteria Y.
- When religious people make claims about biological origins, responses to these claims by "evolutionists" are not a criticism of those claims because they do not not meet the criteria of Y.
Therefore not only is evolution not science, but religious as well.
In the absence of these definitions, you argument boils down to "if ID/creationism isn't "science" then neither is evolution", which is a text book example of the Tu quoque fallacy.
But you haven't even explcity make that claim either. Rather you merely keep implying it when you quote biblical verses about "wisdom" and act as if science wouldn't give evolutionary theory the time of day unless the idea of some authoritative source of knowledge poofing the biosphere we observe into existence didn't conflict with our deep seated religious beliefs about God. But this assumes that we actually have deep seated religious beliefs about God.
Apparently, you believe this because you supposedly know he exists and the Bible says we all know he exists as well, but just deny it. Otherwise, what else do you expect us to conclude other than the above? Why is it impossible to criticize the religious beliefs of others? And, if it's not impossible, then how do you difference between the two? Again, please be specific.
IOW, if you don't take your own objections seriously, then it's unclear why anyone else should either. All you're left with is a text book example of the Tu quoque fallacy.
The Design Team must have had a fondness for damsel fish. But what did they have against their predators?
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming human reasoning and problem solving is applicable in the case of the design team. However, according to Cornelius, apparently that's not the case.
DeleteDespite being based on human designers, apparently the design team is "too weird" for conventional logic to be applicable. As such, saying that the designer had a fondness, or lack there of, cannot be used to make progress regarding specific adoptions we observe in the biosphere.
But one could also claim that dinosaurs are "too weird" as well. Therefore, conventional logic isn't applicable either in this case either. As such, we cannot make progress in explaining specific fossils.
Both are examples of a generic strategy to deny anything one finds personally objectionable.
I like damsel fish, I don't like puffer fish.
ReplyDelete:D
(I didn't start this, Velik)
You can like whoever you want, that is the point. Just allow others, the same courtesy. Simple.
DeleteThe whole thing sounds fishy to me.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly did this system in damsel fish evolve? You need a system to detect predators. You need a way to make the eye smaller, and the eye-spot bigger. You need a method to connect the two. How did it happen?
ReplyDeleteIt must have been MAGIC bigot. Now go back to burning your crosses.
DeleteYou seem to be a really nasty person Thorton.
DeleteAnything about evolutionary biology you wish to discuss Mr. bpragmatic's latest sockpuppet
DeleteJust curious, why do you think that?
Nat,
DeleteHow exactly did this system in damsel fish evolve
I think that is what they are trying to find out. What is your exact explanation? Or you just " know " it is more likely?
I've read the paper. The word evolution appears only three times, as a passing reference that assumes, as Dr Hunter correctly noted, the truth of evolution. The thrust of the paper is to demonstrate the ecological impact of this adaptation in damsel fish, not to support the theory of evolution, as Dr Hunter wrongly claimed. As he often does, he took an interesting finding and fed it into his confirmation bias against the idea of evolution.
DeleteWhether the authors or other investigators will weigh in on the evolutionary history of the adaptation remains to be seen.
RVW:
ReplyDeleteIt's like this. Thorton doesn't have an answer, so he resorts to insults like any true believer in a faith based system.
Vel responded above. You keep on responding with insults and such, bu no arguments.
ReplyDeleteThorton:
DeleteI understand. You can't address my points, so you resort to insults.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
Deleteblah blah blah
same Creationist trolling stupidity
blah blah blah
Points and laughs.
Bernard, that's very rude. Say your sorry, or I'm moving your clip down.
DeleteOh, Thorton, it's you. Sorry. I thought was back teaching my learning disabled, socially/emotionally deficient first graders for a minute.
I understand that there is a species of snail that develops a thicker shell in the presence of predatory crabs. There is also a type of barnacle that grows in a different shape in the presence of predators. How did all these complex systems evolve?
ReplyDeletenatschuster,
DeleteLet's say, for the sake of discussion, that nobody knows the answers to your questions at this point in time. How would this undermine the theory of evolution? Is there something that prevents answers from being obtained in the future?
If you want to undermine evolution, you have to come up with a theory that does a better job of making testable predictions.
Nat: How did all these complex systems evolve?
DeleteYou're question is unnecessarily vague.
Evolutionary theory represents a universal theory. IOW, it is thought to work the same way everywhere in a universal way. The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is Darwinism. In the case of the Earth's biosphere, this refers to biological Darwinism: biological complexity emerges though genetic variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve, and natural selection.
You can think of this as walking in bipedal species is a universal, since it works the same way everywhere, including in locations that it never evolved to solve, such as on other planets or in deep sea diving suits on the bottom of an ocean.
We may not know exactly what steps someone took, or exactly when they traveled by boat instead, to move from point A to point B, but that's not necessary to use the universal theory of walking as part of the explanation as to how Lewis and Clark could have traveled from St. Louis to the Pacific coast.
Guys:
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression that Darwin himself wrote that of we find something in an organism, the origin of which can't be explained by a process of incremental steps then that would undermine evolution.
Pedant:
Why do I need a better theory before undermining evolution? And IMHO design does pretty good job predicting stuff, e.g. the adaptation in the little fish mentioned above.
Scott:
Are you saying that it isn't necessarily Darwinism that resulted in the adaptation in the little fish? Could it be design?
Nat: I was under the impression that Darwin himself wrote that of we find something in an organism, the origin of which can't be explained by a process of incremental steps then that would undermine evolution.
DeleteFirst, other people understand Darwin's theory than Darwin did himself; just as other people understand Einstein's theory of GR better than Einstein did himself. IOW, It's the contents of a theory that matter, not its source or prediction they made in the past.
Second, currently not having an explanation for a specific instance doesn't mean no explanation is possible. Evidence isn't scarce - there is plenty of it. Rather, what's scarce is hard to vary explanations for that evidence. When start out knowing that explanations start out as guesses, rather than being derived from observations, you do not expect to aways have explanations for observations regardless of how much evidence there is.
Nat: Why do I need a better theory before undermining evolution?
Because, any observation that might indicate evolution is mistaken might itself be mistaken. Without an better explanation for those same observations, it's unclear which part to falsify: Darwinism or the supposed falsification.
For example, take the supposed observation of faster than light neutrinos from the OPERA project. These observations did not immediately falsify GR because, at the time, no one had a better explanation as to why neutrinos were traveling faster in the OPERA experiment, but not in other experiments. Ends up, the falsification was mistaken because the results were due to a loose fiber optic cable and improperly operating timer. This explains the differences between the speed of neutrinos the OPERA experiment and other experiments. Had some better explanation been presented to explain why neutrinos actually were traveling faster in the case of the OPERA experiment, it would have been a better explanation for those same observations than GR.
