tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4497897672648816952..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Carl Zimmer Doubles Down on Chromosome Two Lies and MisdemeanorsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger217125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11716027446603302582012-07-26T21:00:34.042-07:002012-07-26T21:00:34.042-07:00When I connect to this site, I see a post I made; ...When I connect to this site, I see a post I made; then I see another that I added because I didn't see my first post go up; then both of those posts are gone; then both are back, then both are gone.<br /><br />Right now, both posts are gone. I have no idea what's going on.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6732912426674627472012-07-26T16:44:26.726-07:002012-07-26T16:44:26.726-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32645681180510080252012-07-26T14:14:24.212-07:002012-07-26T14:14:24.212-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30840646864614667462012-07-25T12:03:04.291-07:002012-07-25T12:03:04.291-07:00LOL!
PaV, even Gerbil Luskin over at ENV now admi...LOL!<br /><br />PaV, even Gerbil Luskin over at ENV now admits there's strong evidence for a chromosome fusion event. The official IDiot party line now is it just doesn't count as evidence for human-chimp common ancestry. Didn't you get the memo?<br /><br /><i>And let's be reminded of this once again: the very paper Zimmer uses to defend a shortened telomeric section only brings out more clearly that invocation of chromosomal fusion as a means of speciation is highly questionable.</i><br /><br />Your ignorance is amazing PaV. No one is science says or thinks the human chromosome 2 fusion event was the <b>means of speciation</b> that produced humans and chimps from a common ancestor. Where do you get these lame-brained ideas?<br /><br />BTW PaV, everyone at ATBC is having a huge laugh at your latest "two mutation" stupidity you posted at UncommonlyDense. You should be proud to make so many people smile!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45055067632579351812012-07-25T11:23:38.886-07:002012-07-25T11:23:38.886-07:00Thorton:
And the proto-human ancestors who evolve...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>And the proto-human ancestors who evolved from 48 to 46 chromosomes were still proto-human ancestors.</i><br /><br />Is this it? Is this all you can come up with?<br /><br />Who's the clueless one here? Any one reading this blog can, I'm sure, figure that out right now.<br /><br />You evade an answer, and hurl vitriol. You're a marvel.<br /><br />Let's take a look at your statement:<br /><br />(1) "....ancestors who evolved...."<br /><br />But, of course, that's the whole bone of contention here, isn't it? You simply assume this. It's not enough to assert something. You have to have proof. But what's proof to a Darwinist?<br /><br />(2) "...from 48 to 46 chromosomes...."<br /><br />Again, a bone of contention, and you simply hand-wave it into a "fact".<br /><br />Here's Oleg:<br /><br />"<i>We don't know nuttin'</i> seems to be the motto of the ID movement."<br /><br />To know something is to have some form of evidence. You Darwinists seem to think that you can know something because it makes sense to you----with no need for evidence.<br /><br />ID wants EVIDENCE---notice that ID is right, smack dab in the middle of the word 'evidence'. Where's the irrefutable evidence for this fusion? It isn't there. And, hence, one should remain hesitant to make the bold claim that this putative fusion caused the "evolution" of apes to humans without such evidence.<br /><br />And let's be reminded of this once again: the very paper Zimmer uses to defend a shortened telomeric section only brings out more clearly that invocation of chromosomal fusion as a means of speciation is highly questionable.<br /><br />But serious reasons to question something has never stopped a true believer Darwinist from making cock-sure claims.<br /><br />Wake up, Thornton. Smell the coffee. Get a grip.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37337447213153919202012-07-25T07:22:13.335-07:002012-07-25T07:22:13.335-07:00Again, I've pointed out where empirical eviden...Again, I've pointed out where empirical evidence comes into play. <br /><br />An inability to recognize one's conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism doesn't "magically" negate that criticism.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27842100678918716262012-07-25T06:58:42.448-07:002012-07-25T06:58:42.448-07:00Imagination is important part of the process. This...Imagination is important part of the process. This is because no one has formulated a "principle of induction" that actually works in practice. So, we use conjecture to create theories. <br /><br />Of course, if you'd like to provide an explanation as to as to how we could created theories without the use of conjecture, be my guest. <br /><br />Next, we use imagination to devise experiments that would falsify these experiments. So, before we'e conjectured a theory, observations are meaningless in the sense you're referring to, as they tell us nothing, one way or the other. <br /><br />So, where does empirical evidence come into play? When we rigorously and methodically perform the experiments we devise above. You see, falsifying experiments is how we make objective progress towards truth. It's how we increase the depth and breadth of human knowledge as a whole. <br /><br />However, your conception of human knowledge is based on a pre-enlightenment holy-book that assumes knowledge can only come from supernatural, authoritative sources. As such, you find the above idea of progress ridiculous and absurd. <br /><br />Of course, if my assessment of your conception of human knowledge is incorrect, kindly point out were I was mistaken and elaborate on how your view differs, in detail.