tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2851021846380633966..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: More Evidence of Adaptive Mutations: Adaptation by Directed Modification Rather Than Selection, Lamarck N, Darwin 0Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger165125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28449611087254946022015-03-18T07:57:44.151-07:002015-03-18T07:57:44.151-07:00Actually, when you think abt it, dont you think th...Actually, when you think abt it, dont you think these explosions, cambrian and mammalian actually support adaptive mutations, by simply claiming the environmental stress required the speices to adapt into mammals, and so many did it, they just had to, those who didnt either found other ways to survive, pathways etc. or were forced into hiding, like extreme life today that was probably dominant once now only exists near hydrothermal vents etc. And those who werent even able to do that simply dies out, that we today call extinct.......... dont you think these explosions can very easilh be explained using adaptive mutations??????newbeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06175903889771206208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38123025862667527652015-03-18T07:40:32.036-07:002015-03-18T07:40:32.036-07:00Actually, when you think abt it, dont you think th...Actually, when you think abt it, dont you think these explosions, cambrian and mammalian actually support adaptive mutations, by simply claiming the environmental stress required the speices to adapt into mammals, and so many did it, they just had to, those who didnt either found other ways to survive, pathways etc. or were forced into hiding, like extreme life today that was probably dominant once now only exists near hydrothermal vents etc. And those who werent even able to do that simply dies out, that we today call extinct.......... dont you think these explosions can very easilh be explained using adaptive mutations??????newbeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06175903889771206208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52489328826226112672015-03-18T07:36:54.102-07:002015-03-18T07:36:54.102-07:00Actually, when you think abt it, dont you think th...Actually, when you think abt it, dont you think these explosions, cambrian and mammalian actually support adaptive mutations, by simply claiming the environmental stress required the speices to adapt into mammals, and so many did it, they just had to, those who didnt either found other ways to survive, pathways etc. or were forced into hiding, like extreme life today that was probably dominant once now only exists near hydrothermal vents etc. And those who werent even able to do that simply dies out, that we today call extinct.......... dont you think these explosions can very easilh be explained using adaptive mutations??????newbeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06175903889771206208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70036865601769518562011-12-24T08:57:09.290-08:002011-12-24T08:57:09.290-08:00LOL! PaVLino once again can't admit he was wr...LOL! PaVLino once again can't admit he was wrong about Archeopteryx having the oldest know feathers, tries desperately to spin his story / rewrite history.<br /><br />What a pathetic poseur you are PaV. Just pathetic.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66853585653565406922011-12-23T12:52:49.492-08:002011-12-23T12:52:49.492-08:00Thorton:
This is from the abstract of the paper y...Thorton:<br /><br />This is from the abstract of the paper you cited above:<br /><br /><i>The early evolution of the major groups of derived non-avialan theropods is still not well understood, mainly because of their poor fossil record in the Jurassic. A well-known result of this problem is the 'temporal paradox' argument that is sometimes made against the theropod hypothesis of avian origins1</i><br /><br />There are two admissions:<br />(1) The early evolution of bird feathers is NOT well understood.<br /><br />(2) There exists a "temporal paradox".<br /><br />In my posts, I have made these very two points. This only confirms the validity of my questions.<br /><br />This new find---I don't have access to it, so I can't tell how much older it is to the Archeaopteryx, nor the quality of its details---can obviously change all of this. But you've denied that any of this controversy---points (1) and (2) above---even existed. Why not admit where Darwinian theory is weak? Why not own up to it? Isn't that what scientifically-minded people are supposed to do?Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67262300038948188402011-12-23T12:42:20.226-08:002011-12-23T12:42:20.226-08:00Geoxus:
