|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Foundations of ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Paul:
quote: Like what? Can you come up with papers that give punk eek intellectual weight experimentally?
quote: Darwin was a gradualist and there are many still today. He got this notion from his geologist buddy Lyle ( I know that's misspelled as I never could spell it correctly) and his notion of uniformitarianism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I could not find the latter paper via PubMed or Google. Perhaps if you know where it is at, you will link to it. And a paper setting out an idea is not scientific research supporting that idea. But shouldn't there be tons of papers out there showing the research done on punk eek? I mean you guys ARE teaching this stuff as beyond scientific theories and "facts" of science. You mean you cannot come up with a single peer-reviewed research paper to support a fact of science?
quote: Nah....Darwin didn't reject gradualism he necessitated it: "[1] If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Here is my argument from authority in zoologist Mark Ridley's book: "Darwin’s explanation for complex adaptations is that they evolve in many small steps; that is what Darwin meant when he called evolution gradual. Evolution has to be gradual because it would take a miracle for a complex organ, requiring mutations in many parts, to evolve in one sudden step. If each mutation arose separately, in different organisms at different times, the whole process is more probable. "Darwin’s gradualist requirement is a deep property of evolutionary theory. The Darwinian should be able to show for any organ that it could, at least in principle, have evolved in many small steps, with each being advantageous. If there are exceptions, the theory is in trouble." Evolution - Adaptive explanation [1] The Origin of Species, Darwin, p.154. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Howdy Ned:
quote: Constant or not, how does Darwinism explain the Cambrian explosion? I mean here we have nothing in the record leading up to these organisms and suddenly organisms start poofing out of seemingly nothing being fully formed and ready to go in their environment. There HAS to be some gradualism somewhere unless one believes in the hopeful monster conception or is duped by the magic of David Copperfield.. quote: And you would know this how, Ned? Name the papers where species are observed doing this. Herein lies the major problem with this entire concept. You guys just throw this stuff out without a shred of experimental evidence, state this is the way things are and start teaching it as an accepted theory of science as if it had actually gone through the scientific method to achieve a theory status. How do you go back in time to do the breeding experiments to even establish what was, and was not a species? This is not science, let it die with other the other silly philosophies of the 19th century like Freudianism. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Paul, do you really think I am so stupid as to allow you to argue a paper without actually presenting the danged paper? Please PRESENT THE PAPERS you wish to use in our discussions so that everyone can read them. I don't think I've actually ever had to point that out to anyone in these types of discussions, but there is a first for everything, I would suppose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Then you better cough it up if you expect to use it in debate. It's certainly not up to me to provide evidence to support your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: OK Paul, this particular discussion is going nowhere and it's getting really silly. I NEVER stated I had not heard of these papers, these are your words. I stated that I could not find them to have in front of me to debate you on them. And since you seem to think you can just throw out papers you never present and claim that they "prove" something, this discussion is over and I'll leave it to the readers to judge the contents. Thanks for your posts P.S. And readers: observe that Paul never introduced a SINGLE peer-reviewed paper to show this "fact of science" to be even a hypothesis of science. This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-04-2005 04:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Thanks Ooook. No hurry, duty may call at any time from my position as well. I do enjoy your well crafted posts that utilize logic and civility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: It seems now to be a settled matter. Good. We have moved on. Life is much too short for the beating of dead dogs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Hello Ooook
quote: This is impossible as I have NEVER been wrong. Just ask me.
quote: Mileage yes, predictions no. You see, the entire structure of Darwinism is anathema to science because everything in it is circular. The conclusions explain the fossil record because the fossil record is used to glean the conclusions. Phylogenies validate the fossil record because the fossil record extrapolates the phylogenies. This reminds be of the fundies in the good old days when both sides would laugh at them when they went into something like: God is real because the Bible says He is, and God is infallible because the Bible says He is, and since God wrote the Bible, we know it is also infallible, so this all HAS to be true. What I think you're missing is that THE SAME PEOPLE DO ALL OF THIS. Get my point? Therefore, since everything in Darwinism is based on everything else in Darwinism you have independently confirmed no predictions from Uncle Charles.
quote: But if I were the designer I would do this the same way when designing organisms. Why come up with a helicopter design for bats when the wings I designed for birds do the job perfectly well? Why not similar legs in both horses and dogs? Why not homologous hox genes in several different organisms? Can you imagine General Motors trying to reinvent the sparkplug for every different automobile they design? How silly would that be? We find stark similarities in organisms and this is exactly what I would expect to find. We also observe diversity in the species of planet earth. Neither of these lend credence to any particular view of origins, neither ID nor Darwinism.
quote: It was supposed to be an experiment. The results of that experiment then needs to be interpreted by the peers of those researchers. Instead of doing this, they simply did not like the results of that experiment because it showed no gradualism in the record to support the notions of Darwin, so they came up with punk eek. Not because they discovered any evidence to lead them to a new hypothesis, but because they knew that was the only thing that could still keep Darwinism in the public view. One can never know what lurks in the hearts of men.
quote: I' not sure what you mean here. I do not use punk eek from an evolutionary stance in my argument, I just look at the fossil record. There I see organisms coming into the record fully formed. I suppose this is punctuated equilibrium, but it certainly is not Gould's version of it.
quote: Fine. Feel free to use that review and others to bring an argument. As soon as you do, I will be happy to address it.
