|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
This is bad logic. Yes common ancestry requires a nested hierarchy, and yes we seem to have an ontological model that looks very similar to a nested hierarchy. It is more than very similar. It is a nested hierarchy.
However, you need more than that to prove common ancestry - if this weren't the case then scientists would have no reason to go "hoopla!" every time they find a so-called transitional fossil. They are desperate for something to support this massive assumption. And that is exactly what ERV's and shared pseudogenes demonstrate: common ancestry. You continue to ignore this evidence in favor of made up fantasies.
Complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is based upon the opinions of Charles Darwin (and others). Island endemism, biogeography, the nested hierarchy, new variations produced by artificial selection, fossil sorting in the geologic record, and many more facts were used by Darwin to support his theory. It is much more than opinion, and you know it. Not only that, I have shown time after time how the theory of evolution makes specific and testable predictions, and those predictions bear out in experiments. With all of this how can you claim that it is just opinion?
I'll reference AiG's list of creationists agian - if you scroll down you will see that many of the scientists who made significant advances in modern science were creationists. How many of them made advances in modern science using baraminology in their research? And how many are named Steve or derivations thereof (I will explain this later)?
If you'd like to discuss this I am happy to. Let's take them one at a time. You pick. I asked first. Using the letters next to the fossils please tell us which species belong to which baramin, and please list the objective criteria that you used to determine this.
For the continued advancement of science. If/when the day comes that common ancestry is discarded as a viable theory it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted. As I have already shown, the common ancestry model combined with evolutionary mechanisms is extremely useful and has born fruit. Creationists have been working on baraminology for 50 years and it has born exactly zero fruit. It would seem that the creationists are the ones wasting their time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4443 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Bob,
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation? From my knowledge, the scientific advances we have today are the product of methodological naturalism, not divine revelation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naturalism didn't lead to those advances. An increasing population size and the freedom to pursue science relatively unrestricted of political bonds did. I'll reference AiG's list of creationists agian - if you scroll down you will see that many of the scientists who made significant advances in modern science were creationists. Science didn't advance because of naturalism - it advanced in spite of it. So you cannot name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation. Can you show a single piece of evidence that a single scientist from your list used Creationism in a single significant (or even insignificant) advancement of science? BobTHJ writes: For the continued advancement of science. If/when the day comes that common ancestry is discarded as a viable theory it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted. So you are saying that this is how science works? All the scientists decide to throw out the current theory they use to explain all their observations and then start looking for something new that explains them better?
it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted. Are you serious? You are screwing with us right? Edited by AdminModulous, : various portions hidden that are either too general or did not advance the discussion meaningfully. press peek to see the hidden content What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: The argument was based on logic. Scientists who view organs as vestigial or view DNA as junk had no reason to search for another explanation. Thankfully, some did anyway.
quote: As I understand the evolutionary definition of the term a vestigial organ is one that has lost some or most of its original function. My point was however that vestigial organs were not found in the quantities predicted by Darwin - nor (in my opinion) the quantities required to support his common ancestry hypothesis. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic material hidden, press peek to view the hidden material.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Not at all....and this fits with the example I gave. During the events leading up to WWII in Germany nazism LOOKED appealing to many. That didn't make it any less wrong. quote: No, of course evolution LOOKS true (at least in the big picture sense). There is a good reason for this.
quote: Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God. It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true. Appearances can be deceiving. My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception. As for omphalism, it doesn't make logical sense from my perspective. It implies that God created to look like darwinism - but (see my last paragraph) darwinism is an invention to explain what God created without his incorporation. That's circular reasoning.
quote: You're apparently not very familiar with the current creationist hypothesis then. I'll discuss it with you in another thread at another time if you'd like.
quote: Which is why I added a disclaimer to my statement.
quote: You haven't shown that there is any 'fact' to the matter. But even if there is I'm not sure how it is relevant to the topic of this thread.
