|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: One Question for Evo-Bashers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: We have no problem recognizing that because we know who made them. We have evidence for the designer that does NOT rest on the analysis of the design.
quote: I know you are serious, but questions like this really destroy your credibility.
quote: What you can do is trace the plane's, for example, origin back to the factory and the blueprints and the people who made the blueprints. We don't conclude that planes were designed because they "show evidence of design." We conclude they were designed because we know damn well what we build, how we build it, and what stuff we build looks like. It is pattern recognition. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: "Damn" isn't cursing. God says it all the time.
quote: It wouldn't be evident if we didn't already have knowledge of our own designs. Take the example of tribal and isolated cultures thinking that planes are birds or gods. They don't assume, based on design characteristics, that such things were built by humans.
quote: Because we have examples of both to compare. Since we can make comparisons between manufactured stone tools-- via wear patterns which indicate usage-- and naturally fragmented rock, we can determine that other rocks are or are not manufactured. However, it is worth noting that the most primative stone tools are debatably not chipped into any real pattern, but just broken in half and used as best as could be.
quote: Which are the designed life forms and which are the not-designed ones? With the ability to make that comparison, there is no way to infer design. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Nope. Not speculating. It is field of study called cultural anthropology. Sure, I suspect pretty much anyone could distinguish between a hut THEY BUILT and a pile of lumber. This is exactly the point. They know huts are designed because they build them.
quote: No we are not. This is a field called paleoanthropology and this is precisely the methods used to determine what is a manufactured tool.
quote: We infer design based upon comparison with things that are not designed, like stone tools vs. rocks, or like a cave vs. an excavated shelter. We have no way to make this comparison with life in general. We need both known designed life forms and known not-designed lifeforms which we can then compare and work out the indicative differences between them. Then we can apply these differences to other life forms to determine if those are designed or not. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: If we had cases of new organism being designed, formed, and plopped into the forest out of nowhere, then we could do exactly what you suggest and extrapolate from that data. We don't have new organisms popping into existence, but only animals that come from other animals. Whatever process formed the first life forms, has stopped. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: No. I didn't miss it PeterB. Your position is silly. But I am sure you won't listen to reason-- which is why I never entered that debate. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The tree has identifiable ancestry going back 150 million years. That is hardly dropped into the forest from nowhere. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Sorry, bud. The people who study it say otherwise. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yeah. No kidding, PB. The tree is in a previously unknown genus. This does not mean it had no ancestors. You know... mommies and daddies? Though it looks like such may have died a long long time ago.
quote: Neither is my mom, but she exists. Really, PB, you present a pretty warped version of biology. Its family is present in the fossil record.
quote: I bet sonnike understand why this isn't one.
quote: ummm... its not what I asked for.... what you have given me is your fantasy version of science.
quote: I'll talk seriously with sonnike. But you? I have seen what you write. I really couldn't care less what you think. Sorry. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That is laughable, PeterB. The rational extrapolation from observations of nature is that the tree has parents. If you wish to assert otherwise, it is you who needs to prove it. ( note: the word is 'prove')
quote: Yeah, and a pretty wild fantasy it is, as every living thing on the planet, as far has has been proven thus far, has at least one parent(used loosely).
quote: Right. And no one has shown this effect at larger than subatomic scale. I don't think the tree qualifies. Are you venturing into yet another area you know nothing about?
quote: Actually, to real biologists, it is obvious that biology is exactly what we thought it to be.
quote: God, I love when you get all cocky and bombastic. It makes me warm and fuzzy all over. Of course, you may as well peg me for buying into that heliocentric claptrap too. That one is much older, and so obviously that much more incorrect.
quote: Yeah, its DNA is distinctly different. Just like the DNA between any two genera. Hmmmm..... not the same critter == not the same DNA. Geez, PB, pretty insightful. Besides, this would be the case with your MPG hypothesis as well, so why is this even an issue?
quote: Better compare it with something it actually resembles, rather than something it resembles less well. Oh, and, my well informed friend, the genes of the two have been compared.