Thank you for the extended, and well-temp...Geoxus:<br /><br />Thank you for the extended, and well-tempered response. What a breath of fresh air.<br /><br /><i>I'm not familiar with all of Prum's work to know what's the change of mind you're talking about. All I've seen is you changing your mind about Feduccia's hypothesis.</i><br /><br />It's been probably six years since I've taken a long look at where things stand when it comes to the bird feather. I was reliant on Prum and Brush (2002). What stuck out in my mind was the great difficulty they were having in finding intermediates, but, more than that, the difficulty in finding ways of explaining how directional selection could explain the emergence of flight feathers, which, IIRC, need a whole host of features already present within them as they come forth. And that's where "evo-devo" came in.<br /><br />I don't remember Prum and Brush talking about Sinosauropteryx, and probably for the very same reasons I've objected to it--that temporally it comes after Archeopteryx.<br /><br />Because of the discussion here, I've had to search around more. The paper that Thorton cited is interesting in that it is prior to Archeaopteryx. But, again, all of this is very fragmentary.<br /><br />Here are my objections to Darwinism/neo-Darwinism:<br /><br />(1) Per Darwinian expectations, there should be an abundance of intermediates found. But they're not.<br /><br />(2) The absence of intermediates suggests, to me at least, that one could argue that flight feathers represent a kind of "irreducible complexity."<br /><br />(3) Should an abundance---or even a fair amount--of intermediates be found, unless they were spread out over a long period of geological time, neo-Darwinian theory is still left bereft of an explanation for how such significant, and novel, changes came about (although this would counter any argument for irreducible complexity).<br /><br />On the side of a "natural" theory of evolution, the fossil record certainly suggests to me that some kinds of natural mechanisms are present in the genome explaining the rise of diversity and adaptation. But this all strikes me as secondary to a genomic informational core which variety plus selection (neo-Darwinism) cannot explain. More likely, after some substantial infusion of information, divergence takes place by a rearrangement of this infused information, and, then again, by loss of information over time, as organisms adapt to various environments.<br /><br />I've looked far and wide, and there is nothing in the evolutionary biology literature that makes any kind of compelling case for putative Darwinian mechanisms leading to the rise of higher taxa---adapted species, yes; but not higher taxa.<br /><br />You say that everyone would like to know the way in which Hox genes arose. That's a very "objective" stance to take. I take it, too. However, I don't have very high expectations that it can ever be explained. Everything I look at these days in the literature, only provides further problems and hurdles to explaining the internal complexity of higher taxonomic genomes.<br /><br />Again, I appreciate your tone over the last several posts--although we obviously have different views.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55834769782780478072011-12-14T15:48:58.738-08:002011-12-14T15:48:58.738-08:00Hey Gerry, if you're out there - hope your leg...Hey Gerry, if you're out there - hope your leg is feeling better.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40804246460039258252011-12-13T06:30:04.797-08:002011-12-13T06:30:04.797-08:00Geoxus said...
I think that was my longest co...<i>Geoxus said...<br /><br /> I think that was my longest comment here, I hope I didn't catch the BA77 fever.</i><br /><br />If you start posting YouTube links to retch-inducing Christian music at the end of every message , then is the time to worry. :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15595215433812882532011-12-12T21:49:56.266-08:002011-12-12T21:49:56.266-08:00I think that was my longest comment here, I hope I...I think that was my longest comment here, I hope I didn't catch the BA77 fever.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58387332865350273582011-12-12T21:48:26.010-08:002011-12-12T21:48:26.010-08:00But this is completely a surmise. There is no evid...<i>But this is completely a surmise. There is no evidence.