quote: OK, and.......? You didn't say anything here. Is it that you think 'micro' verses 'macro' and the fossil record are not concepts of science? I mean, I frankly don't see how a teacher of evolution could ever teach the concept without using these terms. Scientists use them, why wouldn't I?
quote: Do what?
quote: Oh. I think I see what you are saying. Many do not understand why we use that math. The reason we do is we are calculating the way things ARE not the way they got there. This math doesn't care what particular path a protein takes to get to be the way it is, all that matters is the way it is. Slow evolution through protocells, aptamers, lyposomes or organisms just jumping together by magic does not change the math. Can you show me mathematically why it would be any different if an organism suddenly jumped together or if it formed over a million years through many simpler organisms? No. Because there IS no difference. This is because the math then again multiplies together with each step in these cases. Observe: If I flip 12 coins together at once and want them to all come up heads, I will have 1 chance in 2^12 of this happening. But suppose the system slowly evolves into existence. I will flip 3 coins together, wait a year, flip another 3 and add them to the system, and continue this for four years. The first year, the odds I will get all heads is 1 chance in 2^3. And I will have those same odds each year for four years. Then to calculate the entire system, I have to multiply all the steps together: 2^3*2^3*2^3*2^3 = 2^12 -- It's exactly the same! Hope that helps and wish you would study science and math rather than talk.origins. That site is a crock and EVERY anti-ID page there is easily refuted.
quote: Of course, providing you provide the information I need and define your view of complexity.
quote: Yes, that one is easy as with protein coding sequences, the biggest one will contain the most information, of course.
quote: There are no uncomfortable questions, have you seen me shy from any? And I don't see any problems presented with the quantum mechanics I presented. Attempts to diss an idea do not extrapolate to the refutation of that idea. No one presented anything to refute Heisenberg, Bohr, Young, Wheeler or Tipler. They just didn't like what that science says, so they attempted to twist it into a new meaning to suit their religion. You didn't find that obvious?
quote: Just look at the fossil record to find the when and the quantum mechanics I presented to find the how. I have spelled this out in great detail for this forum.
quote: They don't. You don't believe in evolution and the second law? Well, do you expect a 25 year old lawnmower to be in the same mechanical condition as a brand new one? It's just common sense.
quote: I reject it because there is not one shred of evidence to suggest it. It's just quite silly in that abiogenesis and common descent violate some of the most well proven laws in science. This is not science, it's pseudo-science that many Darwinists teach in schools as facts.
quote: As to the former, no it doesn't, I can take it far as I have to go. And you think E. Coli just magically makes itself? No, it uses pre-programmed code little different from a computer program . Code is intelligence. Do you really think that Window XP could just magically 'poof' out of a dead rock?
quote: No I don't, I can back as far as I can and then use statistics to extrapolate. I did this in the other thread, BTW. Read the study I posted. It goes back 6 million years.
quote: They're not useless unless you can refute the logic behind them. Can you? You certainly haven't thus far.
quote: No. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a mousetrap to describe protein synthesis. Where did you pick up that little tidbit?
quote: I see pigs giving birth to slightly different pigs and slightly similar pigs. FACT: They are still pigs. Have you ever seen a pig give birth to an elephant? Something similar to this is what you're going to have to show if you expect anyone to actually swallow this stuff. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: No, because we are talking the chemical evolution of abiogenesis, not the selection of genetic traits in evolution. There is no evidence to suggest that pre-biotic structures even had genes. In fact, most would propose an RNA critter to model this. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: 1) This guy reads DBB and is so upset with that mellow book that he suddenly converts from Christianity to Atheism and then from Creationism to Naturalism? Am I supposed to take the rest of this stuff seriously? Oh well, I'll give it a shot. His math on getting dealt a pattern in a 5 card hand is a little off but no big whup and I'll let it go as this is not really his point.
quote: This is ridiculous as no one on my side would consider 311,875,200 as anything unusual in nature. That works out (rounded) to only 10^8. Is this anywhere close to the 10^150 we consider as an upper probability barrier? No, this could easily happen by chance and says not one iota about ID. The rest of the post is nonsensical as he completely ignores the laws of chemistry concerning polypeptides in those calculations. Had he studied chemistry, he would know that polymerization of amino acids to polypeptides (AAs to proteins) or of nucleotides to polynucleotides (DNA), happen via condensation reactions. This can be accurately calculated using the enthalpy change concerning the formation of a dipeptide from amino acids and is known to be 5-8 kcal/mole for a variety of amino acids, using data compiled by Hutchens. His chance calculations are simply daydreaming and ignorance of science. Believe anything in that post at the peril of your own ignorance. NEXT: I don't really know what Razd is trying to say here, but his 1 in 2595.1 doesn't relate to my calculations as I use a very large upper probability bound in mine. His little number may, or may not be designed. Nothing in ID relates to numbers probabilities that low. This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-09-2005 12:54 AM Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Well gee, Razd. Why don't you take this a step further, precisely point out what my major mathematical error is, actually address the "error due to one false assumption in your [my-insertion mine] method" and we can discuss it. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I suppose I would if I had any earthly idea what you were talking about. Why would I want to do this and a model of what??
quote: WHAT model? Is this something I was talking about with someone else? Please link to it as I'm totally lost as to where you are coming from. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Ahhh....yes...I remember that exchange now. A moderator had to get involved to calm you down a bit.
Considering your attitude, coupled with the fact that you are not making a lick of sense about anything I said in the post you linked to (I don't think you understood the chemistry I posted at all). I think I'll pass at further conversations with you. Thank you for your posts Design Dynamics
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024