tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1913366366722366419..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Back to School Part VIUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger308125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36100220918308058532010-10-22T01:00:51.186-07:002010-10-22T01:00:51.186-07:00TomH
"How much experience do you have with de...TomH<br />"How much experience do you have with design mining or code mining? How much experience do you have with writing reusable code?"<br /><br />Make some predictions then.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78123982688390352822010-10-18T20:06:43.892-07:002010-10-18T20:06:43.892-07:00TomH said...
The order of fossils may also be...<i>TomH said...<br /><br /> The order of fossils may also be confirming for some deposition by a global flood for waters under flow. </i><br /><br />Thanks again for identifying yourself as a YEC fruit loop not worthy of any serious scientific discussion.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51268198369326690522010-10-18T12:58:57.333-07:002010-10-18T12:58:57.333-07:00Derick,
Tom, what are you smoking? There are an u...Derick,<br /><br /><i>Tom, what are you smoking? There are an unlimited number of things that would falsify common ancestry. Rabbit fossils in precambrian rock....</i><br /><br />Are you projecting? ;-) Out-of-sequence index fossils are common. Overthrust explanations sometimes have confirming physical evidence, but not always. Despite the disconfirming evidence, no disconfirmations are asserted. Stratigraphers, to their credit, readily admit that anomalies are common, even after explanations. However, people are tenacious, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.<br /><br />The order of fossils may also be confirming for some deposition by a global flood for waters under flow. The order doesn't produce a smoking gun in any case.<br /><br />In terms of design by the God of the Bible, we could find disconfirming evidence if we found text encoded in DNA which said that Moses lied about Genesis and that God used evolution to create the animals.<br /><br /><i>'Design' makes NO predictions about what we should find, or should not find, in advance.</i><br /><br />How much experience do you have with design mining or code mining? How much experience do you have with writing reusable code?TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52974653790944345892010-10-18T12:15:25.191-07:002010-10-18T12:15:25.191-07:00TomH said: "The problems of underdeterminatio...TomH said: "The problems of underdetermination and confirmation bias are the same either way. Your argument against ID also works equally well against CA."<br /><br />Tom, what are you smoking? There are an <i>unlimited</i> number of things that would falsify common ancestry. Rabbit fossils in precambrian rock. Primate fossils in precambrian rock. Dinosaur fossils in precambrian rock. Bird fossils in precambrian rock. Primate fossils in Triassic rock. Elephant fossils in Jurassic rock. We could see animals emerge with no ancestry, i.e., just poof into existence. (Like what is proposed by all creationists and most IDers.) We could find long strings of Hebrew encoded in DNA. we could find crocoducks, or whales with fully developed lungs. You could literally make an infinite list of things that would falsify evolution, or at the very least, take it all the way back to the drawing board. So far, nothing like that has been found.<br /><br />Likewise, if you posit an omnipotent designer that can do absolutely anything he wishes, even create in a manner consistent with what evolution predicts, then there is <i>nothing</i> that couldn't be 'explained' by saying, "Well, that's how God made it."<br /><br />Conversely, CA makes certain definite predictions: The fossil record should show a pattern of simple to complex, with more recent fossils resembling more extant animals, and older fossils bearing a lesser resemblance to extant animals. We should find fossils that are intermediate between two groups that are proposed to share a common ancestor, a fossil that has some features of both groups. We should find homologous structures. We should find homologous DNA patterns. Guess what: we do find all of these. 'Design' makes <b>NO</b> predictions about what we should find, or should not find, in advance.<br /><br />So, <b>NO,</b> the problems of 'underdetermination' do <b>NOT</b> go either way.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17683766942858092722010-10-18T12:11:35.368-07:002010-10-18T12:11:35.368-07:00troy,
