Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Study of Intelligent Design Debate
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 106 of 210 (2136)
01-15-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by John Paul
01-15-2002 10:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
Wow. How many times do you have to be told that this is a reletively recent research venture, that the research is ongoing and no conclusions have been reached yet?

Conclusions have been reached, reptiles & mammals won't be in the same baramin, fish & amphibians won't be in the same baramin, & Homo sapiens won't be in the same baramin as other primates. All this was concluded before they lit the bunsen burner.
It is according to scripture. The nuber ONE consideration.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 10:09 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 10:49 AM mark24 has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 210 (2145)
01-15-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by mark24
01-15-2002 10:22 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Wow. How many times do you have to be told that this is a reletively recent research venture, that the research is ongoing and no conclusions have been reached yet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark:
Conclusions have been reached, reptiles & mammals won't be in the same baramin, fish & amphibians won't be in the same baramin, & Homo sapiens won't be in the same baramin as other primates. All this was concluded before they lit the bunsen burner.
John Paul:
First, when taken in context. I was referring to specific conclusions that schraf appears to want. As for reptiles & mammals not being in the same baramin- it's that way in the classification system we use now. The same goes for fish & amphibians. Humans and other primates hasn't been finished yet.
Mark:
It is according to scripture. The nuber ONE consideration.
John Paul:
Yup, it's called conducting research under a Biblical framework
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by mark24, posted 01-15-2002 10:22 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by mark24, posted 01-15-2002 11:24 AM John Paul has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 108 of 210 (2159)
01-15-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by John Paul
01-15-2002 10:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
John Paul:
First, when taken in context. I was referring to specific conclusions that schraf appears to want. As for reptiles & mammals not being in the same baramin- it's that way in the classification system we use now. The same goes for fish & amphibians. Humans and other primates hasn't been finished yet
Mark:
It is according to scripture. The number ONE consideration.
John Paul:
Yup, it's called conducting research under a Biblical framework

1/ Reptiles & Mammals are in the same holobaramin.
2/ "conducting research under a Biblical framework" presupposes scripture validity, & isn't science.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by John Paul, posted 01-15-2002 10:49 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by derwood, posted 01-16-2002 1:01 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 113 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 5:37 PM mark24 has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 109 of 210 (2289)
01-16-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mark24
01-15-2002 11:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
1/ Reptiles & Mammals are in the same holobaramin.
2/ "conducting research under a Biblical framework" presupposes scripture validity, & isn't science.
Mark

Especially when any results that contradict Scripture are tossed out on the basis of this 'biblical framework'.
Just read Robinson and Cavanaugh's primate paper in CRSQ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mark24, posted 01-15-2002 11:24 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 01-16-2002 2:20 PM derwood has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 110 of 210 (2299)
01-16-2002 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by derwood
01-16-2002 1:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLP:
Especially when any results that contradict Scripture are tossed out on the basis of this 'biblical framework'.
Just read Robinson and Cavanaugh's primate paper in CRSQ.

I've searched, but can't find the paper. Do you have a link?
Much appreciated,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by derwood, posted 01-16-2002 1:01 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by derwood, posted 01-16-2002 5:14 PM mark24 has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 111 of 210 (2304)
01-16-2002 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by mark24
01-16-2002 2:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
I've searched, but can't find the paper. Do you have a link?
Much appreciated,
Mark

The abstract should be available through CRSQ. I believe their address is www.creationresearch.org. You can do an author search at the link to their 'journal'.
It is CRSQ 34(4):196-208. "A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology with Examples from the Catarrhine Primates."
Its a hoot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 01-16-2002 2:20 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by mark24, posted 01-16-2002 5:25 PM derwood has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 112 of 210 (2307)
01-16-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by derwood
01-16-2002 5:14 PM


"We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. "
Meaning 12S-rRNA sequences showed humans & primates to be very similar indeed. Priceless.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by derwood, posted 01-16-2002 5:14 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 5:41 PM mark24 has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 210 (2497)
01-19-2002 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mark24
01-15-2002 11:24 AM


