Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 12:33 AM
18 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 874
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 211 of 457 (708075)
10-04-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:12 PM


Re: What's wrong!
"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.

Psychological projection

"Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude."

For the layman, also known as the 'I know you are but what am I' defense.


"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:51 PM Diomedes has not yet responded
 Message 213 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 12:52 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 212 of 457 (708076)
10-04-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Diomedes
10-04-2013 12:37 PM


Re: What's wrong!
Yes, indeed, projection, although a very primitive psychological concept that appeals to the sophomoric pedantic mind, does describe well enough what the evolutionists do as they accuse creationists of their own attitudes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Diomedes, posted 10-04-2013 12:37 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ringo, posted 10-04-2013 12:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(2)
Message 213 of 457 (708077)
10-04-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Diomedes
10-04-2013 12:37 PM


Re: What's wrong!
Psychological projection

"Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude."

For the layman, also known as the 'I know you are but what am I' defense.

Dosent apply here Science is built on objectional observation of reality creationism and other religions are built on personal "observations" of reality

A scientist who forges data to fit his personal view is sooner or later found out and kicked out. A religious person who reads his religious text to fit his own views is usually followed by others with the same views. There are currently 21000 denominations of Christianity because every so often someone comes along and reads something in a different way. (you know evolution LOL )

There are rarely more then one explanation or theory in science for a particular observation, but even when that happens, scientists just use both theories depending where they are applicable. And we are doing our best to prove the theories wrong. So that we get to the one that is not wrong.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Diomedes, posted 10-04-2013 12:37 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 214 of 457 (708078)
10-04-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:51 PM


Re: What's wrong!
Faith writes:

Yes, indeed, projection, although a very primitive psychological concept that appeals to the sophomoric pedantic mind, does describe well enough what the evolutionists do as they accuse creationists of their own attitudes.


I've asked you more than once: On the off-chance you you might conceivably be wrong about anything, how would you know? What possibility is there for correction in your methodology?

If you were looking in a mirror, how would you know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 215 of 457 (708079)
10-04-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Percy
10-04-2013 12:29 PM


More or less a summary perhaps
I've always used the creationist understanding of the various concepts that evolutionists define differently, it's always required me to give a great deal of explanation in the effort not to be misunderstood. Mutations are considered to be accidents, and if they ever produce a viable beneficial allele it would be very rarely, and the research that supposedly proves that they do is not convincing. Alleles are built in from Creation, and if any are ever produced by mutations it would be a very rare event, which it seems to be. And so on. This is not just a definitional word game, this is a completely different paradigm about biological reality, and the objection to the dictionary definitions given is that they are what 3evolutionists believe, not what they've actually proved.

And I'm very happy with my view of speciation, far from trying to distract from it. I believe it's just another instance of the way all new varieties are formed.

As for your statement that "we do not see" daughter populations that do not have an allele or alleles unique to themselves, I think you would probably be hard pressed to prove that. Simple change in allele frequencies has been generally understood to be all that's required to produce new phenotypic variations.

And yes, this whole topic has been way off topic all along. I've enjoyed it myself.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 12:29 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 1:28 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 217 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 1:29 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 218 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 1:31 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 219 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 3:28 PM Faith has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 216 of 457 (708083)
10-04-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:57 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
Mutations are considered to be accidents, and if they ever produce a viable beneficial allele it would be very rarely, and the research that supposedly proves that they do is not convincing.

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.

Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/...li_long-term_evolution_experiment

Not convincing enough for you sure nothing is if its does not agree with your ASSUMPTIONS.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 217 of 457 (708084)
10-04-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:57 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
And yes, this whole topic has been way off topic all along. I've enjoyed it myself.

Actually you kept it on topic the whole time


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 218 of 457 (708085)
10-04-2013 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:57 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
Faith writes:

And yes, this whole topic has been way off topic all along.

So let's get back on topic and explore the psychology of this a bit. This might be a good place to start:

...if any [alleles] are ever produced by mutations it would be a very rare event, which it seems to be.

Why this is wrong has been explained to you many times. Do you recall the explanation? If so, can you explain the rationale behind your continued belief in this?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 219 of 457 (708094)
10-04-2013 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:57 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
Mutations are considered to be accidents, and if they ever produce a viable beneficial allele it would be very rarely

Yes, and there is no reason whatsoever to find disagreements about the frequency of occurence of new alleles confusing if you have even reasonable intelligence.

And to be frank, unless you quantify exactly what "rarely" means, it is not even clear that you've identified a disagreement. After all, evolution as postulated by scientists occurred over long periods of time. No one has claimed that species are created every other fortnight, or that beneficial mutations are common even compared to neutral mutations.

Simple change in allele frequencies has been generally understood to be all that's required to produce new phenotypic variations

Reference please. Because what you claim to be the 'general understanding' sounds very much like made up nonsense. I'll accept instead if you can show me that this is generally what creationists favoring biologists believe.

