tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5934009678068701313..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Chickens Have Cellular SunglassesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85352607213856986702015-10-21T13:20:34.997-07:002015-10-21T13:20:34.997-07:00Yeah, and how did dolphins get sonar? Did evolutio...Yeah, and how did dolphins get sonar? Did evolution degrade us humans? Are we really the top of the evolutionary tree?<br />Lexxrexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06867888667322742956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86015391368951878872015-10-21T13:20:34.561-07:002015-10-21T13:20:34.561-07:00Yeah, and how did dolphins get sonar? Did evolutio...Yeah, and how did dolphins get sonar? Did evolution degrade us humans? Are we really the top of the evolutionary tree?<br />Lexxrexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06867888667322742956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73445768728114396862010-11-27T13:17:08.783-08:002010-11-27T13:17:08.783-08:00Zachriel:
"We went back over your comments t...Zachriel:<br /><br />"We went back over your comments to see what the original question was. Your first comment was nothing but handwaving and denigration."<br />======<br /><br />WE ??? Are you a trinity ??? Why all the intellect speak in the 3rd person ??? Is it easier for you to talk down to someone by doing this ??? Still working at Government Social Welfare Services I see ???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66264096200182739232010-11-27T08:21:51.678-08:002010-11-27T08:21:51.678-08:00MSEE: Here is an example of avoidance of the topic...<b>MSEE</b>: <i>Here is an example of avoidance of the topic. I made no claims of being expert in the evolution of bats, or vision. This discussion started with a question by me that a high school student being indoctrinated would ask, and for good reason. </i><br /><br />We went back over your comments to see what the original question was. Your first comment was nothing but handwaving and denigration.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91688388479487869952010-11-27T07:54:09.464-08:002010-11-27T07:54:09.464-08:00LOL! What's the matter Mr. mathematically com...LOL! What's the matter Mr. mathematically competent and highly trained engineer? You didn't expect to get your questions answered and when they were you suddenly got all flustered. Then you can't answer questions on the same topic asked back to you to test your competence, but instead go into a bout of juvenile posturing.<br /><br /><i>I made no claims of being expert in the evolution of bats, or vision.</i><br /><br />So I suppose when you made this brag<br /><br />MSEE: "OK thornton lets include you in some of the scientific knowledge of which <b>I'm at the top of the game.</b> Let's say we are studying a bat's echolocation properties."<br /><br />...you meant "top of the game in being an empty bloviating windbag." Got it.<br /><br />There's nothing funnier than a young blustering know-it-all like MSEE having his ignorance exposed. That bit of refusing to acknowledge that rain formed the early oceans was particularly childish and revealing of your personality.<br /><br />Tell us again MSEE:<br /><br /><b>What in your "mathematically competent and highly trained" engineering background qualifies you as an expert in biological evolution? </b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4004688603815302952010-11-27T07:10:11.833-08:002010-11-27T07:10:11.833-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10128875767793354192010-11-27T07:05:32.993-08:002010-11-27T07:05:32.993-08:00thornton: ""At this time, 3.8 billion ye...thornton: ""At this time, 3.8 billion years ago, water condensed into RAIN and poured onto the land. Water collected in low lying areas which gradually became the primitive oceans."<br /><br />What does that word say MSEE, the one right after 'condensed into' in the bolded sentence?"<br /><br />This is really sophomoric. If I asked an elementary school student to name the major components of an ocean, the student could easily name the SEABEDS AND THE WATER.<br /><br />Your article is blank about what made the oceans. It merely says the water on the land became the oceans. It doesn't say anything about what made the oceans.<br /><br />thornton: <i>I guess you must have early Alzheimer's </i><br /><br />Would-be gentle science guy thornton has a habit of making insult and pejorative the major tool of debate as usual. This is typical psychology of hard-core materialists.