Nat: And IMHO design does pretty good job predicting stuff, e.g. the adaptation in the little fish mentioned above.
Design accepts the same observations, but merely claims that the best explanation for those observations is false. It doesn't actually add anything or provide a better explanation because it doesn't explain how the designer knew how to do it, how the designer did it, when they did it, etc. "That's just what the designer must have wanted" does't predict anything in particular because the designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. Such as designer could have wanted to create the universe we observe 30 second ago, including the appearance of age, false memories, etc.
Nat: Are you saying that it isn't necessarily Darwinism that resulted in the adaptation in the little fish? Could it be design?
Are Dinosaurs *the* explanation for fossils?
natschuster,
ReplyDeletePlease answer the question I put to you:
Is there something that prevents scientists from answering questions about the evolutionary history of adaptations?
Why do I need a better theory before undermining evolution?
Because that's how science works. How could you not know that?
And IMHO design does pretty good job predicting stuff, e.g. the adaptation in the little fish mentioned above.
When did "design" predict anything, let alone anything testable?
Excuse me, but you seem to be exceptionally clueless. I'm starting to think that you are not sincere...
Pedant
DeleteExcuse me, but you seem to be exceptionally clueless. I'm starting to think that you are not sincere...
He's not. The ass has been doing the same idiot trolling routine for years now. His two shining moments are when (as a teacher) he bragged about skipping lessons on evolution in his student's books, and when he went on a spittle flying rant against those evil sinner gays and how they all should be locked up.
Guy's a real piece of work. Liar, bigot, Creationist troll.
Guys:
DeleteDarwinism is a mechanism. If that mechanism cannot explain something like the adaptation above, then it, by definition is not a goode explanation. The fact that we don't have another explanation is irrelevant.
And, when I said that Design has good predictive powers, I meant that, if life was designed, we should expect to see in life characteristics of designed things, like functional integration of parts, like the adaptation above, highly specified complexity, like the adaptation above, etc. etc.
Thorton:
DeleteI don't recall saying homosexuals should be locked up.
Look, if you don't have answer, it's okay to admit you don't have an answer.
Nat,
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression that Darwin himself wrote that of we find something in an organism, the origin of which can't be explained by a process of incremental steps then that would undermine evolution.
Then go ahead, prove evolution by incremental steps cannot produce the damsel fish. Compute the CSI or something.
Why do I need a better theory before undermining evolution?
For something to be a better explanation it must exist.
And IMHO design does pretty good job predicting stuff, e.g. the adaptation in the little fish mentioned above.
How does design do that predicting? Lots of little fish don't have the same mechanism, does that falsify design?
Vel:
Delete"Then go ahead, prove evolution by incremental steps cannot produce the damsel fish. Compute the CSI or something."
For the system to work, you need at least three parts, a predator detection system, something to make the eyes smaller, something to make the eyespot bigger, and something to connect them. Unless all the parts are there, it doesn't confer any survival benefit, which is what Darwinism is all about. This is, f course an oversimplification. Each part s, in all probability, extremely complex, with all kinds of biochemical pathways and such. Yuo ned lots and lots of parts for it to work right.
""Why do I need a better theory before undermining evolution?"
For something to be a better explanation it must exist."
Why do I need a better explanation, or ay other explanation, if Darwinism is not adequate.
""And IMHO design does pretty good job predicting stuff, e.g. the adaptation in the little fish mentioned above."
How does design do that predicting? Lots of little fish don't have the same mechanism, does that falsify design?"
Not everything that is designed has things that are characteristics of designed things only.
Nat,
DeleteFor the system to work, you need at least three parts, a predator detection system,something to make the eyes smaller, something to make the eyespot bigger, and something to connect them.
A predator detection system is always valuable. So what controls the other parts? You need to understand the underlying mechanism before you can possibly say incremental change cannot form it.
Unless all the parts are there, it doesn't confer any survival benefit,
Prove it.
This is, f course an oversimplification. Each part s, in all probability, extremely complex, with all kinds of biochemical pathways and such.
So without any actual knowledge, you know it is too complex to evolve.
For something to be a better explanation it must exist."
Why do I need a better explanation, or ay other explanation, if Darwinism is not adequate.
Because you have not proved it inadequate,you only claim it is inadequate. Your theory if you ever actually present it may be more inadequate.
Not everything that is designed has things that are characteristics of designed things only.
How do you know that?
natschuster August 23, 2013 at 4:00 PM
ReplyDeleteGuys:
I was under the impression that Darwin himself wrote that of we find something in an organism, the origin of which can't be explained by a process of incremental steps then that would undermine evolution.
Something like that. What did you have in mind? Remember that 'not explained yet' doesn't mean the same as 'can't be explained.
Why do I need a better theory before undermining evolution?
How else are you going to show evolution is wrong?
And IMHO design does pretty good job predicting stuff, e.g. the adaptation in the little fish mentioned above.
I don't remember anything from any design theorist about fish with fake eyes on their tails. Do you have a reference?
Are you saying that it isn't necessarily Darwinism that resulted in the adaptation in the little fish? Could it be design?
I could be a lot of things. Why should it be design?
IHS:
DeleteIF we have a mechanism that won't work to explain something then it can't explain it, by definition.
And if we show that evolution can't explain something then that undermines evolution, by definition. We don't need another explanation. It just leaves us with no explanation.
Design might nit predict eyespots specifically, but neither does evolution. Design predicts that organisms will have characteristics of designed things.
natschusterAugust 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM
DeleteIHS:
IF we have a mechanism that won't work to explain something then it can't explain it, by definition.
Yes, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet. All you have are expressions of disbelief and estimates of probability. Arguments from incredulity are not evidence, neither are calculations of probability if they are based on unfounded assumptions.
And if we show that evolution can't explain something then that undermines evolution, by definition. We don't need another explanation. It just leaves us with no explanation.
No, to fatally undermine an existing theory you actually have to present a replacement which demonstrably explains things better than the original. Otherwise you have a flawed theory which might yet be repaired by being tweaked further or patched up with addition ancillary hypotheses.
In the case of evolution, there are demonstrated processes which could, given sufficient time, account for the living things we observe. Can we use the theory to describe the exact pathway or trajectory from inanimate matter to a specific organism? No, of course not. But no theory in any field can explain phenomena with that degree of detail so that failing is not unique to evolution. A lack of resolution is not the same as a lack of explanation.
