tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5090506686318562462..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: GATA-1: A Protein That Regulates ProteinsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9379768069736315762010-03-09T00:27:00.352-08:002010-03-09T00:27:00.352-08:00Cornelius is trying to weasel out. Whale-hippo, wh...Cornelius is trying to weasel out. Whale-hippo, whale-hippo. Focus on that. <br /><br />If evolution is a lie, then why did biologists predict the artiodactyl-whale connection on the basis of comparisons of anatomy alone, arrangements into nested hierarchies/trees of descent-- <br /><br />and then later, pakicetus and ambulocetus are dug up, transitional forms matching the theory--<br /><br />and then genetic comparison show great similarities between cetaceans and hippos; here I mean specifically the common pattern of ERV insertions?<br /><br />What theory fits that data best? Seems to me the theory that whales and hippos have a common ancestor.<br /><br />Do you, Cornelius, know of a better theory to explain the data above besides common descent? Specifically, the transitional fossils and the genetic similarities and ERV insertions? What's the better theory?<br /><br />Yes or no? If you have a better theory, spit it out, and it must be specific enough to make some predictions about artiodactyl-cetacean differences that are DIFFERENT from common descent-based predictions.<br /><br />If you don't know a better theory, then how bout taking back what you said about evolutionists teaching a lie? They are teaching the only theory that puts out testable specific predictions distinguishable from competitors and that have been confirmed, no?<br /><br />Yes or no? Don't weasel. Oh, I know, you'll weasel weasel weasel by just pointing us to your list of "failed predictions of Darwinism" that are stuff that either increases the likelihood of evolution, or new biology that doesn't prove or disprove it either way.<br /><br />Whale-hippo-- do you know a better theory-- yes or no?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74607210894384130692010-03-04T06:09:59.551-08:002010-03-04T06:09:59.551-08:00Cornelius,
"It is special pleading to then pi...Cornelius,<br />"It is special pleading to then pick out a case where the data are not yet available, and hold it up as an example of common descent. For instance, there are falsified predictions involving two frog species, or involving humans and mice." what, specifically, are the data for frogs, human and mice (references, please)? Then we can compare the data for them and whales/hippos:<br />Nikaido et al. PNAS 96:10261.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10087151752848795092010-03-04T05:34:24.950-08:002010-03-04T05:34:24.950-08:00Zachriel: Do Darwin's Finches share a Common A...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Do Darwin's Finches share a Common Ancestor?</i><br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>My position is that evolution might be true (I could care less one way or another), ...<br /><br />As such, evolutionists such as yourself misrepresent science... <br /><br />But if you want to know my position, I just stated it...</i><br /><br />Didn't see the answer there. Are you saying that the evidence is not convincing for the Common Descent of Darwin's Finches? <br /><br />Nearly all of our general readers see articles about primitive hominid fossils, dinosaur eggs and the evolution of flowering plants. Most are fascinated by these discoveries and understand the basics of Common Descent, though perhaps not the details. As you won't admit that Darwin's Finches are related by Common Descent, it would be reasonable for people to be skeptical of your position. <br /><br />We can discuss Common Descent of Darwin's Finches. Of course, it has to be seen in the light of the overall phylogenetic tree. <br /><br />Burns, Hackett and Klein, <i>Phylogenetic Relationships and Morphological Diversity in Darwin's Finches and Their Relatives</i>, Evolution 2002.<br /><br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>You lend your voice and authority to a lie.</i><br /><br />Zachriel's domain is rather limited. Any authority comes from the argument and the evidence.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19073910479597208182010-03-04T00:35:09.787-08:002010-03-04T00:35:09.787-08:00Zach:
====