"conducting research under a Biblical framework" presupposes scripture validity, & isn't science."
--I thought you wanted to know what a biblical 'kind' was?
---------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mark24, posted 01-15-2002 11:24 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by nator, posted 02-04-2002 9:08 AM TrueCreation has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 210 (2498)
01-19-2002 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by mark24
01-16-2002 5:25 PM


"Meaning 12S-rRNA sequences showed humans & primates to be very similar indeed. Priceless."
--I would expect much simmilarity, wouldn't you? We both have significantly simmilar structure, but then again when you look at this close resemblance and see exactly how large a quantity the similarity is (97-99% similarity) you see the ratio of even this 3-1 and even less is an emense amount of information, and thus, the differentation.
---------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by mark24, posted 01-16-2002 5:25 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by mark24, posted 01-25-2002 7:30 PM TrueCreation has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 210 (2499)
01-19-2002 5:43 PM


Not too many of my posts get many replies need there be a one.
------------------

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 210 (2776)
01-25-2002 6:27 PM


So there is no more argument from evolutionists that Intelligent design isn't present?
------------------

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 117 of 210 (2783)
01-25-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by TrueCreation
01-19-2002 5:41 PM


But 12S-rRNA sequences were rejected. Why?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 5:41 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 2:01 AM mark24 has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 210 (2800)
01-26-2002 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by mark24
01-25-2002 7:30 PM


Were not rejected but 'were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. '
--I would expect much similarity from humans and various primates, but as I emphesized above, this small percentage as it seems small, is an extreamly large quantity of difference.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by mark24, posted 01-25-2002 7:30 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by mark24, posted 01-29-2002 10:05 AM TrueCreation has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 119 of 210 (3064)
01-29-2002 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 2:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Were not rejected but 'were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. '
--I would expect much similarity from humans and various primates, but as I emphesized above, this small percentage as it seems small, is an extreamly large quantity of difference.

No, I wouldn't expect any particular similarity in bio-molecules if God did it. Cytochrome c has no particular relation to form or appearance, yet human & chimp cytochrome c is identical. The further the genetic distance (re. morphological phylogeny), the greater the difference between a humans, & another organisms cytochrome c. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON God gave humans & chimps the same molecule UNLESS THEY ARE CLOSELY RELATED. The molecule performs EXACTLY the same function in whatever organism it is found in.
Why does a chimp have "human" cytochrome c, when it could function just as well with a slugs cytochrome c?
So, please explain why a molecule differs with distance, in relation to morphological phylogenies, when it has no relation to those taxonomies, if it isn't a product of common descent with modification?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 2:01 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 6:13 PM mark24 has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 210 (3315)
02-02-2002 5:29 PM


Irreducable complexity eh...
From:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html
"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.
The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system "have to be there from the beginning" is dead wrong.
It's worth noting that our scenario is neither hypothetical nor confined to the often irretrievable world of biological history. Indeed it's a common experience among computer programmers. Anyone who programs knows how easy it is to write yourself into a corner: a change one makes because it improves efficiency may become, after further changes, indispensable. Improvements might be made one line of code at a time and, at all stages, the program does its job. But, by the end, all the lines may be required. This programming analogy captures another important point: If I were to hand you the final program, it's entirely possible that you would not be able to reconstruct its history-that this line was added last and that, in a previous version, some other line sat between these two. Indeed, because the very act of revising a program has a way of wiping out clues to its history, it may be impossible to reconstruct the path taken. Similarly, we have noguarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway. But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution any more than the irreducible complexity of a program does-which is to say, not at all.
I wish I could claim credit for this Darwinian model of irreducible complexity, but I'm afraid I've been scooped by eighty years. This scenario was first hinted at by the geneticist H.J. Muller in 1918 and worked out in some detail in 1939 Indeed, Muller gives reasons for thinking that genes which at first improved function will routinely become essential parts of a pathway. So the gradual evolution of irreducibly complex systems is not only possible, it's expected. For those who aren't biologists, let me assure you that I haven't dug up the half-baked lucubrations of some obscure amateur. Muller, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1946, was a giant in evolution and genetics."
ROTFLMAO
Did " Behe forget to do some reading?

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 6:10 PM joz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024