|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course they shouldn't limit their dictionaries to what creationists prefer, but they SHOULD limit their dictionaries to what they actually know instead of defining things according to what the ToE requires them to infer. It may be that they actually believe it but it's still not right. They ASSUME that alleles are all created by mutations, and they ASSUME that mutations are the source of viable allelic variants, they do NOT know this, they assume it. 'cause the ToE needs it to be that way.
It's like Bible "translators" who write their own interpretations into the text. Yes, that happens in at least one modern version I know of. You love to accuse creationists of basing everything on belief but the fact of the matter is that that's what evolutionists do but they are oblivious to it. And again what I've been arguing here is about actual facts in biology. Period. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Dictionaries record the way that words are used. And anybody with any understanding of genetics would understand that that IS how the word "mutation" is used in genetics. Even creationists are happy to use that definition.
quote: I think that fact that is IS so has more to do with it....
quote: No. The fact is that these things exist and people use the word "mutation" to describe them. There is no special "true" meaning of the word "mutation" to contradict it.
quote: Obviously not. The fact that a word is used to describe something is not in any way magic. It is your objections which seem to be founded on the idea of "word magic".
quote: Well that doesn't make a lot of sense. Obviously truth and reality DO have rather a lot to do with it. The truth and reality that that is how the word is used to describe things that are known to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: So I needed to say that EACH was formed from just a few individuals? Well yes - just so's we're clear. But that wasn't the question - it was about this:
Seals in the one case, cats in the other. Really, that wasn't clear to you that I couldn't possibly have meant they both came from the same genotype? They don't have the same genotype now so at what point was it the same? They're not only completely different species but also genus, family and even sub-order; in fact they only meet under the heading of Carnivora. The ToE tells us that these two modern species have a common ancestor some millions of years ago and changed over time by mutation and natural selection. As far as I understand what you're claiming, both species (etc) came from the same genome 4500 years ago - I'm intrigued as to how and why we can't see evidence for it.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: I should have said: It would be odd if no genetic analysis found differing allele frequencies in a daughter population because that is what I'm talking about. Yes, I know you're talking about differing allele frequencies being the driving force behind speciation. If that were true then what scientists believe are descendant species should have only a subset of alleles of the parent species and no extra alleles not possessed by the parent species. But we never see this, so you're wrong.
I can't imagine what genetic analysis you'd be talking about, considering that what I'm describing is so common. What you're describing is breeding, not speciation. Take the closely related horse and donkey. Obviously they share a common ancestor since they're still similar enough to interbreed, and we know plenty about their genetics. The horse has 32 chromosomes, the donkey 31, and both have genes and alleles of genes that the other does not have. Therefore you're wrong. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: Yes, of course I'm arguing with science directly here so of course you're going to object. You're making things up, science studies reality, so you're actually arguing with reality. If I could comment about another issue, the definitions of simple terms like mutation, gene and allele have not changed, and since they already have definitions you cannot assign them new ones. You'll need to come up with some short identifying phrases for any new concepts you'd like to introduce. And if I could comment about one other issue, this thread isn't actually about your latest excursion into scientific fantasy. Frako wondered how people could so obstinately reject the simple evidence of reality. While you're providing an excellent example of the phenomenon, I don't think seeing it in action helps us understand exactly what is going on inside your head, at least not yet. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
by the reproductive isolation of a small number of individuals which naturally has less genetic diversity than the previous population. And of course this is simply yet another case of you defining words, in this case breeding, that already have meanings. The fact remains though, that for cheetah's the reduction of diversity was not due to speciation, but to extinction of the more diverse population. So the cheetah does not support your position that evolution is like breeding.