Let's start with a few examples. A...Zach:<br /><br />====<br />Let's start with a few examples. And we're looking for a scientific evaluation based on the available evidence.<br /><br />Do Darwin's Finches share a Common Ancestor?<br />Do birds?<br />Do land vertebrates?<br /><br />Feel free to elaborate so that we fully understand your position.<br />====<br /><br />My position is that evolution might be true (I could care less one way or another), but that evolution is not a good scientific theory because while there is obvious evidence for evolution on the whole it makes little sense in light of biology, that the claim evolution is a fact is religiously motivated, that evolution is therefore effectively a religious theory, that evolution makes a mockery of science, and that these observations are so obvious they are not even controversial to any objective observer.<br /><br />As such, evolutionists such as yourself misrepresent science. You are blessed as few people in history to have an excellent education and employment. You have excellent knowledge of nature, yet you misrepresent science to those who do not share your blessings. You lend your voice and authority to a lie.<br /><br />As scientists it is our duty (and privilege) to explain science to the public. Evolutionists have not merely failed to do a good job at this, they have distorted and misrepresented science.<br /><br />Now get this: The evolutionist claims evolution is a fact, I point out the obvious absurdities, and he then wants me to fill in details. Wait a minute, you have made ludicrous claims to which you will not own up.<br /><br />But if you want to know my position, I just stated it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35971226687223644702010-03-04T00:15:57.225-08:002010-03-04T00:15:57.225-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64020949137996959402010-03-03T23:46:03.606-08:002010-03-03T23:46:03.606-08:00nano:
====
If this is special pleading, then it i...nano:<br /><br />====<br />If this is special pleading, then it is also special pleading to say that we can measure gravity on the macroscale ignoring the fact that it operates differently on the quantum scale. <br />====<br /><br />No, there are problems with common descent in various cases. It is special pleading to then pick out a case where the data are not yet available, and hold it up as an example of common descent. For instance, there are falsified predictions involving two frog species, or involving humans and mice. These are not so different from your case of the hippo and whale.<br /><br />===<br />every test of a hypothesis is not a test of an entire theory. common descent of two organisms does not require common descent of every organism.<br />===<br /><br />Sure, and as we gather more data we can explore more and more cases. What we do know, for now, is that many predictions, in various cases, have been falsified. So while we cannot rule out common descent everywhere, we do find substantial problem with the theory that all species share a common ancestor.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21477518370732087202010-03-03T16:05:16.675-08:002010-03-03T16:05:16.675-08:00Cornelius Hunter,
Let's start with a few exa...Cornelius Hunter, <br /><br />Let's start with a few examples. And we're looking for a scientific evaluation based on the available evidence. <br /><br />Do Darwin's Finches share a Common Ancestor? <br />Do birds? <br />Do land vertebrates? <br /><br />Feel free to elaborate so that we fully understand your position.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12035782448600101432010-03-03T15:34:18.867-08:002010-03-03T15:34:18.867-08:00Cornelius,
If this is special pleading, then it is...Cornelius,<br />If this is special pleading, then it is also special pleading to say that we can measure gravity on the macroscale ignoring the fact that it operates differently on the quantum scale. every test of a hypothesis is not a test of an entire theory. common descent of two organisms does not require common descent of every organism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66074243744281683452010-03-03T13:33:24.380-08:002010-03-03T13:33:24.380-08:00nano:
===
no matter how many times you say otherw...nano:<br /><br />===<br />no matter how many times you say otherwise, I am not invoking the whale and the hippo to make a general case about common descent.<br />===<br /><br />But I did not say otherwise. In fact, I pointed out that your argument amounts to special pleading.<br /><br />===<br />i am simply asking if you think the evidence supports the common descent of whales and hippos from a recent common ancestor. you said yes before (and then added caveats about not "accepting" it later), so maybe we can move on from there. <br />===<br /><br />But again you are misrepresenting what I said. I added caveats only because you seemed to misunderstand. You asked if I agreed there was evidence for common descent of whales and hippos. I agreed, and you erroneously took that as concurrence that they do share such a common ancestor. So I had to explain the distinction between (i) evidence for a hypothesis and (ii) validity of a hypothesis. These are two different concepts which evolutionists seem to confuse.<br /><br />===<br />now, do you think the evidence supports the common descent of camels, whales and hippos from a more recent common ancestor?<br />===<br /><br />No, *the* evidence obviously does not support such a hypothesis, though there is *some* evidence for it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70130058969396056292010-03-03T13:18:09.502-08:002010-03-03T13:18:09.502-08:00Cornelius,
