Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 3:04 PM
33 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, DrJones*, GDR, PaulK, PsychMJC (6 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,865 Year: 11,901/19,786 Month: 1,682/2,641 Week: 191/708 Day: 18/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Author Topic:   Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1241 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 286 of 298 (341517)
08-19-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by nator
08-18-2006 8:53 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Rant someplace else, or I'll get the admins to box your ears.

Let me interpret:

You are unable to refute, and thus you are angry, and are threatening to summon your Mommy (Darwinian Mods) in an attempt to salvage some satisfaction because your kind controls the microphone and the board.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 8:53 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 9:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 287 of 298 (341520)
08-19-2006 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Cold Foreign Object
08-19-2006 9:00 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
quote:
You are unable to refute, and thus you are angry, and are threatening to summon your Mommy (Darwinian Mods) in an attempt to salvage some satisfaction because your kind controls the microphone and the board.

If you hate and despise this board and it's moderation team so much, why do you beg to be let back in every time you are suspended indefinitely?

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-19-2006 9:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1241 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 288 of 298 (341529)
08-19-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by nator
08-19-2006 12:02 PM


Re: 5th time
You do realize that you are essentially claiming either a worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of thousands of scientists to maintain an utter falsehood

Darwinists not in a conspiracy to maintain their reality defying theory ?

Lawyers are in conspiracy to promote the well being of their profession, as are doctors, pilots, unions, banks, etc.etc.

Churches are in conspiracy to promote their well being. Each denomination seeks to have their brand of religion flourish.

Political parties are in conspiracy to promote their agenda hoping to defeat their rivals.

Cops are in conspiracy against criminals and vice-versa.

It is the most uncontested and in the open conspiracy of all time: Darwinists conspire to promote their theory hook or crook.

The best physical evidence of the Darwinian conspiracy is the fact that the crust of the earth shows no signs of what a evolutionary theory necessitates: intermediacy/transitional.

This means that the only logical explanation for the "success" of your conspiracy is the Biblical explanation: "Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him the credit and status of Creator" (Dr. Gene Scott).

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 12:02 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 289 of 298 (341536)
08-19-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by crashfrog
08-19-2006 4:45 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
I told you already. Sex is advantageous in species with such long generation times, because it increases phenotypic diversity without the disadvantage of out-of-control mutation rates.

You're not understanding me. This is all fine and good and sounds halfway plausible even though its pure speculation. The begging question is how nature was able to simultaneously, or nearly simulatnaeously, evolve a male with fully operational sex organs, evolve a female counterpart with fully operation sex organs that just so happen to be perfectly compatible, and be placed within the same locality that they could find one another, and for nature to give them the understanding that they must mate in order to create progeny, all in one felled swoop? No, just, no. And if you say that it wasn't really in one felled swoop, then the new proto-male and proto-female would have died out before they could pass on their genes in order to make sexual reproduction the norm. Its insuperable. Its so difficult to reconcile that I can scarcely see why anyone wouldn't be troubled by it.

Those are not the same thing. Show me one quote where evolutionists have posited intent behind natural selection. That's the position of the Intelligent Design camp, not the theory of evolution, which does not speak to the issue of "intent" in the biological world.

How is it not the same thing? If something is random, then it is undirected. If something is non-random then it's directed and in order to direct something, it must be indicative of purpose. Every evolution asserts that natural selection is a non-random event.

No, you said that all living things have 46 chromosomes. This claim is incorrect.

No I didn't. I said that one cell can contain 46 chromosmes, so I'm not sure why shuffling was a problem. You seemed to believe that bacteria couldn't have information to shuffle. That's not true. Binary fission passes all of its genetic material to its self-replicated progeny, as well, bacteria can accumulate new DNA from whatever host it so happens to be hitching a ride on. Obviously, in the beginning stages of life this would have been impossible because there was no new DNA to steal it from which makes it that much more implausible that it could have evolved by binary fission plus mutations.

[quote][i]The major and extremely significant difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that eukaryotes have a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles , while prokaryotes do not. The DNA of prokaryotes floats freely around the cell; the DNA of eukaryotes is held within its nucleus[/quote][/i]

That's exactly what I said. What you are ignorant of is the fact that those organelles are actually devolved prokaryotes that, billions of years ago, began to indwell within other cells. That's why things like mitochondria have their own DNA.

You didn;t say anything on the matter, except, "Why did God make you out of prokaryotes?" What you are describing is baseless. Its what they surmise because that's all they've got, but none of this evolving seems to happens to prokaryotes today, oddly enough.

"Approximately 1.5 billion years ago eukaryotic cells started showing up in the fossil records. These cells are filled with organelles that help the cells grow and divide, and are cells that build almost all life forms we can see with the naked eye. No one knows for sure (yet), how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes; a popular theory is that as prokaryotic life was evolving, during the consumption of other prokaryotes for nourishment through a process called phagocytosis, the consumed organism did not get digested but instead began a symbiotic relationship with the attacking host. Perhaps this new, now invading organism became the mitochondria inside the first prokaryotic cell."

