Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 4:56 PM
24 online now:
Coragyps, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,041 Year: 7,077/19,786 Month: 1,618/1,581 Week: 440/393 Day: 31/43 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 99 of 141 (15309)
08-12-2002 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by John Paul
08-12-2002 3:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Look Scotty, even if I did take the time to splain it to ya you still wouldn't understand.

That is untrue, Joey, and I take this as yet another ad hominem.

quote:

The femur fiasco was just one little tidbit. Then you ranted about doubting a femur being a limb or appendage when the link YOU provided stated that.

Lie. Here are all of the links that I provided in the thread in question :

Re: baraminology (no mention of femurs at all)

Page on whales. Says: "Rodhocetus had well-developed hind limbs (although only the thighbone, or femur, has been preserved)..."

Two links to pictures of guenons - nothing about femurs at all.

A link to a DNA alignment - obviously nothing on femurs.

An interesting and pertinent link that you tried to blow off. . But again, nothing equating femurs to limbs.

That is all. Please demonstrate that I provided a link in which it is claimed that femurs are also appendages unto themselves.

In reality, it was YOU that provided (via your beloved encyclopedia) a general definition of femur that stated what you claim above:

"FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal..."

It seems that you cannot even support your own claims without resorting to projection.

quote:

scotty:
Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology.

John Paul:
LOL! The theory of evolution tells us that or do you think our morphology is similar to the alleged starting population(s)? The ToE tells us that changes in the genome (DNA) led to the changes in the organism that led to the diversity we observe. If DNA isnít responsible for those changes the ToE needs to be rewritten.


Why are you laughing? There is no reason to do so. Is this another alleged example of you feeding me my lunch? Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
Additionally, I have also responded to this repeated goof in this thread:


You can copy my writing style all you want to, and you will still be incorrect. The theory of evolution tells us that creatures with similar morphology will have similar DNA sequences throughout their genomes? Please tell me where I can read this for myself. The DNA that controls of influences morphology will obviously ďbe related toĒ morphology, but there is no rationale to assume that creatures with similar morphology would have similar synapomorphic changes in their genes that encode proteins having nothing to do with morphology. It Is not the ToE that needs to be rewritten, it is the creationistís understanding of it that needs improvement.

The reason I had asked that in the first place is that creationists attempt to minimize phylogenetic studies by claiming that because humans and chimps, for instance, look sort of alike, their DNA should be alike. But that says nothing of the patterns of shared mutations, nor the fact that, to date, no genes direclty influencing morphology have been identified much less sequenced and compared.

quote:

Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.

John Paul:
That is a lie. As had been pointed out to you earlier.


It is no lie at all. Please re-read your opening post:


Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.
Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?

(HINT: there isnít any:

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm )

How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*

How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*

Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?
...
Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be objectively tested.


I will ignore for now the fact that you have yet to provide a single objective test for any aspect of creationism or Design, but the fact remains that your primary thrust has been your personal disbelief in abiogenesis. Your 'follow-up' questions all derive from your first. Indeed, your 'disclaimer':

"If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)."

says it all. If, you ask. Your assumption is clear - you think that they are not. Therefore, you deal primarily with abiogensis.
There is no reason to deal with your laughable attempts to blow-off things like the fossil record with your amazing scientific insights...

quote:

Scott Page:
Abiogenesis is not the 'grand sweep' of evolution, so please explain.

John Paul:
Nothing to explain as I never said abiogenesis is part of the grand sweep of evolution.


"Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.
Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?

(HINT: there isnít any:

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm )

How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)"

Emphases mine.

quote:

Phylogenic analysis has been offered (by Scotty) as an objective method to test descent with modification (as in chimps & humans having a common ancestor being a branch (or part of a branch) that diverges on the evolutionary bush-like tree of life). In that light the following two questions were asked:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?

1) Is tricky. Yes mutations are heritable. Neutral, harmful and beneficial, mutations can be passed on. However in sexual reproduction they donít always get passed on. Iím not as tall as my grandfather was, but I am taller than my parents (were). My father was color-blind, I am not, nor are my sisters and brothers, but I have a nephew that canít see green (not the Special Agent)[sic]. However his brotherís vision is OK.