<br /><br />MSEE: "1. I state to you that the bat's hearing range is -150,000 Hz to -20,000 Hz. a) would you believe this, in other words would this be likely? and b) what is it about the statement that either is a universal property of analysis or possibly violates such a property?"<br /><br />Would-be scientist didn't answer this because they can't. I'll ask it again. Show you are curious enough to come up with the answer.<br /><br />thornton:<i> range resolution is limited by the accuracy in measuring time of arrival of reflected signals, and </i><br /><br />Sophomoric. A scientist would know that range resolution and TOA resolution are identical, but for a constant, and that constant is what, thornton? I seriously expect you would know this, no sarcasm intended.<br /><br />Since you didn't give the right answer, I'll rephrase to help you out: what is the definition of TOA resolution? And what is the main property of the system affecting TOA resolution?<br /><br />I will say that the book on echolocation that I refer to makes no mention of dolphins using sounds other than "click-like". I'm no dolphin expert, but if this is true, then you can give a scientific answer to my question based on this.<br /><br />Thornton has answered none of my questions regarding the particular bat I'm postulating.<br /><br />thornton: <i>I'm looking forward to hearing a strong technical analysis from a mathematically competent and highly trained engineer. </i><br /><br />Here is an example of avoidance of the topic. I made no claims of being expert in the evolution of bats, or vision. This discussion started with a question by me that a high school student being indoctrinated would ask, and for good reason. Thornton would answer that student with something akin to "that's a stupid question." Because thornton is against the wall in defense, as evidenced by the bitter, over the top denunciations offered.<br /><br />Thornton has answered none of my questions about the particular bat I'm postulating.MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22237911874100622252010-11-26T18:33:54.501-08:002010-11-26T18:33:54.501-08:00MSEE, since you're an expert in bat echlocatio...MSEE, since you're an expert in bat echlocation, I'm sure you're familiar with the recent work by Jones and Teeling of the evolutionary history of echolocation in bats. <br /><br /><b>The evolution of echolocation in bats <br />G. Jones, E. Teeling<br />Trends in Ecology & Evolution<br />Volume 21, Issue 3, March 2006, Pages 149-156 <br /><br />Abstract: Recent molecular phylogenies have changed our perspective on the evolution of echolocation in bats. These phylogenies suggest that certain bats with sophisticated echolocation (e.g. horseshoe bats) share a common ancestry with non-echolocating bats (e.g. Old World fruit bats). One interpretation of these trees presumes that laryngeal echolocation (calls produced in the larynx) probably evolved in the ancestor of all extant bats. Echolocation might have subsequently been lost in Old World fruit bats, only to evolve secondarily (by tongue clicking) in this family. Remarkable acoustic features such as Doppler shift compensation, whispering echolocation and nasal emission of sound each show multiple convergent origins in bats. The extensive adaptive radiation in echolocation call design is shaped largely by ecology, showing how perceptual challenges imposed by the environment can often override phylogenetic constraints. <a href="http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=6741509&q=&uid=789199976&setcookie=yesa" rel="nofollow">link</a> </b><br /><br />Since you obviously disagree with their conclusions and instead think all bats were 'poofed' into existence, could you please tell us <b>specifically</b> what evidence in the paper they got wrong, and why?<br /><br />What specifically do you find wrong with the molecular tree and phylogenetic analysis the presented? Why specifically do you disagree with their conclusion that the three major major types of echolocation calls seen in extant bats (broadband, narrowband and long constant frequency with Doppler-shift compensation) arose through adaptive radiation and subsequent convergent evolution?<br /><br />I'm looking forward to hearing a strong technical analysis from a mathematically competent and highly trained engineer.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7933590900778872752010-11-26T17:08:11.033-08:002010-11-26T17:08:11.033-08:00MSEE said...
