Thursday, June 13, 2013

Here Are Those Incongruent Trees From the Yeast Genome

Case Study

We recently reported on a study of 1,070 genes and how they contradicted each other in a couple dozen yeast species. Specifically, evolutionists computed the evolutionary tree, using all 1,070 genes, showing how the different yeast species are related. This tree that uses all 1,070 genes is called the concatenation tree. They then repeated the computation 1,070 times, for each gene taken individually. Not only did none of the 1,070 trees match the concatenation tree, they also failed to show even a single match between themselves. In other words, out of the 1,071 trees, there were zero matches. Yet one of the fundamental predictions of evolution is that different features should generally agree. It was “a bit shocking” for evolutionists, as one explained: “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 yeast.”

In fact, as the figure above shows, the individual gene trees did not converge toward the concatenation tree. Evolutionary theory does not expect all the trees to be identical, but it does expect them to be consistently similar. They should mostly be identical or close to the concatenation tree, with a few at farther distances from the concatenation tree. Evolutionists have clearly and consistently claimed this consilience as an essential prediction.

But instead, on a normalized scale from zero to one (where zero means the trees are identical), the gene trees were mostly around 0.4 from the concatenation tree with a huge gap in between. There were no trees anywhere close to the concatenation tree. This figure is a statistically significant, stark falsification of a highly acclaimed evolutionary prediction.

131 comments:

  1. Tsk tsk tsk. Poor Cornelus Goebbels, bearing false witness and selling his soul to the Devil for the DI's 30 pieces of silver. Again.

    Here is the whole Nature paper that CH is misrepresenting.

    Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals

    And here is the Nature Editor's summary:

    "Evolutionary events that happened close together, but long ago, present particular challenges to those seeking to reconstruct evolutionary history. The usual method relies on brute force — simply concatenate as much genetic information as possible and see what comes out. But how good are the data used to make such concatenations? Leonidas Salichos and Antonis Rokas asked this question of a 1,070-gene data set from 23 yeast genomes, and discovered that none of the 1,070 gene trees was identical to the phylogeny that received 100% support from the concatenation analysis. Incongruence severity increased for shorter internodes located deeper on the phylogeny. The researchers untied the knot by giving most credence to genes or internodes with high average clade support. They argue that abolishing incongruence in the data should be a first step for anyone seeking to unravel evolutionary events in deep time"

    So there's no 'big problem' for evolutionary theory at all, just an improved method to ensure the proper understanding of hard to recover data.

    Why some supposed Christians love to embarrass their religion by their scurrilous actions I'll never understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To any new reader

      The above post is published from our resident 12 year old antagonist. To confirm this assessment one only has to look to his former posts, his tone, his limited vocabulary in insults and the sheer quantity of posts in almost all blog posts that demonstrate he has copious amounts of free time.
      On more moderated blogs he would be classified as a troll.

      Many atheists and oponents of ID have had and do have worthwhile things to say but this poster is so seldom among them that his posts are routinely ignored by the author of this blog and many of its participants.

      You may safely skip his posts as we often do in responding to him

      Delete
    2. LOL! The above post is from Elijah2012, our resident cowardly, ignorant YEC whiner. He can't deal with the scientific evidence that gets presented and those tough technical questions he can't answer. His 'solution' is to call all those who disagree with his Fundy nonsense LIARS!, and to demand that those who make him look like a clueless idiot be banned.

      What he hasn't realized is that it's his own ignorance and cowardice that make him look like a clueless idiot. But of course it's easier to blame the messenger.

      Delete
    3. In other words, if the data does not fit, fudge it and massage it until it does. Evolutionists are the most stupid and dishonest people in the history of science.

      Delete
    4. Louis

      Who do you really think is doing the fudging and misrepresenting of data here?

      The scientists? Whose papers have to pass an extremely thorough process of vicious peer review...

      ...or Cornelius, who can pretty much post whatever he likes seeing as this is his own blogsite?

      Delete
    5. Thorton,

      Natures editor said; "Evolutionary events that happened close together, but long ago, present particular challenges to those seeking to reconstruct evolutionary history."

      This sounds very much like damage control to me. The Reader's Digest version might sound something like 'well there's another evolutionary prediction gone down in flames. Let's reset the parameters, throw in the old reliable 'deep time' problem and gabberflab while we try to sort out this mess. If we throw up enough confetti perhaps we can keep the masses confused long enough to construct a reasonable excuse as to why evolution again failed so miserably to illustrate common descent."

      Thorton, my friend, I fail to see why you so vehemently support this type of nonsense. This is just the latest example of the train wreck which is evolutionary theory. I guess it's just the common nature of train wrecks, they're not pretty to watch, but you just can't look away.

      Well, I must say I'm surprised to see Boston in the final. Pittsburgh gone in four, while scoring only two goals. Who can honestly say they saw that coming? Personally I've never been a Bylsma fan. I think Pittsburgh was simply out coached. I'm amazed they brought him back.

      The Hawks and Bruins should provide a good series judging from the first game. I'm putting my money on Boston. How about you?

      Take care my friend.

      Delete
    6. Hey Nic, good to hear from you!

      Nic

      This sounds very much like damage control to me.


      That's because you don't understand the research either.

      The experiment in question would be like going to a giant family reunion and trying to figure out where everyone fits in the family tree just from physical features. There is plenty of other evidence you're all related, the question is exactly how ?If you compare noses then Nic is a second cousin in Sam's line. If you look at ear shape the Nic seems to be a third cousin to Judy's lineage. Depending on what feature you examine you can come up with lots of different possible family tree relationships.

      Scientists are doing the same thing by studying the genes of the yeast, trying to figure out the long ago ancestral relationships. Since different genes give slightly different relationships, using a method that is a best fit for all the data will give the highest probability of being the correct tree. All the scientists were doing is refining the method.

      The work does absolutely nothing to discredit common descent or evolutionary theory. I know you hope against hope that someday the data will support your frankly naive scientific views but today's not that day. :)

      It's that time of year all the losing teams are playing musical coaches. Be interesting to see if Ingila stays in Pitt. They just spent huge $$$ on Malkin, don't know what their salary cap space left is.

      I watched the entire game 1, felt as spent when it was over as if I had played. Shaping up to be a classic series, maybe 7 games. Horton's injury is the huge wild card right now. The teams are so evenly matched now that the loss of one key guy could be the difference. Remember, B's already lost Campbell.

      I'm hoping to Boston but think Chi may have too much karma going for them this year. We'll see.

      Stay safe.


      Delete
    7. Thorton,

      "That's because you don't understand the research either."

      Thanks for pointing that out to me, I didn't know that. However, I don't think similarities among noses and ears are a very good indication of relatedness. But, as you say, I don't understand the research. I'll be patient though. I've been waiting forty years for these guys to come up with something, so what's a few more decades?

      You are certainly right about injuries at this point of the playoffs. Campbell's gone and now possibly Horton, that might be too much for Boston. However, Rask is certainly capable of stealing games and that could be the difference. I think my money is still with Boston, but they have to win game two or it's going to be really tough. If Marcahnd and Lucic are bouncing off people in the next game Chicago may start to slow down, and that will give Boston the edge they need.

      I think it may be Boston with the karma. After all, they should have been out in the Toronto series.

      Take care, I'll talk to you after the game tomorrow.

      Delete
  2. Cue the ignorant mouth-breathing Creationists like Elijah2012, batspit77, and Savain to show up and start their usual chorus of LIAR LIAR LIAR!!! without reading the paper or understanding the first thing about the actual research.

    4...

    3...

    2...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peer review is synonymous with ass review among evolutionists. LOL.

      Delete
  3. To any new reader

    The above post is published from our resident 12 year old antagonist. To confirm this assessment one only has to look to his former posts, his tone, his limited vocabulary in insults and the sheer quantity of posts in almost all blog posts that demonstrate he has copious amounts of free time.
    On more moderated blogs he would be classified as a troll.

    Many atheists and oponents of ID have had and do have worthwhile things to say but this poster is so seldom among them that his posts are routinely ignored by the author of this blog and many of its participants.

    You may safely skip his posts as we often do in responding to him

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! The above post is from Elijah2012, our resident cowardly, ignorant YEC whiner. He can't deal with the scientific evidence that gets presented and those tough technical questions he can't answer. His 'solution' is to call all those who disagree with his Fundy nonsense LIARS!, and to demand that those who make him look like a clueless idiot be banned.

      What he hasn't realized is that it's his own ignorance and cowardice that make him look like a clueless idiot. But of course it's easier to blame the messenger.

      Delete
    2. Thorton

      His 'solution' is to call all those who disagree with his Fundy nonsense LIARS!,

      It is worth noting that this is not restricted to the posters on here.

      When I fed him a link to a NewScientist article, he flat out accused NewScientist of lying to him.

      I don't imagine I'll be getting over that little gem for quite a while.

      Delete
    3. Ritchie you have no sense. The New scientist so called link was a cartoon video you linked to that defended your blue fairy of chance creating everything out of nothing god.

      Sure did disagree with it because it was not a paper,presented ZERO data and covered no experimental results

      What will Pastor Krauss being preaching at the church of the blue Fairy this Sunday?

      and yes you bare faced lied by claiming you were not defending the metaphysical claim that nothing created time and space. YOu've been doing it ever since

      but hey we are not surprised

      We never bought that atheists have just as a moral set of standards than theists to begin with.

      Still it is funny to hear you guys whine about people catching you in your lies when you hang out every day and your main activity is to call the blog owner a liar

      Delete
  4. I was going to skip reading this until tomorrow but given how upset TH is it must be really good. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Exactly as predicted here comes the ignorant mouth-breathing Creationist Eliarjah2012 to fart and bluster and generally make himself look like an ass again.

      Notice that also exactly as predicted he wouldn't read the paper, doesn't understand the research, just knee-jerk responds like the good little Godbotherer he is.

      Can I call 'em or what? :)

      Delete
    2. and as you can see new reader this is the best you can expect from this commenter

      Delete
    3. LOL! You have to admit I was 100% correct. You and the other two Creationist morons showed up right on cue running your big mouths. Not one of you bothered to read the paper or make the faintest attempt to understand what the research was about.

      I'm sure you think you're racking up those "get-into-heaven-free" points for Jeebus with all your lying and Godbothering. You sure haven't scored a single point in the science department.

      Delete
    4. A broken clock is right half the time. ;)

      You are definitely quite the child if you think because you stayed up refreshing the page and were the fist to post you could stop others from posting.

      oh and we know you don't know what the paper is about when you copy and paste editor's notes that does nothing to contradict the facts Cornelius referred to

      We are never concerned with your rationalizations only with the facts in a paper and sorry T the data relayed doesn't line up

      Delete
    5. Elijah2012

      We are never concerned with your rationalizations only with the facts in a paper and sorry T the data relayed doesn't line up


      Since you were too lazy to read the paper and don't understand the topic, how would you know?

      Delete
    6. Because oh thornit I did read the paper

      ROFL forgot you linked to it? and the data related in the paper matches the data that Cornelius refers to

      You might have known that if you had taxed your brain to read it rather than merely copy and paste the notes. ;)

      Now dear readers watch who is going to start crying liar now :)

      This is why we put him on mute most of the time

      Delete
    7. Elijah2012

      Because oh thornit I did read the paper


      LOL! Here we see that ignorant Creationist Elijah2012 is also a compulsive liar.

      Go ahead Elijah2012, explain the methods the researchers used and their conclusions in your own words. Should be easy for you if you actually read and understood the paper.

      Over to you Mr. Ignorant Godbotherer. Show us how much of the science you understand.

      Prediction The ignorant Godbotherer will fart and bluster and make an excuse to not show his "knowledge."

      It's so easy to catch these mouthy Creationist clowns in their lies.

      Delete
    8. LOL right on cue as predicted. He starts out railing against people claiming others lie and now launches into full liar name calling mode based on claiming to know what I have or have not read

      hypocrite

      So as you can see reader this is why he goes back on mute here he belongs

      ;)

      Delete
    9. LOL! Exactly as predicted yet again, poor ignorant Godbotherer Elijah2012 didn't read the paper, can't tell us about the work in his own words. Now he's evading just like I said he would because he got caught in another big fat lie.

      Keep going Elijah2012. I think it's great you offer yourself up as the idiot Creationist dummy as a 'counterpoint' to the actual scientific work.

      Delete
  5. Once again, the evidence doesn't cooperate with common ancestry evolution.

    No wonder Darwin's own brother stated:

    In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling. Letter to Charles November 23, 1859

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is not evidence conflicting with ToE. This is biologists refining their tests. Read the actual report, not Cornelius' dressed up parody of it.