quote: To recap - I demonstrated that assumptions were made. If the statements in your rebuttal are correct then it's possible they were reasonable assumptions. To get back where this started, if the assumptions are reasonable then Dr. Wile should have mentioned so in his post (even if he didn't believe the fossils to show feathered dinosaurs).
quote: I didn't consider it a bare link - it was supporting evidence for the position I was defending. It appears you and others adhere to a different unwritten standard for links. If this is the case perhaps the published forum rules should be changed to match this standard.
quote: I'm guessing you typed that without thinking. How exactly did evolutionists determine two organisms were closely related when constructing the phylogenetic tree? Oh yeah, morphological similarity. Yes, the convergence thread did show me that some cases of convergence (organisms in different parts of the tree that share a similar feature) don't have genetic similarity - but of course organisms that are close on the tree and share many features and genes - or are you disagreeing with the sacred scientific consensus?
quote: Agree. Dr. Borger's indicator gene method seems promising.
quote: You misread me. I believe the Bible to be inerrant. But I'm not here to argue the inerracy of the Bible.
quote: Yes - I believe the Bible is accurate. Yes, I agree with AiG - sorry if I wasn't more clear. The scientific evidence I've seen thus far has confirmed my religious belief to be accurate. I admit I've seen a few trouble spots in YEC specifically which I intend to research further (I mentioned them in a different post) - but my religious beliefs may allow for other models as well should YEC not hold up (on this point I'm not in complete agreement with AiG).
quote: Yes, I have answered it - you just assumed I was saying something different. I'll explain it again for your sake - darwinism can be separated from abiogenesis only via the use of an intelligent design argument. Unless you'd like to propose another naturalistic theory that doesn't involve some sort of designer? I made this point to show that atheistic darwinists (a subset of darwinists for those in the "gotcha!" camp) box themselves into abiogenesis because they are unwilling to admit that life is designed.
quote: Yes, the things you mention have naturalistic explanations. No that doesn't mean that science suddenly "got better" when it ruled out the supernatural as a possible explanation. You are arguing a different point than the one I stated.
quote: Agree. Objective measures must be found if baraminology is to advance as a science.
quote: I'm not sure where you got the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid scientific hypothesis - the concept isn't even falsifiable itself and is thus contradictory. I've posted on this previously. Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic parts or potential thread diversions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: That's a gross misrepresentation of my statement. Each baranome would decay independently based primarily on the selection caused by environmental factors. Thus the least used part of the baranome would be most likely to disappear first. Consider plants that can be seen to once have the capability for both C3 and C4 photosynthesis, but have long one or the other due to climate related factors. This also explains the VNO - as stated previously both apes and humans were likely created with similar baranomes. For them to both lose the same non-essential piece of the genome is not altogether unlikely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Taq said so, therefore it must be true! Since ERVs have been known to turn into retroviruses and retroviruses have been known to turn into ERVs your claims are baseless. You have no clue which came first - and neither do I. Your hypothesis says retroviruses came first, mine says ERVs. Until there is some evidence to demonstrate one or the other than your claim that retroviruses "obviously" came first is nothing more than opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: So far you haven't demonstrated a single piece of evidence that I'd have to "throw out" to believe YEC. The closest you've come is in demonstrating the problem with accelerated decay - which I'll have to do considerable more research on before agreeing that it is conflicting evidence for YEC.
quote: This is all bluster. Show me an inconsistency with the evidence. Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic parts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 1) Evidence of new genes creating significant new function not previously found either active or dormant within the genome. 2) Evidence that mobile genetic elements (VIGEs) are and always have been "selfish" and random. There is likely more - those were just the first two things I could think of.
quote: Borger didn't determine anything. He is postulating. This is a hypothesis. You examine the data and the propose a model that fits that data. Then you make predictions based on the model and test those predictions to see if they hold up. I assumed you were familiar with this process.
quote: Hall, B.G., Transposable elements as activators of cryptic genes in E. coli, Genetica 107:181—187, 1999. I quoted from it earlier.