Design might nit predict eyespots specifically, but neither does evolution. Design predicts that organisms will have characteristics of designed things.
So design theory predicts that designed things will look designed, which sounds perilously close to being a tautology? The problem with that is that it's an assertion not a prediction. If design theory says nothing about the nature and limitations of the designer it has no way to predict what its designs might look like, particularly ones that are presumed to be way more advanced than we are. Design theory is way worse off than evolution in terms of predictive power.
IAS:
DeleteIf I were to say that the eyespot fairies control the size of the fishes eyes and eyespots, would you say that we can't reject the fairy theory unless we have a better theory? If a theory is bad, then that is reason alone to reject it.
We know that some things designed by humans have certain characteristics that are characteristics of designed things only. Some things we know are designed might lack those things. So, we know from experience what to expect when looking at designed things. That's what we see when we look at organisms. And if the designer is is smarter than humans, then I=, for one would expect to see some deigns that are better than stuff humans design.
In order for the the system to evolve, we can't use Darwinism, since the system doesn't confer any fitness advantage until all the parts are in place. So we have to call upon plain dumb luck. All the parts just happened to fall into place by a random process. I suppose it could happen once. But there are a number of similar adaptation that present the same problem. So we have to keep on saying we just got very, very lucky. I for one, don't think that sounds very scientific.
Deletenatschuster is back:
DeleteIf I were to say that the eyespot fairies control the size of the fishes eyes and eyespots, would you say that we can't reject the fairy theory unless we have a better theory?
Without more information about your Fairy Theory, should we reject it out of hand? If we're fair-minded, shouldn't we give it the same consideration that we give to your Design Theory? We ask of any theory: What testable predictions does it make? Should we reject the possibility that Fairies may actually be the Designers?
We know that some things designed by humans have certain characteristics that are characteristics of designed things only.
What are those certain characteristics and where do we find them in organisms?
In order for the the system to evolve, we can't use Darwinism, since the system doesn't confer any fitness advantage until all the parts are in place.
DeleteWhat are the parts, and why can't one or more of them confer a fitness advantage before they are all in place?
So we have to keep on saying we just got very, very lucky.
You are the one who has to keep saying that it all was "plain dumb luck," because you need to disparage evolution.
I for one, don't think that sounds very scientific.
What you think sounds scientific is not an impressive argument.
natschuster,
DeleteYou have a question on the table that you keep evading. Please man up to it:
Is there something that prevents scientists from answering questions about the evolutionary history of adaptations?
Thank you.
Pedant:
DeleteAre you saying that you would not reject eye fairy theory out of hand?
""We know that some things designed by humans have certain characteristics that are characteristics of designed things only."
What are those certain characteristics and where do we find them in organisms?"
We know from experience designing things that it is really hard to get functional integration of parts, irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity without design. That's what I'm talking about. And we find them all over the place in biology.
""In order for the the system to evolve, we can't use Darwinism, since the system doesn't confer any fitness advantage until all the parts are in place."
What are the parts, and why can't one or more of them confer a fitness advantage before they are all in place?"
You need a system to detect predators. You need a way to make eyespots bigger, and eyes smaller. You need to connect the two. This is a gross oversimplification, but the bare minimum for it to confer a fitness advantage is three parts. I'm pretty certain that each part consists of a whole lot more parts. So you need all this stuff before there is any fitness advantage.
""So we have to keep on saying we just got very, very lucky."
You are the one who has to keep saying that it all was "plain dumb luck," because you need to disparage evolution."
If a Darwinian process doesn't work, that leaves either design or luck.
Pedant:
Delete"Is there something that prevents scientists from answering questions about the evolutionary history of adaptations?"
I suppose in theory it's possible that they might discover something that could answer the question. They could also discover the eyespot fairies. Or the Eschetological era might be upon us. But until that happens, I guess I'll stick with what we know.
nat,
DeleteAre you saying that you would not reject eye fairy theory out of hand?
I'm saying that it's just as good as Design Theory. When you have evidence that the Designers are not the Eye Fairies, let me know.
nat,
DeleteWe know from experience designing things that it is really hard to get functional integration of parts, irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity without design. That's what I'm talking about. And we find them all over the place in biology.
I know this is the ID argument, but it assumes its conclusion: it assumes that the only way biological complexity could come into being is by a process analogous to human design and fabrication. And then it stops. It doesn't open the door to any further investigation.
nat,
DeleteYou need a system to detect predators. You need a way to make eyespots bigger, and eyes smaller. You need to connect the two. This is a gross oversimplification, but the bare minimum for it to confer a fitness advantage is three parts. I'm pretty certain that each part consists of a whole lot more parts. So you need all this stuff before there is any fitness advantage.
Nope. Systems to detect predators are common and they confer a survival advantage. They include eyes and odor detectors. The eye spot adaptation can come later.
Increase in eye spot size might confer an advantage without a simultaneous decrease in eye size by confusing a predator. You're assuming your conclusion again.
You haven't given a reason why all of these adaptations had to appear simultaneously.
nat,
DeleteIf a Darwinian process doesn't work, that leaves either design or luck.
You're batting zero on demonstrating that mutation plus natural selection don't work
P: "Is there something that prevents scientists from answering questions about the evolutionary history of adaptations?"
DeleteN: I suppose in theory it's possible that they might discover something that could answer the question. They could also discover the eyespot fairies. Or the Eschetological era might be upon us. But until that happens, I guess I'll stick with what we know.
So, you don't know of anything that prevents further investigation of the natural history of adaptations. You just think that what is known today is all that will ever be known.
Pedant:
Delete""Are you saying that you would not reject eye fairy theory out of hand?"
I'm saying that it's just as good as Design Theory. When you have evidence that the Designers are not the Eye Fairies, let me know."
Can you reject eye fairy theory without having a better theory? Or is it enough to say it is bad enough to reject because it is deficient. I understood you to be saying above that we can't reject evolution, no matter how bad an explanation it is, unless we have a better theory.
"I know this is the ID argument, but it assumes its conclusion: it assumes that the only way biological complexity could come into being is by a process analogous to human design and fabrication. And then it stops. It doesn't open the door to any further investigation."
And all our experience tells us that the only way to get these things is by design. But that wasn't the point. The point was "what does ID predict?" It predicts organisms would have these things, and they do. Evolution doesn't predict or require complexity. And I don't see why ID closes the door on further investigation. People might be looking for more evidence of design. Or they might be looking for ideas to copy. Y'know, the whole field of biomimetics.
"Nope. Systems to detect predators are common and they confer a survival advantage. They include eyes and odor detectors. The eye spot adaptation can come later.