http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/conifers/ar/wo/ writes: "Sequences were obtained for the rbcL gene from chloroplast DNA of the newly discovered Australian conifer Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), 5 species of Araucaria and 4 species of Agathis. Phylogenetic analysis of our new data and other available sequences indicate that 1) Araucariaceae is monophyletic; 2) Agathis and Araucaria are both monophyletic; 3) Wollemia is the sister group to Agathis; 4) the Pinaceae are the sister group to all other conifers, although the monophyly of the conifers is not unequivocally demonstrated" (Gilmore and Hill 1997). quote: That is part of the problem. We don't know, because we don't have one. The only hope is to weed out all of those critters that we know do have mommies and daddies, and spread the inference to anything similar as it it reasonable to assume that a tree that is similar to quite a few other trees also has a similar origin. In otherwords, for practical pruposes, it ought to not look like other species. That is the only way we'd be able to identify it. How different must it be? Maybe it uses only one of the four amino acids in DNA, something like that. Maybe it produces signifant numbers of proteins-- say 50% of the proteins it depends upon-- not found in any other animal.
quote: Discovered isn't 'popped into existence.' You must be confused.
quote: But not reasonably interpretted like that. The chances of you being correct are tiny. The chance that this tree has relatives is nearly 100%.
quote: No, PB. I don't care because I can't recall you ever once making a sensible argument. And no, your vision doesn't scare me. Why would it? "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. A. Huxley" ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The fossil record does not show what you think it shows.
quote: No we can't. But we've been through that. You are just repeating yourself.
quote: You can't seriously be making this argument. Sure we can back it up. We can back up several dozen creation-by-intelligent-designer events using archeologically verified documents. Do you accept al of those accounts? Or just one? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Don't know really. When were you born?
quote: Nope. You have to contradict the rational extrapolations from data that we already have. You need to show WHY these extrapolations are not adequate.
quote: Oh, god forbid....
quote: Yep. And it does not go like this: Hmmmmm.... I found a new thing, therefore it must have been created ex nihilo.
quote: I repeat, your job is to disprove the conclusions reached by pretty much eveyone who actually studies these things.
quote: Well, I'm convinced.
quote: You didn't provide evidence, PB. I know that you believe that you did, and I feel for you.
quote: Yes. Being a man out of time sucks doesn't it?
quote: ummmm... I'll do my best to stop you.
quote: Did you miss the part where I said, "every critter alive today"? I'm pretty sure it was in there.
quote: I think so because no one have yet demonstrated this effect on larger than a sub-atomic scale, which is exactly what I said. What kind of response is this? And why is it that I must have been the 'one' who invented quantum mechanics to LOOK IT UP?
quote: LOL.............
quote: They are the ones studying the trees. The ones that study and work in the field and publish things that other people actually read and respect.
quote: I picked up on the cockiness and the bombast right off the bat.
quote: 1) Lets just stick with Earth for now.2) It is dead-obvious only to you, and you really provide nothing even to argue about. quote: Modified numerous times. Big deal. Such is science.
quote: In what way?
quote: Reasonable candidates for this trees ancestors are easily identified.
quote: No you have to demonstrate why everything we know about heredity is wrong.
quote: In other words, hand-waving away research that contradicts your theory.
quote: Don't be an idiot. I'm not trying to make the comparisons that require this thing that no one has found. Try to keep this in context.
quote: Your problem with logic isn't something I can help. Hand waving away what you don't like isn't convincing either.
quote: Come on. You can do better than that. Or don't you look these things up?
The Fossil Record Based on a fragment of lower jaw found in opal deposits at Lightning Ridge in New South Wales, a type of ancestral platypus (Steropodon galmani) existed alongside the dinosaurs about 110 million years ago. In 1991, a fossil tooth belonging to a different kind of ancient platypus (originally described as Monotrematum sudamericanum but now probably regarded as another Obdurodon species, see below) was discovered in the Patagonian desert of Argentina. The tooth was found in sediments deposited over 60 million years ago, at the time when Australia and South America were still joined as part of the southern supercontinent Gondwana. Fossils belonging to three other extinct platypus species (Obdurodon insignis, Obdurodon dicksoni, and Obdurodon sp. A) have been found in Australian sediments deposited between 25 and 15 million years ago, while a leg bone from the first close relative of the modern platypus (Ornithorhynchus sp.) has been dated to about 4.5 million years ago. The earliest known remains of the platypus in its current form (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) date back to around 100,000 years ago. The platypus is sometimes described as a "living fossil" because of this ancient lineage and its combination of mammalian and reptilian features.