You really need to be paying more attention, NJ. You're simply not understanding what I'm communicating to you in plain language because you're not taking the time to read closely and think about it.

That's funny, I thought it was the other way around.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 4:45 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 10:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 293 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 11:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2199
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 290 of 298 (341554)
08-19-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 2:06 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Quite alot. Why I should go through the lists when the burden of proof is on you, is beyond me. But to settle the matter quickly, I will oblige... not that the ToE begins and ends with biology, but many interdisciplinary fields, such as biochemistry, as you pointed out).

1. Stephen Meyer
2. Michael Behe
3. David Berlisnki
4. Paul Chien
5. Michael Newton
6. Jonathan Wells
7. Ray Bohlin
8. Walter Bradley
9. Cornelius Hunter
10. Dean Kenyon
11. Forrest Mims
12. Scott Minnich
13. J.P. Moreland
14. Henry Schaefer
15. Charles Thaxton
16. Kenneth Cumming
17. Robert Franks
18. Duane Gish
19. Fazale Rana
20. James Allen
21. Don Batten
22. David Catchpoole
23. Andrew Bosanquet
24. Kinberly Berrine
25. Vladamir Betina
26. Donald Chittick
27. David DeWitt
28. Geoff Downes
29. Andre Eggen
30. Dudley Eirich
31. Carl Fliermans
32. Dwain Ford
33. Maciej Giertych
34. D.B Gower
35. Kelly Hollowell
36. Bob Hosken
37. George Howe
38. Neil Huber
39. George Javor
40. Pierre Jerlstrom
41. Arthur Jones
42. John Kramer
43. Lane Lester
44. Ian Macreadie
45. John Marcus
46. John McEwan
47. Sally McEwan
48. David Menton
49. Angela Meyer
50. Albert Mills
51. Arlton Murray
52. Gary Parker
53. Georgia Purdom
54. Ariel Roth
55. Jonathan Safarti
56. Joachim Scheven
57. Timothy Standish
58. Esther Su
59. Royal Truman
60. Walter Veith
61. A.J. White
62. John Whitmore
63. Kurt Wise
64. Patrick Young
65. Henry Zuill

I have questions concerning 22 of the 65 individuals cited as having PhD degrees in a bioscience field.

According to my research 10 individuals actually have degrees in chemistry, not bioscience (including biochemistry). They are Schaefer, Thaxton, Rana, Chittick, Ford, McEwan (both), Safarti, White, and Young.

There are 6 individuals on which I am unable to properly determine credentials as the granting institution was not listed. They are Catchpoole, Bosanquet, Berrine, Betina, Huber, and Murray.

There are 3 individuals that hold philosophy and/or history of science Phds. They include Meyer, Newton, and Moreland.

There is one in Math, Berlinski, and one in engineering, Bradley. Franks is an MD.

Two individuals listed appear to not hold Phds. Sally McEwan apparently has an MSc in Chemistry and Forrest Mims, a BA in government.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, my primary source was Answers in Genesis. Evidently from my research someone wanted to pad the list.

BTW, physical chemists are not bioscientist PhDs, nor are PhDs in philosophy, history, math, or materials science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 2:06 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 11:13 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 291 of 298 (341558)
08-19-2006 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Cold Foreign Object
08-19-2006 9:26 PM


Re: 5th time
What doe this have to do with Coulter's book?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-19-2006 9:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 11:15 PM nator has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 298 (341562)
08-19-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 9:39 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
The begging question is how nature was able to simultaneously, or nearly simulatnaeously, evolve a male with fully operational sex organs, evolve a female counterpart with fully operation sex organs that just so happen to be perfectly compatible, and be placed within the same locality that they could find one another, and for nature to give them the understanding that they must mate in order to create progeny, all in one felled swoop? No, just, no.

No, of course not. Did you follow that link? It answers your question. Sex didn't evolve from asex in one fell swoop; it evolved on a gradual continuum between asexual organisms and sexual ones. Those intermediate steps are still present today.

If something is non-random then it's directed and in order to direct something, it must be indicative of purpose.

This is just nonsense. No, really. Nonsense. Of course something can be non-random and yet be undirected.

No I didn't.

Yes, you did. Look, NJ, I can even go back and find it:

quote:
Aside from which, there are 46 chromosomes per cell, so I'm not sure why you think shuffling cannot occur in haploids.

Not, "up to 46 chromosomes." You asserted that every cell - human or not - has 46 chromosomes. That claim is ludicrously incorrect, as I showed. Specific to bacteria, it's 46 chromosomes too many - bacterial DNA isn't wound up into chromosomes at all.

Binary fission passes all of its genetic material to its self-replicated progeny

Right. Bacteria reproduce clonally. No shuffling.

bacteria can accumulate new DNA from whatever host it so happens to be hitching a ride on.

