Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
33 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,083 Year: 22,119/19,786 Month: 682/1,834 Week: 182/500 Day: 10/69 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 407 of 752 (587907)
10-21-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by dennis780
10-20-2010 4:17 AM


Fun With Numbers and Lies
Hi Dennis,

If you bothered to look at the bible for even 30 minutes, you notice that every man written about gives their age.

This is, of course, not true. Perhaps you should try looking at it for more than thirty minutes.

600 of Noahs years before the flood as 6000 (1 = 1000 as written in Genesis)

First, Genesis says no such thing. Second, are you aware that 600 multiplied by 1000 is 600 000, not 6000? Third, why the hell should we care what you say when you prove yourself incapable of performing simple arithmetic?

I win.

Sure kid. Have a Kewpie doll. Whatever makes you happy.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 4:17 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 430 of 752 (598548)
01-01-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by mike the wiz
01-01-2011 8:38 AM


Re: Why?
Hi Mike,

You're under the belief that education = evolutionist.

Not quite. I would say it's more "education+understanding+open mindedness=evolution". It only takes a little religious fundamentalism though and the whole equation goes out of whack.

You keep seeking to equate belief in evolution with atheism. That is a reflection of your religious beliefs only. Here in the real world, scientists of many different religions and of no religion are perfectly content to accept evolution.

Even if I was the best authority on earth on evolution, and knew more than the most ardent scientific evolutionist, I would still not find evolution to be true.

And there is your problem. You admit that no conceivable evidence could change your mind. That essentially leaves you unable to approach the subject rationally. It's a shame.

So the pre-cambrian lack of intermediates was not considered evidence by Gould? What about the cambrian explosion, this is what was expected should evolution be true, and wasn't a problem for evolutionists?

The interesting thing here is not what a dead man thought about the evidence of his day, but why you continue to ignore the evidence of today. The Ediacaran and Doushantuo fauna represent a rich record of pre-Cambrian life. The life of the Cambrian "explosion" was not without predecessors. This is not secret information. You insist upon ignoring it though.

You are the one being religious...

I love the way you throw that around as a damning insult. A moment of clarity!

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2011 8:38 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 483 of 752 (598646)
01-01-2011 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by shadow71
01-01-2011 3:34 PM


Hi Shadow,

If I may, I think what is being said here is not that natural selection was not involved, but that random mutation was the force playing a reduced role. The leap to eukaryotic life was not the kind of change that took place bit-by-bit, under random mutation in the normal sense. It was much more sudden, but that doesn't mean that natural selection would not have come into play as eukaryotes emerged.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by shadow71, posted 01-01-2011 3:34 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by shadow71, posted 01-01-2011 4:12 PM Granny Magda has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 488 of 752 (598664)
01-01-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by shadow71
01-01-2011 4:12 PM


Lane is pretty clear that natural selection was not involved.

Not in the quote you present he isn't. He is saying that the jump to endosymbiosis did not rely simply upon the normal course of NS+RM. He is not saying that NS played no role at all. I think that you are reading too much into his statement if you are getting that solely from the quote in message 481.

He says it was "a jump" and a unique event.

Yes, but that does not mean that NS would not have acted normally upon any emergent eukaryote.

It would be odd to claim that NS would not act upon the newly emergent eukaryotic organisms. They would have been subject to varying rates of reproductive success and thus would have undergone natural selection.

I take that to mean it was not a normal evolutionary event as would be expected per Darwinan or neo-Darwinan theory.

Yes and I think that it's fair to say that it was a very unusual event. I'm not sure why you seem to think that NS could not have acted upon the earliest eukaryotes though. Remember, NS is what selects from amongst varieties that already exist. It does not create variety itself, it only acts as a filter. Just because the normal process of random mutation would have had a reduced role in the change to endosymbiosis does not mean that NS would not have taken place. I do not believe that Lane intended to imply this.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by shadow71, posted 01-01-2011 4:12 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by shadow71, posted 01-02-2011 1:32 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 530 of 752 (599051)
01-04-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by shadow71
01-04-2011 7:04 PM


Well if there is no natural mechanism and something exists, can one not consider a supernatural?

No known mechanism. How do you distinguish between a situation where there really is no natural mechanism and a situation where there is a natural mechanism, but you simply don't know of it?

How do we tell between when we have reached the limits of what is possible and when we have merely reached the limits of our understanding?

I see on this board a resistance to think about philsophy or any other discplines other than natural science. There are other ways to solve problems and reach conclusions besides science.

That's because science works. What do you suggest we put in its place? Armchair philosophising? Having a really hard think about something? Reaching for answers from tomes of myth? Inserting comforting fictions into the gaps in our knowledge?