Increase in eye spot size might confer an advantage without a simultaneous decrease in eye size by confusing a predator. You're assuming your conclusion again.
You haven't given a reason why all of these adaptations had to appear simultaneously."
I'll grant predator detection systems. But you need a way to control eyespot size, and a way to link it to the predator detection system. Same thing with eye size. They could have, in theory appeared sequentially, but since there is no fitness advantage until they are all in place, NS doesn't kick in. The only other explanati0on is dumb luck.
Pedant:
Delete"So, you don't know of anything that prevents further investigation of the natural history of adaptations. You just think that what is known today is all that will ever be known."
People can always continue to do research. And if we discover something tomorrow, that changes things then things will be changed. Btu today I have to go with today's information. Are you saying something along the lines of "we hope to have an answer for you someday?" I keep on hearing that from evolutionists, naturalists, etc.
natschuster,
DeleteYou are a master at rope-a-dope. But I'll play a bit longer, because it's still amusing.
Can you reject eye fairy theory without having a better theory?
Try to read for understanding. I didn't reject it. On the contrary, I said it was as good as Design Theory, right there in your quote! You said that it was a "bad theory," but you didn't explain why. If you think Design Theory is better, please explain how it's better. Are you postulating that fairies can't use DESIGN?
Evolution is a better theory than either of the above, because it makes testable predictions.
The point was "what does ID predict?" It predicts organisms would have these things, and they do.
I didn't know that. When were those predictions made? Who made them? Can you provide dated references to those predictions?
They could have, in theory appeared sequentially, but since there is no fitness advantage until they are all in place, NS doesn't kick in.
Yes, the coordinated way the system works now is more efficient at maximizing fitness than each component would be independently, but you've still given no reason why intermediate levels of fitness improvement could not have occurred, upon which natural selection would have culled out the less fit, yielding over time the most fit.
Btu today I have to go with today's information.
No, you don't. You choose to, just as Galileo's critics chose to go with what they thought they knew at the time.
If the predator detection mechanism isn't somehow attached to the eye, then the eye won't shrink in the presence of a predator. If the eye shrinking mechanism is there. but it isn't connected to the predator detection mechanism, then it won't shrink in the presence of a predator, hence no fitness advantage. You need all the parts for it to work.
Delete""Btu today I have to go with today's information."
No, you don't. You choose to, just as Galileo's critics chose to go with what they thought they knew at the time.""
Are you saying that I could believe anything I want to, because someday I might be proven right? Ar eyou saying we don't do the best we can with information we have now?
Out of the mouths of babes
DeleteNat,
Are you saying that I could believe anything I want to, because someday I might be proven right
Theory of Intelligent Design
Ar eyou saying we don't do the best we can with information we have now?
Theory of Evolution
Pedant
Deletenatschuster,
You are a master at rope-a-dope. But I'll play a bit longer, because it's still amusing.
More power to you if you can fun with this trolling jackass. Dealing with his nonstop dishonesty got old for me a year ago.
It will get old for you soon enough I'm sure.
Why do you keep on responding? You even part of this conversation. Do you have some sort of obsession? There is therapy, you know.
Deletenatschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteWhy do you keep on responding? You even part of this conversation. Do you have some sort of obsession? There is therapy, you know.
Why do you keep trolling the board with the same lies and stupidity you've been corrected on a dozen times? You're not part of any conversation. Do you have some sort of obsession with being a trolling ass?
Pedant and I had a nice civil, discussion above. It looks like the best argument he could come up with to "correct" me with something along the lines of "we hope to have an answer for you someday." I really don't think that constitutes a scientific type "correction." It's something a true believer in a faith based system might say.
DeleteAnyway, every mature person knows that the best way to deal with someone who is annoying you to get attention is to ignore them. The fact that you aren't just ignoring me would seem to indicate some sort of obsession. Or maybe, I'm making an impression, and planting the seeds of doubt in your faith.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeletePedant and I had a nice civil, discussion above.
Until you started in with the same repeated lies and BS like you always do.
Anyway, every scientifically literate person knows that the best way to deal with a lying Creationist troll is to call him out on his lies and stupidity every chance you get. The fact that you haven't even attempted to learn the basics of the science you keep attacking seems to indicate an obsession with pushing Creationist lies. Maybe the cognitive dissonance is finally cracking your lying bigoted Fundy brain.
natschuster is dancing as fast as he can, avoiding questions he can't answer:
DeleteI ask again:
How is Design Theory better than Eye Spot Fairy Theory?
Why is Eye Spot Fairy Theory a bad theory, but Design Theory is not?
When did ID predict that organisms would have complexity? It would have to be before anybody had seen a complex organism, wouldn't it? A prediction is, after all, a claim about what will occur in the future.
Pedant
Deletenatschuster is dancing as fast as he can, avoiding questions he can't answer:
A new school year is starting. He's busy going through his student lesson plans and cutting out the references to evolution like he bragged about doing before.
He really deserves to be fired from his public school teaching job for the disgusting way he screws over his kids.
natschuster:
DeleteIt looks like the best argument he could come up with to "correct" me with something along the lines of "we hope to have an answer for you someday."
I was pointing out that science is a work in progress and that it is not realistic to discard a theory, such as evolution, because it doesn't have answers to all conceivable questions. natschuster thinks that what we don't know is small potatoes compared to what we do know, but the opposite is more likely, because we don't know what we don't know. As the history of science attests.
There are upwards of 8 million species of organisms on earth. Each has a story to tell. Only a small number of those stories have been told so far, and not in much detail.
I don't see why ID closes the door on further investigation. People might be looking for more evidence of design.
Why bother with further investigation when you know already that every living thing is designed?
Or they might be looking for ideas to copy. Y'know, the whole field of biomimetics.
What does Design Theory contribute to biomimetics that ordinary scientific investigation does not contribute?
Pedant:
DeleteOne reason eyespot fairy theory is not as good as ID. is because ID does not necessarily require going outside the laws of nature. It all depends on who the designer was. Another reason Id is better than eyespot fairy theory is that, if you allow going outside the laws of nature, we can use the rule of parsimony, and say that the Creator of the Universe is also the designer of life. Why are you asking? I brought up eyespot fairy theory as an example of a theory that you would reject without requiring another theory.
Maybe prediction is a bad choice of words. I understand it to mean that we find what we expect to find if something is true. A theory can't actually predict anything. If design is true then we would find characteristics of designed things, and we do. I don't understand it to be something like prophecy. How do you understand it?
Pedant:
Delete"There are upwards of 8 million species of organisms on earth. Each has a story to tell. Only a small number of those stories have been told so far, and not in much detail."
