tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3370086736106976424..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Drosophila’s Altimeter: Evolution Does it AgainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74232464171696787522010-09-14T20:40:23.808-07:002010-09-14T20:40:23.808-07:00emil said: "I never understood why Evolution...emil said: "I never understood why Evolution vs. Creationism is such a big deal in the US. Maybe some time I will find an explanation for that."<br /><br />At the core it's because evolution vs. creationism is a religious matter for many people in the U.S., and since religion is such a large component of American culture, this makes it a political matter as well. There are many politicians who wouldn't be caught dead admitting that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, even if they fully know better, or else their constituents would give them the boot immediately.<br /><br />It's a religious matter because it directly contradicts an historical reading of the first part of Genesis, which many people still hold to. (I guess we didn't learn our lesson with Psalm 93:1 and geocentricity) I don't even think it's that most Christians reject evolution, it's just that the ones who do are very, very vocal about it. Since almost all of a creationist's theology is built up around things like biological death being a direct consequence of original sin, or the "Fall", they see evolution, and in most cases even an old earth, as a refutation as their entire belief system. That's why they'll deny evolution till their dying breath; their entire framework for understanding reality depends on evolution not being true. (Most don't realize that you can modify frameworks for understanding reality to <i>fit</i> reality quite easily) Now, most of them would make the same charge against people who accept evolution; that we are only accepting it because it is 'required' of our 'belief' system. They genuinely seem to not be able to acknowledge the fact that people of every belief system under the sun accept evolution on rational grounds; theists, deists, atheists, buddhist, hindus, you name it, thus immediately refuting the claim that 'worldview' has something to do with it in all cases. Eocene goes so far to label me an atheist, even though I've made it very clear on many occasions that I'm a devout Christian.<br /><br />The problem is, as you can see with people like Eocene, is that once this narrow "I'm right no matter what the 'evidence' says, cause I got me the Bible on my side" mentality takes hold, there is (usually) no point in using reason or evidence to change their minds; Any evidence for evolution is either 'faked' in in some global conspiracy theory, or as Cornelius says, "interpreted through the lens of metaphysics." I myself was once afflicted with this confirmation bias (due to mostly to my YEC upbringing) And looking back on it, it seems rather odd. Creationists think that because they have the 'right' interpretation of scripture, (even though there are many, many, versions of the 'right' interpretation, even among creationists) they know more about biology than every biologist, more about physics than every physicist, more about geology than every geologists, more about genetics than every geneticist, etc. You'd think that holding that kind of belief while at the same time watching scientists proving their grasp of respective fields by producing things like space ships, maps of the human genome, new medicine, and things like that, would cause some sort of cognitive dissonance, but sadly (and frighteningly) it doesn't. They just look around wonder how all these moron scientist are even still employed. In some cases the delusion is so severe that they think that the world would be better off <i>without</i> science. Eocene attributes many of the world's ills to evolutionary biologists alone. I've seen many creationists make the snide rhetorical question: "what has science ever done for us?"Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6130268662091974192010-09-14T20:23:56.756-07:002010-09-14T20:23:56.756-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19634356952776784952010-09-14T18:16:28.656-07:002010-09-14T18:16:28.656-07:00I never understood why Evolution vs. Creationism i...I never understood why Evolution vs. Creationism is such a big deal in the US. Maybe some time I will find an explanation for that. For me as well as probably for many others who can't understand the issue behind this whole thing, it is very hard to find out how to react when unintentionally being draged into such discussions. It just feels like a different universe - a realy nasty one.emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13814661558964906512010-09-14T16:55:08.635-07:002010-09-14T16:55:08.635-07:00I love it!!!!!!