</i><br /><br />You're confident enough to dismiss the work of experts because of a description in a NatGeo article and personal incredulity, yet you accuse biologists of not pondering the evidence rigorously. Such are your delusions of objectivity.<br /><br /><i>Yet no one wants to tell us exactly how Hox genes arose in the first place.</i><br /><br />Every single evolutionary biologist would love to tell us that. The problem is that a feature of good science is that the detail and comprehensiveness of the inferences drawn from it depends on the detail and comprehensiveness of the available data. In other words, it doesn't make up stuff.<br /><br />Ritchie,<br /><br /><i>As for the fact that Archaeopteryx predates Sinosauropteryx, so what? All that shows is that feathers probably evolved more than once.</i><br /><br />That's unlikely, <i>Sinosauropteyx</i> is a pretty basal coelurosaurian. Its protofeathers are most probably homologous to Archie's plumage, as I showed on my diagram.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78696310744887380062011-12-12T21:40:30.906-08:002011-12-12T21:40:30.906-08:00(cont'd)
As to "intermediates", you...(cont'd)<br /><br /><i>As to "intermediates", you can describe it anyway you want, but "intermediates" have to temporally precede the final form, or otherwise it doesn't make much sense.</i><br /><br />"Intermediates" in an ancestral succession must be temporally congruent. But it's unlikely will find actual ancestors of anything, and if we did, we couldn't recognise them as such. That's the reason we work with sister-group relationships. Ignoring the fossil record, modern wasps make morphological intermediates to ants and bees, but none of the modern wasp populations is ancestral to ants. They all branched apart and conserved many of the features of their ancestors at the splitting point.<br /><br /><i>You can be as cocksure about things as you like, but any reasonable person would, if it were explained to him or her, say that the lack of fossil intermediates to the recent (modern) bird feather found in Archeaopteryx contradicts evolutionary predictions. Why deny the fact?</i><br /><br />Lack of evidence cannot contradict anything. Really, think that out.<br /><br /><i>Here you have Archeopteryx with this fantastically complex flight feather, and there's nothing found before. Is this what Darwin would have predicted?</i><br /><br />Again, sister-group relationships, and see Thorton's post. And why should I or anyone else care about what Darwin would have thought? You think of Darwin a lot more than I do.<br /><br /><i>But why be so closed-minded to the very natural kinds of objections that thinking persons can have?</i><br /><br />Modern physics baffles me. I can feel very comfortable with classical physics, but the conclusions of modern physics are completely counter-intuitive and wacky for me. It could be that physicists went the wrong way at some point and got it all wrong. Could be. But somehow, I think it is more likely that my "natural" impressions merely reflect my ignorance and confusion on the subject, despite the fact I consider myself to be a thinking person. Or perhaps precisely <b>because</b> I'm a thinking person.<br /><br /><i>Well, is it because you're also an atheist, or an agnostic? If this is the reason for killing off the Creationists (of which I don't count myself to belong), then your motivation is religious, not scientific.</i><br /><br />Since neither agnosticism nor atheism are religious beliefs, that would make the motivation a philosophical, but not a religious one. And I don't know what a "scientific motivation" is. If you're trying to imply that my motivations are emotionally laden, I agree. I suspect every motivation is emotional in its origin. I get great satisfaction from trying to discover the way nature works. I think that's what I'd call a "scientific motivation". If you think I'm emotionally committed to certain conclusions, it well may be. However, it would be too easy to deceive myself while trying to figure that out by mere introspection. If I were shown consistently wrong about something, that would be a much more effective call of alert. You're not doing well with that so far.<br /><br /><i>For years Prum understood the difficulty of explaining the feather's evolution, precisely because of its complexity. The only reason he changed his mind was because of the rise of "evo-devo", which he thought could adapt to the feather's complex features.</i><br /><br />I'm not familiar with all of Prum's work to know what's the change of mind you're talking about. All I've seen is <b>you</b> changing your mind about Feduccia's hypothesis.<br /><br />(continues)Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59982987824728886562011-12-12T21:39:01.777-08:002011-12-12T21:39:01.777-08:00D'Ischia,