That's eight million cases were there was a whole series of incremental evolutionary steps. Many species have ORFan genes and such that had to have evolved through steps. Scientists have been searching and searching for the steps, the story, in the fossil record, in the DNA. Why is what they find small potatos when there should be so much evidence? Why is there so much contradictory evidence?
"Why bother with further investigation when you know already that every living thing is designed?"
For the same reason my children like to take apart things to see what is inside, or how it works.
"What does Design Theory contribute to biomimetics that ordinary scientific investigation does not contribute?"
IF a person doesn't expect to see exquisite design, he or she might not notice it. I think it called conformation bias.
Thorton:
DeleteI don't see you calling me out. I see you calling me names. My experience has been that people tend to resort to name calling when they have nothing else. You are only giving me confidence to continue my work spreading the Truth.
natschuster the lying bigoted troll
DeleteI don't see you calling me out.
Of course you don't bigot. You spent years ignoring all the scientific data I presented until I realized you're just a lying Creationist ass only intent on trolling.
You are only giving me confidence to continue my work spreading the Truth.
The only "Truth" is that you're a lying bigoted ass only interested in preaching, not learning or correcting your ignorance. That's why you keep getting called out.
I recall that when you presented the evidence, I would point out to you all the flaws, then you would start in with the insults. You give me the strength to go on.
DeleteNat,
DeleteOne reason eyespot fairy theory is not as good as ID. is because ID does not necessarily require going outside the laws of nature.
The EFT is just a subset of ID theory.
It all depends on who the designer was.
So actually the EFT is a more explanatory version of ID
Another reason Id is better than eyespot fairy theory is that, if you allow going outside the laws of nature, we can use the rule of parsimony, and say that the Creator of the Universe is also the designer of life.
Just a hint,ID by definition ultimately requires going outside the laws of nature or its whole edifice crumbles. Once complex life appears without a designer, ID is toast. However luckily for ID one can never prove non design.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteI recall that when you presented the evidence
I recall that when I presented evidence you ignored it and lied saying no one had presented any. I recall that you would then keep on trolling by repeating your asinine Creationist claims. Just like you're still doing today.
Vel:
DeleteIf the designer was an extraterrestrial as per some versions transpermia, we don't have to go out of the laws of nature. I assume that eyespot fairies operate outside the laws of nature.
IF we are allowed to go outside the laws of nature, then teh God if Abraham as creator is a better explanation because it doesn't require separate Creators for the universe and eyespots.
Thorton:
I recall that most of the evidence you presented addressed, then you started insulting me. I getting stronger all the time.
Nat,
DeleteMy experience has been that people tend to resort to name calling when they have nothing else.
Or when they find a person despicable
You are only giving me confidence to continue my work spreading the Truth
You are being overpaid
natschuster:
DeleteOne reason eyespot fairy theory is not as good as ID. is because ID does not necessarily require going outside the laws of nature. It all depends on who the designer was.
Since ID does not necessarily posit any limits to who or what the Designer may be, and it (or he, or she, or they) might be inside or outside the laws of nature, the whole idea of ID is meaningless and useless, a hoax.
Prove me wrong by identifying the Designer(s).
nat:
DeleteAnother reason Id is better than eyespot fairy theory is that, if you allow going outside the laws of nature, we can use the rule of parsimony, and say that the Creator of the Universe is also the designer of life.
I most certainly do not allow going outside the laws of nature if we're doing science.* If we're doing theology, we can say anything, including identifying the Designer as the God of Abraham (or whatever god your religion worships).
*I forgot, natschuster doesn't know the difference between science and religion.
Why are you asking? I brought up eyespot fairy theory as an example of a theory that you would reject without requiring another theory.
Deletenat, you are as transparent as a plate glass window. You thought, naively, that an Eyespot Fairy Theory would seem ridiculous to me. You didn't realize that it's no more ridiculous to a person who lives outside of your religious fantasy world than Creation (oops!) Design Theory.
And now you're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to correct your blunder. This has been more entertaining than I'd hoped. Thanks, nat, for the laughs. You're a sport.
A theory can't actually predict anything.
DeleteA natschuster classic. Tell that to the folks that just demonstrated the existence of the Higgs boson.
Tell that to Albert Einstein, whose theory of general relativity predicted that light would be bent by gravity.
Tell that to Neil Shubin, who led the team that discovered Tiktaalik.
It's a serious handicap, nat, for you to pontificate about science when your level of understanding is so pitiful.
Scientists have been searching and searching for the steps, the story, in the fossil record, in the DNA. Why is what they find small potatos when there should be so much evidence?
DeleteSmall potatoes to natschuster is pearls before swine.
Why haven't those millions of scientists applied themselves to obtaining the evidence that would explain every detail about the evolution of eyespots in damsel fish? Are they incompetent or deceitful?
Nat,
DeleteIf the designer was an extraterrestrial as per some versions transpermia, we don't have to go out of the laws of nature
" ultimately" Nat, if complex life can appear anywhere without a designer, then ID main argument, complexity equals design, is defeated. ID would be reduced to pure creationism.
. I assume that eyespot fairies operate outside the laws of nature.
EFT is a subset of ID, therefore has no idea how the design is implemented.
IF we are allowed to go outside the laws of nature, then teh God if Abraham as creator is a better explanation
Why out of the thousands of Gods?
because it doesn't require separate Creators for the universe and eyespots.
Just nature is even simpler
IF a person doesn't expect to see exquisite design, he or she might not notice it. I think it called conformation bias.
DeleteIt's confirmation bias, nat, something upon which you base your life. So, you're claiming that a person has to believe that an unknown, unknowable Designer created a biological property for that person to be motivated to search for a practical application of the chemistry and physics of that property to something beneficial?
Pedant:
Delete"nat, you are as transparent as a plate glass window. You thought, naively, that an Eyespot Fairy Theory would seem ridiculous to me. You didn't realize that it's no more ridiculous to a person who lives outside of your religious fantasy world than Creation (oops!) Design Theory.
And now you're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to correct your blunder. This has been more entertaining than I'd hoped. Thanks, nat, for the laughs. You're a sport."
Fine. Lets stick to the original question and use ID theory. Would you reject ID if you had no other theory?
And theories don't predict things. People predict things. They might use theories to predict things. People use ID theory to "predict" the fact that organisms have characteristics of designed things. And by predict I don't mean prophecy. I mean finding what we would expect to find.
"Small potatoes to natschuster is pearls before swine.
Why haven't those millions of scientists applied themselves to obtaining the evidence that would explain every detail about the evolution of eyespots in damsel fish? Are they incompetent or deceitful?"