Irrelevant red herrings. Molecular phylogenetics is, and this should be pretty obvious, not interested in the slightest about mutations that are NOT passed on. How, pray tell, would a molecular analysis be able to assess mutations that were not passed on? Surely, you must know, as you are trying to make an issue out of it. Or is this just another example of what happens when someone tries to make confident statements in areas that they know nothing of?

quote:

In humans this is evident- not every organism that is born gets a chance to mate and not every mating couple can conceive. No mating or conception no chance of passing on of the DNA. Take an organism born with a beneficial mutation that its parents didnít have, nor do its siblings. Not only does this organism have to live long enough to reproduce, it has to do so successfully in order just to have a chance of that beneficial mutation being passed on, never mind becoming fixed. Another factor would be having a genetically impaired mate such that any combination would give you offspring less functional than the better parent is (was). You know, basic Punnett Square stuff and Mendelian genetics.

I'm sorry - does this have ANYTHING to do at all with molecular phylogenetics and heritable mutations? This has become something of your calling card - write volumiunous minutiae on tangential topics in the hopes that .... someone.. might be impressed. It is a tactic. What you are writing is completely irrelevant.

quote:

That said, if adaptive mutations were the norm (Dr. Lee Spetner), they would become more readably fixed because they would occur population wide due to the organismsí DNA reacting directly to environmental pressure(s). However adaptive mutations, unless applied to cleverly written evolutionary algorithm acting with an incrementally sequenced genetic algorithm, couldnít account for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

More irrelevance, with a ref to the evidence-less prince of purposelessness Spetner thrown in for good measure....
I'm getting hungry - where is that lunch, boy?

quote:

What we would have to determine is what was it about the alleged shared mutations that allowed them to be fixed in the populations? IOW why were they selected for (kept in the population) over this alleged span of time (5+ millions years)?

No, that is not even relevant. Why are you trying to conflate so many disparate ideas?
The question that you want us to believe that you are actually responding to:

"1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?"

Your real answer - the ONLY relevant one here:

"Yes mutations are heritable."

Thank you. The rest of what you wrote is, as I already indicated, complete garbage.

quote:

Question 2:

2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness? keep this in mind as you read Joey's "response"]

2) I donít think that every person with sickle-cell anemia is related to the first person that got the mutation that caused that disease and was able to pass it on. (snip attempt to look smart.) Is everyone with Downs syndrome related? The same goes for all genetic diseases. Do you think that every person with the same genetic disease is related to each other? That DNA gets passed on to the offspring doesnít mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
As I previously stated ďAs for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding.Ē I would like to change that to most likely be more of a coincidenceÖ


The naivete revealed in this response simply confirms my long-held suspicions. Joe Gallien simply does not have a clue as to what molecular phylogenetic analyses entail. This is not unique to Joe, of course. I have yet to meet an internet creationist that does know how such things work.
If it were all up to a couple of specific substitutions here and there, then - and only then - would Joe's naive treatment have even a hint of validity. I suggest that the creationist at least try to familiarize himself with the literatue and actually LOOK AT some real data. I have provided a link to my website on which I have an alignment of about 13000 characters for a few dozen species. The patterns of mutation - in both coding and noncoding DNA - is striking. .

quote:

Mutations occurring and getting passed on is just part of the problem. And a mutation getting fixed in a population is another. What the theory of evolution requires is for mutations to accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to new structures and organs (assuming of course the alleged starting population(s) didnít have arms, legs, a spine or a brain). Is there even a way to test if that premise is feasible?

I don't know. That is just another move of the goal posts. I presented molecular phylogentics as objective tests of evolutionary hypotheses of descent, not as a way of plotting specific DNA changes leading to specific phenotypic changes.
Whether or not a substitution is beneficial, neutral, or detrimental is irrelevant to Molecular phylogenetics. Whether or not the substitution occurs in coding or noncoding DNA is irrelevant. Whether the change is fixed or not is irrelevant.
If you knew half as much about this subject as you portray yourself as knowing, you would realize the futility, shallowness, and naivete of your above post.