I have seen no evidence that you would know...troy,<br /><br />I have seen no evidence that you would know science from a songbook, so what does your opinion matter? Why are you addressing anything to me at all, especially such a vapid comment?TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9180811209474988862010-10-18T11:40:34.308-07:002010-10-18T11:40:34.308-07:00Derick,
God could very well have designed things ...Derick,<br /><br /><i>God could very well have designed things to just look exactly as if they had a common ancestor. In fact, 'because God designed it that way' could explain anything you could ever possibly find.<br /><br />That's why it explains nothing.</i><br /><br />The problems of underdetermination and confirmation bias are the same either way. Your argument against ID also works equally well against CA.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40083854942357856552010-10-18T11:34:48.065-07:002010-10-18T11:34:48.065-07:00Derick,
I'm curious how common ancestry (I as...Derick,<br /><br />I'm curious how common ancestry (I assume that this is what you mean by "evolutionary theory") guided Pasteur in his experiments in abiogenesis or Mendel in his experiments in genetics?<br /><br /><i>Who said that all biological research for the last 150 years has been guided by evolutionary theory?</i><br /><br />From the examples provided, would you say that the creationist paradigm has been fruitful in the past and that current research relies on that fruit in essential ways?<br /><br />TH: "And what do you mean by "guidance?"<br /><br /><i>Employing it as a paradigm. Salient examples: comparative genomics, paleontology, ecology, epidemiology, molecular biology, genetic engineering.</i><br /><br />I agree that comparative genomics and paleontology necessarily rely on CA. Of course, that is unsurprising. Is CA necessary as a paradigm for the others? Would a different paradigm substitute and would the other disciplines be as fruitful? Does CA amount to a gloss in many research papers?<br /><br /><i>But don't take my word for it. If you really want to understand the integration of evolutionary thinking within modern biology, you have to read the scientific literature.</i><br /><br />I've read some of the relevant literature, but it's impossible for one person to read a significant part of it. Hence, we need survey papers about the various disciplines and issues. Otherwise, we don't know the state of affairs in other disciplines.<br /><br />Can you provide references to some recent survey papers that you consider to be important? Thanks.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11770382114448545732010-10-18T10:21:34.893-07:002010-10-18T10:21:34.893-07:00jbeck,
In that 150 + years of research you still d...<i>jbeck,<br />In that 150 + years of research you still don't have any evidence that your posited processes can construct a functional multi-part system.<br />As for ignorance well that is all you have.<br />All you can do is try to bluff your way through a discussion but you sure as hell can't produce any positive evidence for your position.<br />IOW you "gun" is your littlew needle-dick and it can't even shoot straight.<br />LoL!!!!</i><br /><br />JoeG - laugh all you want. But you aren't, as I said, reviewing a grant application at NIH or NSF. Your laughter doesn't count for anything. Our research is so effective that even creationist like Paul Nelson won't have anything to do with you. that's how pathetically ridiculous you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46484124569571265502010-10-18T10:15:12.257-07:002010-10-18T10:15:12.257-07:00TomH: "Your assertion that common ancestry is...TomH: "Your assertion that common ancestry is a fact is controversial, even among evolutionists..."<br /><br />I may have to second what troy said.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2987134039187371292010-10-18T10:01:35.700-07:002010-10-18T10:01:35.700-07:00Tom:
"CA is a conflation of several speculat...Tom:<br /><br />"CA is a conflation of several speculations--at least two are the <b>hypothetical existence of the distant past</b>..."<br /><br />Gotcha. You are hereby disqualified from serious scientific discussion.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73619276247359326242010-10-18T09:21:44.255-07:002010-10-18T09:21:44.255-07:00Derick:
"Mutations are random with respect t...Derick:<br /><br /><i>"Mutations are random with respect to fitness."</i><br /><br />Fitness is tautological, but selection filters are not. There is a conceptual distinction. Mutations aren't random in any case. They are stochastic, but not random.<br /><br /><i>Had Darwin had access to the modern fossil record and genetic tools, he could have made a compelling case for common ancestry without the slightest mention of natural selection.</i><br /><br />This is speculative handwaving.<br /><br /><i>But saying the fact of common ancestry would be negated without a mechanism is like saying the observations that things fall down is called into question because we don't know how gravity propagates.</i><br /><br />Your assertion that common ancestry is a fact is controversial, even among evolutionists (e.g., Colin Patterson won't commit to CA this strongly). I'm sure that you really, really believe your statement, but that doesn't make it so. The effects of the action of gravity can be observed immediately in the here and now. Common ancestry relies upon hypothetical ancestral links in a hypothetical past where the immediate results of active processes were unobserved. Instead, paleontologists must study the detritus left after hypothetical eons and eons of real, known data-destroying processes have acted on the hypothetical immediate results of the actions of processes from the hypothetical past. The epistemological certainties between gravity and CA vary greatly in degree. Your assertion that CA is a fact is unsupported. Gravity is a fact. CA is a conflation of several speculations--at least two are the hypothetical existence of the distant past and the hypothetical ancestral links.<br /><br />Still, I'm curious why you think that CA is a fact?<br /><br /><i>"In order for an established scientific scientific theory to be replaced by another..."</i><br /><br />Why do you think that a theory is ever established? What constitutes an established theory?<br /><br />Why do you think that competitive theories are limited to two?<br /><br /><i>The only IDers I take seriously (and I do take some seriously) are the ones who acknowledge that ID has to account for common ancestry as well.</i><br /><br />That's certainly your privilege. I see ID as mostly an attempt to point out the lack of mechanisms for CA. Hence, I don't see it as a theory, but I still see it as a valid question. If ID were a theory, I'd expect the bioengineers to be involved.<br /><br /><i>But it bugs me when people don't even attempt to understand what their opponents are actually saying before dismissing their position as being stupid.</i><br /><br />I agree totally.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37106297927481714652010-10-18T08:12:43.792-07:002010-10-18T08:12:43.792-07:00Joe G: "Ya see the "evidence" for c...Joe G: "Ya see the "evidence" for common ancestry can also be explained by a common design."<br /><br />I agree 100%. God could very well have designed things to just look exactly as if they had a common ancestor. In fact, 'because God designed it that way' could explain <i>anything</i> you could ever possibly find.<br /><br />That's why it <i>explains</i> nothing.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29525950727911091932010-10-18T07:43:20.876-07:002010-10-18T07:43:20.876-07:00Derick:
The only IDers I take seriously (and I do ...Derick:<br /><i>The only IDers I take seriously (and I do take some seriously) are the ones who acknowledge that ID has to account for common ancestry as well.</i><br /><br />Not really.<br /><br />Ya see the "evidence" for common ancestry can also be explained by a common design.<br /><br />What your position needs to explain is the presence of functional multi-part systems.<br /><br />Yet to date there isn't any evidence that the proposed evolutionary mechanisms can construct such a thing.<br /><br />Why isn't taht evidence against the theory?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1863401296198182752010-10-18T07:40:11.854-07:002010-10-18T07:40:11.854-07:00Derick:
Mutations are random with respect to fitne...Derick:<br /><i>Mutations are random with respect to fitness.</i><br /><br />Which is a nonsensical saying.<br /><br />They might as well be random with respect to Uranus. That does not mean they weren't directed via some internal programming- ie telic. <br /><br />Derick:<br /><i>But it bugs me when people don't even attempt to understand what their opponents are actually saying before dismissing their position as being stupid.</i><br /><br />Then take a look in the mirror for taht is what you have been doing.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86702042964426364442010-10-18T07:39:20.877-07:002010-10-18T07:39:20.877-07:00TomH said...