Changes in frequencies has been generally understood to show changes in the distribution of traits in a population but not in the traits of an individual. Because the frequency of allele's in an individual is a nonsense concept.

Take your time though. I know you are already on the hook to providing references for other nonsense you've said here.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 3:34 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 220 of 457 (708095)
10-04-2013 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by NoNukes
10-04-2013 3:28 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
Why you keep referring to individuals is beyond me. I'm NEVER referring to individuals, always to POPULATIONS. Change in allele frequencies refers to POPULATIONS. And it used to be a major definition of EVOLUTION.
>
This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 3:28 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 4:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 231 by NoNukes, posted 10-05-2013 7:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 221 of 457 (708096)
10-04-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
10-04-2013 3:34 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
Hi Faith,

Picking up on what NoNukes focused on, in Message 215 you also said:

Mutations are considered to be accidents, and if they ever produce a viable beneficial allele it would be very rarely.

As NoNukes said, we agree that beneficial mutations are rare, but "rare" is a qualitative term and we need to be sure we mean the same thing by rare. Let me pull a very, very, very tiny number out of the air, say 1 in a billion (that's 1 in a thousand million or 1 in 109), as the odds of a mutation being beneficial in a human birth.

Every human birth has, on average, around 100 mutations. So the odds of getting a beneficial mutation in a human birth is 1 in 109*100, which is 1 in 107, or 1 in 10 million. That's a very small number.

But there are around 100 million births in the world every year, so multiplying 108 births by 10-7 beneficial mutations per birth we get 10 beneficial mutations. Every year. Year after year.

So do we therefore agree that beneficial mutations are rare but still occur in respectable numbers given the size of the world population? If you don't agree then you need to describe your objection so that we can categorize it. Some possibilities I can think of are:

  • Scientific viewpoint countered using evidence.
  • Dismissal with no counter-evidence.
  • Changes the subject.
  • Raises new objections while not addressing this issue.
  • No response.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 3:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by vimesey, posted 10-04-2013 5:26 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 967
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


(1)
Message 222 of 457 (708099)
10-04-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Percy
10-04-2013 4:24 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
we get 10 beneficial mutations. Every year. Year after year.

Speaking as one of the 10 from 1966, I'd like to reassure my fellow rationalists that I am doing all I can to propagate the benefit.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Percy, posted 10-04-2013 4:24 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:15 PM vimesey has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 223 of 457 (708104)
10-04-2013 7:35 PM


Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
No, I have no interest in pursuing the actual topic of this thread beyond what I said in my first response to it.

I also have no interest in pursuing questions about mutations and allele formation because that was a side issue brought up by ramoss in giving the tendentious evolutionist definitions of them, and I answered that to my satisfaction.

The topic we got off on for most of the thread so far was my familiar argument that the development of varieties or breeds or "species" all require reduced genetic diversity, and that was to answer the usual evolutionist insistence that there is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, that there is nothing to stop the one from becoming the other. But the requirement of reduced genetic diversity does indeed bring an end to the processes of phenotypic variation, otherwise known as evolution, bringing an end to the ability of evolution to continue past the genetic content of the particular genome of the Species that is undergoing phenotypic variation/evolution.

As usual everybody wants to add in mutations as if that would change this basic picture, but of course it wouldn't. Eventually if you are going to get new breeds or speciation you are going to run out of genetic diversity. If you aren't getting new breeds or "species" then evolution isn't happening at that point anyway.

Mutations as believed in by evolutionists at best provide the stuff that the selection and isolation processes work on to develop a new breed, variety or "species" but those very processes are what reduce the genetic diversity, so whatever provides the alleles for the traits, whether they are built in or the product of mutations, they all go through this same process if they become part of a new "species" and there we are again at the end of any further ability to vary or evolve.

So I'm happy with my participation on this thread to this point and will probably wrap it up here.

Cheers.


Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 10-04-2013 7:45 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 225 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 7:48 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 226 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 7:52 PM Faith has responded
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2013 2:54 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 232 by NoNukes, posted 10-05-2013 7:51 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 10-05-2013 8:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31076
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 224 of 457 (708105)
10-04-2013 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
10-04-2013 7:35 PM


Re: Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
And so once again instead of actually providing links to any place you honestly presented facts or a theory or support or evidence you simply declare that you are satisfied and run away.

Pretty standard avoidance tactic of the CCoI.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 7:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 303 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 225 of 457 (708106)
10-04-2013 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
10-04-2013 7:35 PM


Re: Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
How about your claim that genetic diversity decreases?

If that is the case, please explain how there is more diversity within the protists in the chart below than in all the subsequent species evolving from the protists.

3.7 billion years is a lot of time for mutations to occur and to increase genetic diversity through speciation. In fact, this is what we see.

And 3.7 billion years would have been more than sufficient time for deleterious mutations to accumulate and wipe out all life. Clearly that didn't happen.

So, in summary, you're still wrong. Even worse, you show no inclination to accept any evidence--no matter how strong and compelling--if it contradicts your belief system. That is completely anti-science, and certainly nothing to be proud of.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 7:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019