no matter how many times you say otherw...Cornelius,<br />no matter how many times you say otherwise, I am not invoking the whale and the hippo to make a general case about common descent. i am simply asking if you think the evidence supports the common descent of whales and hippos from a recent common ancestor. you said yes before (and then added caveats about not "accepting" it later), so maybe we can move on from there. now, do you think the evidence supports the common descent of camels, whales and hippos from a more recent common ancestor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55719254750031933422010-03-03T13:09:00.239-08:002010-03-03T13:09:00.239-08:00nano:
===
OK, let's take one. How does 2.1 (t...nano:<br /><br />===<br />OK, let's take one. How does 2.1 (the unknown origin of the genetic code) argue against the common descent of whales and hippos?<br />===<br /><br />2.1 is about the DNA's role in OOL (not merely the genetic code which is the focus of 2.2). Common descent says all species are genealogically related to a single first life. One of its predictions was the role of DNA in that process, as explained in 2.1. That prediction did not fare well in the light of biology.<br /><br />This and the other 14 examples show a variety of common descent predictions gone wrong. Yes, "The whale and hippo share a common ancestor" is not one of them, but you are making a mockery of science by claiming general predictions of your theory, found to be false, don't matter because they don't involve the particulars of a narrow example you have selected.<br /><br />For instance, 2.1 deals with the origin of that first life. So perhaps you'll move the goal posts to exclude that early portion of your common descent theory. Instead of going all the way back, you could move the starting point to some arbitrary down stream time. You could continue with that strategy to eliminate all 14, chopping off parts of your theory to exclude the problems. But that would be special pleading.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44300500928908038492010-03-03T12:27:51.960-08:002010-03-03T12:27:51.960-08:00OK, let's take one. How does 2.1 (the unknown ...OK, let's take one. How does 2.1 (the unknown origin of the genetic code) argue against the common descent of whales and hippos?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63335806515604384922010-03-03T12:18:19.936-08:002010-03-03T12:18:19.936-08:00nano:
"if there are so many examples, it sho...nano:<br /><br />"if there are so many examples, it should be easy to list some. yet you don't."<br /><br />But I've given 14 examples.<br /><br />I'll paste in the table of contents at www.darwinspredictions.com/, since you don't seem to have seen it. 14 predictions are discussed. They are all problems for common descent (assuming the usual definition).<br /><br /><br />Table of Contents<br /><br />1 Introduction<br />1.1 How to compare findings with expectations<br />1.2 Two examples<br />1.3 Evolution’s falsifications and complications<br />1.4 Objections of evolutionists<br />1.5 About this document<br />1.6 Executive summary<br />1.7 Acknowledgements<br />1.8 References<br /><br />2 DNA predictions<br />2.1 The DNA structure gave rise to first life<br />2.2 The DNA code is not unique<br />2.3 Fundamental molecular processes<br /><br />3 Early evolution predictions<br />3.1 Evolution has hundreds of millions of years available<br />3.2 Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes<br />3.3 Simple beginnings<br /><br />4 Design of life predictions<br />4.1 Evolutionary leftovers are common<br />4.2 Genomes of similar species<br />4.3 Genomes of distant species<br /><br />5 Biological change predictions<br />5.1 Mechanisms of biological change<br />5.2 Biological variation is independent of need<br />5.3 The molecular clock<br />5.4 Gradualism<br /><br />6 Behavior predictions<br />6.1 Altruism<br /><br />7 The fact of evolution<br />7.1 The process of elimination<br />7.2 Other process of elimination arguments<br />7.3 Evolution is a necessary consequence<br /><br />8 ConclusionsCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5884157560340860412010-03-03T11:03:48.327-08:002010-03-03T11:03:48.327-08:00Cornelius,