Here are some quotes from a Nationa...D'Ischia,<br /><br /><i>Here are some quotes from a National Geographic article from last year about the Sino:</i><br /><br />Quotes from NatGeo are hardly impressive after your futile exercise of irrelevant quoting from the technical literature.<br /><br /><i>Some researchers argue that these controversial hairlike filaments, each about the width of a human hair, are fossilized internal collagen and not related to feathers.</i><br /><br />"Some researchers" are Feduccia & friends, no one else. Collagen doesn't have melanosomes. Integument does. It doesn't matter how many times you cite the same opinion if you don't have a sound answer to that (and melanosomes are just the icing of the cake, they're not the only evidences favouring integument over collagen).<br /><br /><i>Let's try to be objective here.</i><br /><br />Are you really think you're being objective here? Have you reflected on your reasons for quoting papers you didn't really understand to defend your point? Are not statements like "there is no evidence for X whatsoever", contrary to the opinion of most specialists, rather bold for a non particularly well-read armchair biologist?<br /><br /><i>If you see something that is the width of a human hair sticking out of something, would you confuse that with a feather, a feather of any kind? Maybe a down feather. But what does this tell us about the evolution of flight feathers?</i><br /><br />If it had feather-like melanosomes, yes I would. Now, it's funny that when you guys are shown transitional fossils you jump back to say we don't know the origins of stuff like the first cells and hox genes. Now that you're shown something morphologically close the origins of feathers, you don't care very much about it and demand a more derived structure. It does matter to the evolution of flight feathers. For one thing, it fit's Prum and Brush's model. It is possible that there are some other known fossils with transitional flight feathers. However, the phylogeny is still unstable and there seems to be a lot of secondary flightlessness in some linages, so I'm not confident enough about character polarity to suggest candidates.<br /><br /><i>Now, if evolutionary biologists want to call that a "protofeather", well, I guess that's their business.</i><br /><br />A protofeather is precisely what you asked for. If you were given a more feather-like structure you'd dismiss it and ask for the kind of evidence I've just provided.<br /><br />(continues...)Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84272056835096112272011-12-12T15:34:54.459-08:002011-12-12T15:34:54.459-08:00Gerry asked:
"Have you ever gone to the many...Gerry asked:<br /><br />"Have you ever gone to the many sources available which address the supposed contradictions in the Bible? If not, maybe you should, if for no other reason than your own edification."<br /><br />Yes, I have. I stand by what I've said. The denial, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and game playing conducted by religious people to try to find ways to ignore and/or excuse the numerous massive contradictions, and the abhorrent acts by "God", in the bible, just goes to show what lengths some people will go to to justify their insanity and/or to sustain and expand their manipulation and control of others.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56306065218294716282011-12-12T08:05:59.847-08:002011-12-12T08:05:59.847-08:00Lino the poseur said...
Now you might want to mer...<i>Lino the poseur said...<br /><br />Now you might want to merrily go along in your field. You're obviously a biologist of some sort. But why be so closed-minded to the very natural kinds of objections that thinking persons can have?</i><br /><br />It's because in your case your objections aren't based on any scientific evidence. Your objections to date have been based solely on your scientific ignorance and religiously motivated personal incredulity.<br /><br />The empty rhetoric you bring may fly with your fellow IDiots but it gets you absolutely nowhere in the scientific community.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27075932096092763602011-12-12T07:41:29.122-08:002011-12-12T07:41:29.122-08:00Lino the poseur said...