      No wonder Darwin's own brother stated:

      Who cares what he said? Really?

      Delete
    2. Plus, that quote of Charles Darwin's brother is incomplete and out of context (i.e. a quote mine) and doesn't mean what NV is implying.

      Delete
    3. "This is not evidence conflicting with ToE. This is biologists refining their tests. Read the actual report, not Cornelius' dressed up parody of it."

      Sure it is, whine fudge complain. Even some darwinist have admitted it surprisingly does not line up with predictions (apparently there are some honest Darwinists out there).

      Sorry when a prediction does not line up thats a conflict. Buy a box of kleenex but crying isn't going to change it. Doesn't by itself disprove darwinism but yes for those of us who know what the word conflict means

      umm its a conflict

      Delete
    4. Eliarjah2012 still too lazy to read the actual paper, still running his mouth attacking things he doesn't understand.

      Just another day in ignorant Creationist Godbotherer Land.

      Delete
    5. See dear readers . Theres never an improvement. On a good day he might place a link and copy and paste a blurb that doesn't really rebut on any factual point but thats it. cursing and hand waving the rest of the time

      Delete
    6. LOL! See dear readers, once again the petulant child of a Creationist is too lazy to read or learn, just knee-jerk attacks the science that scares him. There's never an improvement. Being a willfully ignorant blustering Godbotherer is all he knows.

      Delete
    7. The whole truth said:

      "Plus, that quote of Charles Darwin's brother is incomplete and out of context (i.e. a quote mine) and doesn't mean what NV is implying."

      Here is the complete quote:

      "… For myself I really think it is the most interesting book I ever read, and can only compare it to the first knowledge of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind the scenes. To me geographical distribution, I mean the relation of islands to continents, is the most convincing of the proofs, and the relation of the oldest forms to the existing species. I dare say I don´t feel enough the absence of varieties, but then I don´t in the least know if everything now living were fossilized whether the paleontologists could distinguish them. In fact a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won´t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling. My ague has left me in such state of torpidity that I wish I had gone through the process of natural selection.
      Yours...."

      May you explain the quote mining and the really meaning of that sentence?

      Delete
    8. As an Englishman by background and a native English speaker (sort of) I would have to say that NV's lifting out of that particular sentence could count as quote-mining.

      In context, it reads as a brother indulging in a little hyperbole to emphasize how much he likes the theory. It's so good that any facts which seem to disagree you be thrown out. But his other comments about science make it very unlikely he meant it seriously. It's exaggeration for effect, nothing more.

      Delete
    9. "As an Englishman by background and a native English speaker (sort of) I would have to say that NV's lifting out of that particular sentence could count as quote-mining."

      As a native english speaker schooled in the British system and in the Queen's English I would have to say bollocks - the british equivalence of "you are full of crap" ;)

      Delete
  6. Dr. Hunter this major failed prediction for neo-Darwinism reminds me of another major failed prediction of neo-Darwinism that you pointed out last year. Namely the failed prediction that functional proteins in sequence space would be accessible to a random search

    Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011
    Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.
    The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html

    Thus it is not surprising that neo-Darwinists are facing another major failed prediction for lining up gene trees since it is shown to be extremely unlikely that functional proteins are accessible to a random search in the first place. Both these drastically failed foundational predictions of neo-Darwinism remind me of this observation of Dr. Berlinski:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    There is simply no solid prediction that a person can latch onto within neo-Darwinian theory. In fact, to repeat, for neo-Darwinism we find drastic failure of predictions,,

    "Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now there is another prediction of neo-Darwinism, at least a prediction of the atheistic form of neo-Darwinism, a prediction for what we should find at the foundation of reality itself, a failed prediction called 'realism' that has failed by many 'orders of magnitude' as well. This failed prediction for 'realism' for the atheistic form of neo-Darwinism is that the foundation of reality itself will be found to exist independent of whatever we do. i.e. It will be materialistic. But this is not what we find. Instead of reality being completely indifferent to what we do as Dawkins had presumed,,,

      "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
      Richard Dawkins"

      ,, we find instead that,,,

      Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007
      Excerpt:,, reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism."
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

      Moreover this falsification of the prediction for a materialistic reality which is indifferent to what we do exceeded even the 27 orders of magnitude failure for Darwinian processes to be able account for finding a single functional protein:

      A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008
      Excerpt: the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/

      Now I really don't fully understand what it means for 'realism', (the view that a reality exist 'out there' independent of our observation), to be violated by 80 orders of magnitude, but seeing as the entire universe is held to have 'only' 80 orders of magnitude elementary particle in it, I would be inclined to think this is another major failed prediction for neo-Darwinism, at least the atheistic form of neo-Darwinism as is popularly taught in schools today.

      Supplemental notes:

      the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

      Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

      Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner's Friend – video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qCTBygadaM4#t=510s

      Verse and music:

      Colossians 1:17,
      And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

      Keith Urban - For You
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWK1sG3spiE

      Delete
    2. BA77:Colossians 1:17,
      And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

      Another verse: Hbr 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,Hbr 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by [His] Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
      Hbr 1:3 who being the brightness of [His] glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself [fn] purged our [fn] sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

      It sounds like God is telling all humankind in a way that everyone can understand,that Jesus is upholding the entire universe by His will. These passages work when they are translated to other languages as well. It's nice to see science catch up to the Bible.

      Delete
    3. Oh come on. Everyone knows that Roger Ramjet is upholding the universe. He does so by taking Proton Energy Pills, each of which gives him the strength of twenty atom bombs for a period of twenty seconds. If he ever runs out of pills, we're all screwed.

      Delete
    4. bornagain77 June 13, 2013 at 11:57 PM

      [...]

      This failed prediction for 'realism' for the atheistic form of neo-Darwinism is that the foundation of reality itself will be found to exist independent of whatever we do. i.e. It will be materialistic. But this is not what we find. Instead of reality being completely indifferent to what we do as Dawkins had presumed,,,

      "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
      Richard Dawkins"

      ,, we find instead that,,,

      Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007
      Excerpt:,, reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism."
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640


      Dawkins argument is that there is no evidence of a purposeful intelligence behind the Universe. Quantum phenomena, certainly not this one, do not contradict this view.

      Is Aspelmeyer is actually arguing that "reality does not exist when we're not observing it"? I am sitting alone in the room as I type this. Is he really saying - are you seriously trying to argue - that because no one is observing me I don't exist? If so then I have to say you are both talking nonsense of the first order.

      [...]

      Supplemental notes:

      the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:


      Let's take a closer look at this just for the hell of it.

      1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.

      a) ObNitpick: It should be "epi-phenomenon". "Consciousness" is singular.

      b) Are the above really the only two alternatives? How about the possibility that consciousness is an intrinsic property of material reality that only emerges once a certain level of complexity is reached?

      2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.

      c) You haven't shown your argument here. What do you mean by a "special position" for consciousness?

      d) Why shouldn't consciousness as an epi-phenomenon qualify as "special"?

      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.

      e) That hasn't been established, some quantum weirdness notwithstanding.

      f) We can't even say what consciousness is yet. It's still a Hard Problem.

      g) The only consciousness we know of exists here on Earth. That's one tiny, insignificant planet orbiting a rather ordinary star in an unremarkable galaxy that is just one of billions in the observable Universe. On that basis, special and central we ain't and only a certain brand of Christian hubris would claim otherwise.

      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

      "Non-sequitur! Your facts are uncoordinated!"

      -- Star Trek: The Original Series, S2E4 "The Changeling"

      Hey, if you can quote Colossians and Keith Urban then I can certainly quote Star Trek

      Delete
    5. Ian

      "...f) We can't even say what consciousness is yet. It's still a Hard Problem..."

      It must be. When you start digging for answers online there is really no good solution.

      What is conscious of it self?

      Are neurons conscious/aware of themselves?
      Are axons conscious/aware of themselves?
      Are synapses conscious/aware of themselves?
      Are molecules involved in electro chemical potentials conscious/aware of themselves?
      Are electro chemical signals conscious/aware of themselves ?
      Are patterns of electro chemical signals conscious/aware of themselves?

      etc

      What or who is conscious/aware of itself?

      This is not argue, just something to think about. I would say nobody has an answer.

      My favorite Star Trek quote by Captain Spock from the sixth movie:

      " An ancestor of mine maintained that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. If we did not fire those torpedoes, another ship did."

      :)

      Delete
    6. Eugen June 15, 2013 at 6:50 AM

      Ian

      "...f) We can't even say what consciousness is yet. It's still a Hard Problem..."

      It must be. When you start digging for answers online there is really no good solution.


      There's been interesting discussions about it over on The Skeptical Zone if I remember.

      [...]

      My favorite Star Trek quote by Captain Spock from the sixth movie:

      " An ancestor of mine maintained that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. If we did not fire those torpedoes, another ship did."


      Who knew Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was really a Vulcan?

      One of my favorite quotes is a brief exchange between Dr McCoy and Mr Spock from TOS episode "The Immunity Syndrome" because it's a pithy comment on the value of empathy.

      MCCOY: Suffer the death of thy neighbor, eh, Spock? You wouldn't wish that on us, would you?

      SPOCK: It might have rendered your history a bit less bloody

      Delete
  7. Well golly gee whiz, phil, since you included colossians and Keith Urban you must be right!

    And relying on what berlinski says definitely proves that your chosen god is real and that the bible is inerrant. After all, berlinski knows everything about everything.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Semi-related note as to failed prediction:

    Vertebrate Gene Expression and Other Properties Don't Support a "Phylotypic" Stage - Casey Luskin - June 14, 2013
    Excerpt: a new article in PLoS Genetics, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates," shows that,, an analysis of the genome based on Darwinian assumptions fails to confirm many predictions of the "phylotypic" stage. This suggests that, as other papers have suggested, the phylotypic stage may not clearly exist. As the paper explains:
    "During development, vertebrate embryos pass through a "phylotypic" stage, during which their morphology is most similar between different species. This gave rise to the hourglass model, which predicts the highest developmental constraints during mid-embryogenesis. In the last decade, a large effort has been made to uncover the relation between developmental constraints and the evolution of the genome. Several studies reported gene characteristics that change according to the hourglass model, e.g. sequence conservation, age, or expression. Here, we first show that some of the previous conclusions do not hold out under detailed analysis of the data."
    (Barbara Piasecka, Paweł Lichocki, Sebastien Moretti, Sven Bergmann, Marc Robinson-Rechavi, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates Barbara Piasecka," PLoS Genetics, Vol. 9(4) (April, 2013).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/vertebrate_gene073171.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is as good a place as any to bring this up:

      Anyone who reads this site should notice that cornelius doesn't 'discuss' anything with the commenters, and he constantly avoids answering relevant questions. He preaches his usual sermon in the OP and then disappears, except for a rare one or two line comment that doesn't really say anything that matters.

      He sits back and lets a handful of other bible thumpers do his talking for him. If he actually wanted to discuss science, evolution, and evolutionary theory and help promote understanding he would word his OPs very differently and would also discuss the topics openly and honestly. Apparently that's too much to expect from an authoritarian, dominionist YEC.

      BA77 is another glaring example of that mindset.

      And then there's gordon elliott mullings (kairosfocus/gem of tki), a poster boy for cowardly, dishonest, dictatorial, authoritarian, dominionist YECs.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. TWT: "Anyone who reads this site should notice that cornelius doesn't 'discuss' anything with the commenters, and he constantly avoids answering relevant questions..."

    Or

    He constantly avoids answering evolutionists "red herrings" (the right thing to do).

    Of course You and Cornelius are not obliged to answer any question...

    BTW, Where's your answer to Blass?

    TWT: "Plus, that quote of Charles Darwin's brother is incomplete and out of context (i.e. a quote mine) and doesn't mean what NV is implying."

    Blass: Here is the complete quote:[...] "May you explain the quote mining and the really meaning of that sentence?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the whole quote again. NV omitted the context (Erasmus writing to Charles with his impressions after reading Origin Of Species), as well as most of the text.

      "For myself I really think it is the most interesting book I ever read, & can only compare it to the first knowledge of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind the scenes. To me the geographical distribution I mean the relation of islands to continents is the most convincing of the proofs, & the relation of the oldest forms to the existing species. I dare say I dont feel enough the absence of varieties, but then I dont in the least know if every thing now living were fossilized whether the palæontologists could distinguish them. In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts wont fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling.

      Erasmus was merely giving his opinions on OOS, specifically referring to the evidence for speciation gathered from the Galapagos islands. In his opinion the case for common descent was so strong that even IF contrary facts existed (which E says he isn't aware of) then the argument and its supporting evidence would certainly outweigh them.

      It has nothing at all to do with scientists today ignoring facts that contradict ToE as NV was implying.

