tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3754278949369498798..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Here is Benjamin Jones’ Faustian BargainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36232515922818038032015-03-04T18:25:57.293-08:002015-03-04T18:25:57.293-08:00*beep*?*beep*?Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45936048644028682762015-03-04T18:24:59.901-08:002015-03-04T18:24:59.901-08:00*beep*?*beep*?Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25041039406428170552015-02-18T17:35:01.374-08:002015-02-18T17:35:01.374-08:00As I said, if that's your take on it, then I c...As I said, if that's your take on it, then I can guarantee that you don't understand it. There's a decent explanation over at BioLogos if you want a "non-hostile" source? Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17247513120858652292015-02-18T16:28:39.037-08:002015-02-18T16:28:39.037-08:00If we never saw a gene that doesn't belong, th...If we never saw a gene that doesn't belong, then we would say that common descent explains everything with no need to come on to ILS and such. So it looks like evolutionists just make stuff up as they go along to explain away any problem.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78554918121293647982015-02-18T16:11:42.393-08:002015-02-18T16:11:42.393-08:00If you think that incomplete lineage sorting is an...If you think that incomplete lineage sorting is an "epicycle" then I can 100% guarantee that you don't understand it. Incomplete lineage sorting is bound to happen in all but the tiniest of populations.<br /><br />Horizontal Gene Transfer in eukaryotes is an incredibly rare event, but it does happen. The documented cases generally concern gene transfer between a parasite and its host.<br /><br />Many years ago, I held the same simplistic view as yours - that the phylogenetic trees needed to be perfect. It wasn't until I dug a little deeper that I realised I should actually expect IMperfection. ILS and HGT aren't just terms to throw around if we see a discordant tree, or a gene that looks like it shouldn't be there. Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34988078900655929782015-02-18T07:32:17.053-08:002015-02-18T07:32:17.053-08:00I read that the conflicting signals are all over t...I read that the conflicting signals are all over the place. Anyway, if a theory needs epicycles like incomplete lineage sorting, and horizontal gene transfer, than it basically means that it works except in places that it doesn't. It isn't a very ggod theory.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66887752705060495912015-02-17T21:48:21.200-08:002015-02-17T21:48:21.200-08:00So, from what I can gather, your point is that Far...So, from what I can gather, your point is that Faraday and Maxwell, Newton and Leibniz, all believed in intelligent design.<br /><br />Both of the former were at the end of their careers when Darwin published Origin of Species, and the latter were several hundred years prior.<br /><br />Even if they lived in the current day and made their respective discoveries, they'd still be wrong about rejected common descent. No relevance, Your Honour.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15216633611082211132015-02-17T21:37:41.199-08:002015-02-17T21:37:41.199-08:00I have no idea who Mr Thornton is.
I was more ref...I have no idea who Mr Thornton is.<br /><br />I was more referring to a quote from a few years ago: "These are the guys who can calculate 42 times 832 in their heads".Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34360717508365681642015-02-17T21:00:25.626-08:002015-02-17T21:00:25.626-08:00Yes and thank you for doing our work for us. I cam...Yes and thank you for doing our work for us. I came back quickly to see if your behavior is like a certain Mr. Thornton who seemed to be checking every hour for my posts, holidays included. So it does appear that there is some kind of obsession with you guys and this blog. We have a lot of young folks watching. And when I make a point of the profound belief in intelligent design by the most famous scientists in history, and smartass comeback is the response we get instead of thoughtful engagement, all we have to do is ask the young ones if they want to see their own intellectual life unfold in that way. <br /><br />BTW the everyday charge of "religious attacks on science" was not brought into the discussion by yours truly; my posts addressed that charge directly not by hinting but showing that I and Cornelius approach the wonders of nature in a fashion very congruent with the four giants of science mentioned. Which is salient point you can only answer in your snide avoidance comebacks.MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50560442868216431892015-02-17T17:58:07.648-08:002015-02-17T17:58:07.648-08:00Quite proficient at calculus, thanks! If you dig a...Quite proficient at calculus, thanks! If you dig around Google enough, you might even be able to see that my math ability is a matter of public record :D<br /><br />What I've seen so far is that you've used rather lofty language and "elegant prose", but have only *hinted* at topics that are only *vaguely* related to the discussion.<br /><br />Bon voyage!Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76038249450100751402015-02-17T17:34:55.066-08:002015-02-17T17:34:55.066-08:00In fact I bought it at a used bookstore, Half Pric...In fact I bought it at a used bookstore, Half Price. And see, thing is, the author admits that there are more scholarly historical documents than the one he wrote for a wide audience so actually not snooty at all. But if you are ignorant of the calculus, and think it a snooty subject, maybe you're dealing with something better handled by self examination than what you do here. And see, thing is, bitter people come on here, and instead of acknowledging that there is a debate going on about serious philosophical points, those folks like to get pretty snide, like I'm seeing now. You can come back with something different or you can continue the schoolyard taunting like we see every day online and we actually enjoy it when some lose the ability to debate because of their personality issues.<br /><br /> BTW something different might be like acknowledging the the greatest scientists in history didn't have an attitude like the one you guys manifest here.MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60230599353179662272015-02-17T15:52:19.944-08:002015-02-17T15:52:19.944-08:00"I understand that different genes actually g..."I understand that different genes actually give conflicting signals."<br /><br />That's true, but only to a fairly minor extent. I suggest that you get an understanding of population genetics and incomplete lineage sorting before you dismiss common descent. Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90473255432164937762015-02-17T12:20:49.928-08:002015-02-17T12:20:49.928-08:00Waffle: lengthy but vague or trivial talk or writi...Waffle: lengthy but vague or trivial talk or writing. Syn: prattle, verbiage, drivel, gibberish.<br /><br />"Do you get my multiple POINTS."<br /><br />No. But maybe it's hidden in there somewhere. I just can't get past the bit where you boast about buying some snooty book off Amazon.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30463504600804328832015-02-17T11:00:56.603-08:002015-02-17T11:00:56.603-08:00I understand that different genes actually give co...I understand that different genes actually give conflicting signals. So maybe common descent isn't really an adequate explanation.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75471098080807478722015-02-17T08:30:38.945-08:002015-02-17T08:30:38.945-08:00Oh so cute.