And, it is so much fun to actual...I love it!!!!!! <br /><br />And, it is so much fun to actually do it. <br /><br />Well, I am in the US but our lab as well as the field is pretty much a microcosmos of the whole world. It is a little field (which is the reason why I don't say which for privacy reasons) where there is not much money, fame, or a big carrier. Well, others might be able to use the results to make big money (this is why we are funded), but in this case the only thing we would get are a couple of good citations... I am perfectly happy with this. It is the perfect spot for everybody who is scientist by heart. Those sort of accumulate there by magic. I wonder why....:) I wish it would be everywhere like that - and this not just in Science. <br /><br />However, maybe it could be at least serve as an inspiration...?emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47539431385255492102010-09-13T11:41:44.402-07:002010-09-13T11:41:44.402-07:00Emil, what country do you work in? I'm assumi...Emil, what country do you work in? I'm assuming not the US. In the US, political controversies get brutal. (Evolution vs. creationism is not a scientific controversy.) <br /><br />And what is your field, specifically?<br /><br />In order to cheer up the real scientists here, I'm going to insert Richard Feynman's description of what separates real sciences from "cargo cult science." (He mean ideas filled with fancy jargon words, not tested by experiment.)<br /><br />"Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re [cargo cult scientists] missing. ... there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—- we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty... For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your result; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.<br /><br />...Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—- if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-— to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it.. then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it." <br />["Cargo Cult Science" from "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" p.310-311]<br /><br />This is not just what leads to good scientific theories. It's also what keeps scientists from killing each other.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37841514193784224592010-09-12T17:06:06.174-07:002010-09-12T17:06:06.174-07:00troy,
Sorry, I couldn't find the movies with ...troy,<br /><br />Sorry, I couldn't find the movies with the information you provided. I am helpless when it comes to using the internet other than for searching for articles… Its really bad. However, yes, scientists are humans and humans fail at times.<br />It also depends on the field of science. In my field it is very friendly. Almost all of my conversations actually follow this pattern. However, even if there is some failure at times, the overall goal is what is important. <br /><br />What worries me is that I can't find anything that is even close to that anywhere in this blog.<br /><br />It is, as Pedant said not the criticism. It is how it is done. There is a huge difference between uninformed criticism and constructive informed criticism. One facilitates tearing people apart and creates problems, the other facilitates bringing people together to solve problem. My goal is bringing people together not tearing them apart. <br /><br />Each single person has the power of choosing how we (want to) treat others around us and with this what we (want to) create around us: a warm comfortable productive place, or nasty chaos. <br /><br />My life philosophy is: even if the world around me is as nasty as it can gets, I feel that I failed if I let myself get carried away and do the same because I allowed myself to become part of nastiness instead of trying to stop it. It is all a matter of life philosophy.<br /><br />Here is something I would like to share. It is a true story. One time at a gathering, I was sitting at a round table together with Jews, different affiliations of Moslems, and Christians. I don't know how this happened, but somehow we started to share stories and discovered that there was more that we had in common than there was that made us different. It was a life changing experience.emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51662945143798655082010-09-12T14:17:18.463-07:002010-09-12T14:17:18.463-07:00emil,
I agree with the gist of your posts, but yo...emil,<br /><br />I agree with the gist of your posts, but your imaginary conversation between scientists is a bit misleading. It's often a lot more nasty than that. Scientists are humans, have egos and often take critique personally. Watch one of those Hitler and reviewer #3 youtube movies...troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62705189339751370792010-09-12T13:57:58.908-07:002010-09-12T13:57:58.908-07:00emil, you are so right. It takes training to unde...emil, you are so right. It takes training to understand science, and when you understand it, you can appreciate its beauty.<br /><br />Uninformed criticism is hurtful, not because it is criticism, but because it is uninformed.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78155440580534871682010-09-12T08:47:24.927-07:002010-09-12T08:47:24.927-07:00stupid dyslexia. I ment to write:
Isn’t that so m...stupid dyslexia. I ment to write:<br /><br />Isn’t that so much enjoyable and better for the soul?emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27500527204275342242010-09-12T08:40:00.353-07:002010-09-12T08:40:00.353-07:00diagones, I know. You know what, it doesn’t even m...diagones, I know. You know what, it doesn’t even make me angry. What it makes me is really really sad because they never get to experience the beauty of arealy good, fruitful, and refreshing conversation. They just miss out on so much beauty. Its really sad.<br /><br />OK, for those who wonder what I am taking about. Compare the conversation pattern outlined by Diagones with this one: <br /><br />Scientist 1: Hi how is it going. I did read you paper. I liked it but it seems like that there are a lot questions still to be answered.<br />Scientist 2: Yes, you are so right. I am working on that right now but I got stuck because…<br />Scientist 1: You know what, while I was reading the paper I was thinking……<br />Scientist 2: OH, What? I didn’t get that. What do you mean? <br />Scientist 1: You know……<br />Scientist 2: OH, I get it. You know what, that’s a good point. I totally missed that.<br />Scientist 1: OH, and there is another thing it is……<br />Scientist 2: Well, this was actually answered in the paper. We showed that……<br />Scientist 1: Oh yes, that was the part I didn’t quite understand. Can you explain me that.<br />Scientist 2: You see that is……….. Sorry, I guess we should have explained it a bit better.<br />Scientist 1: Now it makes sense. But what is with that……<br />And so on and on and on<br /><br />Isn't that soooo much enoyable and better for the soul?emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20825535451469805012010-09-11T22:32:55.420-07:002010-09-11T22:32:55.420-07:00Emil, I agree with everything you wrote. Your desc...Emil, I agree with everything you wrote. Your description of "How Science Really Works" is beautiful and accurate.<br /><br />But, they won't believe you. They think science, as an institution, is a Stalinist dictatorship run by atheists. William Dembski and Jonathan Wells of the DI explicitly call it "Stalinist." They say scientists are genuinely stupid, and "religious" (atheist) fanatics, blinded by atheism, blah blah.<br /><br />One of the main appeals of creationism, and many other pseudosciences, is the lure of believing you know more about EVERY science than all scientists-- you know more about astrophysics than those "atheist" astrophysicists, you know more about genetics than those "atheists" geneticists, and on and on and on, for every single science. All of them.<br /><br />How can they think such a thing?<br /><br />They usually prove the stupidity of scientists by using what I call "SAFI" arguments-- "Scientists Are Freaking Idiots!" A SAFI argument alleges that there exists some kind of OBVIOUS contradiction or paradox that scientists won't even admit exists! The dumber, the better. Such as: "If man evolved from monkeys, than why do monkeys still exist?" or "The 2nd. law of thermodynamics says entropy cannot decrease, so how can complex animals evolve" or Haldane's dilemma, etc. Of course, these "paradoxes" are easily refuted if you know any math.<br /><br />The creationists love hearing that scientists have supposedly overlooked some freaking obvious contradiction. You see the appeal? If scientists have overlooked some really, really obvious "contradiction" (like entropy decrease), that means scientists are idiots and/or blinded by militant atheism.<br /><br />Thus, any preacher, shyster lawyer, philosopher, or pathological liar of the DI can think himself smarter than ALL THE WORLD'S SCIENTISTS-- and thus, the preacher, shyster lawyer, philosopher, or pathological liar can know more about science than every scientist in the world WITHOUT KNOWING ANY SCIENTIFIC DATA AT ALL, OR DOING ANY RESEARCH.<br /><br />Data? They don't need no stinkin' data!<br /><br />Anyway Emil, nice to meet you.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83984177206294844152010-09-11T21:51:53.895-07:002010-09-11T21:51:53.895-07:00I got here by accident (actually not quite, but ne...I got here by accident (actually not quite, but never mind). My duty was to read all this crap. At some point I just couldn't help myself and had to say something....