      Creationist love to quote-mine authors and take things out of context like NV did to twist the author's meaning. Most honest people consider quote-mining to be a form of lying.



      Delete
    2. Well said Thorton, and thanks. There's just a point or two I'd like to add:

      Darcy and Blas, as you should be aware, tone of voice and facial expressions are missing in written words. It very well could be that Charles Darwin's brother was joking/being sarcastic/being extra complimentary/deliberately exaggerating when he wrote the latter part of:

      "In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."

      Remember, they were brothers who had intimate knowledge of how the other would interpret what they wrote to each other, and it was in a personal letter, not a scientific paper or book.

      No matter how C. Darwin's brother meant what he wrote, it really doesn't matter. His statements in that very old letter or anywhere else are irrelevant to the current status of the ToE and the evidence that supports it. All of you IDiot-creationists really ought to join the 21st century.

      Delete
    3. You accused that the quote was incomplete.

      That it is not true is a complete sentence.

      to be out of context

      Not true, erasmus is comenting the book Origin of the species of his brother, he were talking about the evidence of evolution not OOS, in the previous sentence he was talking about the interpretation of the fossil record and the species on islands and continents. He ends the letter with a joke about natural slection.

      you said "and doesn't mean what NV is implying"

      and when confronted you backpedal saying that you have to interpret what is writed as joke between brothers.

      Another day another evolutionist that lied to me.
      Thorton thanks to help.

      Delete
    4. Blas

      You accused that the quote was incomplete.

      That it is not true is a complete sentence.


      Yes it is true, the quote was indeed incomplete. A quote can be more than one sentence as in this case.

      to be out of context

      Not true


      Yes true. Definitely taken out of context which completely changes the perspective of the writing,

      Sorry Blas, this is a typical example of Creationist quote-mining i.e. lying. I don't think NV did the dirty work himself because this particular quote-mined lie is present on many Creationist anti-science sites.

      Another day another evolutionist that lied to me.
      Thorton thanks to help.


      You mean another day where a Creationist was caught passing a lie. But we understand. You're welcome.

      Delete
    5. Darcy and Blas

      This is what you get for taking either Thorton and the alleged WT seriously. My suggestion to both of you is to ignore them. They usually just fuss, name call and handwave (with the occasional copy and paste of something they don't understand) but even if they don't you get gems like this

      "It has nothing at all to do with scientists today ignoring facts that contradict ToE as NV was implying."

      lol well of course the letter written by a man long dead could not be about "scientists today". these kids have no sense

      and from TWT

      "It very well could be that Charles Darwin's brother was joking/being sarcastic/being extra complimentary/deliberately exaggerating "

      lol

      Thats probably the most I have read of TWt the whole week. He has nothing to say and when he tries like above he falls on his face trying any desperate twist to get away from facts.

      So guys - remember - the brightest and the best do not hang out on blogs they do not agree with cursing and fuming calling liar liar to the blog owner week in and week out kidding themselves that their comments are drowning out the blog owners themselves. That very continuing action tells you they don't have more productive things to do, have just anger to let off or are in need of a social life.

      Ignore them, Don't even bother to read the really bad ones like thorton and TWT and CERTAINLY do not feed the trolling by debating with them like they have anything useful to say.

      Truth is even for the other atheists - they are inconsequential. the failures of darwinian predictions, the loss of their great arguments like junk DNA, several scientists backing away from the centrality of natural selection and a host of other things Cornelius writes about will always get them in a foaming rage but part of that rage is the awareness that the general public will be less and less likely to join their ranks

      We need only care about how the general public has and will respond to these things. The choir of the church of Darwin can resist all they wish - its how the congregation will take these bits of news that matters

      And God knows that 99.9999% are not hanging here reading through their blog comments.

      Delete
    6. Elijah2012 June 15, 2013 at 8:31 AM

      [...]

      We need only care about how the general public has and will respond to these things. The choir of the church of Darwin can resist all they wish - its how the congregation will take these bits of news that matters

      And God knows that 99.9999% are not hanging here reading through their blog comments.


      You're probably right that "99.9999% are not hanging here reading through their blog comments.".

      So it's probably also true that "99.9999% are not hanging here reading" CH's OP.

      And it's probably also true that "99.9999% are not hanging here reading" the original research paper that CH cited in his OP.

      In fact, it's probably also true that "99.9999% are not hanging" at any of the blogs or websites that discuss these issues.

      Even so "its how the congregation will take these bits of news that matters".

      So you are content to let questions in evolutionary be decided by the "99.9999%" who "are not hanging" anywhere that might inform them about the evidence, arguments and counter-arguments involved, by a general public whose only qualification to pass judgment is an unmitigated ignorance of the issues?

      Evolutionary biologists are quite content to let their case rest on the evidence and arguments they can put before anyone who is seriously prepared to listen.

      You seem to think that your side has a better chance of winning popular support if the general public is kept in ignorance of the science.

      That says a lot about the confidence you have in your case.

      Delete
    7. Elijah2012

      Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah!


      LOL! Our whiny Creationist ignoramus Elijah2012 is at it again! He doesn't understand the science being discussed, can't deal with the questions, lies about having read the literature.

      His favorite cowardly thing to do is to "poison the well" and beg people to please don't read the posts of those mean old evos who show me up to be an ignorant fool!

      Here's a hint Elijah2012 - trying to avoid criticism that way makes you look like a much bigger asshole that anything we could possibly write.

      Delete
    8. "You seem to think that your side has a better chance of winning popular support if the general public is kept in ignorance of the science."

      LOL "better chance of Winning popular support". Thats funny Sped. Its not chance - we already have it. Despite years of having the public schools and thousands of darwinist evangelists in colleges and media you have failed to convince that wider public. Most are still theists and most still see design.
      You have not even managed to crack double digits in most polls. Further as I said in that response - Who cares how you in the minority chooses to frame things and call the public stupid because they look at the evidence and reject your premise. What else can you do?

      Thats part of your reason for being here. You know full well that if you could not convince them when you had your claims about junk DNA, natural selection being the main driving force of evolution and the tree of life so neatly arranged your own "chances" are dwindling even smaller and smaller now.

      thats why you whine at every hole punched into a theory you could not get popularity for even then . Deep down you are scared by ID and the anger is attached to that so you hang out on ID blogs dreaming you are making a difference by of all things blog commenting. At least the IDist are here because its more their blog

      will you deny your fear? Of course but again who really cares. Even among darwinist evangelists you are just a few angry guys on an ID blog. I did not understand it at first but realized Cornelius considers you so inconsequential he doesn't even bother to moderate even the name calling posters among you. lol you are ignored so completely it says it all.

      and if you wish to kid yourself that because the majority of readers don't read through comments that means they are not reading Cornelius especially through UD well you are even sillier than I thought.

      and much more delusional if you think your audience as a commenter on a blog is as large as the blog owner.

      thats some funny stuff right there

      Delete
    9. "So you are content to let questions in evolutionary be decided by the "99.9999%" who "are not hanging" anywhere that might inform them about the evidence, arguments and counter-arguments involved, by a general public whose only qualification to pass judgment is an unmitigated ignorance of the issues?"

      I am much more than content that the public never buy your delusions of grandeur as if many of your silly objections, lack of logic and bias ever be considered by them to be "informed". I have now debated at least three of you and you cannot follow even basic logic.

      but by all means blather on some more. What else can you do but claim otherwise but even that is inconsequential and a premise no one need buy.

      Delete
    10. Elijah2012

      I have now debated at least three of you and you cannot follow even basic logic.


      LOL! Yeah, your "devastating" arguments from ignorance have just left everyone in the dust. You're a legend in your own mind.

      Delete
    11. blas said:

      "You accused that the quote was incomplete."

      It is incomplete.

      "That it is not true is a complete sentence."

      Just because it's a sentence, that doesn't mean it's complete. I said quote, not sentence.

      "to be out of context"

      It's very much out of context, as Thorton showed.

      You IDiot-creationists are so desperate to 'win' your dominionist crusade that you'll deliberately ignore, distort, lie, misinterpret, and just make shit up in the hope of gaining some sort of power. You guys are malignantly narcissistic loons.

      It's pretty funny (in a face palming way) that when you IDiot-creationists find something you think will help your agenda you apply your massively biased interpretation or definition to it and won't let go even when you're legitimately and thoroughly corrected or when it's pointed out to you that your interpretation or definition isn't the only one.

      Take the no junk DNA crap, for example, that elijah and other god zombies are still spewing, based on the initial Encode hype, not on the actual results or subsequent statements by Ewan Birney or other scientists involved in the Encode studies/papers.

      You thumpers are determined to be wrong and to hang onto that wrongness no matter what. The things that you constantly whine and bitch about are what YOU are doing. YOU are the ones who rely on and push ridiculous, impossible, unscientific fairy tales. YOU are the ones who lie and make shit up and won't admit that you're wrong or even could be wrong, or that you rely on wacky religious fairy tales, or that you're afraid of reality, or that you don't have a clue about scientific methodology and evidence, or that you are just plain nuts. Being nuts apparently makes you incapable of seeing just how nuts you are.

      Delete
    12. TWT

      Sorry but we cannot all believe in your Blue fairy dust of everything out of nothing by chance God. the public has looked at it weighed it and is still laughing uncontrollably at your desperate attempt to redefine nothing.

      Still I did give you props before. Your everything out of nothing fairy tales pales in entertainment value to anything religion offers.

      You should be proud. Your religious devotion and faith is amazing ;)

      Delete
  11. "whereas the use of slowly
    evolving genes and conserved sites increased incongruence across
    many internodes of the yeast phylogeny"

    Oops. Welcome to the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are three fatal flaws to Cornelius' objections.

    01. Predictions of scientific theories are not prophecy. Unlike a supposed omnipotent being, they cannot take into account all parallel yet unrelated events or effects that might effect the outcome. This sort of expectation is unreasonable as it ignores progress we've made in the field of epistemology.

    02. We do not falsify theories, in practice, until we come up with an explanation for unexpected outcomes. This is because observations are themselves theories about what happened in a particular time and place. A concrete example of this was supposed observations of neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light during the OPERA experiment in 2011. Despite the fact that we received unexpected results, we did not falsify Einstein's theory because we did not yet have a better explanation for the results. Specifically, we had no explanation as to why the particular neutrinos in the OPERA experiment traveled faster than other neutrinos tested in other experiments. Eventually, we did find an explanation as to why the prediction was not met: an incorrectly attached fiber optic cable and a timer with a clock timer ticking too quickly.

    03. We have an explanation for why results varied in the case of yeast cells: horizontal gene transfer. Furthermore, we expect our theories to be incomplete and contain errors by nature of staring out as a conjectures. As such, we expect to discover new means of variations, such as HGT, in the future.

    Human knowledge grows when we start with a problem, conjecture theories of how to solve them, criticize these theories and discarding errors we find. That's how we make progress.

    IOW, Cornelius' objection hinges on ignoring or denying our current, best explanation for the growth of human knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott: Human knowledge grows when we start with a problem, conjecture theories of how to solve them, criticize these theories and discarding errors we find. That's how we make progress.

      Jeff: No progress is possible that way once you reject EVERY species of foundationalism. You can't even "find errors" apart from ASSUMPTIONS, like the law of non-contradiction, etc. You're UTTERLY clueless, dude.

      Delete
    2. Scott: Human knowledge grows when we start with a problem, conjecture theories of how to solve them, criticize these theories and discarding errors we find. That's how we make progress.

      Jeff: No progress is possible that way once you reject EVERY species of foundationalism. You can't even "find errors" apart from ASSUMPTIONS, like the law of non-contradiction, etc. You're UTTERLY clueless, dude.

      First, "dude", you're confusing rejecting the law of non-contradiction, per-se, with rejecting the idea that it is foundational in the epistemological sense you're implying.

      Second, you're not actually taking the theory serious for the purpose of criticism. Rather, you just keep presenting the same false dichotomy.

      Again, let's say we observe problem Z. Someone conjectures A as a solution for problem Z. However, they also conjecture that A is simultaneously not A. From the perspective of a proposed solution to a problem, what would be your criticism of this conjecture?

      IOW, how could one possibly go about applying something that is both a solution and a non-solution to a problem? What more do you need?

      To quote from this essay on the third attitude, critical rationalism, "Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference."

      Delete
    3. Scott: Again, let's say we observe problem Z. Someone conjectures A as a solution for problem Z. However, they also conjecture that A is simultaneously not A. From the perspective of a proposed solution to a problem, what would be your criticism of this conjecture?

      Jeff: You can't criticize what is intelligible to you (because of the fact that it posits as true a contradiction). You can only assert that what you can't conceive of can not qualify as an explanation for anything, by definition.