The point is to talk about the method that forms breeds, not the condition of the breeds. Not exactly. The point is your claim that the condition of the breeds, i.e. their lack of genetic diversity, arises from speciation. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Of course they shouldn't limit their dictionaries to what creationists prefer, but they SHOULD limit their dictionaries to what they actually know instead of defining things according to what the ToE requires them to infer. Your behavior is childish. If you don't think the definition of mutation reflects reality, that means you don't think mutations actually occur and not that the definition of mutation is wrong. Unicorns don't exist and never have. That does not mean that the definition of unicorn as a creature with a horn extending from its forhead is wrong. It's hilarious to listen to you pretend that there is actually some kind of organized Creation Science genetics that you know and we don't. Yet you haven't cited a single reference that suggests that there is some organized usage of the terms as you use them that (to paraphrase the infamous Justice Taney) anyone ought to give the least bit of respect. Not only do you not like the definitions or species, mutations, alleles, breeds, evolution, etc. -- until I and others called you on it, you pretended that those terms had the meanings you prefer and that we were mis-defining them. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Not only do you not like the definitions or species, mutations, alleles, breeds, evolution, etc. -- until I and others called you on it, you pretended that those terms had the meanings you prefer and that we were mis-defining them. This is what creationists do. And for them, as they frequently do, to claim that they are doing science is ludicrous. They are doing precisely the opposite of science. As to the topic, "What is wrong with people?" They are blinded by belief and dogma such that they deny and misrepresent reality, hoping somehow to make it appear to conform to their belief and dogma. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
They are blinded by belief and dogma such that they deny and misrepresent reality, hoping somehow to make it appear to conform to their belief and dogma. And don't forget playing the victim and claiming 'persecution' by the scientific 'elite'."Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
If that was the standard, there wouldn't be anything in the dictionary about gods or religion.
...they SHOULD limit their dictionaries to what they actually know....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not only do you not like the definitions or species, mutations, alleles, breeds, evolution, etc. -- until I and others called you on it, you pretended that those terms had the meanings you prefer and that we were mis-defining them. What? Please provide a link to proof of this accusation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As far as I understand what you're claiming, both species (etc) came from the same genome 4500 years ago - I'm intrigued as to how and why we can't see evidence for it. I have no idea where you are getting such a ridiculous idea that I'd be saying such a thing. What you quoted offers no clue. They are separate species and nothing I said implied anything different that I can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They are blinded by belief and dogma such that they deny and misrepresent reality, hoping somehow to make it appear to conform to their belief and dogma. Good definition of evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Well, there are a few things that can help explain much of it, particularly in the US.
First, about a quarter century ago the voters in the US decided that reporting should be treated as a profit center and so only news that people wanted to buy should be published. In the name of fairness they abolished the Fairness Doctrine, cut funding for PBS, allowed media outlet conglomeration, removed the Chinese Wall between news and advertising or between reporting and editorializing. Second, the US has a very large population of Biblical Christians who again, about a quarter century ago, put through a coup and took over one of the two major political parties and elected Ronald Reagan who totally disregarded the Constitution and all of the Principles of Conservatism and began implementing a plan to destroy the US and turn it into a Christian Fascist State. The reason that Biblical Christians are such a threat is that they are indoctrinated in accepting falsehoods and never testing against reality as well as willfully repressing honesty. This begins with their unthinking acceptance of the Bible as "The Word" and denial of basic facts like the obvious errors in the Bible as well as the many, many conflicts, examples of tales evolving, inclusion of mutually exclusive versions of stories and the fact that there is not even a universal Canon. To cap it off is the very human dislike of bad news, not wanting to admit that we created most of the problems for ourselves, an inability to take a long term view, almost no training in critical thinking within the US education system and the transformation of actual history into an epic tale where all the many faults of the US are suppressed.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: What? Please provide a link to proof of this accusation. Why are you asking for proof of what you just said a few messages ago in Message 193:
Faith in Message 193 writes: Of course we are and it's a struggle against the evolutionist definitions which don't define things as we define them. Just to convey the simplest things requires me to qualify and qualify to try to get free of the evolutionist assumptions. Right there you said that creationists define terms (like mutation and allele) differently from science. But this is wrong on two counts. First this is wrong because creationists as a group haven't actually attempted to redefine these terms. They pretty much use the same definitions everyone else uses. And second, this is wrong because independent of whether evolution is right or wrong, those words already have definitions. It's hard to avoid the feeling that you're trying to distract attention from your ridiculous position on speciation by even more ridiculously inventing your own definitions. But neither speciation nor evolutionary terminology are the topic of this thread. If you wanted to discuss the topic you could perhaps explain the evidence that led you to your position on speciation. It certainly couldn't be evidence from breeding, because breeders never believe they're creating new species. That's why they're called breeders and not speciators. If you could give us a glimpse of your evidence and your reasoning process that would be very helpful. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024