<br /><br />Well I don't have much experience with all this. <br /><br />Something that jumpt into my face is that obviously IDiots have realy no idea how Science works. So, here is a Science 101 introduction quick course. <br /><br />Before one publishes a scientific paper, this paper must go through several peerreviews. If you believe it or not, those are usually very harsh because nobody wants something out there that is not OK. It would harm the whole field of Science and nobody wants that. Yes, sometimes a bad paper slips through but at least the good Journals make sure that only stuff is published that is rock solid. Usually the reviewers are the big guys in the field and they will catch mistakes. Once a paper is final (at least in big Journals) there is probably no question that was not aske and then integrated into the paper in some way. The greatest fear of a Scientist is that after the paper is published somebody could come up with a question that would make the paper look like garbage and they do everything they can to avoid this - believe me. <br /><br />It is a world of its own, driven by curiosity, questions, constructive critisism, and a desire of finding answers that is gooooogle times stronger than wanting to be right. It is a world that might be completely alient and unbelievable to you but, it does exist and it is beautiful bejond any imaginagion. I invite you to come and take a look, but please leave your weapons behind because they are not neccesary and do harm to this world. This is my love letter to science and how I practice it.emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9148203075613739692010-09-11T19:58:14.467-07:002010-09-11T19:58:14.467-07:00Diagones,
Thank you so much. This summary saved m...Diagones,<br /><br />Thank you so much. This summary saved me quite some time I think. It fits exactly my expectations. <br /><br />What must it be to be a ID and read this. If the roles would be switched then I would vigerously disagree and then show that those presumptions are wrong and that I can do much better.<br /><br />Needless to say that there is little chance that this will happen. I just wonder if this is due to a difference in Phenotype or Genotype? And how did this evolve? Would be interesting to examine this from an Evolutionary standpoint. Maybe even some speciation already occured? What do you think?emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74883906465736786502010-09-11T19:11:08.536-07:002010-09-11T19:11:08.536-07:00Please note that Brandon Pope seems to get his &qu...Please note that Brandon Pope seems to get his "science" for the age of the Earth from the dumbest Young Earth creationists--- looks like Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham and jailbird Kent Hovind to me.<br /><br />>> Such findings as the decay of the Earth's magnetic field, helium levels, the moon's trajectory, abrupt gaps and "evolutionary" leaps in the fossil record, etc. are some examples of that age the earth in a way that allows insufficient time for definitional Darwinian evolution to have occurred without outside intelligent influence. <<<br /><br />Apparently Young Earth creationist Bible-science for the age of the Earth.<br /><br />The "Earth's decaying magnetic field" argument refers to the creatard arguments that said magnetic field decays exponentially, so you estimate the age of the earth by assuming B0 halves every 5000 years or so, and looking back in time, B0 must double for each 5000 years you go back; in which case merely 200,000 years ago, B0 would be strong enough to pull the fillings out of your teeth.<br /><br />Now, real science: The Earth's dipole field is decaying, but it isn't decaying exponentially. Creatards only look at the dipole field, ignore the quadrupole field etc. which are increasing. Even if B0 is decaying now, we know B0 didn't increase exponentially in the past; it OSCILLATED, as we know from magnetization in ancient lava flows.<br /><br />By "helium levels" Pope is presumably referring to the creatard RATE project's measurements of helium diffusion, which idiotically ignored cracks in the rocks, through which helium might escape, and TRULY idiotically assumed a constant temperature for the rock even when buried far beneath the Earth's crust and got super-heated. (Also ignores the super-heating that would result from THEIR OWN creatard theory that during Noah's flood, all continental plates skated around faster than Apollo Ono, which would have cooked Noah's family.)<br /><br />By "the moon's trajectory", Pope presumably means the creatard argument that the Moon is getting farther away from the Earth, and X millions year ago it would be much closer. This ignored that the slowing of the Moon's period is due to energy sucked away by tidal motion on Earth, which is currently at resonance and WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN when the Moon was closer several million years ago.<br /><br />Seriously, Brandon, where DID you get your science from? Answers in Genesis? Tell the truth.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55226654635795790792010-09-11T18:50:13.508-07:002010-09-11T18:50:13.508-07:00Brandon Pope:
...information is the source of int...Brandon Pope:<br /> ...information is the source of intelligence processes (like reaction to a burning stove), and the only source of information is intelligence...<br /><br />...Neo-Darwinian theory has absolutely no scientifically credible evidence for how that information, the information needed for the diversity we observe today, to have evolved in an undirected fashion. <br /><br />You know nothing about information theory. Seriously, nothing. Information is routinely produced by natural processes--indeed, just about all particle interactions.<br /><br />In REAL information theory (not Dembski's river of unproven metaphysical assertions), i.e. Claude Shannon's information theory, there are two relevant quantities: uncertainity, and mutual information.<br /><br />Mutual information is the reduction of uncertainty in property X given that you know Y. It is a measure of the CORRELATION of X and Y.<br /><br />If X is correlated with Y, then X encodes information about X, and vice versa. Got it?<br /><br />So natural processes create REAL INFORMATION all the time.<br /><br />The size of a footprint on the beach encodes information about the size of the foot that made it. <br /><br />The bubbles trapped in arctic ice contain information about the ancient climate when the air bubble was trapped (because the ratio of isotopes in air is correlated with temperature.)<br /><br />So to repeat: no intelligence needed to create REAL information, in Shannon's theory.<br /><br />As for how evolution produces information, HOW MANY TIMES do we have to tell you to read Schneider's paper on the ev algorithm?<br /><br />ALL natural processes produce information. In the specific example of evolution, the basic process is: random mutation, natural selection differentially amplifies the beneficial mutations and de-amplifies the detrimental mutations; another random mutation; repeat, repeat...<br /><br />The mutation step introduces NO information. The natural selection step introduces a CORRELATION between the advantageousness of the mutant allele, and the proportion of individuals in a population with the beneficial allele. The "information" in the genome is this correlation. Read Schneider's ev paper. <br /><br />How many times do we have to say this before IDiots Listen!?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21612170885647115452010-09-11T18:37:12.830-07:002010-09-11T18:37:12.830-07:00Gary- "Statistical mechanics is not something...Gary- "Statistical mechanics is not something they have ever understood as having profound implications in biology."<br /><br />Look IDiot, I'm not even going to ask you for the equation behind that. You'll never cough up the equation. You just fart and dart, as Thorton said. When we ask you to explain the fart, you'll dart. <br /><br />But as for stat mech: they're scientists. They know more stat mech than you, moron. All molecular biologists know stat mech at some level and THEY ALL KNOW MORE THAN YOU. They have to to understand protein folding, protein-substrate binding, and esp. molecular dynamics.<br /><br />AND THEY HAVE TO APPLY IT! YOU DON'!<br /><br />Again we see, ID and creationism are just about egomania. <br /><br />ID, creationism, UFOlogy, crop circle-ology, Bible Code, are all pseudoscientific attempts at "detecting invisble intelligences who behave in irrational ways and are thus unpredictable."<br /><br />And all these invisible intelligence-based pseudosciences have as one of their main theses: "I'm smarter than all the world's scientists!"<br /><br />What next? You pour contempt on the world's scientists because you can do long division, and you say none of the world's scientists can divide?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78083047545496375202010-09-11T18:27:30.406-07:002010-09-11T18:27:30.406-07:00Emil, the IDiots aren't scientists and won'...Emil, the IDiots aren't scientists and won't read your papers. This blog is always the same Nuremberg Rally, hating on the scientists, conspiracy theories, creationist just-so stories and ignorance about information theory.<br /><br />IDiot: For evolution to be true, X must happen. But X has never been observed.<br /><br />Scientist [e.g. NickM or SteveC]: Here are 3 published scientific papers where X was observed. Could you at least read one paper? Pleeease?<br /><br />IDiot: Scientists are militant atheists! For evolution to be true, Y must happen. But Y has never been observed.<br /><br />Scientist: Here are 4 published scientific papers where Y was observed. Could you at least read the abstracts from? Pleeease? The abstracts are short, I promise.<br /><br />IDiot: Population genetics disproves evolution!<br /><br />Scientist: To show population genetics is consistent with evolution, here's a cutting-edge paper published in... 1940... [sigh]<br /><br />IDiot: Information theory disproves evolution!<br /><br />Scientist: To show information theory is consistent with evolution, here's a cutting-edge paper published in... 1970... [double sigh]<br /><br />IDiot: Haldane's dilemma! Scientists have never addressed that! It's cutting edge. Scientists are dumb as a box of rocks!<br /><br />Scientist: 1970 paper<br /><br />IDiot: Statistical mechanics disproves evolution! I'm smarter than Einstein!<br /><br />Scientist: OK, what's the logic behind that? Have you got a published paper demonstrating that? Could you write down an equation showing how statistical mechanics disproves evolution?<br /><br />IDiot: Atheists believe in the crocoduck! You believe beautiful children are just retarded fish-frogs! I'm smarter than Watson and Crick!Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45957162597603271232010-09-11T17:51:12.724-07:002010-09-11T17:51:12.724-07:00OK, last call. If nobody picks a primary resarch p...OK, last call. If nobody picks a primary resarch paper within the next few days and points out where exactly the mistake is in the oppinion of the ICD crowd, I think I will start the Journal Club. I realy wanted to avoid this because then everybody will start screeming at me that I picked my top canidate for doing such thing....emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26467636422379186052010-09-11T17:04:26.708-07:002010-09-11T17:04:26.708-07:00Salvador,