URL quote: Just giving examples.
quote: To give you a fighting chance against evolution, actually.
quote: The usual crea-tactics-- refuse to provide adequate evidence.
quote: Prolly.....? Really.....?
quote: I have answered this already.
quote: Apparently you feel as though you are. Look at the way you argue. That you haven't managed to convince anyone of your great find is an indicator of how reasonable your claims are. But, alas, posterity will prove you right, right?
quote: LOL...... if this were true, why is it that it is easily explained via much less exotic methods?
quote: Yes, I am aware of your goal. How did this become your goal?
quote: Einstein had evidence. Everyone knew there were problems with the existing theories. A lot of people were working on it. Einstein was the one who put it together correctly, first. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-18-2002] {Fixed a quote box, and substituted "URL" for a very long URL - Adminnemooseus} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well, you are almost there. 250,000,000 catalogued fossils (I'm accept your number, as it doesn't matter) and ALL OF THEM TRANSITIONAL.
quote: Then retract your argument. Archealogical data supports dozens of creation accounts. If you are going to claim that data as support for the truth of your own myth, you must accept it for other myths as well. Unless, of course, you are willing to let the Bible be on par, but not above, with these other myths. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Species is a concept that we have made up. It doesn't exist the way you think it does. Imagine a color spectum like artists use. At one end is black and the other is white and between the two all the various colors grade from one to the other. Pick any point on that line and it is identifiably different from any other point. Red vs. green, for example. Blue vs. yellow. But if you start at one point you can travel the whole line and encounter no sharp transitions between colors. All of the colors are transitional between the one before and the one after it. This is what you have in the fossil record. All of the fossils are transitional between the one before and the one after it. But we don't have the entire spectrum, so there appears to be hard breaks, just like when you select two colors from some difference away, like blue and yellow. Species is a name we give to 'colors' that are within a tolerable distance from one another, and biologists can't agree on exactly how to make the distinction. The concept of species is artificial in this way.
quote: Nope. Frogs are transitional between what came before them and what will come after. Each GENERATION is transitional between the previous generation and the next generation. There are small changes that are not dtectable until you look at hundreds or thousands of genrations.
quote: It is your understanding of evolution that is preposterous.
quote: Actually..... not. Nothing I have said isn't basic evolutionary biology. The analogy needs to be qualified to include PE and branching, but that's about it. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Slick and totally accurate ( well, totally, but close enough )
quote: Where did I say indistinguishable? I said you'd find no hard break, not that you'd find no differences. As you walk down the color line you move from one shade to the next. The two shades are different but very similar. Compare two adjacent ones and the difference is hardly noticable, but that difference gets larger as you compare shades from greater distances apart. Think in terms of people. Pull any ten people off the street and you get variations, but not the variation you get when you compare a human with a chimp or a gorilla because the humans are all huddled very close to the same spot on the color line while the chimp is further away. I think you may be thinking of a species as ONE shade on the line. It isn't. A species is several shades in very close proximity. This is exactly what happens in evolution and exactly what shows up in the fossil record.
quote: All characteristics are intermediate. Here is an experiment. If you run Windows, open MsPaint. On the top toolbar click 'colors' then choose 'edit colors.' Now click 'define custom colors' I want you to show me the hard breaks between those colors. Play with the variables. Change the 'hue' value from 120 to 121. Can you tell the difference? But is there a difference nonetheless? Change it to 122. 123. 124. Play with the red, blue and green values as well. Where is that hard break? Any color you pick is an intermediate.
quote: Wrong. I hope what I have said above has helped. You seem to be thinking of a species as one color. It is a range of colors. Species are an average, not a THING. The animals within a species are not all clones of each other.
quote: PE is the same thing but faster. Look at the MsPaint window. Notice that some of the transitions are more rapid than others? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: So..... you mean to contribute, then? You haven't actually done so yet. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024