Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   J.C.Sanford: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 55 (393887)
04-08-2007 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chiroptera
04-07-2007 3:49 PM


It may be (rethorical) I really do want to and will buy the book so as to read for myself. "Cow" may simply indicate the direction up Tower Road away from where he works and away from the mass of Cornell.
It may however be that Sanford had become frustrated for the same form I am. There is no doubt that biologists at Cornell did assume NS+selection or evolution even if they did not use evolutionary answers in their published papers. One can show that electric fish swim along electro-magnetic field lines arcs rather than straight ones without discussing how the trait may have come about in supposed geological time, just as it is rare that biologists from Mudd Hall rarely frequent my current stomping ground that is occasioned often by engineers but not geologists even though I can see that building. This "faith", which it is not, of course, came out for me when Amy McCune asked the best population genetically minded profs and grad students what a "gene" was. They could not answer. It was just the thingy they used in calculations. So the question I guess as you notice it is, is the two words "primary axiom" taken by the author as predetermined conclusion or an actually refletive undetermined sign for something in "biology and langauge"?
It does look like from the paragraphs I have read that Sanford is using some "tricks" however there is a kind of frustration I mentioned in the paragraph above. I think that tension results from something (it may be peculiar to US biology, I do not know) Wittgenstein pointed out Bertrand Russell. L.W. said, that one can not "state" a senetence but only "show" it. It is possible that Sanford quite honestly uses the words primary axiom to 'show' something he can not state. One may say this even if one did not know if it was true whether or not Sanford actually could or could not absolutely do so.
This kind of reading logic and biology is kinda my own, but I can usually judge an author not based on the statements they make but on what else the text "shows" to me, This is not a very objective perspective but it usually works. Much of the initial ID papers were not "showing" me anything I had not already been able to "get out" of texts and Biblically showed me less than I was already getting out of YEC creationism so I could determine those texts had not really advanced much. I do not know what all of Sanfords words would do for me.
I can say in general that somewhere Gould commented that Mayr had thought Woodger's attempt to infuse the Boole-Frege movement into biology was OK but then got cold feet because he felt that logical postivism would oust his organacist preference. There is defintely more need for Woodger's use of Russell and Whitehead where being a member of the panbiogeographic guild is going to change the research programme of biologists generally but this does not come all the way to what can defintely be shown technically from what can be stated syllogistically as of yet.
It comes down to various abilities or prohibitions towards hierarchical statements that have forms among logical types of Russell, hierarchy of languages of Chomsky, levels of selection of Gould, visual depictions of morphological sequences etc and as to if the showing of them is being prevented or omitted where the statements may not be syllogistically complet(ed) but can be presented, whether hidden by rhetoric or simply a trick played by isolated senses used to access the data.
So far I am little inclined to read Sanford's work in this book nook thread as a bit Johnoson like, like using the debate to clear his own mind rather than clarifying confusions in others, but I have my own goat to milk and it is not a venomous snake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2007 3:49 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 55 (393897)
04-08-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by CTD
04-08-2007 4:33 AM


So if I say that man is not merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection, you & the rest would not disagree? Fine. Consider it said.
We would then try to explain to you that the statement is silly, sophomoric and incomplete, that the mutational processes are complex as is the filtering of Natural Selection, and that the whole system is a continuing processes. We would try to point out to you that man is not an end point and that modern man is nothing more than one snapshot of one member of a large family of evolving lifeforms.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by CTD, posted 04-08-2007 4:33 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by CTD, posted 05-20-2007 8:25 PM jar has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 33 of 55 (393918)
04-08-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by CTD
04-08-2007 4:51 AM