It seems to me that evolution should "predict" that we would find a lot more evidence, if so much evolution has been happening? Why is there only "small potatos? (Your terminology).
"It's confirmation bias, nat, something upon which you base your life. So, you're claiming that a person has to believe that an unknown, unknowable Designer created a biological property for that person to be motivated to search for a practical application of the chemistry and physics of that property to something beneficial?"
Did I say that? I didn't mean anything in such absolute terms. I just meant that the tendency might be towards conformation bias. Bias means tendency, not absolute. Take junk DNA for example. Evolutionists were happy, because the idea of useless DNA supported evolution. Dawkins even wrote a book about it, "The Selfish Gene."
But they keep on discovering more and more function for non-coding DNA. They got it wrong at first.
"Nat,
Delete"If the designer was an extraterrestrial as per some versions transpermia, we don't have to go out of the laws of nature."
ultimately" Nat, if complex life can appear anywhere without a designer, then ID main argument, complexity equals design, is defeated. ID would be reduced to pure creationism."
Didn't Crick and Eddington say that life appeared elsewhere in the Universe somehow, but was designed on Earth since there wasn;t enough time for it to appear without design?
". I assume that eyespot fairies operate outside the laws of nature.
EFT is a subset of ID, therefore has no idea how the design is implemented."
WE have to come on to eyespot fairies because we aren't allowed to go outside the laws of nature, but eyespot fairies go outside the laws of nature. That's why its a bad explanation.
"IF we are allowed to go outside the laws of nature, then teh God if Abraham as creator is a better explanation
Why out of the thousands of Gods?"
Most of the gods of the various myths I'm familliar with do not transcend the Universe. They were created after the Universe. They came out f the sea or chaos or something. You need to explain where the Universe came from. The God of Abraham, on the other hand created the Universe.
"because it doesn't require separate Creators for the universe and eyespots.
Just nature is even simpler"
Are you sure? "Just nature" says that somehow the Universe just popped out of nowhere, somehow just made itself fine tuned to accomodate life, somehow made life, and somehow made life evolve into myriad forms, somehow manged to turn a lump of protoplasm, the brain, into the mind. That's not simple. And multiverse really multiplies entities. And an explanation has to be adequate, not just simple.
Nat,
DeleteDidn't Crick and Eddington say that life appeared elsewhere in the Universe somehow, but was designed on Earth since there wasn;t enough time for it to appear without design?
How do they know that without knowledge of how life started elsewhere?It doesn't change the fact that once life appears thru nature, complexity equals design is falsified. So without complexity as a metric how does ID tell if an object is intelligently designed, Nat?
WE have to come on to eyespot fairies because we aren't allowed to go outside the laws of nature, but eyespot fairies go outside the laws of nature. That's why its a bad explanation.
We don't care about mechanisms in the ID world,only about the appearance of design, but if you are now saying that a theory without a mechanism is a bad explanation, you will get no argument from me.
Nat,
DeleteMost of the gods of the various myths I'm familliar with do not transcend the Universe. They were created after the Universe. They came out f the sea or chaos or something
Familiar with Islam? " He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him"
You need to explain where the Universe came from. The God of Abraham, on the other hand created the Universe.
Because it says so in a book it is true? For such a skeptic when it comes to science, you suprise me.
Are you sure? "Just nature" says that somehow the Universe just popped out of nowhere, somehow just made itself fine tuned to accomodate life, somehow made life, and somehow made life evolve into myriad forms, somehow manged to turn a lump of protoplasm, the brain, into the mind.
Didn't you just use Crick to make that exact point? That life started on its own?
Yes it is simpler, you must create an entity and its motivations, then have Him preform those tasks in a non natural way.
I merely have to assume that nature is comprehensible, how it became that way is interesting but not a requirement.
That's not simple. And multiverse really multiplies entities. And an explanation has to be adequate, not just simple.
Then you must agree ,EFT is adequate by ID standards to explain the damsel fish.
Crick and Eddington said that the universe is infinitely old. That means that there was time for life to happen somewhere. The problem is that our world isn't old enough fro life to have formed. So it must have formed somewhere ales, then have been deigned here.
DeleteWe comeonto eyesot fairies because we have decided a priori that we can't go outside the laws of nature, and we need mechanism. If we are allowed to go outside the laws of nature, then we can say "God did it."
I understand the God of Islam is the God of Abraham.
natschuster,
DeleteTake junk DNA for example. Evolutionists were happy, because the idea of useless DNA supported evolution. Dawkins even wrote a book about it, "The Selfish Gene."
Not even wrong. nat likes to make things up, I see:
1. Useless DNA is consistent with and explained by evolutionary mechanisms, but its discovery was not anticipated nor celebrated. If nat has a reference to support his claim of celebration, let him provide it.
On the other hand, it's a problem for creationists, because a creator smart enough to design life and powerful enough to fabricate life might be expected to be capable of doing it neatly, in a classy way.
2. I doubt that "The Selfish Gene" is about junk DNA, seeing that there are no genes in junk DNA (last time I looked).
Didn't Crick and Eddington say...
DeleteI didn't know that Crick and Eddington collaborated. Does natschuster have a direct quote of this pronouncement, or is this another invention of his imagination?
I was going to ask natschuster why he's taking so much trouble to make creationism look even more foolish.
DeleteBut, on reflection, I decided to thank him for doing such a bang-up job.
Thanks, nat, and thanks to Cornelius Hunter for his hospitality.
This is from the Wikipedia article on
DeleteGenes can reproduce at the expense of the organism
There are other times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female. Another good example is the existence of segregation distortion genes that are detrimental to their host but nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense. Likewise, the existence of junk DNA that provides no benefit to its host, once a puzzle, can be more easily explained. [6]
Maybe happy was a poor choice of words. he pint was that it turns out that the evolutionist were not right, and the creationists were. The evolutionary prediction wasn't accurate.
Deletenatschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteMaybe happy was a poor choice of words. he pint was that it turns out that the evolutionist were not right, and the creationists were. The evolutionary prediction wasn't accurate.
Natschuster mindlessly repeats yet another Creationist lie not knowing or caring about the real 40+ year scientific history of the study of non-coding DNA.
Pretty much par for the course for this lying bigot.
I made a mistake. It was Hoyle, not Eddington who advocated panspermia. Sorry. My bad. I don't know if he collaborated with Crick. The point is that it is one version of it is that it is a version of ID that doesn't require supernatural intervention.