if there are so many examples, it shoul...Cornelius,<br />if there are so many examples, it should be easy to list some. yet you don't. perhaps you can take one of your falsified predictions and explain how it applies to the common descent of whales and hippos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15100435796785726182010-03-03T10:48:13.015-08:002010-03-03T10:48:13.015-08:00nano:
====
so by your judgement the hypothesis of...nano:<br /><br />====<br />so by your judgement the hypothesis of common descent of whales and hippos can never be supported no matter what the evidence<br />====<br /><br />But I never said that. In fact, quite the opposite, I explained that I don't reject common descent necessarily, but recognize it for what it is.<br /><br /><br />====<br />because of some (unspecified) problems with common descent found in some other (unspecified) species? <br />====<br /><br />But there are plenty of specified problems and specified species as examples. What do you mean?<br /><br /><br />====<br />These must be some pretty serious problems, but I don't see anything about them on your darwin's predictions site. perhaps you're saving it for a cover article in Nature?<br />====<br /><br />But www.DarwinsPredictions.com has 14 falsified predictions. Did you not see those?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79232254349873641162010-03-03T09:21:54.847-08:002010-03-03T09:21:54.847-08:00Cornelius,
so by your judgement the hypothesis of ...Cornelius,<br />so by your judgement the hypothesis of common descent of whales and hippos can never be supported no matter what the evidence because of some (unspecified) problems with common descent found in some other (unspecified) species? These must be some pretty serious problems, but I don't see anything about them on your darwin's predictions site. perhaps you're saving it for a cover article in Nature?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20113590877229692202010-03-03T08:08:46.371-08:002010-03-03T08:08:46.371-08:00nano:
====
You are still not answering the questi...nano:<br /><br />====<br />You are still not answering the question. From what I see, you reject a hypothesis even though the data support it.<br />====<br /><br />So, what is it about "we look at all the information available" that you don't understand?<br /><br />What is is about "We don't conclude that an idea is a fact because there are *some* supporting observations, while ignoring the problems." that doesn't make sense to evolutionists?<br /><br /><br /><br />====<br />Again, I am asking about this specific example, not common descent in general. Please explain why you reject the hypothesis in this specific case. what is the problem with the evidence in this specific case?<br />====<br /><br />So all the problems with common descent don't count because they were discovered for other species ?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35797643562959715182010-02-28T21:53:06.800-08:002010-02-28T21:53:06.800-08:00Hey Nanoo,
Listen, we may all have common ancesto...Hey Nanoo,<br /><br />Listen, we may all have common ancestors. I mean, we're all hear in the big, blue marble, that wet portion of it, in any case, in the big, super-active, endlessly creative (or, whoops, can't use that word), endless, eternal (whoops, but far as we can tell it is), universe.<br /><br />So, we all spring from the same well. The question is, does this process indicate:<br /><br />Organization and Order,<br />Structure,<br />Creativity,<br /><br />in other words,<br /><br />Mind...<br /><br />Or don't it?<br /><br />I mean, it do or it don't, my brother. You know?<br /><br />If it indicates Mind, that is, a transcendent, penetrating sense of creativity, structure and order, from top to bottom, micro to macro, then we've got to hand it to the Universe, or however you want to name it, that the eternal Mind is at work, and we are not only products of it - we are thinking its thoughts. We are exemplars of its prowess, and symptoms of its nature.<br /><br />We are powered by it. <br /><br />Or, according to Dickie Dawkins, we're spots on the side of the hamster cage. Maybe, that just happened to come into being.<br /><br /><br />By the way, is there structure, order and creativity in the spots on the side of the hamster cage? You'll need a microscope, but once you get there - well, darn it, there is. There surely is.<br /><br />So, let's all get on the "MIND train." Whoo-whoo! And let science follow logic for a change. The universal mind - apply it to your worldview, and see what happens...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30422634251371181652010-02-28T21:40:35.003-08:002010-02-28T21:40:35.003-08:00Dr. H,
Patience of Job, my friend!