quote: None available. Note that this is still a discussion of the baranome HYPOTHESIS. I'm demonstrating that the hypothesis is internally consistent - which a good hypothesis should be.
quote: Please explain how there is positive selective pressure for an unexpressed gene?
quote: No, the problem here is that you are failing to understand that I am explaining a hypothesis. It is supposed to be postulation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I was (of course) referring to the abiogenesis in the sense it is known scientifically: that of the spontaneous self-generation of life from inorganic material without the assistance or oversight of an intelligent being. Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic sections
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
1) Evidence of new genes creating significant new function not previously found either active or dormant within the genome.
A bit of a catch-22, isn't it? If a new gene does evolve through mutation you will claim that it was a dormant gene. You have already claimed such for EBG (evolved beta-galactosidase gene) in the Hall study.
2) Evidence that mobile genetic elements (VIGEs) are and always have been "selfish" and random. Retroviruses and transposons do have preferences for certain kinds of sites in the genome, but these sites are very plentiful, made up of many bases, and the preference for these sites is not 100%. Therefore, these preferences do not interfere with the phylogenetic signal. Also, what is stopping evolution from making a solo LTR into a functional gene in the genome?
Borger didn't determine anything. He is postulating. This is a hypothesis. So what experiments can you do to test these hypotheses? What experiments can you do to determine when these sequences started accumulating mutations? What experiments can you do to determine their original function and intent?
Please explain how there is positive selective pressure for an unexpressed gene? The selective pressure was on the previously functional gene which is restored through mutation. You should read up on the SOS mechanism in E. coli. When the bacteria sense DNA damage (usually caused by starvation) the bacteria turn on genes that code for recombinases and error-prone polymerases. This results in a huge upswing in gene duplication and mutations. This is how these genes are kept around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Where did geophysics come from? Astrophysics? I claim they came from the designer. Your argument makes no sense. Edited by AdminModulous, : Hid sections that didn't advance the discussion towards understanding Biological classifications vs 'Kinds'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Great observation! Why do I get the impression that you believe you caught me on some inconsistency?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Where did geophysics come from? Astrophysics? I claim they came from the designer. And yet these sciences work just fine without reference to a designer. Even worse, you have no evidence for this designer. Once again all we are left with is your empty assertions. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic section hidden (or at least, its wandered so far it threatens to create drift)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: As I said before - there are multiple semi-coherent explanations of the data.
quote: Repeating your dogma doesn't make it true.
quote: Darwin really was brilliant. His observations lot of conclusions that have since been shown to be accurate. Unfortunately, not all his conclusions were accurate. Instead of throwing out the bad and hanging on to the good mainstream science has 'adjusted' Darwin's theories to fit the data - nothing wrong with this, it's a scientific process (refine the hypotheses) but at some point you have to admit that you're stretching things a bit too far. Edited by AdminModulous, : non advancing parts hidden - more tangents that need to be trimmed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: It is exactly what ERVs and shared pseudogenes demonstrate IF common ancestry is true. If however the baramin hypothesis is true ERVs and shared pseodogenes demonstrate something altogether different (similar creatures sharing similar design). There is more than one way if interpreting the evidence. My way IS logically consistent.
quote: A hypothesis is opinion. You examine the evidence and form an opinion about what that means. You then test it as you describe. The results of your tests then allow you to revise and improve your hypothesis - but it starts with an opinion (in this case Darwin's).
quote: I do not know the answer to either of these questions. Baraminology (as we've discussed) is not a well-developed science yet - so the answer to your first question may be none. You are certainly welcome to do the research to answer your second question, you haven't given me any reason to take the time out of my day and do it.
quote: I don't wish to participate in this game. If you'd like to discuss so-called transitional fossils on a case by case basis then name one and we'll get started.
quote: I don't recall you showing anything of the sort. The SIFTER research was the closest - but that was based on an ontological model and had nothing to do with common ancestry.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024