Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-17-2019 4:33 PM
150 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Theodoric (5 members, 145 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,607 Year: 2,644/19,786 Month: 726/1,918 Week: 13/301 Day: 13/38 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 166 of 223 (93221)
03-18-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by MrHambre
03-18-2004 4:34 PM


Re: Our Brad
Thanks that helps a lot. I will try to glean meaning from the posts where I can. I hate it when a message seems almost accessible and the idea seems cogent but the communication interface is the problem.

and he does seem more cogent then some C'sts I know from another board.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by MrHambre, posted 03-18-2004 4:34 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 167 of 223 (93349)
03-19-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
03-18-2004 4:02 PM


Re: The raid without Behe or some such
when you sAiD, "false application" did you mean formally false or falsifiable false, or perhaps something the interface"" missed like false fact false????

Can we agree to standardize on Bertrand Russel's notion of the "history of logic" when within this particular area of discussion??

Are you aware of the apparently duplict but not dual use of the word "chaos" in translations of I. Kant's work? It appears to me that you might not have gotten farther than Kant(Stu Kaufmann KNEW he could not which is why he chose biology rather than philosophy in GBrit_n.)could have influneced J.Derrida on the Veritas in the Rift or Gorge at Cornell as to the "faculties" OF REASON. Let's be reasonable shall we?????????


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 4:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 8:46 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 168 of 223 (93436)
03-19-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Brad McFall
03-19-2004 10:39 AM


Re: The raid without Behe or some such
formally false -- not enough links, like if A then B therefore Q happen, thought it was clear from the context, but then context changes with view?

(Kant say I did much philosophy in college .. have picked up some at Hume since, but not enough to Hegel over form or Locke onto specifics.)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Brad McFall, posted 03-19-2004 10:39 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 9:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 169 of 223 (94104)
03-23-2004 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by RAZD
03-19-2004 8:46 PM


Rome such
Good (or rather bad for me). That is what I expected you to have meant. You may not have been following in my OWN path lately here on EVC so I will give you the logistics for now even though I just finished showing problems that remain in logic or dont. So let me expose in terms of designs EITHER apriori OR aposteriori- (you would have simply denied or attempted to counter assert my oberservation over the change in design arguments historically from aposteriori to apriori). I am sure we are not going to formally disagree about the mark used in the letter "i" but the issue of formally false bears on the use of TIME (or the lack thereof with a particular Einsteinian notion of TWO rods etc) BETWEEN (Biological Sequence Analysis Probabilistic models of proteins and nucleic ascids by R.Durbin. S. Eddy, A.Krogh, and G. Mitchinson Cambridge Uni Press 2002 p163)"More loosely, we refer to this as the tree TOPOLOGY (A topologist would reserve this term...) and denote it by the symbol T. To complete the definition of a phylogenetic tree, one must also define the lengths of the edges; these will generally be denoted (A deliberate echo of 'time', the variable we are ultimately interested in.) by tsubi with a suitable scheme for the iS."and (A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity Second Ed. by PW Bridgman p85) "In fact on CAN refuse to accept the equations, and by fiat retain the absoluteness of distant simultaneity, by simply replacing the second equation by t^'=t. What is the objection to this. in view of the fact that we have already recognized that the way in which we spread time over space contains an arbitrary element."
You simply did not see my own thought path through this "maze" which is admittedly a bit hairier than doing programming but well leave that for another designing form to do.Plese be prepared if you are "arguing" with me that there will BE an issue over the representation of "prime numbers" programmtically. That is not by fiat mind you. In breif we have not "heard" this objection as of yet. That is NOT how Randy Jackson pronounces "iissssss". Tome around if you want to it will come back,
This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 8:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:07 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 170 of 223 (94125)
03-23-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Brad McFall
03-23-2004 9:37 AM


Re: Rome such
k

I am new here so have missed a lot {~all} preceeding arguments.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

Rebel American Zen Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 9:37 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 3:30 PM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 171 of 223 (94166)
03-23-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by RAZD
03-23-2004 12:07 PM


R
It may not be too late to try to change the equations today but I would like to see one with temperature worked up. see also-PW Bridgman ASPORp128 so instead we have an event at least of some who say that this complex can not be seen as simple- fine. But physics may indeed have too much alternatives that will not come to light in medicine (hence irreducibly complex). We dont know that yet but we also can worship in the same time frame.

I am not limited by YOUR ability to understand. Only my own ability. this may be BY GOD however- you demurED instead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:30 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 172 of 223 (94302)
03-24-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Brad McFall
03-23-2004 3:30 PM


Re: R
But physics may indeed have too much alternatives that will not come to light in medicine (hence irreducibly complex).