thornton: You seem to be blissfu...<i>MSEE said...<br /><br /> thornton: You seem to be blissfully unaware of most all scientific phenomena<br /><br /> REALLY?<br /><br /> thornton quotes: Water collected in low lying areas which gradually became the primitive oceans.<br /><br /> Seems to me that piece quite clearly says that the oceans formed from water collected in in low lying areas. </i><br /><br />Yes REALLY. I guess you must have early Alzheimer's, because the whole quote is<br /><br />"At this time, 3.8 billion years ago, <b>water condensed into RAIN and poured onto the land.</b> Water collected in low lying areas which gradually became the primitive oceans."<br /><br />What does that word say MSEE, the one right after 'condensed into' in the bolded sentence?<br /><br /><i>I warned that thornton was going up against a mathematically competent and highly trained engineer, this person guffaws and impugns, implying that maybe lowly trained would be more accurate.</i><br /><br />OH NOES!!! Not a mathematically competent and highly trained (MC&HT) engineer!!<br /><br />LOL! So what in your "mathematically competent and highly trained" engineering background qualifies you as an expert in <b>biological evolution?</b> I see this all the time with Creationist computer science majors and engineers. The colossal hubris to think that if they know something in one specific area then suddenly they're experts in <b>all</b> areas.<br /><br />BTW Mr. MC&HT engineer: bats echolocation frequencies can run as high as 220Khz, range resolution is limited by the accuracy in measuring time of arrival of reflected signals, and dolphin sonar is quite a bit more sophisticated than bats in that dolphins can do pulse or swept signals and frequency hopping. You must think that since all your Creationist buddies are ignorant dolts then everyone else must be too.<br /><br />Now tell us again why not knowing and numbering every last mutation that has occurred in a lineage over the last 500 million years somehow negates all the rest of the huge amounts of positive evidence for evolution.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13071993193581066462010-11-26T11:43:38.526-08:002010-11-26T11:43:38.526-08:00thornton: You seem to be blissfully unaware of mo...thornton: <i> You seem to be blissfully unaware of most all scientific phemonena </i><br /><br />REALLY? <br /><br />thornton quotes: <b> Water collected in low lying areas which gradually became the primitive oceans. </b><br /><br />Seems to me that piece quite clearly says that the oceans formed from water collected in in low lying areas. <br /><br /><br />Lets now move forward. Thornton does what many of this personality type do when against the wall; they bitterly impugn the character, motivations and truthfulness of their debate opponents. So in a previous thread, after being challenged by a sophomoric question with a mathematically rigorous connotation I warned that thornton was going up against a mathematically competent and highly trained engineer, this person guffaws and impugns, implying that maybe lowly trained would be more accurate. Now thornton says about this poster:<br /><br /><i> That should be obvious to anyone with the slightest scientific background, which seems to exclude you. </i><br /><br />Now it should interest readers whether or not this attempt at insult has basis.<br /><br />OK thornton lets include you in some of the scientific knowledge of which I'm at the top of the game. Let's say we are studying a bat's echolocation properties. <br /><br />1. I state to you that the bat's hearing range is -150,000 Hz to -20,000 Hz. a) would you believe this, in other words would this be likely? and b) what is it about the statement that either is a universal property of analysis or possibly violates such a property?<br /><br />2. Here is an extra credit, easy, you should be able to google this for the answer: What is the primary property of the echolocation process that affects range resolution, and what is the mathematical definition of range resolution?<br /><br />3. Extra extra credit: is there any advantage of a dolphin's sound emissions for echolocation over those of a bat? Any disadvantage?<br /><br />4. Are you in California?MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51060879222523698582010-11-26T10:45:33.293-08:002010-11-26T10:45:33.293-08:00natschuster: If it takes 10 mutations to make the ...<b>natschuster:</b> <i>If it takes 10 mutations to make the thingy in the <b>chicken</b> eye, then it is a possibility. But if it takes 10,000,000 mutations and there is a mutation rate of one per year, and <b>chickens</b> have not been around for ten million years, then this process won't work.</i><br /><br />Nat, I can't count the number of times this has been pointed out to you: with statements like this, you demonstrate that <b>you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of what the theory of evolution posits.</b> This feature <i>did not arise at the same time as modern chickens.