The significance of any piece of the...<i>TomH said...<br /><br />The significance of any piece of the Modern Synthesis is therefore in question and there are new factors competing with both natural selection and genetic variation (last I knew, Allen MacNeill had a list of 54 factors). Thus, the mechanism for changes that would be expected to result in a continuous genetic map for almost all--if not all--organisms is in question. Without a mechanism, there is no supporting hypothesis for common ancestry. With no supporting hypothesis for common ancestry, common ancestry loses its status as a theory and becomes a mere axiom, indistinguishable from an article of faith</i><br /><br />LOL! All I could think of when reading that steaming pile of nonsense was Otter's speech to the Student Judicial Board in <i>Animal House</i><br /><br />"Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.<br />[winks at Dean Wormer]<br />Otter: But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!<br />[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]"<br /><br />LOL!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13833807082940662422010-10-18T07:35:50.623-07:002010-10-18T07:35:50.623-07:00TomH: I think you'll agree that you misspoke-...TomH: <i>I think you'll agree that you misspoke--genetic variation isn't random."</i><br /><br />Mutations are random with respect to fitness. <br /><br /><i>"Without a mechanism, there is no supporting hypothesis for common ancestry. With no supporting hypothesis for common ancestry, common ancestry loses its status as a theory and becomes a mere axiom, indistinguishable from an article of faith."</i><br /><br />This isn't true in the least. Had Darwin had access to the modern fossil record and genetic tools, he could have made a compelling case for common ancestry without the slightest mention of natural selection. Now, without a proposed mechanism, the argument probably wouldn't be air-tight. But saying the fact of common ancestry would be negated without a mechanism is like saying the observations that things fall down is called into question because we don't know how gravity propagates.<br /><br />In order for an established scientific scientific theory to be replaced by another, the newer theory has to be able to explain <i>every</i> observation that the current one does. Geo-centricity explained the motions of the stars and planets, and could even predict astronomical events like eclipses. If heliocentricity hadn't been able to also explain these observations, it could not have replaced geocentricity as an explanatory paradigm. As it so happens, it <i>did</i> explain everything geocentricity did, and did so with more parsimony. The only IDers I take seriously (and I do take some seriously) are the ones who acknowledge that ID has to account for common ancestry as well.<br /><br />And note that I wasn't trying to convince James of evolution, just explain the theory to him. I don't mind if people understand evolutionary theory and don't accept it. But it bugs me when people don't even attempt to understand what their opponents are actually saying before dismissing their position as being stupid.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63655104373580603312010-10-18T07:31:05.430-07:002010-10-18T07:31:05.430-07:00Thorton,
Where's your straw?
Strange that yo...Thorton,<br /><br />Where's your straw?<br /><br />Strange that you cannot provide any evidence that demonstraes the proposed mechanisms of the ToE can construct a functional multi-part system.<br /><br />I take that bothers all you evotards.<br /><br />Good.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12366717974291745802010-10-18T07:29:24.521-07:002010-10-18T07:29:24.521-07:00jbeck,
In that 150 + years of research you still ...jbeck,<br /><br />In that 150 + years of research you still don't have any evidence that your posited processes can construct a functional multi-part system.<br /><br />As for ignorance well that is all you have.<br /><br />All you can do is try to bluff your way through a discussion but you sure as hell can't produce any positive evidence for your position.<br /><br />IOW you "gun" is your littlew needle-dick and it can't even shoot straight.<br /><br />LoL!!!!Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10852211745475330302010-10-18T07:26:45.883-07:002010-10-18T07:26:45.883-07:00Joe G said...