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75234670968142623702012-07-25T06:41:45.684-07:002012-07-25T06:41:45.684-07:00bornagain77 (quote-mining): "Despite decades ...<b>bornagain77</b> (quote-mining): <i>"Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." </i><br /><br />If you read the actual paper, Burke et al., Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila, Nature 2010: "Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ,20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes." <br /><br />They evolved.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80964551931976351462012-07-25T06:14:01.624-07:002012-07-25T06:14:01.624-07:00Neal: Scott, I read your post. Did you read mine? ...Neal: Scott, I read your post. Did you read mine? How is quoting from the Desent of Man irrelevant? <br /><br />I'm not saying it's universally and completely irrelevant any more than Junk DNA was thought to be universally or completely non-functional. Rather, it's irrelevant to whether modern day evolutionary theory has merit, which is the topic at hand. <br /><br />Neal: My point was regarding a continual track record of amateurish and wrong claims by evolutionists for the last 150 years. <br /><br />Which are claims which you have not successfully argued. <br /><br />Evolutionary theory makes progress towards truth. That's how science works. You're continued comparison of evolutionary theory with divine prophecy or some naive form of empiricism is unreasonable and illogical for reasons I've illustrated here in this thread and elsewhere. <br /><br />As for slavery, years from now someone will making the same excuse regarding same sex marriage as you're making for slavery today. Specifically, I'm guessing that you think objectors to same sex marriage have not merely "wrongly cloaked themselves in scripture", but are justified by true, infallible divine revelation from God. <br /><br />However, science doesn't claim to be infallible. Rather it tentatively accepts conclusions which are open to future revision should we conjecture better theories for the same evidence. <br /><br />So, if ID presents an explanatory theory that explains the same biological complexity we observe - and then some - and does so far better, we'd take it seriously. But this has yet to occur.<br /><br />"That's just what some designer with no defined limitations must have wanted" is a bad explanation because it's shallow and easily varied. As such we discard it, along with an infinite number of other mere possibles that we discard every day in every field of science. <br /><br />It's unclear why your designer is any different. <br /><br />For example, even an ancient alien civilization would have more explanatory power that ID. However, we've discard this as well since we do not know that any intelligent form of life actually existed millions of years ago in our local vicinity. "That's just what some super advanced alien civilization with no defined limitations must have wanted" is a bad explanation as well as it could explain, well, anything. <br /><br />Again, should some new observations come to light that would be better explained by a newly conjectured theory, we'd take it seriously as well. <br /><br />Human beings are good explanations for things known to be designed because we know our limitations. As such, we can logically deduce consequences for human designed things and empirically test for them.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62048134398212251172012-07-25T04:48:06.450-07:002012-07-25T04:48:06.450-07:00bornagain77 (mindlessly quote-mining): "Despi...<b>bornagain77</b> (mindlessly quote-mining): <i>"Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles."</i><br /><br />"Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes."<br /><br />This is the part you don't seem to understand: They evolved. <br /><br />Burke et al., Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila, Nature 2010.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23335413815578720802012-07-25T03:18:45.163-07:002012-07-25T03:18:45.163-07:00Neal: It's not irrelevant however much you wis...Neal: <i>It's not irrelevant however much you wish it were.</i><br /><br />It's utterly irrelevant, Neal. The only thing that is relevant to the evaluation of a scientific theory is the degree to which it fits the data.<br /><br />Many scientists in the past and today have political views that we abhor, but that is irrelevant to whether their theories are good.<br /><br />All that matters is whether they generate successfully tested hypotheses,Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85743143009718749752012-07-24T20:07:22.663-07:002012-07-24T20:07:22.663-07:00Your posting is shaking my faith.... "all rea...Your posting is shaking my faith.... "all real scientists believe in evolution.... all real scientists believe in evolution ... all real scientists believe in evolution .... "Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13486142367374129982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1103020482775797252012-07-24T14:37:36.190-07:002012-07-24T14:37:36.190-07:00Everyone is laughing at you Chubs.