Re: a little deeper into the puddle
I am trying to figure out if x is a symbol such that x=”primary axiom” subsists.
Russell said, “Suppose you take such a proposition as :’There is at least one thing in the world’. That is a proposition that you can express in logical terms. It will mean, if you like, that the propositional function ”x=x’ is a possible one. That is a proposition that you can express in logical terms; but you cannot know from logic whether it is true or false. So far as you do know it, you know it empirically, because there might happen not to be a universem and then it would not be true. It is merely an accident, so to speak, that there is a universe.”(page 240) It is my suspicion and not more than said accident, that, when people like Sanford are writing books like he did, they are trying to express something like x=x^3 but today I am commenting only on the difference of the words; “proposition”, “propositional function”, “class”, “form”, and “variable”+-collection. If one attempts to extend Russell’s use of the terms “traditional doctrine of the syllogism” to Kant’s notion of the three branches of government being like a syllogism then one is close to what the form reifies into no matter the creationist bent. That is all I can chronicle at the present moment.
Russell also wrote:
quote:
It is of propositional functions that you can assert or deny existence. You must not run away with the idea that this entails consequences that it does not entail. If I say ” The things that there are in the world exist’, that is a perfectly correct statement, because I am there saying something about a certain class of things; I say it in the same sense in which I say ”Men exist’. But I must not go on to ”This is a thing in the world, and therefore this exists’. It is there the fallacy comes in, and it is simply, as you see, a fallacy of transferring to the individual that satisfies a propositional function a predicate which only applies to a propositional function. You can see this in various ways. For instance, you sometimes know the truth of an existence-proposition without knowing any instance of it. You know that there are people in Timbuctoo, but I doubt if any of you could give me an instance of one. Therefore you clearly can know existence-propositions without knowing any individual that makes them true. Existence-propositions do not say anything about the actual individual but only about the class or function.
It is exceedingly difficult to make this point clear as long as one adheres to ordinary language, because ordinary language is rooted in a certain feeling about logic, a certain feeling that our primeval ancestors had, and as long as you keep to ordinary language you find it very difficult to get away fro the bias which is imposed upon you by language. When I say, e.g., ”There is an x such that x is a man’, that is not the sort of phrase one would like to use. There is an x is meaningless. What is ”an x’ anyhow? There is no such thing. The only way you can really state it correctly is by inventing a new language ad hoc, and making the statement apply straight off to ”x is a man’, as when one says ”(x is a man) is possible’, or to invent a special symbol for the statement that ”x is a man’ is sometimes true.
(page 233-4) I have done this for the word “track” but from what I have read so far, Sanford did not do this for his words “primary axiom”.
The issue came from Russell when he said, “as a matter of fact, the idea of form is more fundamental than the idea of class” and I am still only provisionally agreeing that what goes around comes around while I asserted that molecular facts exists. The web page does.
http://axiompanbiog.com/panbioglnks.aspx
It is possible only general ones do, but given the amount of emphasis on hierarchies in post modern times it seems impossible to be able to separate them (so far for me) on paper unless these also exist. Howfar tracks can be replaced by symbols other than lines I have not investigated. That may not be necessary however if more attention was paid to the problem however.
quote:
There is, however, just this to observe, viz., that the form of a proposition is never a constituent of that proposition itself. If you assert that ”Socrates loves Plato’, the form of that proposition is the form of a dual relation, but this is not a constituent of the proposition. If it were you would have to have that constituent related to the other constituents. You will make the form much too substantial if you think of it as really one of the things that have that form, so that the form of a proposition is certainly not a constituent of the proposition itself. Nevertheless it may possibly be a constituent of general statements about propositions that have that form, so I think it is possible that logical propositions might be interpreted as being about forms.
This explains why we can go further on the web than the CIA keeps kidding in the walls of academia.
All quotes from B. Russell’s “Logic and Knowledge” Capricorn Books 1971
Edited by Brad McFall, : name

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by CTD, posted 04-08-2007 4:51 AM CTD has not replied

  
kartasik
Junior Member (Idle past 6158 days)
Posts: 2
From: Boulder CO USA
Joined: 05-18-2007


