Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,848 Year: 4,105/9,624 Month: 976/974 Week: 303/286 Day: 24/40 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reproductive Cost problem more devastating than ever
derwood
Member (Idle past 1904 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 5 of 35 (3914)
02-09-2002 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
02-08-2002 5:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
A couple weeks ago Huxter (Scott Page) posted the article "Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome" (Justin C. Fay,* Gerald J. Wyckoff* ,1 and Chung-I Wu*. Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001), claiming it refuted 'Haldane's Dilemma'. This claim is false, and I have addressed why here:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm
The key point here is that Huxter's citation actually makes the reproductive cost problem *worse* for those who insist on believing the ape/man ancestry fairytale.
Are there any evolutionists here who believe that our ape/man lineage was able to produce 60 offspring per breeding couple? If you have enought sense to recognize this is false, why do you persist in your fairytale?

Fred's stupidity is all that is presented here, and doubtless, Fred will not be back here to defend his claims, so don't waste your time.
I have emailed the authors of the papers - the ones Fred accuses of 'misleading' readers and such - and am waiting to hear back from them before I present my refutation of Williams' ignorance-based verbal vomit.
HINT:
I don't think Williams has ever even seen Haldane's paper, much less understands Haldane's model. He certainly fails to grasp simple concepts and, as always, as the undereducated creationist is wont to do - simply casts aspersions and constructs illusory facades to prop up his imaginary evolution-disproving 'intellect.'
He is a pathetic propagandist, and his unethical tactics should be an embarrassmnent to all real Christians that hold virtue and integrity in esteem.
Scott L. Page, PhD.
[This message has been edited by SLP, 02-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 02-08-2002 5:16 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:41 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1904 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 35 (42422)
06-09-2003 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
02-08-2002 5:16 PM


needs updated response
quote:
Are there any evolutionists here who believe that our ape/man lineage was able to produce 60 offspring per breeding couple?
Ignoring for now the erroneous conclusions of Williams, in light of Williams' recent embarrassing admission regarding elementary statistics, there is yet another reason to ignore this bilge.
We shall recall that Williams has claimed that a 1 in 32 chance means that 31 trials will need to pass before hitting on "the one."
With such a basic misunderstanding of simple statistics/probability, no wonder Williams thinks that "60 offspring" are required..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 02-08-2002 5:16 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by A_Christian, posted 08-06-2003 4:36 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1904 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 32 of 35 (49970)
08-11-2003 1:56 PM


hoo boy....
Looks like somebody visited electrical engineer creationist propagandist Fred 1 in 32 chance Williams’ satirical website and didn’t get the joke That or A Christian is an old timer in new clothes
Well, I had made a decision to quit cold turkey — I really do have better things to do with my time — but I just thought I’d plop down my two cents
quote:
SLPx:
I've never seen an ape conceive anything but an ape. Some are smart
and some are dumb. Some are pretty and some are pretty ugly; however,
they are ALWAYS a CHIMP off the old block. Hey, no 2 works of art
are ever exactly alike-----are they?
Was there something in there that was the product of intelligence, or was that just some venting?
quote:
I attended public school and college. I assure you that I know what
was being taught by the teachers at that time. Maybe I know more
about evolution then you know about the Bible? Personally, I feel
that evolution has no place in lower education. It is a total waste
of effort, since you yourself and your cohorts have explained how
deficient I am (even though I achieved A's in science).
Yes, of course you got all A’s in science courses — all creationists claim to have done so. And all creationists claim that they had evolution forced down their throats from K-college. Trouble is, that always turns out to be bullshit. Amount of evolution I had forced down my throat:
One 2-week section of science in 6th grade; one one-week session in an ELECTIVE semester-long anthropology course; the courses I took as a requirement for my graduate school minor.
That’s it — and I WANTED to learn about evolution! I think this indoctrination schtick is just some creationist collective fantasy.
quote:
The simple fact is that unless one is going to study ALL the
information (and I mean ALL) and not just what one is fed in an institution of learning by some instructor (who may see things from
one perspective and likely present only personal bias as truth), the
information those individuals have absorbed is of questionable
validity. You understand even less about Creationism then I
understand about Evolution. That is to my credit and not yours, since
evolution was the ONLY option presented in most schools and
Creationism I had to search out.
I sincerely doubt, given your posts, that you know more about evolution than anyone on this board knows about creationism. That you had to seek out creationism information should tell you something. What were your sources? What was their evidence? Their explanations? How many miracles were invoked?
quote:
assertions of Creationism explained in full at most public
schools? The answer is NO!
By assertions I mean environmental, climatic and magnetic changes
that may support acceptance of the global FLOOD.
Considering the content of your posts, again, I find it nearly impossible to believe that you took college ‘science courses at all, much less got A’s in them. An assertion only counts as supportive evidence in creationism. Do you know what an assertion is? It is when someone proclaims something to be so by virtue of their proclamation only. That is what fills creationist websites, books, pamphlets. That is why it is not science.
quote:
A study of how fossils must be formed rapidly and only occur under
very limited catastrophic events. The fact that life seems to
have exploded into diversity without fossil support their evolution.
That the "simple" cell has been found to be very complex and without
a real explanation of why or how it could have developed at all.
And that scientist have been unable to either with purpose mutate one
species into anything other than a breed or even create life.
Therefore, life really began at the whim of a deity later worshipped only by the Hebrews (who claimed top be the chosen) no more than 10,000 years ago in a 6, 24-hour day period.
Like I said, I find it nearly impossible to believe that you even took college science courses
------------------
(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:
...(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against...(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ..

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 08-12-2003 6:21 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1904 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 34 of 35 (50149)
08-12-2003 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Mammuthus
08-12-2003 6:21 AM


Re: hoo boy....
Not posting for a week was a great stress-reliever. It takes up too much time for so little return. Plus, the occasional backstabbing is a bit disappointing.
But I may stop by now and then...
------------------
(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:
...(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against...(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 08-12-2003 6:21 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Mammuthus, posted 08-13-2003 6:23 AM derwood 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