      Scott: IOW, how could one possibly go about applying something that is both a solution and a non-solution to a problem? What more do you need?

      Jeff: What more do I need for what? You've explained nothing by your response. You just keep asserting that criticism isn't a species of reason (i.e., discursive conclusion derivation) that requires a belief in SOME premises to even get off the ground. But if it's not, what IS IT?

      Delete
    4. Scott: First, "dude", you're confusing rejecting the law of non-contradiction, per-se, with rejecting the idea that it is foundational in the epistemological sense you're implying.

      Jeff: You can't criticize what is intelligible to you (because of the fact that it posits as true a contradiction).

      Do you suffer from problems with reading comprehension or are you simply bound and determined to not take the theory seriously?

      Again, Human knowledge grows when we start with a problem, conjecture theories of how to solve them, criticize these theories and discarding errors we find. So, criticism in this sense is in the context of solving a problem. Staring with a problem is important part of the explanation.

      Saying I cannot criticize something that is intelligible completely ignores this context. While you are not obligated to actually take our current, best theories seriously, it's unclear why you expect anyone to take your objections seriously unless you do.

      Jeff: What more do I need for what? You've explained nothing by your response.

      What more do you need to accept the law of non-contradiction?

      Is pointing out the conjectured solution doesn't solve the target problem not a valid criticism? Specifically, if something is both a solution and an non-solution, why would it solve problems? The idea that a conjectured theory is also simultaneously *not* a solution, but is observed to solve a problem, does not withstand rational criticism.

      Jeff: You just keep asserting that criticism isn't a species of reason (i.e., discursive conclusion derivation) that requires a belief in SOME premises to even get off the ground. But if it's not, what IS IT?

      I've already presented an epistemological distinction, which you keep ignoring. The idea that we are capable of rational criticism is itself a conjectured theory, which has survived criticism. This is in contrast to one of many flavors of epistemological foundationalism.

      From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism: "By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought."

      It's unclear why you think I'm asserting that "criticism isn't a species of reason" since I've already referenced this multiple times. Again, do you suffer from problems with reading comprehension or are your objections simply disingenuous? What other conclusion are we supposed to reach?

      An idea can be considered foundational in a field if they is implicated in the rest of the explanations that field presents. However, this is not limited to a reductionist approach, as indicated in epistemological foundationalism. For example, foundational ideas exist at multiple levels, such as the principle of evolution and the law of epistemology, which are emergent. Both play a key role in explanations, yet are subject to criticism, as are all ideas.

      Yet, you keep denying that we can make progress in these fields. Is this merely a coincidence?

      Delete
    5. Scott: While you are not obligated to actually take our current, best theories seriously...

      Jeff: There is no theory of naturalistic UCA. UCA is a SPECIFIC history. Making generic claims like "some mutations are adaptive" doesn't explain a specfic history. Those claims are not known to be inconsistent with SA. So you haven't advanced your postion one iota be repeating them like a religious zombie.

      Jeff: What more do I need for what? You've explained nothing by your response.

      Scott: What more do you need to accept the law of non-contradiction?

      Jeff: I don't need anything to accept it. I can't conceive of the meaning of contradictory statements to even criticize them.

      Scott: Is pointing out the conjectured solution doesn't solve the target problem not a valid criticism?

      Jeff: If you don't hold to some form of foundationalism, you can't even know there's a problem to solve, because you can't know that any apparent memories are actual memories.

      Scott: The idea that a conjectured theory is also simultaneously *not* a solution, but is observed to solve a problem, does not withstand rational criticism. non-solution, why would it solve problems?

      Jeff: You're confused. Rationality pre-supposed the law of non-contradiction. One can't prove it. If you think you can, try it propositionally.

      Jeff: You just keep asserting that criticism isn't a species of reason (i.e., discursive conclusion derivation) that requires a belief in SOME premises to even get off the ground. But if it's not, what IS IT?

      Scott: The idea that we are capable of rational criticism is itself a conjectured theory, which has survived criticism.

      Jeff: I agree.

      Scott: This is in contrast to one of many flavors of epistemological foundationalism.

      Jeff: That response doesn't define what criticism IS so as to enable me to see HOW you're distinguishing it from discursive reasoning.

      Scott: From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism: "By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought."

      Jeff: Note, again, that the above quotationfrom Wikipedia doesn't define how, as contrary to how we once thought, knowledge and truth exist. I'll try to read the article later today.

      Scott: It's unclear why you think I'm asserting that "criticism isn't a species of reason" since I've already referenced this multiple times. Again, do you suffer from problems with reading comprehension or are your objections simply disingenuous? What other conclusion are we supposed to reach?

      Jeff: Dude, all you do is keep re-asserting that you're right and others are wrong. You've made no argument yet.

      Scott: An idea can be considered foundational in a field if they is implicated in the rest of the explanations that field presents. However, this is not limited to a reductionist approach, as indicated in epistemological foundationalism. For example, foundational ideas exist at multiple levels, such as the principle of evolution and the law of epistemology, which are emergent. Both play a key role in explanations, yet are subject to criticism, as are all ideas.

      Jeff: Foundationalism doesn't deny the existence of the hypothetico-deductive mode of explanation, Scott. For crying out loud, do you even know anything about what you criticise?

      Scott: Yet, you keep denying that we can make progress in these fields. Is this merely a coincidence?

      Jeff: There is no way to make progress if all beliefs are arbitarily-believed (which is what is the case when you reject every species of foundationalism that buids on NATURALLY-FORMED beliefs). Apart from inductive relative plausibility criteria, progress is impossible.

      Delete
    6. Scott,

      You're basically saying that we're making progress because we can arbitrarily conjecture an arbitrary hypothesis-rejection criteria to rule out accounts of our conscious experience. But there is an infinite set of such accounts if those criteria are not foundational to humans QUA humans (with humans defined in terms of a "normal" human, or something like that). So not only are you, per that approach, working against an infinite set (which renders progress inconceivable sense infinity minus any finite number still = infinity), but your account-rejection criteria is absolutely arbitrary in the first place, meaning you are exactly right to say that even the "selected" accounts are not known to be more plausible than any other. What you mean be progress, then, is not at all what most people mean by the term.

      You will never get people to live consistently with such non-sense. This is why naturalistic UCA'ists will continue to spead AS IF they know naturalistic UCA is a "best" explanation, etc, even when UCA is, to this day, UTTERLY inexplicable without being so manifestly arbitrary and ad-hoc that anyone could see the sheer absurdity of the "explanation." This is why they hide behind layers of lingo that amount to nothing when analyzed for real explanation.

      Delete
    7. The thing you keep forgetting, Scott, is that naturally-formed APPARENT memories MUST be accepted as real memories to some degree to even get TO such things as perceived "problems" to solve. You keep starting in mid-air as if naturally-formed beliefs are not what got you there (like apparent memories), when CLEARLY they did. You're view is sheer non-sense, because it isn't even what you keep pontificating that it is--i.e., FREE of foundationalism.

      Delete
    8. Scott: Saying I cannot criticize something that is intelligible completely ignores this context [of starting with a problem to solve, which is a key part of the theory how knowledge grows presented above]. While you are not obligated to actually take our current, best theories seriously, [including the theory of the growth of knowledge above], it's unclear why you expect anyone to take your objections seriously unless you do.

      Jeff: There is no theory of naturalistic UCA.

      Except, we were not just talking about UCA. We were just talking about an explanation for the growth of human knowledge. So, apparently this is yet another example ignoring the above context.

      Again, whether there is evidence or an explanation for UCA is directly related to our explanation of how knowledge grows, which we still haven't cleared up.

      Scott: Is pointing out the conjectured solution doesn't solve the target problem not a valid criticism?

      Jeff: If you don't hold to some form of foundationalism, you can't even know there's a problem to solve, because you can't know that any apparent memories are actual memories.

      "…some form of foundationalism" is unnecessarily vague.

      Again, the view that ideas which are foundational are implied in all of our other best explanations in a particular field, is not Foundationalism as your implying. The theory that things we recall are actually stored memories from previous experience is an idea that has withstood significant criticism and is implicated in theory of the growth of knowledge. Epistemological Foundaltionalsm, on the other hand, is a form of justifictionism, in which one can arbitrarily decide that something is foundational and no longer subject to criticism.

      Again, how do you know what is foundational?

      Jeff: That response doesn't define what criticism IS so as to enable me to see HOW you're distinguishing it from discursive reasoning.

      And I'm confused? Apparently, you can't conceive of discursive reasoning in the absence of epistemological Foundationalism, despite having presented it to you repeatedly.

      I'm pressed on time today, I can only make a brief reply ATM. In the mean time, I'll point you to an entire category of posts specific to foundationalism.

      Jeff: Dude, all you do is keep re-asserting that you're right and others are wrong. You've made no argument yet.

      No, Jeff. I've presented a criticism of Foundationalism by means of criticizing justificationism. Have you actually looked up Foundationalism in any sort of detailed way? If so, exactly which kind of Foundationalist are you?

      Delete
    9. Jeff: The thing you keep forgetting, Scott, is that naturally-formed APPARENT memories MUST be accepted as real memories to some degree to even get TO such things as perceived "problems" to solve.

      No, Jeff, I'm not forgetting this. We can rationally criticize the idea that we can recall aspects of past experience. This is the key difference you keep ignoring.

      We need not accept this uncritically.

      Delete
    10. Scott: No, Jeff, I'm not forgetting this. We can rationally criticize the idea that we can recall aspects of past experience. This is the key difference you keep ignoring.

      We need not accept this uncritically.

      Jeff: You say all ideas can be criticized. What would be the criticism of the idea that "some apparent memories are actual memories?" IOW, what CONCEIVABLE evidence can there be for the idea that ALL apparent memories are false memories?

      I say there is none. And this is the only sense in which inductive reasoning is subject to criticism--simply that if it turned out that DISbelieving all of our apparent memories became MORE satisfying than believing that SOME of them were actual memories, then induction (and therefore evidential reasoning) is out the window. But there's NOTHING left, to our knowledge, to replace it with once we disbelieve ALL of our memories.

      At that point, ideas aren't about what's true over some temporal duration. And in that case, volitional thought is absolutely pointless. For if we don't care a whit about the future, we don't really care about anything.

      Delete
    11. Jeff: You say all ideas can be criticized. What would be the criticism of the idea that "some apparent memories are actual memories?" IOW, what CONCEIVABLE evidence can there be for the idea that ALL apparent memories are false memories?

      If they were not actual memories, then what are they instead? How do you explain them as anything other than actual memories? Where do they come from otherwise if not previous experience?

      If someone accrues neurological damage in specific regions of their brains, why would damage in these specific areas effect memories? Why would stored visual and aural recordings in external systems correlate with false memories? I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

      What other good explanation do you have, other than we actually retain and recall experiences?

      This is what I mean by taking all of our current, best theories seriously for the purpose of criticism.

      Delete
  13. The reason why Evolutionists actually believe in their nonsense is that they don't really believe in the concept of specification. They only believe in complexity and that given enough complexity you'll find some "specification" in there. They don't understand that you can't obtain specification (and especially functional specification) from mere complexity. So the greater the complexity the better it is (apparently) for Evolutionists. "Problems" are solved with greater complexity, simply throw complexity at a "problem" (they don't believe in "problems" and "solutions" to "problems") and the "solution" is somewhere within that rats nest of complexity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think another fatal flaw is, evolutionist conflate random variation and purpose. An organism which is made up of billions of small parts, seeks to survive as a whole by small changes at the molecular level. These changes occur randomly and work there way up the ladder to affect the whole organism or ecosystem the organism exists in to fulfill some purpose greater than itself, randomly. Seems to be contradictory. If you approach the problem from a creationist perspective, it's clear. The organism was created to operate within a set of well defined parameters. The same way a surf board was created to carry a person on water and not on the motorway.

      Delete
    2. Where can I find the specification for a genome? A specification is a before-the fact design document that lays out the requirements that the design must meet. Typically finished designs are then tested against the specification to see if they are "in spec" or "out of spec".

      To my knowledge all science knows of the genome is an after-the-fact description of the functionality determined by examining an already existing entity. It's only the IDiots who took this after-the-fact description and decided to call it a "specification". Kinda like finding a hole in a wall, then drawing a bullseye ring around it after and claiming an Intelligent Marksman must exist because *look!* he made a perfect shot.

      So where is the before-the-fact specification?

      Delete
    3. Hey marcus, a volcano, a tsunami, and a hurricane are made up of billions of small parts. Are they (volcanoes, etc.) designed to operate within a set of well defined parameters? How about a flu epidemic?