Message 34 of 55 (401056)
05-18-2007 2:58 AM


Dr. Sanford's book was easy reading
I enjoyed Dr. Sanford's little book up until he suddenly flopped into Biblism. Up until that point he dealt with facts and demanded evidence. Suddenly when he reached the topic of the book by Yahweh the War God (Exodus 15:3) he ceased to demand evidence or provide evidence. It was really a blot - as I was hoping to hand this book to some folks I thought should read it. Just because the Primary Axiom may fail is no reason to suddenly jump into another farfetched scheme. Even were I still a Christian I would rather he had left that part out and allow his earlier scientific arguments to make the religious case for him - as anyone who knows the Bible could make their own connections. Had he not added his faith stuff in, the book could easily have been used in a classroom in State schools. But by making his pathetic Christian appeal he made sure that will not happen.
First understand that I was an atheist with a background in geology who was converted to Christ in 1978, but only because of my studies in geology - not because of a marriage problem. I was later trained and became a preacher and was a Christian for 27.5 years. I had created what I call my vast plexus of excuses to explain away all the Bible's myriad problems in my head and preaching (and I knew more such troubles than most Christians or even atheists). But then in Sept. 2005 I studied a section of O.T. scriptures (in the Law) that I often read - mechanically - but had not really paid attention to since they are little observed by today's churches. It was part of a medical issue study. Suddenly I realized that I had run up on a flaw in the Bible at its very foundation that was going to checkmate my efforts to explain it away. It was and still is something never brought up by Bible hating atheists! The Flaw can't be defended because it relates to simple medical science. In one day my faith was shattered and the rest of my vast plexus fell in too. I mentioned it to two other Christians and in about 2 hours their long faith was reduced to tears and sorrow (one of those people was on meds by the next year). It was so powerful because it rips the heart out of the foundation that Christ used to hang the law and prophets upon (that should tell you what book it is in).
Well anyway I resolved not to mention it to other Christians. Why destroy lives and homes? Since I was not under the Bible injunction to teach the world any longer why should I bother with trying to un-teach Christians? I am still not an atheist, but even an atheist really has no reason join in silly anti-Bible crusades (unless they are politically motivated - like a Communist).
But this changed when I read that silly, poorly written Christian polemics that Sanford decided to stuff into his book just so churches would plunk down money for his pocket. It had no business in there. So, I sent the guy my dreaded verses - the Christian meltdown verses. Since he is a scientist I am fairly certain he won't easily dodge that bullet. I mean many Christians may - since they don't read or really believe the Bible anyway. But those who are serious and logical will not easily dodge this bullet. I kind of felt ashamed I sent it to him...because let's face it, it trashed my life, place in my family, and much more. I suppose I was just pissed that he used such poorly worded arguments to support the Bible at the end of his book. Even a young Sunday School teacher could have done better there. And it just ruined the book.
Edited by kartasik, : No reason given.
Edited by kartasik, : No reason given.
Edited by kartasik, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2007 7:54 AM kartasik has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 55 (401065)
05-18-2007 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by kartasik
05-18-2007 2:58 AM


Re: Dr. Sanford's book was easy reading
Could it be that the rest of the arguments weren't a lot better - they were just in an area you know less about ?
Check this review
Part 1
Part 2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by kartasik, posted 05-18-2007 2:58 AM kartasik has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by kartasik, posted 05-18-2007 6:44 PM PaulK has replied

  
kartasik
Junior Member (Idle past 6158 days)
Posts: 2
From: Boulder CO USA
Joined: 05-18-2007


Message 36 of 55 (401237)
05-18-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
05-18-2007 7:54 AM


