tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post675788839332839..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Naked Ape: An Open Letter to BioLogos on the Genetic Evidence, Part IIUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42485390914131025482017-08-01T13:45:50.043-07:002017-08-01T13:45:50.043-07:00I'm not sure how much specificity and how cont...I'm not sure how much specificity and how contradictory you need your evidence to be. My goodness. Might it be that you don't want to see the facts? Bias is a strong phenomenon indeed.Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386692017207655312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75317463523293854942016-07-02T02:59:26.983-07:002016-07-02T02:59:26.983-07:00lol. Glenn, you're a denialist butthole!lol. Glenn, you're a denialist butthole!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02879976072760469461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74415882568374874612016-07-02T02:40:50.862-07:002016-07-02T02:40:50.862-07:00In my experience when reading blogs like this, I a...In my experience when reading blogs like this, I agree with Glenn. ID proponents and creationists are at their best (in the eyes of peers) when they make unspecific claims which truly obfuscate the hard data, and are typically chalk stuffed with repetitive rhetoric.<br /><br />They fail tremendously when making specific, testable claims, as all one has to do is point to the data. The same data that is accepted by 99.9% of all biologists. <br /><br />For example, Cornelius's essay on 22 Darwinian predictions is pretty amateur, given everything I've learned about evolution over the years, and poorly written, as it only tackles predictions which are very easily modifiable and open to interpretation (as science should be when things aren't exactly cut and dry). When it come to very basic, commonly accepted Evolutionary predictions, it seems he didn't have much to say on those.<br /><br />I was referred there by a friend, and was pretty underwhelmed. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02879976072760469461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68148065519532284172016-06-11T21:18:28.381-07:002016-06-11T21:18:28.381-07:00"Common descent". Funny, "not evide..."Common descent". Funny, "not evidence against cd in any way." So more unverified assertions, at least to the extent, but by no means limited to, your apparent proposal that "common descent" has been demonstrated to have some sort of claim staked relationship to purely naturalistic processes producing living organisms and ecosystems etc. Maybe I misunderstand you representations. bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85631047735791702582016-06-11T15:28:49.564-07:002016-06-11T15:28:49.564-07:00Why?
Because it would have been difficult to expl...<b>Why?</b><br /><br />Because it would have been difficult to explain under a common descent scenario. Saying the kangaroo genome is similar to the human genome means nothing unless you have some benchmark. So, if it said the kangaroo genome is a closer match to the human genome than the orangutan, then that would be a specific claim that could be tested against common descent. <br /><br /><b>So, Glenn, go to a quiet place, if you have time, and think about the assertions you made based upon undemonstrated assumptions that are embedded in your those assertions you made above.</b><br /><br />Once again, I don't recall making any assertions. I've just been telling you why I think this post hasn't seen much action.<br /><br />Cornelius: <b><i>"The genomes of primates do not support evolutionary theory. As we have discussed, there are always speculations for whatever evidence is discovered. Perhaps evolution did this, perhaps it did that."</i></b><br /><br /><b>So, "scientifically" refute the comment above.</b><br /><br />Cornelius points to six lines of evidence that he believes supports his conclusion. It's <i>possible</i> that the first five are compelling (and that would go some way in supporting his conclusion) but I have not looked into them. The sixth one - as it currently stands - is <b>NOT</b> evidence against common descent in any way. Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87119477379315375842016-06-10T21:19:21.970-07:002016-06-10T21:19:21.970-07:00"I can't speak for others, but I know tha... "I can't speak for others, but I know that when I read this post, I found very little that was both specific and would be contradictory to common descent. Just for example, had the "kangaroo-human comparison" section said something like "the structure of the kangaroo genome more closely resembles the human genome than any other primate genome resembles the human genome" then my ears would have pricked my ears up."<br /><br />Why?<br /><br /><br />So, Glenn, go to a quiet place, if you have time, and think about the assertions you made based upon undemonstrated assumptions that are embedded in your those assertions you made above. I believe you are criticizing generalizations made regarding the arguments you prefer for unscientific reasons.<br /><br />"The genomes of primates do not support evolutionary theory. As we have discussed, there are always speculations for whatever evidence is discovered. Perhaps evolution did this, perhaps it did that."<br /><br />Or not.<br /><br />So, "scientifically"<br /> refute the comment above. bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44851775328164994212016-06-09T01:25:15.402-07:002016-06-09T01:25:15.402-07:00I don't recall making any assertions. Can you ...I don't recall making any assertions. Can you point out to me what they are and where I've made them? Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89957595747842592872016-06-08T22:37:21.116-07:002016-06-08T22:37:21.116-07:00I think it would be an amazing feat of "scien...I think it would be an amazing feat of "scientific"<br />empiricism if you could reference sufficient scientific data that would actually support your assertions regarding the capabilities of purely "naturalistic" processes (whatever you claim those to be) to do what is necessary to arrive at what can be observed about living ecosystems now.<br /><br />Obviously, there is too much to demonstrate and explain scientifically for you or any other "naturalist" to convincingly prove your points. But pop culture assists and abates the fiction that is perpetrated by the false science of your philosophical preferential treatment of reality.<br /><br />I try to refrain, lately, from name calling. But you must be some sort of denialist butthole, in order not to see the problems with your assertions.<br /><br /><br /> bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1822783912631141862016-06-05T21:55:46.461-07:002016-06-05T21:55:46.461-07:00You made suggestions as to why this post is pretty...You made suggestions as to why this post is pretty quiet, and I explained why I think it is quiet.<br /><br />Compare this post to Cornelius' post about Chromosome 2, where I have been quite active. The difference is that he made some relatively specific claims in that post that could be addressed.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65076172946798419922016-06-05T21:13:07.642-07:002016-06-05T21:13:07.642-07:00How about you? No "rant". Just bringin...How about you? No "rant". Just bringing back a discussion to what I feel to be a core issue in any debate in this topic. A fundamental issue that is at the heart of many discussions. And addressing the questions to those I know follow this blog. Perhaps I am wrong but could it be that you knew the answer to your question before you asked it?bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66990763482202152342016-06-05T07:01:49.394-07:002016-06-05T07:01:49.394-07:00Who are you talking to ... ? You seem to have gone...Who are you talking to ... ? You seem to have gone a rant to nowhere and no one.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33966706302323839302016-06-04T23:15:39.081-07:002016-06-04T23:15:39.081-07:00So, you can say that the imagined mechanisms of th...So, you can say that the imagined mechanisms of the alleged naturalistic evolutionary processes deemed to be responsible for the origination and or development of living organisms and ecosystems have sufficient empirical evidence to support the conclusions of the naturalistic evolutionists?<br /><br />"Resemblances" are meaningless, if you are unable to demonstrate alleged mechanisms are capable to create fundamental systems and operationally biologically relevant components for some reasons cooperating in the necessary fashions to function and persist to remain viable in the observed fashions.<br /><br />I would advise you to forget about any "anti-religious bias" you have that is motivating you to come to your conclusions here and focus on the required scientific evidence needed to support your assertions. bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54903241550623217722016-06-01T21:04:55.333-07:002016-06-01T21:04:55.333-07:00The lack of response from the evolution crowd on t...<b><i>The lack of response from the evolution crowd on this post is very telling to me.</i></b><br /><br />I can't speak for others, but I know that when I read this post, I found very little that was both specific and would be contradictory to common descent. Just for example, had the "kangaroo-human comparison" section said something like "the structure of the kangaroo genome more closely resembles the human genome than any other primate genome resembles the human genome" then my ears would have pricked my ears up.<br /><br />If Cornelius made <i>specific</i> claims in this post, then it may have gotten more push-back. As it stands, it's a bit shrugworthy. Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82710493012016082222016-05-30T20:44:17.366-07:002016-05-30T20:44:17.366-07:00The lack of response from the evolution crowd on t...The lack of response from the evolution crowd on this post is very telling to me. <br /><br />If you, Cornelius, haven't blocked comments, then it seems the usual pro evolution commenters are unable to come up with sufficient relevant rebuttals in response to the information you present that points out the inadequacies of the theory that is demonstrated by the scientific results that are available. Kind of like an imbecile who shoots themself in his foot with a weapon s/he uses to allegedly provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the undemonstrated assertions and conjecture so necessary to keep the myth of evolution alive. God, I feel you should damn it. But that is only my intuition. I dont know. But let us focus our attention, on as you say, what the empirical evidence tells us. <br />bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23394127991275673422016-05-28T17:55:32.523-07:002016-05-28T17:55:32.523-07:00"Contrary to a widely held scientific theory ..."Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation."<br /><br />From Science Daily no less. Thanks Inktvlam.<br />bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14375002699976891892016-05-27T04:54:37.262-07:002016-05-27T04:54:37.262-07:00Even more differences between humans and chimps.
h...Even more differences between humans and chimps.<br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100113131505.htmInktvlamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155305782455541065noreply@blogger.com