      "If you approach the problem from a creationist perspective, it's clear. The organism was created to operate within a set of well defined parameters."

      Explain the "purpose" of all the extinctions that have ever occurred and will ever occur from that creationist point of view of yours.

      Delete
    4. TWT:"Hey marcus, a volcano, a tsunami, and a hurricane are made up of billions of small parts. Are they (volcanoes, etc.) designed to operate within a set of well defined parameters? How about a flu epidemic?"

      Yes, everything in the universe is designed to operate within a set of parameters, including the flu virus.

      I don't know the purpose of all the extinctions past and future. I know God has a plan for me, you and everyone else. We are to worship Him only and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

      Knowing how volcanoes can be dangerous to live next to, why do you think there is a city built up around Mt Vesuvius. When that thing explodes, are you going to blame God for the destruction?

      Delete
    5. According to YOUR religious belief "God" can be and should be blamed (held responsible) for absolutely everything everywhere.

      You creobots are the ones claiming that "God" designed/created everything everywhere to operate within a set of well defined parameters, so when 'specially created' humans do things within their allegedly finely tuned, designed and specially created "set of well defined parameters" such as building cities on/near volcanoes, or on/near tsunami vulnerable shorelines, or on/near hurricane prone areas, or just come into contact with harmful or deadly flu viruses, yeah, the "destruction" is 'God's' fault.

      Delete
  14. Oligomeric proteins represent before the fact specs. Complex symmetry often clues us in to designs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John

      Oligomeric proteins represent before the fact specs


      How so? Where were these before-the-fact specs recorded? When were they written, and by who?

      Delete
  15. john,

    Oligomeric proteins represent before the fact specs.


    Just read a bit on Wikipedia about these,could you expand on how these represent before the fact specs?

    ReplyDelete
  16. After more than 150 years of research with advancing science, evolutionists are still not sure if there really is a tree of life...lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After thousands of years of thousands of religious fairy tales the world over, god pushers still don't (and won't ever) agree on the fairy tales, the interpretation of the fairy tales, and the credibility or lack therof of the fairy tales.

      If you approach the problem from a sane, atheistic perspective, it's clear. The religious fairy tales are BS.

      Delete
    2. Michael

      After more than 150 years of research with advancing science, evolutionists are still not sure if there really is a tree of life


      Like most Creationists you seem to be rather ignorant of the actual scientific findings. Science is 100% sure there really is a tree of life. It's just that recreating the billion year history of single-celled asexually reproducing creatures is quite problematic due to the fact that a non-trivial amount of their genetic variation occurred through HGT.

      Reading a freshman level text on genetics won't make your eyes explode, honest.

      Delete
    3. Thorton,

      "Science is 100% sure there really is a tree of life."

      I'm a creationist, and I believe there is a tree of life. There's one for canines and one for felines, and for equines, etc., etc. There's also a tree of life for mammals and reptiles, and so on. But there certainly isn't one tree for everything. There is not one set of branches, leading to one trunk, leading back to one root which is the common ancestor you so fervently believe existed. That's where the wheels of evolution having fallen off, my friend. Now they're desperately trying to navigate a bus which is not only wheelless, but powerless as well.

      That's was a great game yesterday, was it not? Like I said, Rask can steal games. If not for him it could have been 3 or 4 nothing after the first period. Lucic and Marchand were skating and hitting everything in red. Simply a typical Boston game. The series should get real interesting now.

      I was glad to see the OT winner was a clean goal, and not one of those pinball type goals, as so often happens. Don Cherry is right again about defencemen keeping their sticks out of the way. Let the goalie see it and he'll more often than not, stop it. I think Crawford would have stopped it if it hadn't gone of Seabrook's (?) stick. It was a great shot though, love the ring of the post.

      Looking forward to game 3. Take care my friend.

      Delete
    4. Nic

      I'm a creationist, and I believe there is a tree of life. There's one for canines and one for felines, and for equines, etc., etc. There's also a tree of life for mammals and reptiles, and so on.


      Er Nic, canines and felines are mammals. How then can there be a separate tree for cats, a separate tree for dogs, and one tree that includes all mammals? Do you want to take a Mulligan on that claim?

      But there certainly isn't one tree for everything

      But that's what both the fossil and genetic evidence show. If you want science to summarily reject all that data which directly contradicts your religious beliefs you need a better reason than your personal incredulity.

      Here's yet another recent study

      Impacts of the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution and KPg Extinction on Mammal Diversification
      Meredith et al
      Science 28 October 2011:
      Vol. 334 no. 6055 pp. 521-524

      It's free, go ahead and read it.

      Another example. This creature which lived approx. 40 MYa is the genus Miacis, a stem group of the carnivoria which gave rise to both canids and felids. Fossils of the Miacis have the features of both cats and dogs. They're real, they exist, they need an explanation. Science has a good one that accounts for the data, ALL the data. Sadly my friend, you don't.

      Game 2 was as exciting as game 1, each has been a roll of the dice. Glad to see Horton skate, the guy's a warrior. Played most of the playoffs with his shoulder duct taped together. Game 3 Tuesday I'll be glued to the set.

      Delete
    5. Ack! make that Monday for game 3.

      Delete
    6. Thorton,

      "Er Nic, canines and felines are mammals. How then can there be a separate tree for cats, a separate tree for dogs, and one tree that includes all mammals? Do you want to take a Mulligan on that claim?"

      I'll probably take the mulligan, it's was poorly phrased to be sure.

      As for the fossil record and the genetic evidence, it shows what it does to evolutionists due to their presuppositions. Genetically the more they learn, the less they realize they know. It's becoming more obvious that what may appear to be the same gene can be expressed in a myriad of ways.

      Game 3 is almost always the game which decides the direction of the series, especially if the game 2 winner also wins game 3. Yeah, Horton is a gem. Don Cherry did a piece on all the players whose stats went up while playing with Horton. He seems to make other players better by being on the same line.

      Delete
    7. Nic

      I'll probably take the mulligan, it's was poorly phrased to be sure.


      Go ahead and rephrase. I'll wait.

      As for the fossil record and the genetic evidence, it shows what it does to evolutionists due to their presuppositions.

      Oh please, not the standard "same data different interpretation" canard. You're better than that. The problem Creationist have is that they never provide any alternate explanation that stands up to the slightest scrutiny. "Goddidit" may work for you but it's a non-starter for scientific discovery. Take the paper I just showed you on mammal diversification in the Paleogene period. Fossil lineage data over 40 MY and extant genetic data from hundreds of studies was cross-correlated and produced the results shown. If you have a narrative that's more comprehensive, that explains ALL the data better let's hear it. Same for the Miacis. What 'kind" did they belong to, cat or dog?

      The quick and easy way out is to just hand-wave away all the data like you're fond of doing, but in science we don't have that luxury.

      It's becoming more obvious that what may appear to be the same gene can be expressed in a myriad of ways.

      You're going to have to parse that one too because I can't make sense of it.

      What did you think of Subban winning the Norris? I didn't get to see near enough Eastern games to tell. Seems to me since there was no East-West interplay this year the NHL should have split the major awards - one guy from each conference for the Norris, Lady Bing, Hart. The season already has an asterisk next to it, why not the awards too?

      Delete
    8. Thorton,

      "Go ahead and rephrase. I'll wait."

      How wonderfully patient of you.

      What I meant to convey was that you could clearly construct a 'tree' for canines, felines, etc. As for mammals in general, it would not be a tree in the sense of all mammals coming from a single source, but more like a relational chart depicting common traits among mammals. Common traits do not equal common ancestor.

      "Oh please, not the standard "same data different interpretation" canard."

      It's not a canard, it's a fact which is becoming more obvious with each passing day. Because you may not accept the explanation, or the explanation may be lacking full understanding, does not render the explanation false. A perfectly logical and plausible explanation can in fact be 100% wrong.

      "Same for the Miacis. What 'kind" did they belong to, cat or dog?"

      As they are long gone, it will most likely be impossible to know for sure. You're simply again falling into the fallacy of assuming similarity equals relatedness. Remember, what you're looking at is simply an artists interpretation of the fleshed out fossil. There is no way of knowing with complete certainty what the creature looked like.

      "The quick and easy way out is to just hand-wave away all the data like you're fond of doing, but in science we don't have that luxury."

      I'm not hand waving anything. I'm just not blindly following questionable reasoning based on presuppositions.

      "You're going to have to parse that one too because I can't make sense of it."

      Recent genetic discoveries, vis a vis, so-called junk DNA, are showing genes which appear to be the same can be expressed differently depending regulatory factors.

      Too often, in my opinion, the Norris is given out as a reward for scoring goals and not preventing them. Orr used to own the Norris, but how many people remember who his defensive partner was? The person Orr so often credited as the one preventing goals while he was scoring them. I'm sure if they had kept such a stat, Dallas Smith would hold the record for a defencemen facing two and three-on-one rushes.

      As for Subban, I guess he deserved it as much as the other two nominees.

      I think rather than naming 3 finalists in each category, they should choose one from each conference and present new awards to them and then award one of those winners with the Norris, Byng, etc. The other thing I would like to see is all the winners being chosen by coaches and players, not wannabe reporters. What really got me going on that was years ago when reporters chose Gary Suter as rookie of the year over Wendel Clark. Suter was a defenceman playing defence. Clark was a defencemen in junior who was put on left wing. Playing an unfamiliar position he still lead all rookies in scoring. That was plain dumb.

      Delete
  17. nic preached:

    "But there certainly isn't one tree for everything. There is not one set of branches, leading to one trunk, leading back to one root which is the common ancestor you so fervently believe existed."

    Certainly? And your 'certain' evidence is...?

    Tell me nic, are you actually special, exceptional, and superior to other apes and everything else in the universe or does it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy to believe so?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whole truth,

      "Tell me nic, are you actually special, exceptional, and superior to other apes and everything else in the universe or does it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy to believe so?"

      I wouldn't claim to be superior to everything else in the universe, but vis a vis apes, yeah, man is more special, exceptional and superior. I would think that was plainly obvious to any one with a modicum of common sense.

      As for feeling warm and fuzzy, yeah, being a special creation of God does that for me, as it does for everyone else I know who acknowledges him as their creator. Why wouldn't it?

      As for my certain evidence, it is certainly evident that reptiles are not the same as mammals. Never have been, never will be. That alone is sound evidence to anyone but evolutionists who blindly insist on the existence of a common ancestor they can neither identify or describe. They can only wishfully speak of its necessary existence.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      As for my certain evidence, it is certainly evident that reptiles are not the same as mammals. Never have been, never will be. That alone is sound evidence to anyone but evolutionists who blindly insist on the existence of a common ancestor they can neither identify or describe.


      Sorry Nic but science can identify and describe the common ancestor. They were called Therapsids and arose at the beginning of the Permian era some 290 MYA. There is much fossil evidence for many different species in the order Therapsida.

      Remember my buddy, "Nic doesn't know" isn't equivalent to "science doesn't know."

      Delete
    4. Thorton,

      "Sorry Nic but science can identify and describe the common ancestor. They were called Therapsids,..."

      Sorry, buddy, but this is simply more of the fallacious reasoning which concludes similar features means common ancestry.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      Sorry, buddy, but this is simply more of the fallacious reasoning which concludes similar features means common ancestry.


      Why is it fallacious reasoning to use similar features (either morphological or genetic) as evidence for common ancestry? How do you think DNA paternity tests work well enough to be used in a court of law? What do you suppose would happen to a suspected father who offered as a defense "you Honor, it wasn't me. The Common Designer made that baby have DNA very similar to mine for reasons only He knows."

      An omnipotent Designer has no need to make common features that show distinct changes in lineages over time. He could mix and match any parts in any way He chooses. But speciation - evolution through common descent- absolutely requires the transition of morphological features over time we observe. A omnipotent Designer wouldn't need to put genes for hind limbs in whales, yet there they are. He wouldn't need to invent four different ways to fly (pterosaurs, insects, birds, bats) yet there they are. He wouldn't need to have animals with a mixture of canine and feline traits like the Miacis, yet there they are too.

      It's not just similar morphological features between any two specimens either. It's the consistent pattern of similar features across time that form complete transitional series. It's the branching nested hierarchy of lineages that is empirically observed in the fossil record which matches the one from the genetic record with amazing fidelity. It's all these multiple lines of independent corroborating evidence that indicate evolution over deep time did indeed occur.

      Oh well. I could present evidence from now until until the Seals come back to Oakland and you'd still just hand wave it away. You're be content to just whip out your index card of Creationist excuses: "Common design", "different interpretation", "no one was there to see it" - I've heard them all ad nauseum. The bottom line is still that science explains the evidence in a consilient, self-consistent manner while Creationists have to make up a different and often directly contradictory miracle du jour for each piece.