Listen, I ca...Dr. H,<br /><br />Patience of Job, my friend! <br /><br />Listen, I can explain evolution entirely perfectly in no time. Here goes:<br /><br />"When I was a boy I knew that in the future I would need to be able to have sex with adult women, so I made myself grow into an adult male. I didn't meant to do it. It just happened by accident."<br /><br />There, that's evolutionary theory! You never know what you're going to need, but you just do it, ahead of time, so then when you need it, you have it!<br /><br />Here's another:<br /><br />"Many varieties of plogo flowers are (fill in non-teleological verb here) to look precisely like the female of the buzzing acid-wasp. (So that, but not so that, only, "by accident so").. By accident so the male of the buzzing acid-wasp happens to notice the plogo flower, and tries to hump it, by accidentally and by chance coating itself with the pollen, which came about also by chance, stuck onto the head and back bristles, which came about ALSO by chance of course! YOU SILLY!<br /><br />And then the male acid-wasp goes to another accidentally-I-look-exactly-like-a-female-of-your-species flower and tries to hump it, and happens to accidentally drop a dollop of that pollen into said receptor area of said accident..er...flower...<br /><br />And, viola! Survival of the survivingest! <br /><br />Come on, man! Evolution is SIMPLE! "Nature" builds (but not really "builds" which implies...hands, or brains, or..)...<br /><br />I got it...<br /><br />Nature "EVOLVES" everything to work JUST SO!<br /><br />IT IS SIMPLE! Don't complicate it, hombre! Have a brew! Kick back! Uncle Jerry Coyne will regail you with stories of how the camel got his humps. (He slept on a bed of desert sand, doncha know)...<br /><br />cheerios,<br /><br />Will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84560341842976488852010-02-28T17:05:55.393-08:002010-02-28T17:05:55.393-08:00Cornelius,
You are still not answering the questio...Cornelius,<br />You are still not answering the question. From what I see, you reject a hypothesis even though the data support it. Again, I am asking about this specific example, not common descent in general. Please explain why you reject the hypothesis in this specific case. what is the problem with the evidence in this specific case?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7579932228826154102010-02-28T16:51:52.015-08:002010-02-28T16:51:52.015-08:00nano:
I'm afraid the problem of theory evalua...nano:<br /><br />I'm afraid the problem of theory evaluation applies equally to the hypothesis that whales and hippos shared a recent common ancestor. It is not controversial that many of the problems with evolution apply equally to common descent, as typically construed. It is a fact that many findings have been contrary to the expectations of common descent.<br /><br />On the other hand, is there evidence for common descent, such as in your example? Sure, of course there is. But to conclude therefore in favor of common descent is not scientific. In science we look at all the information available, consider what is no known, and caveat our conclusions accordingly. We don't conclude that an idea is a fact because there are *some* supporting observations, while ignoring the problems. There are, after all, supporting observations for geocentrism.<br /><br />Do I reject common descent? No, I don't reject it, I simply recognize it for what it is. Common descent is an idea with substantial scientific problems. We're nowhere close to fact-hood here. Common descent is not a very good scientific theory, period. It is what it is.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42141331909897859912010-02-28T16:30:18.373-08:002010-02-28T16:30:18.373-08:00Cornelius,
I wasn't asking about the theory of...Cornelius,<br />I wasn't asking about the theory of evolution. I was asking if you thought the data supported the hypothesis that whales and hippos shared a recent common ancestor. do you reject this hypothesis in spite of the fact that the data support it (as you agreed it did)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6654179757585457852010-02-28T15:15:46.964-08:002010-02-28T15:15:46.964-08:00nano:
====
why do i conclude that? bc you agreed ...nano:<br /><br />====<br />why do i conclude that? bc you agreed that there was good evidence that whales and hippos shared a recent common ancestor. <br />====<br /><br />Evolutionists seem to be completely ignorant of the problem of theory evaluation. This is just one typical example. The fact that good evidence exists for a theory does not mean it is true. There is good evidence for the flat earth and geocentrism. That doesn't mean they are true. What thinkers contemplated centuries ago we have now lost. After all, evolution is a fact.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21280993183449991262010-02-28T11:39:22.737-08:002010-02-28T11:39:22.737-08:00why do i conclude that? bc you agreed that there w...why do i conclude that? bc you agreed that there was good evidence that whales and hippos shared a recent common ancestor. since you didn't indicate you had any evidence that this was not the case, I assumed you meant that, in this case, you agred that the hypothesis of the descent of whales and hippos from a common ancestor was supported.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23729718391823554822010-02-28T11:29:51.873-08:002010-02-28T11:29:51.873-08:00@Cornelius
Never mind the first question. Concern...@Cornelius<br /><br />Never mind the first question. Concerning the second question I unfortunately don't know enough about the dispute between Newton and Leibniz. But after screening what I could find, I think I understand what you mean. Not all scientific theories are religious or rather antireligious because they do not invoke god as a cause but some are.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.com