Here you have Archeoptery...<i>Lino the poseur said...<br /><br />Here you have Archeopteryx with this fantastically complex flight feather, and there's nothing found before. Is this what Darwin would have predicted?</i><br /><br />Whoops! Lino the poseur screws up again!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/abs/nature08322.html" rel="nofollow">A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus</a><br /><br />"Anchiornis huxleyi has been recently described, based on an incomplete specimen, as a basal avialan filling the morphological gap between non-avian and avian dinosaurs. A nearly complete, extensively feathered specimen (LPM-B00169, housed in Liaoning Paleontological Museum) referable to Anchiornis huxleyi has now been recovered from the Tiaojishan Formation at the Daxishan locality, Jianchang County. The Tiaojishan Formation has traditionally been regarded as Middle Jurassic but was recently dated to between 161 and 151 Myr. <b>It is therefore older than the Archaeopteryx-bearing strata near Solnhofen, Germany, which date to less than 150 Myr</b>"<br /><br />Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.<br /><br /><i>Yet no one wants to tell us exactly how Hox genes arose in the first place. Without neo-Darwinism, none of the cell's complexity can be explained. How is this satisfactory?</i><br /><br />But "GAWD poofed it into existence somehow, somewhere, sometime" is satisfactory. Right.<br /><br /><i>Creationists (of which I don't count myself to belong)</i><br /><br />Lino above: "My theory is that God created life"<br /><br />There goes Mr. Flip-flop yet again! Isn't doing those 180 degree spins hard on your back Lino?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45775292618939130972011-12-12T07:18:22.697-08:002011-12-12T07:18:22.697-08:00Geoxus:
Here are some quotes from a National Geog...Geoxus:<br /><br />Here are some quotes from a National Geographic article from last year about the Sino:<br /><br /><i>The discovery may prove once and for all that dinosaurs' hairlike filaments—sometimes called dino fuzz—are related to bird feathers, paleontologists announced today. . . .---a hundred melanosomes can fit across a human hair--- . . . </i><br /><br /><i>Some researchers argue that these controversial hairlike filaments, each about the width of a human hair, are fossilized internal collagen and not related to feathers. </i><br /><br />Let's try to be objective here.<br /><br />If you see something that is the width of a human hair sticking out of something, would you confuse that with a feather, a feather of any kind? Maybe a down feather. But what does this tell us about the evolution of flight feathers?<br /><br />Now, if evolutionary biologists want to call that a "protofeather", well, I guess that's their business. But it sure sounds like it's just what they describe it to be: "Dino fuzz."<br /><br />As to "intermediates", you can describe it anyway you want, but "intermediates" have to temporally precede the final form, or otherwise it doesn't make much sense.<br /><br />Here you have Archeopteryx with this fantastically complex flight feather, and there's nothing found before. Is this what Darwin would have predicted?<br /><br />Is this what Darwinian theory predicts?<br /><br />You can be as cocksure about things as you like, but any reasonable person would, if it were explained to him or her, say that the lack of fossil intermediates to the recent (modern) bird feather found in Archeaopteryx contradicts evolutionary predictions. Why deny the fact?<br /><br />For years Prum understood the difficulty of explaining the feather's evolution, precisely because of its complexity. The only reason he changed his mind was because of the rise of "evo-devo", which he thought could adapt to the feather's complex features. But this is completely a surmise. There is no evidence. It's simply switching away from neo-Darwinism to "evo-devo". So, Darwin is secretly shown the backdoor, and a new way of interpreting genetics is ushered in and hailed as the explanation for everything and anything. Yet no one wants to tell us exactly how Hox genes arose in the first place. Without neo-Darwinism, none of the cell's complexity can be explained. How is this satisfactory?<br /><br />Now you might want to merrily go along in your field. You're obviously a biologist of some sort. But why be so closed-minded to the very natural kinds of objections that thinking persons can have?<br /><br />Well, is it because you're also an atheist, or an agnostic? If this is the reason for killing off the Creationists (of which I don't count myself to belong), then your motivation is religious, not scientific. As it likely was for Darwin and his fellow travelers.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59228143532261599952011-12-12T01:00:00.307-08:002011-12-12T01:00:00.307-08:00Gerry said:
"The answer to your question is ...Gerry said:<br /><br />"The answer to your question is in your own response. You're exactly right, God could have chosen another way if he so wished. He did not, and that is his prerogative as an omniscient being dealing with his own creation. For you to question his actions, it would be necessary for you to be equal to God as that would be the only way you could understand his motives. As you are not, your criticism is moot."<br /><br />Of course I disagree, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to use the descriptions of "God" from his alleged very own words in the bible to make my points. <br /><br />According to the bible (and christianity promoters) "God" is perfect, flawless, all powerful, all knowing, able to create anything, and CANNOT do anything wrong, CANNOT make mistakes, and is loving, merciful, giving, caring, and every other nicey nice word imaginable. <br /><br />So, with all that in mind, how or why would "God" create anything so flawed and 'sinful' that the only way he could think to deal with their allegedly bad behavior is to wipe them out in extremely violent ways?<br /><br />And I'm still wondering what 'sins' the human babies/children, animals (and their babies), and plants committed?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79015947761290973262011-12-12T00:37:04.389-08:002011-12-12T00:37:04.389-08:00Gerry said:
"If, as creationists believe, th...Gerry said:<br /><br />"If, as creationists believe, there was a catastrophic world wide flood that could account for the rapid death and burial of multiple millions of creatures, it would throw your argument for the gradual evolution of all life into disarray."<br /><br />Well, I would say that that is about as big an if as an if can be. I would also ask creationists where the evidence is in the fossil record of rapid death and burial of multiple millions of creatures (other than itty bitty critters of course). Millions of tiny creatues can be rapidly killed and buried in a bucket load of sediment, so to keep the debate on a reasonable level let's assume you're referring to fairly large or large animals, okay?<br /><br />Now, if there were a world wide flood, as violent as depicted in the bible, how would a creationist explain the fact that all fossils are not a jumbled mess of every type of creature? <br /><br />Why aren't there rabbit fossils in Cambrian sediments, along with lots and lots of other critters that aren't found in Cambrian sediments? Why aren't there dinosaurs in Miocene sediments, or trilobites in Cretaceous sediments, or mammoths in Permian sediments (in situ)? <br /><br />The so-called biblical flood would have mixed everything together, or at least to a great degree. The fossil record doesn't show that though.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15169558351163864372011-12-12T00:02:25.800-08:002011-12-12T00:02:25.800-08:00tedford also said:
"Creation was either caus...tedford also said:<br /><br />"Creation was either caused by nothing or creation by an intelligent, eternal being. Take your pick."<br /><br />It's interesting that in those statements he isn't definite about which god, but in his other statements he is obviously referring to the christian god and only the christian god, and that goes to why I asked the questions that I asked. <br /><br />And one more thing he said:<br /><br />"Do you possess a comprehensive knowledge of what material is in every possible reality?"<br /><br />Which also applies to my questions and statements. For example, does tedford possess a "comprehensive knowledge" of his chosen god and all other posited gods AND whether there really are any gods AND whether his chosen god really does exist AND whether his chosen god is the right one AND all others are the wrong ones "in every possible reality"?<br /><br />In other words, my questions (and statements) were not just about Pascal's Wager being applied only to tedford's particular chosen god. <br /><br />You (Gerry) said:<br /><br />"Pascal's Wager you would know it does not pertain directly to any particular religion, but instead is formulated as an argument for the wisdom of wagering on God's existence as opposed to wagering against it."<br /><br />To me, that is contradictory. The god you're obviously referring to, and the one tedford referred to, is the christian god, which, in that sense, does make it about a particular religion. <br /><br />Anyway, I think my questions and statements are applicable and relevant to what tedford said, and to any argument about the popularity of a posited god, and to how Pascal's Wager applies, or should apply, to any and all posited gods, if or when someone uses a popularity argument or a Pascal's Wager argument in an attempt to support the existence of their chosen god or any other god. <br /><br />Take another look at what you wrote. You said "God's existence", not <b>a</b> "God's existence". You also said "his existence". If Pascal's Wager isn't about "any particular religion" then why were you so particular? You are being particular, aren't you? Or do you think that just any god in any religion will do? Are you betting on all the gods ever posited, or just the christian one?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91042731182708006952011-12-12T00:00:16.299-08:002011-12-12T00:00:16.299-08:00Gerry said:
"Your response to Tedford's ...Gerry said:<br /><br />"Your response to Tedford's question would be no, then. If you were familiar with Pascal's Wager you would know it does not pertain directly to any particular religion, but instead is formulated as an argument for the wisdom of wagering on God's existence as opposed to wagering against it. To wager against his existence and be wrong carries with it dire consequences and no gain. To wager for his existence carries with it great gain and no loss.<br /><br />Perhaps it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the argument before criticizing it.<br />It's quite obvious that if you have read it, you do not grasp its meaning or its nature."<br /><br />tedford was appealing to popularity to support the existence of his chosen god (not just any god), and by bringing up Pascal's Wager to support his argument he was therefor saying that betting on the existence of his chosen god would be a good bet. <br /><br />So, when I asked...<br /><br />"Do you believe in every god that has ever been posited? What if your chosen god is the wrong one? What if they're all the wrong one? What if there isn't one?"<br /><br />...and said... <br /><br />"Many millions of people have believed in a huge variety gods or spirits or other supernatural beings/entities throughout human history. Millions also believe in astrology."<br /><br />...and asked...<br /><br />"What makes your beliefs the right ones and all others the wrong ones? Is it simply based on popularity?" <br /><br />...I think that what I asked and said applies to his arguments for his chosen god, and to Pascal's Wager (especially in the context tedford used it to support his arguments). <br /><br />If someone uses Pascal's Wager (and popularity) as an argument to support the existence of their chosen god, they also have to consider whether it applies to ALL gods. That's why I asked if he believes in every god ever posited, and it's why I asked what makes his beliefs the right ones and all others the wrong ones. Ya see, if someone thinks that betting on the existence of one particular posited god is a good bet, then they should either have convincing, evidential reasons for denying the existence of all other posited gods, or they should bet on (and believe in) any and all posited gods. <br /><br />tedford apparently thinks that the popularity of his chosen god is supporting evidence for its existence, and that it's a good bet (Pascal's Wager) to believe in that particular god. <br /><br />See part two.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87733586271804929642011-12-10T15:46:48.058-08:002011-12-10T15:46:48.058-08:00Hawks said...
Thornton about Lino: "I wa...<i>Hawks said...<br /><br /> Thornton about Lino: "I was hoping he'd provide more of an intellectual challenge..."<br /><br /> I'd say that's an epic fail on your part. This guy is the on the intellectual level of JoeG.</i><br /><br />If it's humanly possible for anyone to be more mouthy yet clueless that Joe G, it's our boy Lino here.<br /><br />So far he's been caught lying, quote-mining papers he didn't read, flip-flopping and directly contradicting himself about Behe's claims, and making a fool of himself over geological catastropism. Oh, and telling us that both amoebae and mice are more complex than humans.<br /><br />Not a bad week's work for one lame-brained Creationist!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73476534192645185632011-12-10T14:56:35.752-08:002011-12-10T14:56:35.752-08:00Thorton:
I was under the impression that the them...Thorton:<br /><br />I was under the impression that the theme of Behe's book was that some adaptation due to random mutations are achievable, if the number of mutations is small enough, and the organism reproduces fast enough and with sufficient numbers. So falciparium can evolve resistance to clorquinine in a short time because ti repoduces quickly and resistance doesn't require all that many mutations. But finding a way around something like sickle cell disease is much harder because it would require more mutations. That's why it didn't happen yet. And for an organism that reproduces slower it might be harder for an adaptation that requires even a small number of mutations to happen. That's what he meant by the "Edge of Evolution."