Forgive us if the rest of us stick with science.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by shadow71, posted 01-04-2011 7:04 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by shadow71, posted 01-04-2011 7:29 PM Granny Magda has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 537 of 752 (599064)
01-04-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by shadow71
01-04-2011 7:29 PM


The problem is you belileve science is the answer to everything.

I'll be the judge of what I believe thank you!

In fact, I don't believe that. What I do believe is that in trying to find answers to questions about matters of objective reality, there exists only one discipline with a proven track record of success; science. To answer questions about the real world we need to empirical observations. We need a rigorous logical approach to understanding those observations. That's what science is. It's simply the most effective way of answering questions about the real world.

There are other ways to solve problems.

Yes, but not every way of reaching answers is appropriate for every question.

Do you prefer the Beatles, shadow, or the Rolling Stones? Now that is a question of aesthetic merit, an entirely subjective question. You can appropriately reach an answer by just mulling it over and deciding upon whichever conclusion most pleases you. No-one can say you are wrong.

But the question of the origins of Eukaryotes is not a subjective question. It is not a matter of personal taste, nor democracy, nor psychology. It is a matter of objective fact.

All we can do is to try, as best we can, to reach an answer that approximates the truth as closely as possible. Sometimes we may be fortunate enough to hit upon exactly the right answer. Other times, the answers may be obscure. What we should never be willing to do though, is to give up looking.

I believe that in resorting to a comforting supernatural explanation (in your case, the Christian God), you have stopped honestly seeking answers. You are allowing yourself to engage in a from of self-deception, one that seems like it is providing you with answers but in reality, is just an exercise in fantasy. You are never going to arrive at an answer by surrendering to ignorance with God-of-the-gaps arguments.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by shadow71, posted 01-04-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 557 of 752 (599438)
01-07-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by shadow71
01-07-2011 11:45 AM


Scientific Method 101
Hi Shadow,

My question is why isn't the hypothesis that God created the universe and all that is in it, a scientific hypothesis according to the test above?

It is because there is a big difference between what Bem is saying and what you have been saying.

It appears to me that Bem believes that he has found a phenomenon (let's just ignore the fact that he is almost certainly wrong for now). He is not claiming to have an explanatory mechanism since he cannot derive a mechanism from the data he has. He is leaving that part open to later explanations. Nor is he claiming to have found evidence for the supernatural. This can be seen in this quotation from the paper;

Bem writes:

The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. The term is purely descriptive; it neither implies that such phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms.

You are doing something very different. You are taking a phenomenon (endosymbiosis) and adding in an unwarranted explanatory mechanism; the Christian god. This is entirely different to how Bem is operating. You are not systematically seeking an explanatory mechanism for the origin of eukaryotes, you are just inserting your own pet explanation after very little investigation. To make matters worse, you have settled upon a supernatural explanation, something that makes your ideas incompatible with the scientific practice of methodological naturalism.

The Bem paper is bad science. It has been roundly criticised. It apparently contains serious statistical errors that the authors completely missed. It has been torn to shreds before it has even been published. Sadly, your ideas about the divine origins of eukaryotes do not even come close to being as scientifically credible as Bem's junk paper.

You have inserted an unwarranted explanatory mechanism, you have invoked the supernatural, your idea is completely unfalsifiable, you have based your thinking upon a blatant logical fallacy (the God of the Gaps) and you have even cherry picked which supernatural explanation to use (why the Christian God? Why not Brahma? Or Odin?). I'm sorry dude, I am honestly not trying to upset or insult you here, but your ideas about God making the eukaryota are not in the least bit scientific. They may suit you just fine as speculation or theology, but they are by no means scientific.

I can produce many people who will testify that the Lord has helped them and some swear to miracles beyond scientific proof. The bible has many such exhibits in the Gospels.

But that's just anecdote. Very obviously, it is anecdote. Science does not deal in anecdote. Anecdote might, at best, point a researcher in an interesting direction of inquiry, but anecdote is not accepted as scientific evidence on its own.

To be honest (and again, I am not trying to belittle you here, but I have to call it as I see it) this is Scientific Method 101. It is not complicated or obscure stuff that you are getting wrong here, it's the very basics of scientific enquiry. Anecdote does not count as evidence. Supernatural explanations are not science. Inserting cherished dogmas into gaps in our understanding is definitely not science. This is the kind of stuff that anyone with a scientific hypothesis to promote needs to know. You should already be familiar with these concepts. The fact that you are not suggests to me that some reading up on the scientific method or philosophy of science might be in order.