</i><br /><br />Yours is a profoundly ignorant statement. It's like saying "Well, if it takes 15 million years for an eye to evolve but homo sapiens have only been around for 250,000, then this process won't work." Do you see the problem with a statement like that? It's likely you don't, so I'll elaborate: The <i>ancestors</i> of humans had eyes, and so did <i>their</i> ancestors, and so did <i>theirs.</i> And the fact that you're reading this proves that <i>eyes don't need this feature to work.</i><br /><br /><b>natschuster</b> <i>I know I'm just making up the numbers, but I think these things have to be clarified.</i><br /><br />Numbers aren't all you're making up.<br /><br />Nat, you're a million times more pleasant to talk to than people like Eocene or Joe G, but you certainly don't understand what evolutionary theory <i>actually</i> says any more than they do.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16177994018038794502010-11-26T10:44:27.449-08:002010-11-26T10:44:27.449-08:00natschuster: But if it takes 10,000,000 mutations ...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>But if it takes 10,000,000 mutations and there is a mutation rate of one per year, and chickens have not been around for ten million years, then this process won't work. </i><br /><br />You're in luck! There are billions and billions of chickens, and each one has about a hundred mutations. That's trillions upon trillions of mutations every year! Their genome is only about a billion bases. That means every single base is mutated every single generation. And that's ignoring other forms of genomic variation. <br /><br />Not that that has much to do with understanding evolution.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49206735464846255862010-11-26T10:30:40.454-08:002010-11-26T10:30:40.454-08:00natschuster And, according the General Relavity, E...<b>natschuster</b> <i>And, according the General Relavity, Earth orbting the Sun is equivalent to the Sun orbiting the Earth.</i><br /><br />BZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23140912197556278962010-11-26T10:14:47.329-08:002010-11-26T10:14:47.329-08:00Thorton:
If it takes 10 mutations to make the thi...Thorton:<br /><br />If it takes 10 mutations to make the thingy in the chicken eye, then it is a possibility. But if it takes 10,000,000 mutations and there is a mutation rate of one per year, and chickens have not been around for ten million years, then this process won't work. I know I'm just making up the numbers, but I think these things have to be clarified. That's why I'm asking.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60405560689576344092010-11-26T10:09:46.455-08:002010-11-26T10:09:46.455-08:00DC:
If there was one raindrop, then that means it...DC:<br /><br />If there was one raindrop, then that means it rained. I don't need to see evidence of more than one.<br /><br />If someone claimed that he made an optical device as complex as the thin in the chicken's eye through a process of random change, I would ask him to show me. <br /><br />I afraid that whether you give me credit or not does not make a whole lot of difference to me.<br /><br />And, according the General Relavity, Earth orbting the Sun is equivalent to the Sun orbiting the Earth.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28128819199749487212010-11-26T08:17:48.184-08:002010-11-26T08:17:48.184-08:00natschuster: And I'm actually an agnostic when...<b>natschuster:</b> <i>And I'm actually an agnostic when it come to the age of the Earth.</i><br /><br />You say that as if it gains you some points from not being a YEC. I don't give any credit to someone who says "I'm actually an agnostic when it comes to whether or not the earth orbits the sun or if it's the other way around."Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84191976590522617622010-11-26T08:14:14.146-08:002010-11-26T08:14:14.146-08:00natschuster: I'm sorry, but I feel it is impor...<b>natschuster:</b> <i>I'm sorry, but I feel it is important to determine, or at least estimate, the number of mutations necessary to bring about an adaptation.</i><br /><br />nat, if it rained last night, would you have to know the exact (or even approximate) number of raindrops that fell in order to safely conclude that precipitation had occurred? Is it necessary to know when and where each drop hit, or is a consistent amount of rainwater in each rain gauge enough to determined if it rained, and how much?Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54881689432262254222010-11-25T23:54:45.932-08:002010-11-25T23:54:45.932-08:00natschuster:
"And I'm actually an agnost...natschuster:<br /><br />"And I'm actually an agnostic when it come to the age of the Earth. "<br /><br />Please explain why the evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth is equally (un)convincing as the "evidence" for a 6000 year old earth.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91777973744123093732010-11-25T22:45:19.924-08:002010-11-25T22:45:19.924-08:00natschuster said...