What's the...Everyone is laughing at you Chubs.<br /><br />What's the CSI of a Twinkie?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32752994545627803522012-07-24T14:33:17.792-07:002012-07-24T14:33:17.792-07:00puppet- Your position doesn't have any scienti...puppet- Your position doesn't have any scientific track recordJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35584670543569377572012-07-24T14:32:09.472-07:002012-07-24T14:32:09.472-07:00And puppet, you can laugh because that is all moro...And puppet, you can laugh because that is all morons do. You sure as heck can't support your position.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-461146997988083972012-07-24T14:29:40.156-07:002012-07-24T14:29:40.156-07:00Whatever puppet- your position is more lame than y...Whatever puppet- your position is more lame than you are. And you still don't know what science is. But I see you are still upset that I keep exposing your ignorance...<br /><br />Life is goodJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47911933845241270692012-07-24T14:22:40.839-07:002012-07-24T14:22:40.839-07:00You too Chubs. Laughing at your same tired approa...You too Chubs. Laughing at your same tired approach ("your position ain't got no science!!") was the moron maraschino cherry on top the DI's own-goal IDiot sundae.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52232984899564147902012-07-24T14:17:08.705-07:002012-07-24T14:17:08.705-07:00Baghdad Bob Tedford
My point was regarding a con...<i>Baghdad Bob Tedford <br /><br />My point was regarding a continual track record of amateurish and wrong claims by evolutionists for the last 150 years. It's not a 150 years of a careful and measured approach to the scientific method, but a powerful political machine of hype, fraud, and overzealous drive to cherry pick evidence.</i><br /><br />So you keep claiming Tedford, but every time we check the actual scientific track record it turns out you're dead wrong. Must be hard for you to be such a hopelessly incompetent, impotent little man reduced to railing at the sciences you don't understand.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12153008432501704132012-07-24T14:08:54.765-07:002012-07-24T14:08:54.765-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48434654369072338482012-07-24T14:07:44.264-07:002012-07-24T14:07:44.264-07:00Scott, I read your post. Did you read mine? How ...Scott, I read your post. Did you read mine? How is quoting from the Desent of Man irrelevant? It is Darwins idea itself within the very context of a scientific work that was under consideration. Perhaps you do not consider the Descent of Man a scientific work. <br /><br />Secondly, I do understand that modern evolutionists reject such statements by Darwin in the Descent of Man.<br /><br />My point was regarding a continual track record of amateurish and wrong claims by evolutionists for the last 150 years. It's not a 150 years of a careful and measured approach to the scientific method, but a powerful political machine of hype, fraud, and overzealous drive to cherry pick evidence. Darwin's statements within the Descent of Man are simply representative of the quality of observations and interpretation that evolutionists have been doing for 150 years. There is nothing in his work that would shine the light of truth on the mental status of blacks and women.<br /><br />Regarding slavery. The teachings of scripture are often not followed by Christians. Too often the culture becomes more influential than the scripture. Those that were abolitionists saw scripture as teaching against slavery. One of the problems arises due to equvocation. A slavery in the Old Testament was not the same as American civil war slavery. The devil can and did quote scripture, but he twisted it. Don't you think the cultural pressure of the South caused people to rationalize slavery? Certainly. The same mental rationalization is going on with evolutionists. As a theory it hardly has a leg to stand on scientifically but it is rationalized. Southerners wrongly cloaked themselves in scripture. Evolutionists wrongly cloak themselves in science. Please read before responding. Please read before responding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74902805960235400242012-07-24T14:04:18.902-07:002012-07-24T14:04:18.902-07:00This is great!