So, again - where is it that you fed me my lunch?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:13 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by John Paul, posted 08-14-2002 8:07 AM derwood has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 100 of 141 (15310)
08-12-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by John Paul
08-12-2002 3:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
It's OK. I feel as taunted & baited as the New England Patriots must have felt before the last Super Bowl.

The reality is I don't have time to respond to nonsense so, for the most part, I just let it slide.


The incompetent rarely know it, often are even boastful, study finds...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:22 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 103 of 141 (15444)
08-14-2002 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by John Paul
08-14-2002 8:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.
John Paul:
That is a lie. As had been pointed out to you earlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:
Now as everyone can see I wasn't ONLY talking about abiogenesis. Anyonwe with a little common sense could see the context of the abiogenesis questions was to determine what reasoning is there to not even consider ID or Creation as viable alternatives.

As all of your 'follow-up' "questions" relied upon your assumption that abiogenesis is, in fact, part of (the foundation of?) evolution, it all goes back to that. That you may have mentioned (blown-off, really) other issues is really a moot point. To avoid allowing this to wander off on one of your nitpicking minutiae hunts, I will grant that I should not have written that you "Only dealt with" issues surrounding abiogenesis.

quote:

Dr.Page:
Therefore, you deal primarily with abiogensis.

joey gallien:
There IS a difference between ONLY & PRIMARILY. However neither would be correct.


Yes, there is a difference.

quote:

On the femurs- you have no shame do you?

Yes, I do. However, it would appear that you have limited comprtehension skills.

quote:

Scott Page: Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature.

John Paul: Do you have a reference?

Scott:
I do
Here is one, though not on Minke whales specifically:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The forelimbs are specialized to form flippers, and the hind limbs and pelvis are extremely small and do not normally extend out of the body wall of the animal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott:
That is all. Please demonstrate that I provided a link in which it is claimed that femurs are also appendages unto themselves.

John Paul:
Are you trying to tell me that a) there is more to the alleged "hindlimbs" besides the femur? and b) that the embryo slide you linked to shows more than a femur?


The embryo slide I linked to - the one you said was irrelevant because you were talking about adult whales (LOL!) - said nothing about femurs. It said limb buds. I suggest you look into the embryology of limb development to see what is in a limb bud. There is no "femur" per se, or anything else for that matter. Not in the early stages, at least. A limb bud contains the tissue precursors of such bony elements and the development o fhtese bones proceeds as development continues. At the stage of development shown in the slide I linked, probably the equivalent of human week 6 or so, the limb bones would be present. Continued development would result in the regression of the limb.
The quote you provide from a link of mine in fact, as the careful reader can see, does not contain the word 'femur', so your providing it seems to be a red herring. I could be minutiae-boy and remind the reader that I had only mentioned Minke whales when I mentioned femurs, while the link I provided refers to whales in general.
Here:http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Baleen/phycharbw.html

we see that, in baleen whales, anyway:

F. Hind limbs.
1. In baleen whales all traces of hind limbs have disappeared except for two reduced, rod-shaped pelvic bones that are buried deep in body muscle.

quote:

On phylogeny:

ďIn order to analyze which amino acid replacements have occurred during the evolution of humans and apes, the evolutionary relationships among the species being studied must be inferred.Ē

Yup, sounds real objective to me.

toodles Dr.Page


Wow. Some rebuttal. Shame that this doesn't actually deal directly with phylogenetics, as you imply. Rather, this deals with assessing amino acid replacements.

I guess I would going to far to actually expect a retraction of all that mumbo-jumbo from your last post, wouldn't it? You know - the stuff that didn't even deal with what you claimed to be addressing?

bye joey


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John Paul, posted 08-14-2002 8:07 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by John Paul, posted 08-15-2002 12:03 PM derwood has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 106 of 141 (15533)
08-16-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by John Paul
08-15-2002 12:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
As all of your 'follow-up' "questions" relied upon your assumption that abiogenesis is, in fact, part of (the foundation of?) evolution, it all goes back to that.

John Paul:
That is NOT correct. It is not my fault if you infer what is not implied. As I had previously stated the ONLY reason I brought up abiogenesis was to find out if there isn't any evidence to support a purely natural process to the origins of life why are the alternatives not even considered?