DeleteThorton:
DeleteThe research over the past forty years has been finding more and more function for non-coding DNA. They even changed the name because it turns out it isn't really junk at all. This is exactly what we would expect if design theory was true.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNat,
Deleteunderstand the God of Islam is the God of Abraham
Unless Jesus is God, it is a different God.
Vel:
Delete"Didn't you just use Crick to make that exact point? That life started on its own?
Yes it is simpler, you must create an entity and its motivations, then have Him preform those tasks in a non natural way.
I merely have to assume that nature is comprehensible, how it became that way is interesting but not a requirement."
Crick said life started on it's own. That doesn't make it a simpler explanation. You need a mechanism. You need a different mechanism to explain the origin of the Universe. You need another mechanism to explain why the Universe is exquisitely fine tuned. You need another mechanism to explain the development of life. You need another mechanism to explain how a lump of protoplasm, can make a mind. All those different mechanisms makes things really complicated.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteThe research over the past forty years has been finding more and more function for non-coding DNA.
Yep. And who was doing all that research bigot? Tell us. If certainly wasn't any Creationists.
They even changed the name because it turns out it isn't really junk at all.
Another mindless lie parroted by the bigot. It's been known as non-coding DNA since the mid 60's. Even then when 'junk' was used it never meant 'guaranteed no function', it meant no KNOWN function. Geneticists understand the different even if lying Creationist don't.
This is exactly what we would expect if design theory was true.
There's nothing, literally nothing that 'design' couldn't accommodate, which is why it's not science.
So non-coding DNA was never actually evidence for evolution. Got it.
DeleteAnd it seems that design cannot accommodate bad or inefficient design.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteSo non-coding DNA was never actually evidence for evolution.
Good old nat the bigot. Never met a Creationist lie he didn't like or wouldn't repeat.
Please explain why this simple plant has a genome of 152 billion base pairs, over 50X larger than that of a human.
Largest genome known to science
Observed evolutionary processes like gene duplication explain it quite nicely. What do you have beyond "GAWDDIDIT for unknown reasons"?
And it seems that design cannot accommodate bad or inefficient design.
Go ahead and describe something that is beyond the capabilities of your Magic Designer to produce. We'll wait.
Fixed link
DeleteLargest genome known to science
Are all the genes in the plant non-functioning? The fact that there are a lot of genes doesn't mean they don't all serve a purpose. There might not be any known reason, but a function might be discovered tomorrow. I would say that, given the fact that they keep on finding more and more function for non-coding DNA, that this is likely.
DeleteI'm getting confused. You say that there is no reason why a creator would make a big genome, and this is evidence for evolution, then you say that a designer can do anything, so it is not a problem.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteI'm getting confused.
You're always confused, and you're always a pathetic Creationist liar.
Still waiting for your description of something your Magic Designer couldn't do.
If the designer was the God of Abraham, then there is nothing he can't do. That is why the super big genome of the plant is not a problem for design.
DeleteIt might be problem for evolution though. According to the article. Plants with big genomes don't respond to change in the environment that well, and they take longer to reproduce. How did it evolve? Why didn't natural selection eliminate it?
natschuster doesn't see fit to admit that he lied when he claimed that "The Selfish Gene," is about non-functional DNA.
DeleteHave you no shame, Sir?
(Don't bother. I already know the answer.)
If the designer was the God of Abraham, then there is nothing he can't do. That is why the super big genome of the plant is not a problem for design.
DeleteYou got that right: NOTHING is a PROBLEM for Design. That makes Design ridiculous.
Thanks, again, nat.
According to the article. Plants with big genomes don't respond to change in the environment that well, and they take longer to reproduce. How did it evolve? Why didn't natural selection eliminate it?
DeleteLook at yourself, natschuster. Do you respond to change in your environment that well? Have you reproduced promptly? Why haven't you been eliminated by natural selection?
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteIf the designer was the God of Abraham, then there is nothing he can't do. That is why the super big genome of the plant is not a problem for design.
OK, so your idea of Design is not falsifiable and therefore is not science. Got it.
It might be problem for evolution though. According to the article. Plants with big genomes don't respond to change in the environment that well, and they take longer to reproduce. How did it evolve? Why didn't natural selection eliminate it?
According to the paper the plant is an octoploid as well as possibly being an allopolyploid. It's not extinct because in its environment - cool, shady, humid places in sub-alpine terrain - the larger genome and longer reproduction time isn't a problem.
See bigot, you learn something every day. Well, most of us do. You just stay the same ignorant bigot.
Pedant:
DeleteMaybe "about" was a bad choice of words. It did deal with it, as I said. Hey, I make mistakes.
So we have concluded, it seems, that ID is unfalsifiable, and therefore, things like bad design, junk DNA and big genomes are not a problem. Just want to be clear.
And the big genome might not be problem for the plant in the environment its in, but it doesn't seem to be able to handle change that well. Isn't that a big part of natural selection? Adapting to change? And isn't it all about reproduction rates, too? I guess natural selection happens, except when it doesn't.
natschuster,
DeleteIf you have a test that can falsify ID, please provide it.
Thanks.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteAnd the big genome might not be problem for the plant in the environment its in, but it doesn't seem to be able to handle change that well. Isn't that a big part of natural selection? Adapting to change? And isn't it all about reproduction rates, too? I guess natural selection happens, except when it doesn't.
Natschuster the scientifically illiterate Creationist dumbass. Never afraid to flaunt his woeful misunderstanding and ignorance.
A population doesn't have to be able to withstand all possible conditions bigot, just the ones in its local environment. A shark is amazingly well adapted as an ocean dwelling predator, but drop one in the middle of the Sahara and see what natural selection does.
But what happens when the environment changes? The plants have to adapt or go extinct. Plants with big genomes don't adapt so well. They are less fit tin that regard. And they aren't as good at reproducing either. That should be a big problem for evolution, which is all about differential reproductive success.
DeleteActually, Thorton, natschuster is the smartest creationist who posts on this site.
DeleteThorton:
DeleteI was always under the impression that Darwinism was all about differential reproductive success. If it isn't that, then what is it? I guess Darwinian processes work except when they don't.
Nat,
DeleteI was always under the impression that Darwinism was all about differential reproductive success.
What exactly is your impression of the factors that lead to differential reproduction sucess? Are there one or many?
If it isn't that, then what is it? I guess Darwinian processes work except when they don't.
I am under the impression that the alternatives posit no processes at all, in which case a process which works at all is differentially better.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteI was always under the impression that Darwinism was all about differential reproductive success.
It is bigot.
If it isn't that, then what is it? I guess Darwinian processes work except when they don't.
What makes your tiny bigoted brain think they don't work?