      Go Bruins!

      Delete
    6. Thorton,

      "An omnipotent Designer has no need to make common features that show distinct changes in lineages over time."

      That, my friend, is a purely faith based statement. It presumes to know what an omnipotent God would or would not do. On what do you base this statement? I'm afraid nothing more than your personal feelings. You have no evidence to support it, only your assumptions as to what an omnipotent God should do.

      "But speciation - evolution through common descent- absolutely requires the transition of morphological features over time we observe."

      But that requirement does not make evolution through common descent a fact. We observe morphological changes over time within kinds, and that occurrence is completely within the parameters of the creation scenario. No one says things do not change. It's evolution which claims these changes all began from a common ancestor and progressed and continue to progress unabated, throughout time. Proof of that is exactly what is missing in evolutionary theory. That process is based solely on the conjecture that changes within kinds must inevitably lead back to a common source. That you simply cannot demonstrate.

      Nested hierarchy demonstrates nothing more than common need is met through common processes.

      My friend, I do not hand wave away anything. Giving a logical response to a position is not hand waving, it's just what it appears to be, a logical alternative.

      Talk to you after the game. Take care.

      Delete
    7. Nic

      It presumes to know what an omnipotent God would or would not do. On what do you base this statement?


      Nic buddy, please read what I wrote and not what you want to see. I didn't claim to know what an omnipotent God would or would not do. I said an omnipotent God has no need to make thinks look exactly like they had evolved. By definition an omnipotent God could do anything, yet of the all the myriad possibilities He chose to do things exactly as if he had used evolution over deep time as His process.

      You need to use your logic to explain why your God would choose to deceive all of science that way.

      But that requirement does not make evolution through common descent a fact.

      True. It's the millions of pieces of positive evidence that we do have which make common descent be considered a fact.

      It's evolution which claims these changes all began from a common ancestor and progressed and continue to progress unabated, throughout time. Proof of that is exactly what is missing in evolutionary theory

      Science doesn't do proof. Science does inferences based on empirical evidence. And contrary to your ignorance based assertions, there is plenty of evidence for evolution at and above the species level. Heck, you can't even define "kind". You certainly can't identify any barriers that limit how much morphological change can accumulate given time. "We didn't see it in real time" is the weakest kind of weaksauce. If we always required real-time eyewitnesses all our historians and police detectives would be out of a job.

      My friend, I do not hand wave away anything.

      Sorry bud, that's pretty much all you do. How about your explanation for that paper on mammal diversification in the Paleogene? How about the Miacis? How about the Therapsids?

      Giving a logical response to a position is not hand waving, it's just what it appears to be, a logical alternative.

      But all logical alternatives aren't supported equally. It's logically possible a Chicoutimi pee-wee team could challenge beat the Stanley Cup champions, but it's not very likely.

      No score after the first, B's carrying the play. No Hossa. Gonna be interesting...

      Delete
    8. Thorton,

      I said an omnipotent God has no need to make thinks look exactly like they had evolved."

      It's implied. The other factor in your comment, that God did not need to make things look as if they evolved implies that things do look as if they evolved. I don't agree. They look like they evolved only to those who presuppose evolution. So, no God would not need to make life look like it evolved and I don't think he did.

      "You need to use your logic to explain why your God would choose to deceive all of science that way."

      No, you need to demonstrate that is what God did. Is he responsible if science chooses to deny his existence and tries in vain to explain life as the result of mere random natural processes?


      "True. It's the millions of pieces of positive evidence that we do have which make common descent be considered a fact."

      But you simply wind up back where we started. Evidence is always open to interpretation based on ones presuppositions. If one, a priori rejects certain explanations, he is naturally going to limit the range of possible answers.

      "Science doesn't do proof. Science does inferences based on empirical evidence. And contrary to your ignorance based assertions,"

      Simply because I don't accept evolutionary theory my doubts are nothing more than ignorant assertions?


      "there is plenty of evidence for evolution at and above the species level."

      Again, evidence is interpreted based on presupposition. That's a simple fact you can't seem to get a grasp on. If you presuppose common descent, you will interpret what you find as supporting that belief.

      "Heck, you can't even define "kind"."

      Evolutionists can't agree on a definition for species either, so I guess we're even.

      "You certainly can't identify any barriers that limit how much morphological change can accumulate given time."

      The indications are certainly there. That you cannot deny. The other fact you cannot deny is that all your claims to unlimited morphological change are based solely on extrapolation, nothing more.

      "Sorry bud, that's pretty much all you do. How about your explanation for that paper on mammal diversification in the Paleogene? How about the Miacis? How about the Therapsids?"

      I believe I did respond to both those enquiries.

      It was a great game to watch. Both goalies playing really well. Lots of talk in Canada about Crawford being on the Olympic team. Marchand is playing great. I love watching guys that have high skills and lots of grit. That's why I always told people back in Gretzky's hay day that if I could only choose one, Messier or Gretzky, I would take Messier.

      If Ben Smith is the Hawks next best player, I would be real concerned about their depth.

      If the Hawks win tomorrow it goes to seven. If the Bruins win it's done in six.

      Living in the US I imagine you get your games on NBC. Have you ever seen a CBC broadcast? They really do a great job. They should, they've been at it for 60 years.

      Take care my friend.

      Delete
    9. Nic

      Thorton: "I said an omnipotent God has no need to make thinks look exactly like they had evolved."

      It's implied.


      LOL! No Nic, it's not implied. You don't get to tell me what my words mean.

      I don't agree. They look like they evolved only to those who presuppose evolution.

      You're certainly entitled to your personal opinion, but 99.9% of scientific professionals who actually study and work in the field disagree. You'll understand when their opinion carries more weight than yours.

      Is he responsible if science chooses to deny his existence and tries in vain to explain life as the result of mere random natural processes?

      Science doesn't deny the existence of a God. Science is neutral on the topic, it just doesn't deal with the supernatural.

      Tell me why you think an omnipotent God couldn't use natural processes like evolution to achieve the results He wanted? Is it logically possible or not?

      Simply because I don't accept evolutionary theory my doubts are nothing more than ignorant assertions?

      To date the only arguments you've offered are personal incredulity based on ignorance. Not trying to be harsh but that's the truth.

      Evolutionists can't agree on a definition for species either, so I guess we're even

      False. For sexually reproducing animals two populations are considered different species if they are reproductively isolated by either location, behavior, or non-interfertility. It's not if they can breed and produce fertile offspring, it's do they in the wild. The confusion comes in because in speciation there's rarely a clean split. It's a gradual separation of two populations with the amount of gene pool interaction becoming less and less over time.

      But thanks for admitting you can't define "kind".

      The indications are certainly there. That you cannot deny

      I do strongly deny it. No one has ever explained any sort of magic barrier beyond "we've never seen it happen". I ask every Creationist I see what would stop a paw from morphologically evolving into a fin over time and no one has ever described a barrier, you included.

      The other fact you cannot deny is that all your claims to unlimited morphological change are based solely on extrapolation, nothing more.

      Extrapolation is a perfectly valid analytical mechanism in science, unless you can show specific reasons why for individual cases it shouldn't be valid. Can you?

      I believe I did respond to both those enquiries.

      Where "respond" = merely claim they were no problem for Creation without any explanation as to where and how the data fit in the YEC scenario. A classic hand wave in other words.

      It was a great game to watch.

      Agreed. I'd dearly love to see the CBC broadcasts but I get what I get. I really loathe Doc Emerick and his gimmicky adjectives. It also ticks me off that they've started calling Marchand "little ball of hate". That's reserved for Pat Verbeek, the original LBOH. It was pretty funny to see Marchand and Shaw drop the gloves though. They're both about 5' 9", a buck 85. Like watching two high school kids tussle.

      Very curious about Hossa. Hawks came out today and said he wasn't injured. Not playing for personal reasons??

      Be good, on to game 4!

      Delete
    10. Nic

      Again, evidence is interpreted based on presupposition. That's a simple fact you can't seem to get a grasp on. If you presuppose common descent, you will interpret what you find as supporting that belief.


      This deserved its own response.

      You are 100% categorically wrong on this. Go read any history of science book. When ToE was first proposed the overwhelming presupposition was for Special Creation. It was only through the weight of empirical evidence that common descent became universally accepted in the scientific community.

      No one presupposed common descent then, no one presupposes it now. It's accepted today because of the huge amount of positive evidence, period.

      Delete
    11. Nic: I don't agree. They look like they evolved only to those who presuppose evolution. So, no God would not need to make life look like it evolved and I don't think he did.

      Are you saying God was surprised by the vast acceptance of evolutionary theory in science? As such, he didn't create the biosphere in a way that would have falsified evolutionary theory, despite supposedly being able to?

      Delete
    12. Thorton,

      "it's not implied.

      That's a problem of such forums. You may not intend to imply something, but that does not prevent it from coming across that way. Sorry.

      "You're certainly entitled to your personal opinion, but 99.9% of scientific professionals ,... their opinion carries more weight than yours."

      Naturally their opinion carries more weight than mine. However, that does not make their opinion correct.

      "God couldn't use natural processes like evolution to achieve the results He wanted? Is it logically possible or not?"

      I suppose it's logically possible. I just don't see the evidence supporting such a conclusion.

      "To date the only arguments you've offered are personal incredulity based on ignorance."

      Not true. All I've done is reject your evidence, not the same.

      "False."

      What you provided is a very narrow definition of species, and not one everyone agrees on. Lions and Tigers are considered different species, yet they can breed. Being in the wild or not really doesn't enter into it from a strictly genetic point of view. If they can breed in captivity, it only makes sense to assume they could in the wild.

      "thanks for admitting you can't define "kind".

      I never said I couldn't define 'kind'. A kind would be that which is reproductively isolated from other creatures, Therefore, canines would be a kind as would felines and equines, etc.

      "I do strongly deny it."

      That is simply an argument from incredulity, of which you often accuse me.

      "No one has ever explained any sort of magic barrier beyond "we've never seen it happen".

      Because one cannot 'explain' a barrier is not proof one does not exist. It's merely an admission of a lack of understanding. The 'observable facts' strongly indicate such barriers exist. Isn't it the goal of science to investigate those observations and not just wave their collective hands and say, we can't define or explain these barriers, so they don't exist.

      "Extrapolation is a perfectly valid analytical mechanism in science,..."

      Sure it is. As for cases where it's not valid, that's obvious. If it's never been witnessed to have ever occurred, it's nonsensical to extrapolate that it has occurred countless times throughout history and will continue to occur.

      "Where "respond" = merely claim they were no problem for Creation without any explanation as to where and how the data fit in the YEC scenario. A classic hand wave in other words."

      The data fits a creationist scenario in that variation is an expected result of reproduction within that perspective. Where evolution fails is in its attempts to demonstrate these creatures were anything more than now extinct animals. It can provide no irrefutable evidence that these creatures were in transition in any way. That's not a hand wave in any way, shape or form.

      "I'd dearly love to see the CBC broadcasts but I get what I get. I really loathe Doc Emerick and his gimmicky adjectives."

      I too have trouble listening to NBCs broadcasts. We used to get Pierre MacGuire on TSN hockey broadcasts. He knows the game, but I feel he overdoes the commentary. The guy you see in the box with him is the CBC guy, Glen Healey. He can be really hilarious at times and does not go overboard with his comments.

      "It also ticks me off that they've started calling Marchand "little ball of hate". That's reserved for Pat Verbeek, the original LBOH."

      Yeah, Verbeek could drive people crazy in a second.


      "Like watching two high school kids tussle."

      Two high school kids I wouldn't want to tussle with.

      "Very curious about Hossa. Hawks came out today and said he wasn't injured. Not playing for personal reasons??"

      If your mind is not there, you're better off somewhere else.

      "Be good,"

      I'm always good. Take care my friend. Talk to you after game 4.

      Delete
    13. Scott,

      "Are you saying God was surprised by the vast acceptance of evolutionary theory in science?"

      No. Being omnipotent he does not get surprised.

      "As such, he didn't create the biosphere in a way that would have falsified evolutionary theory, despite supposedly being able to?"

      If man wishes to believe evolution, that is his free will choice. As for evolution being falsified, google it.

      Delete
    14. Nic

      Naturally their opinion carries more weight than mine. However, that does not make their opinion correct.


      You have to admit it does make it a helluva lot more likely.

      I suppose it's logically possible. I just don't see the evidence supporting such a conclusion.

      I have. But then again I've studied at the undergrad and grad levels, and have 30 years' professional experience. "Nic hasn't seen it" doesn't equal "it doesn't exist".