Re: Dr. Sanford's book was easy reading
First lol - and greetings,
I was amazed by your smugness and that of the article. For the writer to have read a whole 30 pages! And from that to have found faults in Sanford’s book when he answered many of those faults in later chapters was very humorous. ”Could it be that Sanford twisted everything’ just because he is a Bible thumper? - or so suggested the great Averendo. But he did not even begin to answer Sanford and I doubt many institutions of learning will use this Blog for their answer to Sanford. Though I have noted that many silly net musings on various forums have. I have seen Dawkins use many of the same types of arguments to make the case for evolution as Sanford used to make against it. As for men having preconceived notions - such as your own self - or certainly Averendo, who felt so worked up he had to fire off attacks on a book he had barely started, (and in his reading he certainly was not open minded but was looking for any tiny flaw to pounce upon). Averendo tried to insinuate that Sanford’s right to a religious belief has forever compromised his scientific abilities, when in fact it is obvious that Averendo has his own preconceived religion - of a type - that forever bars him from truly judgingSanford fairly.
The truth is - once I tossed out the Bible I was completely open to evolution - and in fact I was even open to it as a preacher - since one can twist the Bible to fit a symbolical shroud to fit over modern science. Since I personally HAD used the Book of Enoch in my own Bible, using manuscript A - I understood the earth and universe to be a minimum of 10,000,000 years old, with a likely upper limit equal to what geology and astronomy calculates. And even now I was hoping or have been hoping, that a real scientific rebuttal of Sanford would be already on the net - and in fact it was the search for this that brought me here by mere chance.
Having finished Sanford’s book I found Averendo’s pathetic attacks - some filled with personal innuendos - greatly lacking any merit. I still look forward to a SERIOUS rebuttal of Sanford, and not just one build around half facts, dates, and attacks on the merits of religion in general. I found Averendo’s page to be a cartoon. Certainly in my own field of geology such a rebuttal would have been considered a joke.
No doubt you read my sentence: “Just because the Primary Axiom may fail is no reason to suddenly jump into another farfetched scheme.” And you assumed that I completely sided with his thesis. Actually I was speaking as what should have been HIS (Sanford's) point of view and my main point concerned his silly sally into Bibledom. I found many things in Sanford’s work lacking - and have questions I intend to have answered SERIOUSLY. For example his whole thesis for humans revolved around monogamous mating - something that was rather recently introduced by civilization into the world of man, first by the Greeks/Romans (though in name only), then by the ancient German tribes (again name only), and then by the Church (again in name only). The truth is many men, if not most, through out mankind’s long history really were not monogamous - while women generally were forced into polygamy.
Secondly Sanford no where even mentions what civilization is doing to human selection - sadly most scientists always fail to realize the full impact of civilization (as for example believing that humans are incredibly smart, when in fact it is the force-multiplier of civilization that leads to this illusion). Thus, Sanford totally fails to include what the chemical pollution and body burden of toxic substances has on the speed of the break down of modern human DNA. Nor does he go into the full impact of the data noise civilization is creating in human selection. (By the way all this also impacts the animal kingdom as well as the microscopic world.)
If one reads the first half of his book one could almost come away believing in the evolution of bacteria and especially virus’. He nowhere deals with the DNA alteration humans pick up from virus’.
In any event I do hope science does finally quit shying away from the credible assault Sanford made, especially since it is mainly a series of quotes from dyed in the wool evolutionists - some quite recent by the way. I hope they don’t do what men like Dawkins loves to do - just fall into personality attacks and mud slinging. I do tire of science’s paranoia of the stupid Bible!! Certainly geology suffered massively because of this silly paranoia - resisting things like plate tectonics or asteroid created astroblems - simply because they were afraid of the terms ”large change’ or ”catastrophe’, and that because they feared the silly Bible. Always looking in fear behind one is NO WAY TO DRIVE A CAR, or guide science forward. Forget the silly Christians and such like and pursue TRUTH. I advised Dawkins to stop wasting his time trying to argue Christian polemics like a half-educated theologian, and to deal the Bible a deathblow to the jugular by simply using science - as in archaeology - which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is false. Just kill it and move on. But he persists in his silly anti-religious tirades, which in my opinion actually gives religions strength and ammunition to argue with.
So personally I care less if evolution is as science says it is, or is not as Sanford says, or MORE LIKELY is something that neither side has yet discovered. Truth to tell I believe it possible that atomic physics will likely come through to biologist’s rescue - as my daughter works with a professor at CU that has discovered something in plants that totally defies the laws of thermodynamics and has caused a small stir with physicists she knows. Sanford was right about this - nothing in science truly has AXIOMS or should. Everything should be questioned and continually. Had I not be of that mind I would still be a Christian.
Based on the total lack of material or mechanical causation for how tree cells arrange themselves and alter their character - I personally believe there will be discovered a universal substrate - no doubt built of other dimensions that will show that what we call intelligence is really just another force waiting to be discovered. We admit that our particles could be energy in another universe. Perhaps our entropy - information destruction - is an upward evolution in another universe as well, while the entropy in the other universe is upward evolution - ”information creation’ - in ours. Such a condition could appear in waves or in periodic surges. I am still hoping to learn more about what my daughter’s biology professor discovered.
Edited by kartasik, : No reason given.
Edited by kartasik, : No reason given.
Edited by kartasik, : clearing up a point