Thorton:
I'm sorry, but...<i>natschuster said... <br /><br />Thorton:<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I feel it is important to determine, or at least estimate, the number of mutations necessary to bring about an adaptation. If the number of mutations required is too great, then it isn't a plausible explanation. And the article you linked, unless I am very much mistaken, does not discuss mutations. But mutations are the mechanism that cause change. And we have to know what, if any, selective advantage the mutations have before the adaptation in question is actually complete. This is because step 2 in evolution is natural selection. IMHO, these questions have to be dealt with before we can say evolution did it. </i><br /><br />Why on Earth do you keep harping about the number of mutations? What difference would it make if it was 10 or 10 million? That wouldn’t change the fact one iota that <b>we still have an abundant amount of other positive evidence for evolution.</b><br /><br />Scientists aren’t interested in spending energy looking for a meaningless (and probably impossible to determine accurately) number that would just be a colossal waste of time and resources. If you feel it is that important, nothing is stopping you or any creationist from getting an education and pursuing such research yourself.<br /><br /><i>I don't find the response, "trust us, the evidence is there" to be intellectually satisfying.</i><br /><br />Not a single person I know of has said that to you here. If you have been reading these threads at all you’ve seen quite a bit of evidence presented. I know for a fact this link to an overview of the evidence has been presented multiple times.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" rel="nofollow">Evidence for Macroevolution</a><br /><br />God is suppose to help those who help themselves. So what have you been doing to help yourself learn about the actual theory and evidence? There are tons of good reference sites online, like this one from the U. California-Berkeley<br /><br /><a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html" rel="nofollow">Understanding Evolution</a><br /><br />Have you read anything besides Creationist anti-science websites? Any books? Taken any classes? I’m willing and able to help explain things if you get stuck, but you’re not going to get spoon fed. The only way you’ll really learn is to do the work yourself.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80591322206211635412010-11-25T22:35:03.934-08:002010-11-25T22:35:03.934-08:00The damn board is eating posts again.The damn board is eating posts again.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20654329173427821622010-11-25T14:28:39.711-08:002010-11-25T14:28:39.711-08:00Thorton:
I'm sorry, but I feel it is importan...Thorton:<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I feel it is important to determine, or at least estimate, the number of mutations necessary to bring about an adaptation. If the number of mutations required is too great, then it isn't a plausible explanation. And the article you linked, unless I am very much mistaken, does not discuss mutations. But mutations are the mechanism that cause change. And we have to know what, if any, selective advantage the mutations have before the adaptation in question is actually complete. This is because step 2 in evolution is natural selection. IMHO, these questions have to be dealt with before we can say evolution did it. I don't find the response, "trust us, the evidence is there" to be intellectually satisfying.<br /><br />And I'm actually an agnostic when it come to the age of the Earth.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53228487412630198722010-11-25T10:07:05.968-08:002010-11-25T10:07:05.968-08:00MSEE said...
thornton: "I sometimes get ...<i>MSEE said...<br /><br /> thornton: "I sometimes get tired of dealing with nonstop nonsense from so many disingenuous YECs. I'll try not to lump you with them."<br /><br /> Thornton gets so tired because of the irresistable urge to return again and again to debate those considered to be misleading doofuses on this blog. Seems like nonstop nonsense is something to which thornton is addicted. As for me I think thornton feels against the wall and fighting for a losing paradigm.</i><br /><br />No MSEE, I return to the engage clueless boob Creationists because I feel scientific literacy is critically important to the future well being of my country. If I can get even one lurker to think critically and investigate for him/herself instead of just blindly swallowing YEC anti-science garbage, then I have helped the cause. Think globally, act locally.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10005781604311658912010-11-25T09:59:37.584-08:002010-11-25T09:59:37.584-08:00MSEE said...