waffle: to speak or write equivocally...Oh so cute.<br /><br />waffle: to speak or write equivocally.<br /><br />"The Calculus Wars" unequivocally on my shelf. About two men unequivocally driven every day by the intelligence they saw all around them plainly manifested as the brilliance of nature.<br /><br />So you see, "religious attacks on science" I think has been a POINT raised ad nauseum, an echo chamber phrase, Not only here but in the mass media every day. In other words science used as a political sledge hammer. And the pushback on this blog does make certain kinds upset enough to come here to post again and again. Do you get my multiple POINTS. MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54221508367350383742015-02-16T21:30:33.250-08:002015-02-16T21:30:33.250-08:00Yes, the mutations are in functioning genes - Cyto...Yes, the mutations are in functioning genes - Cytochrome C is the example that I usually use.<br /><br />These mutations don't have an effect. Scientists have induced individual mutations in the gene, and then tested the function of that gene. Some mutations affect function and some don't.<br /><br />It's the patterns of similarities and differences in non functional bases that makes common descent the only plausible explanation. Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8923343637057756342015-02-16T17:14:11.168-08:002015-02-16T17:14:11.168-08:00Evolutionists are convinced evolution is a fact no...<i>Evolutionists are convinced evolution is a fact not because they have any idea how nature's wonders could have spontanously arisen (they don't), but because they know this world would never have been designed or created.</i><br /><br />Nature's wonders? Please define.<br /><br /><i>This is all metaphysical.</i><br /><br />How?<br /><br /><i> From a scientific perspective, it is ridiculous.</i><br /><br />From what perspective? Is there an authoritative scientific perspective? How does one join that club?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81688050690998962472015-02-16T15:24:25.539-08:002015-02-16T15:24:25.539-08:00Are the mutations in functioning genes? I was unde...Are the mutations in functioning genes? I was under the impression that mutation don't have any function. They might have an effect. natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57306915542631948212015-02-16T14:29:00.185-08:002015-02-16T14:29:00.185-08:00My argument is not about pseudogenes (even though ...My argument is not about pseudogenes (even though I think it's pretty good evidence). My argument is about shared mutations that have been shown empirically to have no function.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51012843024292772172015-02-16T13:30:12.584-08:002015-02-16T13:30:12.584-08:00Maybe God didn't create things intentionally t...Maybe God didn't create things intentionally to mislead, but rather for another reason. For example, maybe the broken genes in different species may actually serve some purpose. natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25089402978011314262015-02-16T12:40:56.713-08:002015-02-16T12:40:56.713-08:00Let me know when you think of one. "To intent...Let me know when you think of one. "To intentionally deceive and mislead" is a good one ... ?Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91847211986007564062015-02-16T12:02:09.974-08:002015-02-16T12:02:09.974-08:00But then if we can think of a reason why God would...But then if we can think of a reason why God would create things so that they have the illusion of common descent, then that would admit God did it as an explanation.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41571311807706936682015-02-16T11:59:58.526-08:002015-02-16T11:59:58.526-08:00But then if we can think of a reason why God would...But then if we can think of a reason why God would create things so that they have the illusion of common descent, then that would admit God did it as an explanation.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15379484201826171062015-02-16T11:51:16.172-08:002015-02-16T11:51:16.172-08:00I think the only time I would use that "God w...I think the only time I would use that "God wouldn't do it that way" argument is if someone said "Common descent is wrong, God made the animals the way he did with only the APPEARANCE of common descent".<br /><br />It would be absurd and completely ad hoc.<br /><br />Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-280399471224836502015-02-16T11:42:03.497-08:002015-02-16T11:42:03.497-08:00No, I did not say that "creationism is wrong,...No, I did not say that "creationism is wrong, therefore common descent is right" as if it somehow wins be default. This is the second time I have corrected you on this.<br /><br />You keep saying my claim is a theological one, and I keep saying it is not; we're going around in circles. I conclude common descent is true because the data fits that model, and I don't see anything religious or theological about that. Scientific models that I believe ARE religiously based, like creationism and/or inteligent design, do not fit that data.<br /><br />So, you believe that there is no inherent conflict between common descent and God/religion. If that's the case, what is your objection to common descent? Happy to accept answers in the form of previous blog posts ...Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.com