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2007 7:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 05-19-2007 8:28 AM kartasik has not replied
 Message 38 by sfs, posted 05-19-2007 9:23 AM kartasik has not replied
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2007 7:45 AM kartasik has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 55 (401339)
05-19-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by kartasik
05-18-2007 6:44 PM


Re: Dr. Sanford's book was easy reading
quote:
No doubt you read my sentence: “Just because the Primary Axiom may fail is no reason to suddenly jump into another farfetched scheme.” And you assumed that I completely sided with his thesis.
I guess then that you should doubt your conclusions more often since you are wrong. I am sorry to have mistaken you for someone who would actually be interested in serious criticisms of Sanford's scientiifc claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kartasik, posted 05-18-2007 6:44 PM kartasik has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 38 of 55 (401346)
05-19-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by kartasik
05-18-2007 6:44 PM


Re: Dr. Sanford's book was easy reading
quote:
In any event I do hope science does finally quit shying away from the credible assault Sanford made, especially since it is mainly a series of quotes from dyed in the wool evolutionists - some quite recent by the way.
No argument that consists mainly of quotations from previous work is likely to be taken seriously by scientists. That's not how you do science.
quote:
Thus, Sanford totally fails to include what the chemical pollution and body burden of toxic substances has on the speed of the break down of modern human DNA.
He probably fails to include the effect of chemical pollution on modern human DNA because the effect is small. Scientists do study such things, you know. Chemicals cause only a small fraction of all mutations, and mutation rates seem to have changed little in recent years. Probably the biggest effect has been from the increasing age of human reproduction, which increases mutation rates substantially.
If there's actually something of substance in this book, could someone describe it? I haven't seen anything in this thread to suggest that it would be of interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kartasik, posted 05-18-2007 6:44 PM kartasik has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 55 (401476)
05-20-2007 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by CTD
04-08-2007 4:33 AM


So if I say that man is not merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection, you & the rest would not disagree?
No, of course not, which is why I said no such thing. You made that up.
What I did say is that what the liar calls the "Primary Axiom" of evolution is not an axiom, and by virtue of his training the liar must be aware of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by CTD, posted 04-08-2007 4:33 AM CTD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 55 (401487)
05-20-2007 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by kartasik
05-18-2007 6:44 PM