"One doesn't have to accept ID...Salvador,<br /><br />"One doesn't have to accept ID or creation in order to see evolutionists haven't made logical arguments comparable to arguments used to support REAL scientific theories like electro magnetism or statistical mechanics or quantum mechanics."<br /><br />Please, Please, I beg you. Give me an example where scientists failed to back up a claim they made in a scientific paper not sufficient enough in your oppinion. And explain me why. Sorry, I just can't give up. I know I am talking against a wall. Well, I am used to that I have teens... Its the same deal they are convinced that they know everything but actually there is absolute no foundation.emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47672394900422987212010-09-11T16:29:45.856-07:002010-09-11T16:29:45.856-07:00Brandon wrote:
"Is 8000 mutational cycles suf...Brandon wrote:<br />"Is 8000 mutational cycles sufficient for all of the diversity of life on this planet?"<br /><br />Do you not understand the meaning of the term "parallel," Brandon?<br /><br />Are you one of those goofballs who views evolution as a ladder instead of a tree or bush? Note that this view is independent of whether you accept evolutionary theory or not.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37788784967866572642010-09-11T16:29:33.704-07:002010-09-11T16:29:33.704-07:00I actually don't expect them to do so, but I w...I actually don't expect them to do so, but I would be happy to be wrong and to bet surprised. Much like I don't mind, as a researcher to get surprised and to figure out that my hypothesis is wrong. I prooved myself so many times wrong the last two years, you have no idea.... The final outcome though was always highly productive. <br /><br />Well, I guess I am, by accident, collecting evidence for that all this is truely just retorical bla bla about Evolution doesn't provide evidence. I mean, show me where exactly. Put the finger onto it. It seems like they just can't. OH MANemilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17587229454279684942010-09-11T16:13:24.364-07:002010-09-11T16:13:24.364-07:00emil said...
I am sad, nobody is brave enough...<i>emil said...<br /><br /> I am sad, nobody is brave enough to actually picking a real paper to talk about so the hand haveing would finaly stop. But maybe this is the purpose of the whole thing.... </i><br /><br />Why would you expect Intelligent Design Creationism pushers to actually read scientific papers when IDC isn't about science? Taking time to actually understand what they're blithering about would only show down the steady stream of empty rhetoric that is their only output.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1235172081809003362010-09-11T16:08:10.874-07:002010-09-11T16:08:10.874-07:00Scott said...
Bryan,
What is the logical...<i>Scott said...<br /><br /> Bryan,<br /><br /> What is the logical argument for why over 95% of all intelligently designed species have gone extinct?<br /><br /> What is the logical argument as to why an intelligent designer would intentionally route the laryngeal nerve as seen in the following video?</i><br /><br />I'd just like the IDC crowd here to explain the logic for why the Intelligent Designer set up predator/prey relationships at all. Why design certain species of animal (gazelles, antelopes) with great speed to avoid being eaten, then turn around and design other species (lions, crocodiles) with all the tools to kill and eat the first species every chance they get? Why would a designer create caterpillars, then design a species of parasitic wasp that burrows into the caterpillars and eats them alive from the inside out?<br /><br />Anyone? Are there multiple designers competing against each other?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62554429523084111722010-09-11T15:40:11.785-07:002010-09-11T15:40:11.785-07:00I am sad, nobody is brave enough to actually picki...I am sad, nobody is brave enough to actually picking a real paper to talk about so the hand haveing would finaly stop. But maybe this is the purpose of the whole thing....emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17915884666629553372010-09-11T14:49:03.218-07:002010-09-11T14:49:03.218-07:00Bryan,
What is the logical argument for why over...Bryan, <br /><br />What is the logical argument for why over 95% of all intelligently designed species have gone extinct?<br /><br />What is the logical argument as to why an intelligent designer would intentionally route the laryngeal nerve as seen in the following video?<br /><br />http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2010/06/richard_dawkins_21.htmlScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com