      What you provided is a very narrow definition of species, and not one everyone agrees on.

      It's the standard scientific definition. Whether a few Creationists have their own pet definition really doesn't concern science.

      Lions and Tigers are considered different species, yet they can breed. Being in the wild or not really doesn't enter into it from a strictly genetic point of view. If they can breed in captivity, it only makes sense to assume they could in the wild.

      (facepalm)

      Once more Nic, please read what I write and not what you want to see. I'll highlight the important point I said about what determines 'species'.

      " It's not if they CAN breed and produce fertile offspring , it's DO they in the wild." Lions and tigers are considered different species because they THEIR GENE POOLS DON'T MIX IN THE WILD.

      Sheesh...

      Because one cannot 'explain' a barrier is not proof one does not exist.

      Sorry Nic, you're the one making the claim of a barrier, you're the one with the burden of proof. We have huge amounts of evidence for speciation and common descent. You have none for any sort of barrier.

      As for cases where it's not valid, that's obvious.

      Merely claiming "it's obvious' is hand waving again. You need to demonstrate a reason why extrapolation in this case should be rejected.

      If it's never been witnessed to have ever occurred, it's nonsensical to extrapolate that it has occurred countless times throughout history and will continue to occur.

      Oh fer...more of the just plain dumb "we didn't see the whole thing so it's impossible". The process of evolution has been observed, both in the lab and in the field.. Of course it hasn't been seen over millions of years because we've only been looking for a few hundred. Is plate tectonics false because no one has ever seen Africa touching South America? Was the Yosemite Valley not carved by ice age glaciers because no one witnessed the whole thing?

      Once more, for the record - "we haven't seen it so it can't happen" is the absolute dumbest is a whole pile of dumb Creationist excuses.

      It can provide no irrefutable evidence that these creatures were in transition in any way.

      Only to you my lad. Science has many many known fossil series with clear morphological transitions over time, and we have the genetic data from thousands of extant species which clearly shows their common ancestral relationships. To the people who study this for a living that evidence is conclusive.

      If you want to reject 150+ years' worth of solid science because of your religious beliefs, more power to you. Just don't pretend you're rejecting the science for technical scientific reasons. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

      Now to the important stuff :)

      Where did you hear Hossa was benched for a poor attitude? Seems like that would be extremely out of character for him, and a major story if true. In other news, Wings re-upped Datsyuk for 3 years, Sharks signed Couture to an extension. Wonder how many miles Pavel has on the odometer? I love watching him play - pretty much any of the old school Russians. They seem to be a vanishing breed,

      Delete
    15. Thorton,

      You made several comments I would like to respond to, but it's getting late and I need to get up early as I'm heading out of town for the day. Hopefully I'll remember to respond later. If I forget, I'm sure you will remind me.

      "Where did you hear Hossa was benched for a poor attitude?"

      I didn't. I think that impression may have come about due to the fact I used more characters than allowed in my last post. I had to cut some words. I was in a hurry and that may have led to poor editing which in turn led you to believe that is what I meant by saying his head wasn't in it. I was responding to the possibility his being scratched was due to personal problems, like a sick child, etc. That's what I meant by his mind being elsewhere. Sorry if I got you thinking the wrong way.

      As for Datsyuk, I think he's got a few years in him yet. He's like Jagr and some of he older guys from the past like Howe and Bathgate. They thought and think the game so well it seems they are a few seconds ahead of everyone else. This ability results in them really missing a lot of big hits which leads to fewer injuries and in the end, longer careers.

      Talk to you when I get back.

      Delete
    16. nic, are butterflies and dragonflies separate 'kinds'?

      How about sea lions, dolphins, and walruses?

      How about spiders and crabs?

      And one more, for now:

      Are Anise Swallowtail (Papilio zelicaon) butterflies and Clodius Parnassian (Parnassius clodius) butterflies separate 'kinds'?

      Delete
    17. nic said:

      "That, my friend, is a purely faith based statement. It presumes to know what an omnipotent God would or would not do. On what do you base this statement? I'm afraid nothing more than your personal feelings. You have no evidence to support it, only your assumptions as to what an omnipotent God should do."

      Yet you and all other religious people claim to know what your chosen "God" has done, does, should do, will do, etc., even though you have no evidence whatsoever.

      And since you thumpers just make things up and arrogantly assert the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect "God", and push a bunch of ridiculous, impossible fairy tales to support your claims about your so-called "God", it's completely reasonable for Thorton or anyone else to question, challenge, mock, and debate/dispute what your imaginary "God" allegedly has done, does, should do, will do, etc.

      Delete
    18. Nic,

      The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, as found in the genome, was created through conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random to any specific problem to solve, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

      I'm unaware of any observations that falsifies this explanation. Note, not yet falsified is not the same as being unfalsifyable.

      This explanation would have necessary consequences for the present day state of the system, which we can test via empirical observations. Specifically, the transformations that result in copies of more complex organisms could not be performed until the necessary knowledge of how to perform them had been created through this error correcting process.

      Had we observed the most complex forms of live appearing before the least complex, or the most to least complex appearing simultaneously, this would potentially falsify evolutionary theory.

      God, being supposedly omniscient, would have had the knowledge of how to build the most complex organisms before or simultaneously with the least complex. Being supposedly omnipotent, he would have had the ability to actually create them in any order.

      If God knew evolution would be adopted, why it would be adopted and could have easily created organisms in an order that would have prevented that adoption, then why didn't he?

      Delete
    19. whole truth,

      "Yet you and all other religious people claim to know what your chosen "God" has done,..."

      He has chosen to tell us at least some of the things he's done, that's true.

      "even though you have no evidence whatsoever."

      Funny, how you live with the delusion that it's you and you alone who determines what constitutes evidence. What a wonderful, perfect little world you must live in. Everything just falls into place, just the way you want it. How fortunate for you. What was that about me being arrogant?

      Delete
  18. nic, I'd like to see you fight a grown chimp or gorilla and then have what's left of you tell me that you're superior.

    "As for my certain evidence, it is certainly evident that reptiles are not the same as mammals. Never have been, never will be."

    Duh. If they were "the same" they wouldn't have different labels.

    However, even extant mammals and reptiles have some things in common and some early animals had a lot in common with what we humans label as mammals and reptiles.

    You're obviously a typical creationist who believes that every living thing should have been and must have been fossilized, that every fossil is still intact and on the surface, that there are millions of highly trained people constantly looking for them, and that it's easy to find, prepare, and study them all, AND that if ALL of the detailed history of everything that has ever lived or happened on the Earth hasn't been found, studied, proven, and explained by NOW, it never will be and your so-called 'God' automatically becomes the everlasting truth.

    Believe it or not, science isn't going to change because of your impatience or your belief in religious fairy tales. Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whole truth,

      "nic, I'd like to see you fight a grown chimp or gorilla and then have what's left of you tell me that you're superior."

      So, to you, superiority is determined by brute strength? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, this is just another example of your shallow thought processes.

      "Duh. If they were "the same" they wouldn't have different labels."

      If you weren't so eager to criticize my intelligence you would know very well what was meant by that comment. Reptiles and mammals never were the same, vis a vis having a common ancestor.

      "However, even extant mammals and reptiles have some things in common and some early animals had a lot in common with what we humans label as mammals and reptiles."

      It's time to give up on the fallacious argument that similarity is tantamount to common ancestry. That argument never could hunt, so give it a break already.

      "You're obviously a typical creationist who believes that every living thing should have been and must have been fossilized, that every fossil is still intact and on the surface,..."

      On the contrary, I think very few ancient creatures wound up fossilized, that's why the evolutionary argument has so many massive holes in it. It's based on very scant evidence leading to massive amounts of conjecture, all of which is based on poorly founded presuppositions.

      "science isn't going to change because of your impatience or your belief in religious fairy tales."

      You're kidding, right? Here I was all along thinking science was going to change because I didn't blindly accept everything it spouted off. I'm crushed, truly. How cruel of you to say that. After all, scientific 'facts' have never changed at any time, have they?

      Delete
    2. Superiority, or the lack thereof, can be measured in lots of ways. A chimp or gorilla could easily kick your ass, a coyote could easily out-run you, a sparrow could easily out-fly you, a fish could easily out-swim you, a bat could easily out-hear you, a sea turtle or a salmon could easily out-navigate you, and a giant tortoise could easily outlive you.

      Every living thing, including humans, has its own traits/features. Nothing is "more special" than anything else except in the arrogant minds of humans.

      Are you "more special" than Einstein, or Usain Bolt, or a person with microcephaly, or a person born with no arms and legs? Is a person born with two heads twice as special as a person born with one head?

      Are you "more special" than bacteria and viruses? Without bacteria and viruses you wouldn't exist, and some bacteria and viruses could easily kill you. How do YOU measure "special"?

      "Reptiles and mammals never were the same, vis a vis having a common ancestor."

      Being "the same" is NOT "the same" as having a common ancestor. So much for your "intelligence".

      "It's time to give up on the fallacious argument that similarity is tantamount to common ancestry. That argument never could hunt, so give it a break already."

      Well, that depends on the similarities. Tell me, are you identical or just similar to the people you call your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc., etc., etc.? If they were/are identical humans, and you're only similar, then you may not be human.

      How do you know that you are the child of the two people that you call your parents?

      What color/race are you? If you're 'white', are you identical or just similar to someone who is 'black'? Do you believe that the 'races' of people were/are created separately? Do you accept that all races of people have common ancestry? What color/race were the biblical characters adam and eve?

      "On the contrary, I think very few ancient creatures wound up fossilized, that's why the evolutionary argument has so many massive holes in it."

      In other words, if there were more fossils there would be fewer "holes" in evolutionary theory, right? Even though some "holes" will likely remain, it must aggravate you no end to know that more fossils are being looked for, found, studied, and explained. It takes time and effort but many more answers will be found.

      "It's based on very scant evidence leading to massive amounts of conjecture, all of which is based on poorly founded presuppositions."

      Scant evidence, eh? What "evidence" are your religious presuppositions (beliefs) based on? Is the "evidence" for your religious presuppositions better than the evidence for evolution and evolutionary theory? Is the "evidence" for your religious presuppositions (beliefs) better than the "evidence" for a hindu's presuppositions, a scientologist's presuppositions, or a raelian's presuppositions?

      See part two.

      Delete
    3. Part two.

      "You're kidding, right? Here I was all along thinking science was going to change because I didn't blindly accept everything it spouted off. I'm crushed, truly. How cruel of you to say that. After all, scientific 'facts' have never changed at any time, have they?"

      No, I'm not kidding. Science is not going to change because of your impatience or your religious beliefs.

      I don't "blindly" view or accept everything that scientists claim or speculate about. I also don't "blindly" view or accept religious fairy tales. You, on the other hand, are obviously blind when you completely reject evolution and evolutionary theory and you're obviously blind when you believe in ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales.

      The flexibility (changes) of science really bugs you, doesn't it? You want everything in some neatly arranged order that never changes. You think that the religious fairy tales you believe in are unchanging and are solidly "founded", right? Well, the thing is that the fairy tales you believe in have been changed many times, they have many interpretations/translations, they are constantly in dispute even among christians, and there are lots and lots of other religious fairy tales that are believed to be solidly "founded" by other people.

      About 6 billion people on this planet aren't even christians. There are about 40,000 'official' sects of christianity, and there are many millions of different interpretations of christian fairy tales. It would be a lot easier to find christians who disagree with each other than to find some who agree on everything.

      By the way, is the belief that goats and sheep have striped or spotted offspring just because they mate while looking at striped sticks well "founded"?

      Delete
    4. whole truth,

      "Every living thing, including humans, has its own traits/features. Nothing is "more special" than anything else except in the arrogant minds of humans.'

      If you wish to view yourself as no better than a chimpanzee that's your prerogative. I won't be joining you.

      "Are you "more special" than Einstein, or Usain Bolt, or a person with microcephaly, or a person born with no arms and legs? Is a person born with two heads twice as special as a person born with one head?'

      Show me where I even intimated anything of the sort.

      "How do YOU measure "special"?"

      The way God said we were special in that all those things such as bacteria were made for us and we were given dominion over them.

      "Being "the same" is NOT "the same" as having a common ancestor. So much for your "intelligence".'

      If they have a common ancestor they were, by logic, at one point the same creature

      "Well, that depends on the similarities. Tell me, are you identical or just similar to the people you call your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc., etc., etc.? If they were/are identical humans, and you're only similar, then you may not be human.'

      I really don't know what to say in response to such asinine reasoning

      There is only one race of man, human. We've arbitrarily divided man into three races, but all men are simply humans.

      "In other words, if there were more fossils there would be fewer "holes" in evolutionary theory, right?"