Re: Dr. Sanford's book was easy reading
And from that to have found faults in Sanford’s book when he answered many of those faults in later chapters was very humorous.
For example? Which faults did he answer, and how?
”Could it be that Sanford twisted everything’ just because he is a Bible thumper? - or so suggested the great Averendo.
No he didn't. You made that up.
But he did not even begin to answer Sanford ...
You mean, apart from saying why he was wrong?
... and I doubt many institutions of learning will use this Blog for their answer to Sanford.
I doubt any institutions of learning will bother answering one more creationist making the same mistakes again. Why bother?
I have seen Dawkins use many of the same types of arguments to make the case for evolution as Sanford used to make against it.
Really. Quotations?
Averendo tried to insinuate that Sanford’s right to a religious belief has forever compromised his scientific abilities...
No he didn't you made that up.
... when in fact it is obvious that Averendo has his own preconceived religion - of a type - that forever bars him from truly judging Sanford fairly.
You owe me for a new irony meter.
First you pretend that Averendo has attacked Sandford on the basis of his religion, which he never does. Then you invent an imaginary religion for Averendo and attack him for it.
That's got as much class as a pimp dead-drunk in a gutter.
Having finished Sanford’s book I found Averendo’s pathetic attacks - some filled with personal innuendos ...
This is not true. You made that up.
In any event I do hope science does finally quit shying away from the credible assault Sanford made ...
He made a credible assault? Really? Please quote one of his credible arguments.
As for "shying away from it", there seems to be nothing new in is book, and scientists have published data showing that his arguments are wrong before he even adopted them.
... especially since it is mainly a series of quotes from dyed in the wool evolutionists - some quite recent by the way.
Oooh, quote-mining, that's original. Of course, none of these "dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists" intended their words to be read out of context as meaning that evolution was impossible.
I hope they don’t do what men like Dawkins loves to do - just fall into personality attacks and mud slinging.
He "loves to do" that? Really? Do you have quotations to back this claim up?
I do tire of science’s paranoia of the stupid Bible!! Certainly geology suffered massively because of this silly paranoia - resisting things like plate tectonics or asteroid created astroblems - simply because they were afraid of the terms ”large change’ or ”catastrophe’, and that because they feared the silly Bible.
This is not true. You made this up.
Based on the total lack of material or mechanical causation for how tree cells arrange themselves and alter their character -
Er ... this "total lack of material or mechanical causation" --- is that somehting you have evidence for, or something you just made up in your head?
I personally believe there will be discovered a universal substrate - no doubt built of other dimensions that will show that what we call intelligence is really just another force waiting to be discovered. We admit that our particles could be energy in another universe. Perhaps our entropy - information destruction - is an upward evolution in another universe as well, while the entropy in the other universe is upward evolution - ”information creation’ - in ours. Such a condition could appear in waves or in periodic surges.
"Today a young man realized that all matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kartasik, posted 05-18-2007 6:44 PM kartasik has not replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 41 of 55 (401586)
05-20-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
04-08-2007 10:00 AM


Jar wrote:
We would then try to explain to you that the statement is silly, sophomoric and incomplete, that the mutational processes are complex as is the filtering of Natural Selection, and that the whole system is a continuing processes. We would try to point out to you that man is not an end point and that modern man is nothing more than one snapshot of one member of a large family of evolving lifeforms.
I'll tell you what's sophomoric: trying to pretend this is anything other than disagreement. I'm not fooled, how 'bout the rest? Anyone fooled by this stinking, rotten garbage? Does anyone believe for one instant that Jar does not disagree with my statement?
Come on! One of you known, habitual liars please claim that you are. Isn't that exactly what you're here for? I'm talking about you cats that anything you say on any topic, I don't even have to bother looking it up to know it's false. One of you slimes make Jar feel better and say you're deceived.
I could pity those here who are fighting for a lost cause, but only if they were honestly deceived and searching for truth. Maybe God knows how to pity you jokers, but I don't think I can manage.
Honestly, any child who gives a few minutes of thought to the issue can see that entropy's going to outpace natural selection. Dr. Sanford's done the math now, using evolutionist's own formulas - and that which is obvious has now been proven scientifically. How you choose to deal with it is up to you. Men of character don't deal with such things by changing the subject or spouting lies.
I don't know what kartasik is carrying on about. I saw nothing wrong with Sanford's book in relation to scripture. If it offends people to know what direction the scientific evidence points, let them be offended. Just because some people don't want to deal with the truth is no reason to omit something. And if everything that even hinted at the bible or religion were removed, the odds of that book becoming a textbook in any public school or college are about as good as... well, I know you folks and probabilities. Any odds can be overcome just by wishing hard enough, right?
I think I'll go now. Maybe check those links. Judging by Dr. A's denials, it's a safe bet what they said. "You just made that up" is not what most folks use as a synonym for "That's the fact, Jack!" or "Amen brother, tell it like it is!" But we're all individuals. I try to adjust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 04-08-2007 10:00 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by CTD, posted 05-20-2007 9:07 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 45 by Brad McFall, posted 05-20-2007 11:05 PM CTD has replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-21-2007 5:02 PM CTD has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 55 (401590)
05-20-2007 8:35 PM