Why don't you tell us how environmental pressures factor into differential reproductive success.
Thorton said:
ReplyDelete"You're right Herr Cornelius. This one individual paper doesn't show all the evidence for evolution. You'd have to read the rest of the millions of scientific papers in hundreds of scientific disciplines published in the last 150 years to see all of the evidence."
Thorton. Your participation was, maybe, once amusing. Long ago it was known to be redundant, and irrelevant. Out of courtesy, I will point out to you, what is obvious to probably most who follow this forum that: What you forget to point out is that all of those supposed "millions" of "scientific papers" in the supposed "hundreds of scientific discplines" are all (If you are describing nde} resting upon unknown and unknowable assumptions used to support vast levels of illegitimate, from a real scietific pov, speculations.
Look through all of those "papers" and come up with one or any number of them, that contains sufficient evidence, scientific, empirical evidence to support the conjecture that nde processes or mechanisms are capable of building any of the countless array of bio-systems in a living cell. And within any kind of realistic time frame given accepted scientific conclusions regarding the age of the universe.
You sound like a mynah bird on speed. You make the noises but you have no idea what they mean.
DeleteHow's your next sockpuppet name coming? Any candidates?
"How's your next sockpuppet name coming? Any candidates?"
DeleteBeen contmplating this one: "scrapingzethortonoffofthebottomofmyshoeslikedogshit"
What do you think Thornty?
Look through all of those "papers" and come up with one or any number of them, that contains sufficient evidence, scientific, empirical evidence to support the conjecture that nde processes or mechanisms are capable...blah, blah.
DeleteActually, that would be your job, assuming that you cared a farthing about challenging your faith-based bias.
bpragmatic
Delete"How's your next sockpuppet name coming? Any candidates?"
Been contmplating this one: "scrapingzethortonoffofthebottomofmyshoeslikedogshit"
Ah, back to drunk posting obscenities. That's the teenaged clueless Creationist nitwit we all know and love to laugh at!
"Ah, back to drunk posting obscenities. That's the teenaged clueless Creationist nitwit we all know and love to laugh at!"
DeleteHappy to make you smile Thornty! Must get lonely down there in your mothers basement.
From Pedant,
ReplyDeleteBpagmatic said: Look through all of those "papers" and come up with one or any number of them, that contains sufficient evidence, scientific, empirical evidence to support the conjecture that nde processes or mechanisms are capable"...blah, blah.
Pedant said:
Actually, that would be your job, assuming that you cared a farthing about challenging your faith-based bias.
Bpragmatic responds:
If you cared a farthing about demonstrating your rediculously deficient philososphy, you should be happy to present sufficient scientific evidence to support you claims. But as has been said over and again, there is insufficient evidence to support your nde claims, on many different levels. Every week, it seems, more and more scientific discoveries are being made that made nde look more and more ludicrous.
Well, time to go raid my parent's liquor cabinet.
BP: If you cared a farthing about demonstrating your rediculously deficient philososphy, you should be happy to present sufficient scientific evidence to support you claims.
ReplyDeleteIf you care about anyone taking your objection seriously, you should be happy to present an expiation of how scientists actually use evidence to positively prove any theory is true or probably true, in practice, let alone evolutionary theory.
For example, we cannot measure or observe that gravity works the same way everywhere in the universe.
While we have an overwhelming number of measurements of GR acting in a uniform way in our local vicinity, this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the total astronomical number of locations in the entire universe. And this doesn't take into account the possible measurements at these locations in the past and future.
Even then, we know that gravity works differently on the small scale, so we know that either QM, GR or both contain errors. The question is, where or to what degree. Yet, despite this problem, we can still use GR to convert timestamps between GPS satellites in orbit and GPS receivers on the ground that move at different speeds relative to each other. IOW, we can make progress despite the fact that at least one of them contain errors.
So, one could claim that GR as a universal theory false, let alone astronomically unlikely, and therefore anyone that adopts such a theory isn't doing so for scientific reasons.
However, we've adopted GR as a universal theory not because it's empirically proven to be likely, but because it has withstood significant criticism and solves problems. This includes being a hard to vary part of the explanation of the universe itself, gravitational lensing at great distances, etc.
BP: Every week, it seems, more and more scientific discoveries are being made that made nde look more and more ludicrous.
"it seems" is the key word, as you do not seem to understand how science works, in practice, let alone the underlying explanation behind evolutionary thoery itself.
Scientific theories are not prophecy. The start out as conjecture, so we expect them to contain errors to some degree. Finding and discarding errors is how we make progress.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletebpragmatic
DeleteWhich doll are you on now?
That would be the bpragmatic doll. Apparently it loves getting ****ed by scientists the way it constantly bends over and grabs its illiterate Creationist teenage ankles.
Be careful thronty. I won't tolerate copyright infringement.
Deletebpragmatic
DeleteBe careful thronty.
LOL! It's absolutely hilarious the way you make your drunk obscenity laden posts at night then come back the next day and delete them all out of embarrassment. Hoping no one saw them?
Guess I'll have to start taking screenshots to save the Best Of Bpragmatic the Drunk Teenaged Fundy Creationist.
bpragmatic,
ReplyDeleteBut as has been said over and again, there is insufficient evidence to support your nde claims, on many different levels.
Yes, it's clear that you've made up your mind that there's insufficient evidence, so there's no need for you to look for yourself. It's so much easier to just repeat over and over again, "There is insufficient evidence..."
Well, time to go raid my parent's liquor cabinet.
DeleteNot a good idea. You've had enough already.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletebpragmatic,
DeleteYou clown, hypocrite, It is clear you are a hack of the status quo.
Thank you. I am overwhelmed by the cogency of your argument and your courtesy in making it.
Pedant says:
ReplyDeletePedantAugust 23, 2013 at 7:41 AM
I've read the paper. The word evolution appears only three times, as a passing reference that assumes, as Dr Hunter correctly noted, the truth of evolution. The thrust of the paper is to demonstrate the ecological impact of this adaptation in damsel fish, not to support the theory of evolution, as Dr Hunter wrongly claimed. As he often does, he took an interesting finding and fed it into his confirmation bias against the idea of evolution.
Whether the authors or other investigators will weigh in on the evolutionary history of the adaptation remains to be seen.
Bpragmatic says:
So why even mention evolution? You see this over and over again in the "scientific" literature. Observations are made regarding living organisms and, apparently for good measure, and off topic "evolution did it" is asserted in with absolutely no scientic support for the assertion.
And my hunch is that the investigators will not weigh in atleast in any meaningful way, demonstrating that nde is responsible, or capable of the subject "adaptations". Because they can't.