I wasn't aware that rain bui...<i>MSEE said...<br /><br /> I wasn't aware that rain built the oceans.</i><br /><br />You seem to be blissfully unaware of most all scientific phemonena.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/oceans/ocean1.html" rel="nofollow">How did the Oceans form?</a><br /><br /><b>4 billion years ago, the Earth could be described as a very large, hot rock without a trace of water on its surface. Water on the young Earth came from two sources, outgassing from within the Earth and bombardment by comets. Outgassing is the process whereby gases are released from molten rock in the mantle of the planet by volcanic activity. This was probably the primary source of gases for the early atmosphere. Comets and meterorites also bring with them gases which contributed to the Earth's atmosphere.<br /><br />Some of the gases in the new atmosphere were methane (CH3), ammonia (NH3), water vapor (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2). The water on Earth stayed in gaseous form until the planet's surface cooled below 100 degrees Celsius. At this time, 3.8 billion years ago, water condensed into rain and poured onto the land. Water collected in low lying areas which gradually became the primitive oceans. </b><br /><br /><i>The number of mutations required to build the binocular vision complex would seem to be extremely useful, unlike your raindrop analogy. This should be obvious.</i><br /><br /><b>Useful</b> to know doesn't mean <b>necessary</b> to know. That should be obvious to anyone with the slightest scientific background, which seems to exclude you.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45428409635668123122010-11-25T09:52:57.341-08:002010-11-25T09:52:57.341-08:00thornton: "I sometimes get tired of dealing w...thornton: "I sometimes get tired of dealing with nonstop nonsense from so many disingenuous YECs. I'll try not to lump you with them."<br /><br />Thornton gets so tired because of the irresistable urge to return again and again to debate those considered to be misleading doofuses on this blog. Seems like nonstop nonsense is something to which thornton is addicted. As for me I think thornton feels against the wall and fighting for a losing paradigm.MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53249523230556645422010-11-25T09:42:22.727-08:002010-11-25T09:42:22.727-08:00thornton: "So in contradistinction to the rig...thornton: "So in contradistinction to the rigorous science of physics, and the more heuristic social sciences, we have the foregoing behaviour of these meteorologists when asked to enumerate events which are at the core of their "science"; specifically: enumerate for us the number of "raindrops" that they postulate have "fallen" since the formation of the planet to build the oceans and rivers on the Earth."<br /><br />I wasn't aware that rain built the oceans. And to think it useful to estimate the number of raindrops is ridiculous. How would you define a raindrop? What properties would you use to define such? How many molecules would constitute a raindrop in your definition? And can you think of any scientific dogma that depends on the definition of raindrop?<br /><br />In contrast to the above, you guys have been to great lengths to define a random mutation as being central to your dogma. The number of mutations required to build the binocular vision complex would seem to be extremely useful, unlike your raindrop analogy. This should be obvious. For one thing it would show you guys know what you are talking about and that there are enough years available in history to have allowed for these proposed random mutations to accumulate and spread throughout populations.<br /><br /><br />Lastly I hate to break it to you but an investigator could break up all of the rainfall falling on a continent into small uniform units representing a defined "raindrop". Said researcher could easily determine the total rainfall by performing a surface integration on the yearly rainfall contour map of that continent. You can learn about surface integrals in Wikipedia. Do this for every contininent and island and it would be straightforward to calculate the number of unit "raindrops" falling on the total land mass of the planet for the year. A highly useless endeavor nonetheless.<br /><br /> I would say nice try, but it was rather not so.MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.com