Pedant,
I have read the sc...<i>Joe G said...<br /><br /> Pedant,<br /><br /> I have read the scientific literature.</i><br /><br />Sorry JoeTard, but AIG, Chick tracts, and IDiot published popular press books aren't the scientific literatureGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63833168599916916002010-10-18T06:58:19.057-07:002010-10-18T06:58:19.057-07:00JoeG,
It doesn't matter what you think evotar...JoeG,<br /><br />It doesn't matter what you think evotards are. Not one one bit, not tuppence. Because even in the US an ignorant blabbermouth like you does not get to review grant applications at the NSF or NIH or sit on tenure committees at universities. Heck, you don't have seat even at out in the boondocks school boards - because even there the competition for pelf and the spoils of office from other ignorant folks is intense. And if you want to run for the state board of education you must be at least as good as someone like Deborah Owens in Ohio http://www.uakron.edu/cba/cba-home/about-us/directory/profile.dot?identity=594871, who despite all her efforts was voted out.<br /><br />In the meanwhile we can call you names, JoeG. We outgun and outrange you. We have the backing of >150 years of research and entire libraries of evidence and theory. That's a fact. That is why rail as you might, why you even the "great" Behe or Dembski, or even a Minnich who is a tenured professor who does research will not write a grant application to study creationism. Minnich, that is why, under oath, in Harrisburg, had to admit that his assertions about ID have no basis in science.<br /><br />JoeG, take a look in the mirror. Ask yourself if can call your bahavior, blabbermouth blogging under a pseudonym is anything other than pathetic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68116220844832800192010-10-18T06:49:20.623-07:002010-10-18T06:49:20.623-07:00The problem is they have been duped by evolution a...<b>The problem is they have been duped by evolution and its metaphysics. I've seen this over and over --otherwise smart people making really strange claims when it comes to evolution. And it is awfully difficult to disabuse them of it. (but I must give a salute to Pedant who is a rare exception)</b><br /><br />CH, <br /><br />Just because the quote can be interpreted differently or could be better worded (especially when taken out of content) doesn't mean it actually supports your OP. <br /><br />Here's the quote… <br /><br /><i>If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.</i><br /><br />Which was taken from the following chapter on evidence for evolution. http://bit.ly/bhB5DJ<br /><br />Specifically, this quote was referring to the fossil record. And not just any test. <br /><br /><i>"Using Fossils to Test the Theory of Evolution<br /><br />If the theory of evolution is correct, then the fossils we see preserved in rock should represent a history of evolutionary change. The theory makes the clear prediction that a parade of successive changes should be seen, as first one change occurs and then another. If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.To test this prediction, biologists follow a very simple procedure:"</i><br /><br />The chapter goes out outline this test, which is specific in nature. Later we see exactly what the author is referring to. <br /><br /><i>While the statement that evolution is the result of natural selection is a theory advanced by Darwin, the statement that macroevolution has occurred is a factual observation.</i><br /><br />So, here, the author clearly differentiates between natural selection (a mechanism of evolution) and macroevolution in regards to the fossil record test just outlined.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40405959737688078512010-10-18T05:53:16.993-07:002010-10-18T05:53:16.993-07:00To recap-\
Derrick has said that being human is a...To recap-\<br /><br />Derrick has said that being human is a heritable trait.<br /><br />Yet he has never provided anything to support that claim.<br /><br />OTOH I have posted several references pertaining to heritable traits and being human wasn't in any of them.<br /><br />Yet I am the one who doesn't know biology.<br /><br />Evotards are so pathetic...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11889930424490471242010-10-18T05:36:24.577-07:002010-10-18T05:36:24.577-07:00Derick:
Tom, which one of those works disagrees on...Derick:<br /><i>Tom, which one of those works disagrees on common ancestry, or that natural selection acting on random variation is the primary driver of evolution.</i><br /><br />Natural selection doesn't "act" on anything.<br /><br />NS is a result- an after the fact assessment.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37084946971239756412010-10-18T05:34:44.887-07:002010-10-18T05:34:44.887-07:00Pedant,
I have read the scientific literature.
A...Pedant,<br /><br />I have read the scientific literature.<br /><br />And there isn't any evidence tat an accumulation of genetic accidents- the ToE's mechanism- can construct a functional multi-part system.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59864540956894423802010-10-18T05:32:52.887-07:002010-10-18T05:32:52.887-07:00”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theol...<b>”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”</b> geneticist Giuseppe sermonti.<br /><br />And the sad part is all evotards can do is attack Sermonti.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com