      I would venture to say the holes would be bigger and more plentiful.

      "it must aggravate you no end to know that more fossils are being looked for, found, studied, and explained.'

      Not at all, every time evolutionists come up with 'it', it invariably falls flat on 'its' face. So, no, The continual discovery of fossils bothers me not one little bit.

      "Is the "evidence" for your religious presuppositions (beliefs) better than the "evidence" for a hindu's presuppositions, a scientologist's presuppositions, or a raelian's presuppositions?"

      Yep.

      Delete
    5. whole truth,

      "No, I'm not kidding. Science is not going to change because of your impatience or your religious beliefs.'

      Wow, you can't even detect sarcasm.

      "You, on the other hand, are obviously blind when you completely reject evolution and evolutionary theory and you're obviously blind when you believe in ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales."

      That's because I don't agree with you. Because you view something as ridiculous, doesn't make it ridiculous. As for Fairy Tales you believe in the grand daddy of Fairy Tales; that all life sprang from inanimate matter all on its own and continued to progress becoming more and more and more complex through random mutations and natural selection. Don't ridicule someone for believing Fairy Tales when you adhere to such palpable nonsense.

      "The flexibility (changes) of science really bugs you, doesn't it?"

      There's a difference between flexibility and measuring with a rubber ruler. Maybe you should learn that difference.

      "You want everything in some neatly arranged order that never changes."

      No, that would be you and the demands you place on creationists. It's also reflective of your erroneous view of creationist claims.

      "Well, the thing is that the fairy tales you believe in have been changed many times, they have many interpretations/translations, they are constantly in dispute even among christians, and there are lots and lots of other religious fairy tales that are believed to be solidly "founded" by other people."

      True, some people have tried to change the Bible's message, some have poorly interpreted that message and others have misunderstood the message. None of these events means the message is wrong. Nor does the existence of alternative messages. If the mere existence of an alternative explanation to any belief were enough to falsify that belief nothing would ever be true, would it? Logic is not your forte, I see.

      "About 6 billion people on this planet aren't even christians. There are about 40,000 'official' sects of christianity, and there are many millions of different interpretations of christian fairy tales. It would be a lot easier to find christians who disagree with each other than to find some who agree on everything."

      And your point is?

      "By the way, is the belief that goats and sheep have striped or spotted offspring just because they mate while looking at striped sticks well "founded"?"

      Try reading the whole account in context.

      Delete
    6. nic, some of your comments need no response to show how ignorant and arrogant they are but I'll respond to these:

      I asked:

      "How do YOU measure "special"?"

      You answered:

      "The way God said we were special in that all those things such as bacteria were made for us and we were given dominion over them."

      "God said"? How do you know what "God said"?

      Are the bacteria that harm or kill "us" made for "us" by your 'loving, merciful God'? In what way do we have "dominion over" things that can harm or kill us? And do you have "dominion over" all of the bacteria and viruses in or on you?

      "If they have a common ancestor they were, by logic, at one point the same creature"

      No, "they" were never "the same creature". You really don''t understand what common ancestry means.

      "There is only one race of man, human. We've arbitrarily divided man into three races, but all men are simply humans."

      Your misogyny is showing, and you're avoiding most of my questions. Three races? Is that all?

      And I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that all humans are the same 'race'.

      How would you explain the dissimilarities between a 'white' person, a 'black' person, an Oriental person, and an Amerindian person? Evolution or separate, special creation?

      "As for Fairy Tales you believe in the grand daddy of Fairy Tales; that all life sprang from inanimate matter all on its own and continued to progress becoming more and more and more complex through random mutations and natural selection."

      I don't remember ever claiming "that all life sprang from inanimate matter all on its own". However, I do claim that your imaginary god and all other so-called gods that have ever been conjured up had nothing to do with it. The only things that support any/all of the so-called gods are ridiculous, impossible fairy tales.

      I do accept that evolution occurs, regardless of whether complexity increases or not or whether there's "progress" or not. Also, I wouldn't describe evolution as only "random mutations and natural selection".

      "True, some people have tried to change the Bible's message, some have poorly interpreted that message and others have misunderstood the message."

      But of course you understand/interpret "the Bible's message" perfectly, right?

      "None of these events means the message is wrong."

      Which message? There are so many.

      "Nor does the existence of alternative messages. If the mere existence of an alternative explanation to any belief were enough to falsify that belief nothing would ever be true, would it? Logic is not your forte, I see."

      Says a guy who wallows in illogical beliefs. You god pushers sure are good at avoiding reality.

      Delete
    7. whole truth,

      "nic, some of your comments need no response to show how ignorant and arrogant they are but I'll respond to these:"

      Now that's funny, you calling someone ignorant and arrogant. I think I'll just leave my response there.

      TWT;"God said"? How do you know what "God said"?

      We have the Bible to tell us what God said. But you reject that. Well, that's too bad. Your rejection does not alter the situation for Christians one iota. That's something you and others must learn to live with. Your denial of the Bible's contents and our belief in its truthfulness does not depend on your acceptance. Reject it all you want, it matters not to my acceptance of it.

      "Are the bacteria that harm or kill "us" made for "us" by your 'loving, merciful God'? In what way do we have "dominion over" things that can harm or kill us? And do you have "dominion over" all of the bacteria and viruses in or on you?"

      This is what I mean by it being funny when you call others ignorant. if you knew a mere fraction of what you think you know regards Christian theology you would know the world now is not as it was created.

      "No, "they" were never "the same creature". You really don''t understand what common ancestry means."

      IF, all life descends from a single common ancestor, as is promoted by evolutionary thought, then yes, it would be the same creature. A five year old could gasp that. And, IF, reptiles and mammals all descend from a single common ancestor, then again, at some point it was the same creature. It certainly is not me who does not understand common ancestry means, that's painfully obvious.

      "Your misogyny is showing, and you're avoiding most of my questions. Three races? Is that all?"

      I think you need to look up the word misogyny. It doesn't mean what it appears you think it means

      "And I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that all humans are the same 'race'."

      Well, that's a knock down argument.

      "How would you explain the dissimilarities between a 'white' person, a 'black' person, an Oriental person, and an Amerindian person? Evolution or separate, special creation?"

      Well. for starters, North American Indians are of what we call the Mongoloid race. You really need to do some homework, my friend.

      "I don't remember ever claiming "that all life sprang from inanimate matter all on its own".

      Well, if you're going to toe the evolutionary line, that's where you're going to be standing. And please, don't go down the boring old red herring argument that abiogenesis is different from evolution. If you're going to reject intelligence as a factor in the origin of life you're stuck with abiogenesis and evolution being joined at the hip. Learn to live with it.

      "But of course you understand/interpret "the Bible's message" perfectly, right?"

      I never said that, did I. I never said I was perfect in my understanding of the Bible.. In fact it's more of a tendency for you to claim you're the perfect one as you claim to know for a fact it's all just a bunch of impossible, ridiculous Fairy Tales. A little more of that arrogance you fail to acknowledge coming home to roost.

      "Which message? There are so many."

      Nope, just one.

      "Says a guy who wallows in illogical beliefs. You god pushers sure are good at avoiding reality."

      Like I said, you think life came about completely free from any type of intelligent source, and you accuse me of wallowing in illogical beliefs. That's just too funny for words. I'll retire to bedlam.

      Delete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Elijah2012: Darcy and Blas,this is what you get for taking either Thorton and the alleged WT seriously."

    Elijah2012,

    In fact, Thorton and TWT have added nothing that could retort National Velour's point . The quote doesn't ommit the "IF" ("if the facts won't fit..."). That's not about someone "doing" something. It's about someone's attitude toward approaching science. Charles Darwin informed Lyell about this quote from his brother by replicating it in a letter. Even if it was a joke, sarcasm or exaggeration, the quote is a very good example of how not to do science.
    The point is: It's wrong now to hide or ignore facts, as it would be wrong if it was done years back.

    Thorton: "It has nothing at all to do with scientists today ignoring facts that contradict ToE as NV was implying."

    Of course, it has. The quote is quite appropriate and has all to do with scientists today ignoring facts that contradict ToE or any really scientific theory. Such facts should never be hidden or ignored. Oxford reference site has quoted Erasmus the same way National Velour did above along with Aldous Huxley, concerning FACTS.
    Remember, guys:

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    Aldous Huxley 1894–1963 English novelist: Proper Studies (1927)

    http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191735240.001.0001/q-oro-00004248?rskey=bbKCzn&result=8&q=A.%20J.%20Ayer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darcy

      The quote is quite appropriate and has all to do with scientists today ignoring facts that contradict ToE or any really scientific theory.


      LOL! That's pretty good. A letter written by a layman to his scientist brother over 150 years ago was actually about scientists today committing deliberate scientific fraud by ignoring data.

      You Fundies crack me up!

      Delete
    2. Thorton said:

      "LOL! That's pretty good. A letter written by a layman to his scientist brother over 150 years ago was actually about scientists today committing deliberate scientific fraud by ignoring data."

      The letter has no importance, as Rotchie said Who cares what Erasmus Darwin wrote?. The point is that The Whole Truth accused and you confirmed that were a quote mining out of context and when confronted both insisted that were right. Acting as Erasmus Darwing predicted 150 years ago.

      Delete
    3. Blas

      The letter has no importance, as Rotchie said Who cares what Erasmus Darwin wrote?. The point is that The Whole Truth accused and you confirmed that were a quote mining out of context and when confronted both insisted that were right.


      It was clearly shown the passage was indeed an out-of-context quote-mined quote that misrepresented the author's meaning. It was also clearly shown the passage has zero to do with anything in science today. Most people consider quote-mining a form of lying.

      Delete
    4. [Thorton: "LOL! That's pretty good. A letter written by a layman to his scientist brother over 150 years ago was actually about scientists today committing deliberate scientific fraud by ignoring data."]

      Thorton, remember: you are the one who needs clarification about that...lol

      [Thorton: "It has nothing at all to do with scientists today ignoring facts that contradict ToE as NV was implying."

      Eliajh2012: "lol well of course the letter written by a man long dead could not be about "scientists today". these kids have no sense"]

      Do you really think your straw men are invisible?

      A letter (no, boy, "the quote" of a letter - "the quote is appropriate") written by a layman to his scientist brother over 150 years ago was actually about (actually? What a horrible strawman! That's your word, not mine, man. What I said is that "the quote has all to do with" - "the quote is a very good example of how not to do science") scientists today committing deliberate scientific fraud by ignoring data.

      [Thorton: It was clearly shown the passage was indeed an out-of-context quote-mined quote that misrepresented the author's meaning.]

      Empty and irrelevant retort. It was clearly shown the passage was not out-of-context and has no secret meaning.

      The quote is a very good example of how not to do science (it doesn't matter if it's written within 10 lines in context or if it's reduced to itself in 2 lines as did Oxford's reference in the link above).
      The quote is quite appropriate and has all to do with scientists today ignoring facts that contradict ToE nonsense or any really scientific theory (that's the wrong attitude now as it would be back in Darwin's day, right Thorton?).

      Delete
    5. LOL! NV got caught posting a standard issue Creationist dishonestly quote-mined quote. Nothing unusual - Creationist dishonesty has happened before, it will happen again. Something written in a personal letter to a brother over 150 years ago yet you scientifically illiterate nutjobs want to insist it's about ALL of science in the year 2013.

      You Fundies do crack me up!

      Delete
    6. This is not relative because Evolutionary theory isn't justified by an authoritative source, such as Darwin or his brother.

      Theists attacking Darwin's brother, and more commonly Darwin, himself is yet another example of assuming knowledge comes from authoritative sources, rather than conjecture and criticism.

      Delete
    7. Scott:

      "Theists attacking Darwin's brother, and more commonly Darwin, himself is yet another example of assuming knowledge comes from authoritative sources, rather than conjecture and criticism."

      Will you Scott,in your life time, realize that conjecture and criticism are already knowledge that come from an authoritative source and then also your knowledge come from an authoritative source?

      Delete
    8. What I realize is, despite the fact that all of our ideas contain errors and are incomplete, we have make progress beyond the idea that knowledge comes from authoritative sources. So, no, I won't realize that we haven't made progress in this area.

      Specifically, ideas and explanations are independent of those conjecture it or presented it. Darwin could have worshiped Satan and tortured puppies for fun. This wouldn't change the fact that his theory is one of the greatest discoveries made in human history. We can say the same about Karl Popper and his theory of the growth of knowledge.

      That you're apparently incapable of recognizing the difference is yet another example of assuming knowledge comes from authoritative sources, rather than conjecture and criticism.

      Delete
  23. Thanks for nice information
    Dont forget to visit our site

    ReplyDelete