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63861501107185628982011-12-10T12:01:40.504-08:002011-12-10T12:01:40.504-08:00Blogger broke my diagrams. I'm too lazy to try...Blogger broke my diagrams. I'm too lazy to try again.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27421410599634610952011-12-10T12:00:02.918-08:002011-12-10T12:00:02.918-08:00The point of the paper is that in the case of Simi...<i>The point of the paper is that in the case of Similicaudipteryx feathers that were considerd to be "intermediate" to recent bird feathers (modern feathers) were discovered to be modern feathers that simply looked like a filamentous intermediate because of the fossilization process.</i><br /><br />Not at all. The <i>Similicaudipteryx</i> paper described new type of <b>proper feathers</b> in an <b>ontogenetic series</b>, not protofeathers. That is a very different kind of interpretation, and the feather morphology in <i>Similicaudipteryx</i> is very different from the protofeathers of <i>Sinosauropteryx</i>. Even if similar criticisms were applicable to <i>Sinosaurpoteryx</i>, something none of the authors said (Prum actually examined specimens of <i>Sinosauropteryx</i> and concluded them to be a close fit to his models of feather evolution), the protofeather interpretation remains still to be refuted. That is far from your "no evidence whatsoever".<br /><br /><i>As you've mentioned, Feduccia has questioned the Sauropteryx feathers from the beginning, and in a 2007 paper with others, gave evidence that they were no more than degraded collagen fibres. This paper comes 8 years after Sauropteryx was discovered and deals with a number of specimens. So caution is needed in trumpeting Sauropteryx.</i><br /><br />LOL, was I wrong or not? You said you'd align yourself with Prum and Brush, but now you're back to Feduccia, as I predicted you'd be. Flip-flop much?<br /><br />The structures in <i>Sinosauropteryx</i> contain melanosomes, the pigment-bearing structures that determine the colour of feathers. Collagen fibres would not be pigmented. Feduccia is demonstrated wrong as usual.<br /><br /><i>But it seems all of this is academic. Why? Because the Sauropteryx is dated to be 130 million years old. Archeaopteryx is dated at 140 million years old, and clearly has modern feathers. How is it then that a feather (that is perhaps not even a feather at all) which is 10 million years older than the most ancient known modern feather is then called an intermediate to the modern feather.</i><br /><br />"Intermediate form" or "transitional" does not mean direct ancestor. It means that the morphological feature of some taxon resembles the character state that would be ancestral to<br />the character state of a related taxon.<br /><br />You want to see this (character states between brackets, 1 featherless, 2 "protofeather", 3 proper feather):<br /><br /> 200 150 100 50 0 Time [Ma]<br />===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|<br /><br />----(1)----(2)----(3)------------------<br /><br />But evolutionary theory posits branching relationships as well as anagenetic change:<br /><br /> 200 150 100 50 0 Time [Ma]<br />===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|===|<br /><br />---+-----Eoraptor*(1)<br /> `--(2)-+-------------------Sinosauro.(2)<br /> `-+-----Archie(3)<br /> `---------------------------Parrot(3)<br /><br />* The integument of <i>Eoraptor</i> is not known, AFAIK. I'm assuming it to be featherless, replace it with Alligator if you don't accept this.<br /><br /><i>That's like saying the Corvette was an intermediate form of the 1940 Ford.</i><br /><br />That's like saying "why are there still monkeys?".<br /><br /><i>So, maybe I should rephrase my initial statement. Where are the intermediate forms leading up to the Archeopteryx?</i><br /><br />As you keep asking intermediate forms <b>"leading up"</b> to something, you further demonstrate you don't understand evolutionary theory.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55507273058645035722011-12-10T10:11:35.142-08:002011-12-10T10:11:35.142-08:00Hawks:
""waiting time of 31.6 million g...Hawks:<br /><br />""waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species" is a likelihood whether you like it or not. Do the authors say exlicitly that this is a likelihood? No, but the fact that it was mentioned in the very next sentence where the word likelihood occurred should have been a good clue for you. And even if they hadn't mentioned the word likelihood at all, they would still be talking about them, just like someone talking about canines can be talking about dogs. Lino, sometimes you have to understand the meaning of words."<br /><br />In the history of internet blogging, this has got to be the lamest excuse for a rebuttal that has ever been seen.<br /><br />Goodbye.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.com