Irrelevant to the example, because the bacteria were grown in monoculture from a single individual. There were no "hosts". There weren't "other strains." There were only cloned individuals, and whatever differences existed between them genetically could only be the result of mutation. That's how the experiment was set up, to rule out all other sources of genetic variation. No horizontal transfer, no nothing.

Obviously, in the beginning stages of life this would have been impossible because there was no new DNA to steal it from which makes it that much more implausible that it could have evolved by binary fission plus mutations.

You're all over the map on this one. First you're telling me that mutation isn't the only source of genetic variation, some kind of "shuffling" is going on; and now you're telling me that shuffling wouldn't have been able to occur?

Which is it, NJ? You don't seem too sure.

What you are describing is baseless.

No. One of the bases is the fact that our own mitochondria have their own entirely seperate DNA. Why would they have rendundant DNA if it wasn't a vestage of their ancestry as independant organisms?

Its what they surmise because that's all they've got, but none of this evolving seems to happens to prokaryotes today, oddly enough.

Nonsense. Even to this day we can observe more primitive forms of endosymbiosis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 9:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 707 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 293 of 298 (341592)
08-19-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 9:39 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
does sexual reproduction need all the glands, the male/female parts we've got, and all that other stuff that you say is perfectly coordinated? no.

all sexual reproduction is where you have a haploid cell fuse with another haploid cell (both haploids coming from diploid cells). and then those two haploid cells become one diploid cell.

there are plants (or perhaps they're fungi) that go through one stage of life hapoid and then diploid. they don't have any of the stuff we've got for sexual reproduction.

and it's not limited to two sexes either. that's the way its setup in all animals and plants, because that's the direction the evolutionary path ended up going, but all you need is to different sexes. and if I recall correctly, fungi have a lot more than just two.

what about the organisms that lay their eggs, and then sperm gets laid on top of the eggs--no physical contact required.

point is, if you're trying to make sexual reproduction into an IC thing, it isn't.

now then, as to the whole non-random meaning it has intent (indicative of purpose, as you put), that's bull, like crash said.

here's why.
is the future a random event? we know that the future will happen. but does this non-random event display any direction of purpose? no. can you predict the future?
is a mutation a random event? no. in the sense that a mutation will occur. no matter what, a mutation will occur. but can you predict what the mutation will be? what effect it will have? where they will occur? no.

perhaps someone out there has a much better anology to explain it.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 9:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 294 of 298 (341600)
08-19-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by anglagard
08-19-2006 10:14 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, my primary source was Answers in Genesis. Evidently from my research someone wanted to pad the list.

BTW, physical chemists are not bioscientist PhDs, nor are PhDs in philosophy, history, math, or materials science.

I only counted those people with PhD's in fields that were directly attributed or applicable to the study of evolution. Those do not include such studies as Astronomy, Law, Mathematics (only), etc. I looked carefully to make sure that I could account for those individuals. It took me a long time look over that list, but if you say that I am in error, I will take your word for it. I really don't care enough to go back and check it out now. It shouldn't have been my burden to begin with. I just did it to resolve a difference of opinion.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by anglagard, posted 08-19-2006 10:14 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 295 of 298 (341602)
08-19-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by nator
08-19-2006 10:18 PM


Re: 5th time
What does this have to do with Coulter's book?

This thread has seriously derailed. There are only loose affiliations with Coulter at this point. I indict myself in that statement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:18 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Brad McFall, posted 08-23-2006 7:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3226 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 296 of 298 (342846)
08-23-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 11:15 PM


Re: 5th time Cornell Sun did not better
Cornell only saw "her mind." It appears the biology was not "controversial?" arrgghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Click for full size image

I can not "respond"/talk (even with my tuition $) to Will Provine without him feeling offended. He knows I know. Same difference as Ann. After this there is only the "state of mind."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 11:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3730
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 297 of 298 (416503)
08-16-2007 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Quetzal
08-16-2006 11:44 AM


Jerry Coyne on republican presidental candidates and evolution
For lack of a better place.

Jerry Coyne was recently on WFMU-FM, commenting on the republican presidential candidate debate where candidates were asked if they believed in evolution.

MP3 version (not permanent):
http://www.wfmu.org/listen.m3u?show=24213&archive=37136

RealPlayer version (permanent):
http://www.wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=24213&archive=37135

Added by edit: There is a short music intro, then Jerry Coyne is the first guest in the show.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Quetzal, posted 08-16-2006 11:44 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-19-2007 9:07 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3886
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 298 of 298 (417189)
08-19-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Minnemooseus
08-16-2007 3:57 AM


Closing time
Percy has copied the information of the previous message to message 55 of the "Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet" topic, which is a far better place for it.

The topic is very close to 300 messages, the standard closing point. Probably best to close it now.

If anyone wishes to mine a new topic out of this topic, please propose a new topic, unless it belongs in a forum that does not require going through the Proposed New Topics forum.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-16-2007 3:57 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019