Thus even though this hypothesis may require extraordinary evidence, it should according to the tests for the above article be allowed to be studied by science and not rejected out of hand.

No-one is rejecting your ideas out of hand. Your ideas are meeting resistance because they contain several glaring errors in logic and because they do not follow the scientific method. It's nothing personal, but even if you can't see these problems, others on this forum can and, this being a debate site, we're not likely to just let you off the hook on that. Sorry.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 686 of 752 (607231)
03-02-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:38 PM


my karma ran over your frogma
Hi havoc,

There is a very simple solution to the AER problem raised by Jonathon Sarfati; it's bollocks and Safarti is an idiot.

Most frogs do have an apical ectodermal ridge. The only ones that don't are a few species of direct developing frogs (i.e. they have no tadpole stage). Other than that, frogs have AERs just like we do and Sarfati is a bungling fool.

Does this cause you to question your beliefs? Because it only took me a few minutes of googling to find this out. It did not require much in the way of effort or intellectual curiosity. Perhaps you should stop listening to Sarfati. He is a douchebag.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:38 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:55 AM Granny Magda has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 711 of 752 (607372)
03-03-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:55 AM


Re: my karma ran over your frogma
Hi havoc. I see you have a range of rhetorical questions for me, to which you already know the answers. Let's take a look.

Are all frogs vertebrates?

Yes.

Vertebrates have 5 digits because we all have the same ancestor who had 5 digits, correct?

No. Do you see any fish with limbs havoc? Fish are vertebrates too you know. I think you perhaps mean tetrapods.

Most tetrapods have five digits on their limbs, yes. There are an awful lot that do not though. There are plenty who don't even have limbs. So what?

In most they develop the same way because that is the way the common ancestors developed?

More or less, yes.

However in some they stopped developing in this way and started developing in a totally different way?

Yes.

Why did natural selection select for this what is the advantage to the frog to develop the same digits in a different way?

I have no idea. Perhaps it has something to do with "the ability of the limb to continue distal outgrowth and differentiation following removal of the distal ectoderm", as mentioned in the abstract of the study I cited (Hanken et al 2001).

Why does it matter? Your original argument has already been shown to be hideously, embarrassingly, shockingly, terribly ignorant and wrong. You are now trying to move the goalposts again.

I’m not saying that this is evidence for creation just that if you can use homology as proof of evolution than to be honest where there is differences in developmental pathways should be equally proof against evolution.

Utter nonsense.

The developmental processes of an obscure group of tree frogs are interesting enough, but they make no argument against evolution whatsoever. Comparing these unusual frogs with humans (as Sarfati does) is moronic. Humans are not descended from frogs. Not from any kind of frog, let alone tree frogs. Sarfati's comparison is completely pointless in the first instance, even if his claims about frog AERs were correct, which they are not.

Sarfati claimed that all frogs lack the AER. This is totally false and Sarfati is a pitiful idiot. Most frogs do possess an AER, thus, Sarfati's argument is shown to be the steaming great pile of crap that we have come to expect from him. It is based upon an extraordinarily stupid and ignorant mistake.

If I were you, I would tiptoe discretely away from this one. It's pure bullshit.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:55 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:47 PM Granny Magda has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 738 of 752 (607432)
03-03-2011 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 719 by havoc
03-03-2011 3:47 PM


Re: my karma ran over your frogma
No I was just pointing out an evolutionists insistance on homology as evidence for evolution was not warranted

Or to put it another way, your original point about frogs and AERs was total bullshit, so now you are trying to change the subject and act defiant, instead of admitting that you were 100% wrong.

Fine.

The ToE does not predict that every single feature must entirely homologous to features in every other member of a group. That would just be ridiculous. Evolution predicts that some species will have novel features and that is exactly what we observe in the case of this tree frog.

Only a creationist could point to a case of a species displaying a novel morphological feature and call it evidence against evolution.

Even Gavin Debeer said:

Whatever de Beer said, it is clear that he did not consider it evidence against evolution, nor does he argue here against the concept of homology, so your point remains obscure.

Also; de Beer died nearly forty years ago. Nice up to date source on your genetics info there champ! You might like to try something a bit more recent. Genetics has moved on quite a bit since then you know. But I guess that just cutting and pasting from creo websites, as you did here, is a little less taxing on your little grey cells.

You have to believe that the fleetingly unlikely event of just the right mutations led to for example “5 digits” on vertebrate for limbs but then the mechanism was lost and regained in an entirely different way several times.

You have not demonstrated that any such thing happened though. All you did was repeat Jonathon Sarfati's mendacious and moronic drivel about frogs.

Did I mention that you were wrong about that and that Sarfati is an idiot?

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:47 PM havoc has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019