The folks over at Panda's Thum...This is great!<br /><br />The folks over at Panda's Thumb are having a huge laugh at the DI's Facebook page. Klingdorker decided to attack Carl Zimmer there over the DI's chromosome 2 stupidity, forgetting that most Facebook posters <b>aren't</b> IDiots. <br /><br /><a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/07/fun-on-facebook.html" rel="nofollow">Fun On Facebook</a><br /><br />The DI is just getting hammered on their silly Facebook claims! To no one's surprise, they've banned at least four posters and deleted over 100 pro-science posts. <b>EXPELLED!!</b><br /><br />The DI's whole meltdown over this chromosome fusion issue has been almost as fun to watch as the Dover debacle. :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83112100626993323792012-07-24T13:14:22.759-07:002012-07-24T13:14:22.759-07:00No, modern day evolutionary theory hinges on ignor...No, modern day evolutionary theory hinges on ignorance and evo-imagination.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46335537267869106572012-07-24T12:23:51.564-07:002012-07-24T12:23:51.564-07:00From the fallacy files...
The Genetic Fallacy is...From the fallacy files... <br /><br /><i>The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it.<br /><br />In contrast, the value of many scientific ideas can be objectively evaluated by established techniques, so that the origin or history of the idea is irrelevant to its value. For example, the chemist Kekulé claimed to have discovered the ring structure of the benzene molecule during a dream of a snake biting its own tail. While this fact is psychologically interesting, it is neither evidence for nor against the hypothesis that benzene has a ring structure, which had to be tested for correctness.<br /><br />So, the Genetic Fallacy is committed whenever an idea is evaluated based upon irrelevant history. To offer Kekulé's dream as evidence either for or against the benzene ring hypothesis would be to commit the Genetic Fallacy.</i><br /><br />Does the merit of modern day evolutionary theory hinge on Darwin's testimony? No, it does not. Does the merit of modern day evolutionary theory hinge on Darwin's past observations? No, it does not. Does the merit of modern day evolutionary theory hinge on Darwin's political, social or theological views? No, it does not.<br /><br />As such, you're objection is an example of the generic fallacy. <br /><br />To use an example, Christians defended slavery by quoting scripture. Objecting to Christianity based on this alone would represent the Genetic fallacy. However, unlike science, Christians claim they have access to absolute moral truth though divine revelation. It's though this claim that we would have a legitimate objection to Christianity for having historically defended slavery though quoting scripture. <br /><br />Do you see the difference here?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64324704252646769512012-07-24T12:21:05.226-07:002012-07-24T12:21:05.226-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37092283328413115262012-07-24T11:24:35.660-07:002012-07-24T11:24:35.660-07:00Baghdad Bob Tedford
How relevant is Darwin's ...<i>Baghdad Bob Tedford<br /><br />How relevant is Darwin's work today?<br /><br />http://darwinday.org/<br /><br />You can even send him an e-card!</i><br /><br />Don't cry Tedford. If you're jealous you can still send cards to other well known Creationists like convicted felon Kent Hovind, and Grand Kleagle of the KKK Allen West. <br /><br />Be sure to tell them how much you support their views.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com