From the Wikipedia article:
quote:
Formerly an atheist, in the mid-1980s Sanford and his present wife Helen went through a marital crisis, which led him to become a born again Christian and a young earth creationist.
Funny how those two things seem to go together.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 43 of 55 (401595)
05-20-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by CTD
05-20-2007 8:25 PM


Read the links. Pack of lies, more blatant than expected.
Dr. Sanford's argument is not that there are no beneficial mutations. He mentions this, but for all models he uses evolutionists' own estimates - and he shades toward what they'd call "optimistic" at that. It seems his generosity only to be spurned by the evolutionary community. They're not grateful at all.
The arguments are mischaracterized further, and the author seems content to resort to the familiar "straw man" theme.
I shall not waste any more time here discussing it. I'm sure this joker will be applauded, and if he's judged to be a big enough liar they'll even make his speil permanent over at talkdeceptions. What else have they got?
No scientist will publicly repeat this nonsense if he cares at all about his reputation.
But let me guess.. "he didn't say that at all".
Well, he did.
Ricardo Azevedo (from the link):
At the end of the previous installment I began examining Sanford's arguments as to why "random mutations are never good".
Are his own words sufficient evidence that he did indeed say that? We'll see. I most certainly did not, would not, and could not make that up in my own head. My mind doesn't work that way. Even if I were setting out to deceive someone, I'd try to do a quality job of it. This bozo, he's just hoping nobody's read the book. I'm not even going to try to pity him. It ain't my job.
I try as a matter of policy and habit never to underestimate any adversary. But I continue to underestimate people's boldness in telling blatantly obvious lies. Does everyone really want to be president that much?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by CTD, posted 05-20-2007 8:25 PM CTD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2007 11:57 AM CTD has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 55 (401598)
05-20-2007 9:27 PM


This is strange.
I also can't find anything on the publisher, Ivan Press. A vanity press, perhaps?
Added by edit:
I just found something: a post at Internet Infidels by someone who noticed the same thing.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 45 of 55 (401617)
05-20-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by CTD
05-20-2007 8:25 PM


given a few minutes one can stop in an instant.
Well,
quote:
a few minutes of thought to the issue can see that entropy's going to outpace natural selection.
Well, this is why it somewhat matters what kind of entropy one has given to thought. If it was information entropy one might thunk some kinda feedback between NS and entropy as to extinction and this makes it hard to say which is outpacing which. I think the generalized form of this kind of coupled interaction is generally discussed in co-evolution, Lotka-Volterra equations, and as far as I could extract it, it was what Wright meant when he wrote of "supplementary space and time information" as input to population genetics.
Even if Entropy is used in Gladyshev's sense one might think some particular relation between entropy and NS such that it would be hard to make the kind of line that Fisher drew during the Synthesis when he likened rather than related fitness and the 2nd law of thermo. It would depend on how all of thermodynamics was materially a part of form-making and translation in space but as Sanford seems to have used the information type his arguement seems more psychological (which may be nontheless not less persuavie to those that have ears to hear...)than material to me. I still have not read the book so I can not say much more, just now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by CTD, posted 05-20-2007 8:25 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Omnivorous, posted 05-20-2007 11:50 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 48 by CTD, posted 05-29-2007 2:47 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024