Also as I posted at least some evolutionists stated that abiogenesis IS part of the ToE. (Kerkut)


I can only infer from what is written. As I already wrote, none of the books on the topic that I have cite Kerkut. I have to wonder - which creationist web site had that quote-mined gem?
Alternatives? What alternatives? Magic? Space-men? Superbeings?

quote:

If you don't know the difference between an embryo and an adult then I feel very sorry for your students.

if you can't see how embryology has a DIRECT impact on the adult form, AND can provide a great deal of information about evolution, then I suspect taht you are a typical creationist. Unlike undereducated creationists, or those with educations in totally irrelevant fields like computer science, students that major in biology typically can make the necessary connections between ontogeny, phylogeny, and anatomy.

quote:
F. Hind limbs.
1. In baleen whales all traces of hind limbs have disappeared except for two reduced, rod-shaped pelvic bones that are buried deep in body muscle.

John Paul:
Again, that would only be assuming they were once limbs. Do you have any evidence to support that?


Some of it is on that page. It is called the fossil record. And, of course, what you just tried to muddle your way through (or out of) - embryology.

It is a shame that you have as usual abandoned any substantive issues and are trying to pull the same crap you usually do and did recently at BB - run off on irrelevant tangents, prattle on about 'assumptions', and such, rather than actually support your contentions.

I have to assume that you have capitulated on the phylogeny issue, at least I hope you have. You were really out of the ballpark - you weren't even in the parking lot - in your "overwhelm them with minutiae" attempt to deal with it above.
This is really getting old. Unless you have something of substance to offer, I don't see much point in going on.

Your personal distaste for the names of bones, the workings of the scientific method, etc., can never be dealt with in a way that would satisfy you. And in an important way, who the f*** cares what some creationist engineer 'personally' accepts or not on the issue of biological evolution?

The BB censotrs cut some of my best lines to you (of course!) - such as my request that you contact all anatomists and zoologists and inform them that you, Joe Gallien, creationist engineer, demand that the bones in modern whales that are homologous to pelvi and hind limbs be called something else because you personally don't like the implications...

bye bye joey


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by John Paul, posted 08-15-2002 12:03 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 110 of 141 (16071)
08-26-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 12:21 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whenever it's evoltuionary fairtales it can't be proven.

So what's the take home message? You guys may have jumped the gun after watching the diversification of created kinds!

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

Fairytales... Jumping the gun...

Well, TB, maybe you can explain to us all - with scientific evidence in support, of course - how it is that killing pigeons cures leprosy?

Or, more on topic, what the 'created kinds' were. How many there were. How it was that we got what we have today from them since 'the flood' .

Start a new thread if you want - I mean, you must have all sorts of verifiable documentation supportive of this belief... this fairytale, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 12:21 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 115 of 141 (16770)
09-06-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rationalist
09-01-2002 5:52 AM


I love the sound of crickets chirping....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rationalist, posted 09-01-2002 5:52 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 120 of 141 (17623)
09-17-2002 4:38 PM


Wow - Bart sounds like a rabid anti-evolutionist creationist with a supernaturalistic philosophy.
Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Bart007, posted 09-17-2002 9:32 PM derwood has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 124 of 141 (18033)
09-23-2002 11:24 AM


Hmmm...

Note the creationist buzzwords:

dogmatic

rapid anti-creationist

browbeat

Wow, bart....

Looks like the jury came back....


    
derwood
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 125 of 141 (18035)
09-23-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Bart007
09-17-2002 9:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Bart007:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
Wow - Bart sounds like a rabid anti-evolutionist creationist with a supernaturalistic philosophy.

No, I do not think a person is bad, mentally deficient, inept, because they believe in evolution, nor am I compelled to villify anyone simply because they hold to a materialist worldview. I fully respect honest discussion and opinions about the topic and the related science we've chosen to debate.

But should anyone be dishonest about or ignore the science presented to them as a whole; engage in sophistical arguments; and resort to ridicule, browbeating and insults, then, I do not respect them at all, regardless of what side of the debate they are on.


Interesting stance, considering what you have written thus far...

So, what is your stance on plagiarism again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Bart007, posted 09-17-2002 9:32 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019