I have not seen IC in anyting yet, though several have been suggested. The kaleidoscope is my metaphor here ... one end sees pattern the other a jumble ... which is the real view?

we (each) our (respective) implied, although as a student I have been limited by the ability of my teacher (I am no teacher, but a seeker)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 3:30 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Brad McFall, posted 03-24-2004 11:17 AM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 173 of 223 (94419)
03-24-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by RAZD
03-24-2004 12:30 AM


Abby,
My friend just look in this web site. We are doing it here. Perhaps we should give you a trade discount to window shop! If I am your last stop in the tour then you can be certain to come up against questions but we must be able to get over that stage. Some already have. I learn from MrH even though he didnt respond to me directly. It is a curious tangled bush that is not all that grand. see it for what it is.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:30 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:56 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 174 of 223 (94443)
03-24-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Brad McFall
03-24-2004 11:17 AM


trading knowledge
ahahahaa indeed we are, and all that seek should get the window discount (or is it a loss-leader?)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Brad McFall, posted 03-24-2004 11:17 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Brad McFall, posted 03-30-2004 4:34 PM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 175 of 223 (96052)
03-30-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
03-24-2004 12:56 PM


Re: trading knowledge
An open letter to Abby L,
"Doc., note. I dissent. A fast never prevents a fatness. I diet on cod."

There is no need for you to try to follow me around this board. If you simply settle into any particular thread I will adapt my discussion accordingly. I try very had to KEEP exposed the point of c/e but it is very difficult given the teaching and media repose in popular evolution. If you listened to last Friday's NPR scienceFriday (you need not note that this not "girl friday") you could have got my drift. The subject was fossil primate DNA analysis and there were numerous (more than one and I cant quite recall by rote (as is normal) the whole show"" places where the discussion touched on the points of entry of c/e that occurr regularly on this board but instead of making science on NPR an EVC media outreach etc the notion of ULTRAMETRIC distance was covered up. So just to document this let me let you KNOW that the following could have been discussed but was not. BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ANALYSIS p168-9
"Molecular clocks and the ultrametric property of distances UPCMA produces a rooted tree of a special kind. The edge lengths in the resulting tree cana be viewed as times measured by a MOLECULAR CLOCK with a constant rate. The divergence of sequences is assumed to occur at the same constant rate at all points in the tree, which is equivalent to saying that the sum of times down a path to the leaves from any node is the same, whatever the chioce of path. If out distance data are derived by adding up edge lengths of the tree T with a molecular clock, then UPGMA will reconstruct T correctly. To see this, imagine a horizontal line rising throught the tree T starting from the level of the leaves: each time it crosses a node, the distances of all the leaves in the left branch from that node the leaves in the right branch will be the current minimum distance, and a node will therefore be added precisely where the node is encouneted in the original tree T. If the original tree is not well-behaved in this way, but has different length routes to its leaves, as in Figure 7.5(left), then it may be reconstructed incorrectly by UPGMA(Figire 7.5 right). What goes wrong in this case is that the closest leaves are not neighboring leaves: they do no have a common parent node. A test of whether reconstruction is likely to be correct is the ULTRAMETRIC condition. The distances dji are said to be ultrametric if, for any triplet of seqeucnes x^i, x^j,x^k, the distances dij, djk,dik are either all equal, or two are equal and the remaining one is maller. This condition holds for distances derived from a tree with a molecular clock."

On MARCH9 Cornell's new president went to ground-breaking ceremony south of the DEAD SEA to bank the soil for a new "LIBRARY OF LIFE" which reported in the Cornell Chonicle for March,4,2002 printed "The complex nature of the data, he said, will require the development of new software and new database...Making the Library of Life's huge data set accessible over the Web also will require a number of technical breakthroughs. A new language will be created integrating classification schemes of different life science disciplines, making it easy to navigate between the biology of the small and of the large." You may also be aware that Master Books had just come out with J. Sarfarti's REFUTING COMPROMISE A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of 'Progreesive Creationism' (billions of years) as popularized by Hugh Ross. wherein on page 158 (thanks to preprint of AIG) two circles A&B are labelled "Maximum distance light could have traveled" within a backfound ostensibly representing the "big bang" containing intextu "The fastest way for regions to come into equilibrium would be for electromagnetic radiation to carry heat from one region to another. However, some of these regions are too distant for light to have traversed between them, even in the assumed time since the alleged big bang. The finite speed of light is a "horizon" which cant be crossed, hence the term "horizon problem." Even when the CMB was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, it already had a uniform temperature over a range at least 10 times larger than this horizon." One of the most common attacks on the YEC model by old-earthers such as Ross is that light would supposedly not have had enough time to reach earth from distant stars(this is discussed in chapter 6). But the horizon problem is the big bangers' own "light travel problem." How can old earthers freely criticize YEC on the very problem that they have not yet solved from their own perspective?"

I am not suggest that RNA fossil "leaves" may be seperated at these distances but in the chapter SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE (DID i SAY single?) FRAMES OF REFERNCE P.W. Bridgeman wrote out "A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity" onto page28 "Sometimes for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment is described as showing that "absolute" velocity does not "exist". Of course it does not exist, becuase it is not that sort of thing BY DEFINTION. What the physicist is acutally saying here is that there is no evidence for the old-fashioned ether, which if it exites could be taken as a universal frame with respect to which velocities could be measured."where I take it that critics of Safarti or me for that matter at this point would DENY that baramins are seperated by absolute motive motions(wihtout specifying the veolcity vs the simultanity of position etc) OR actually MOVE absolutely with respect to each other (on view only involves time and the other may equivocate between space and form(raw material))subjecitve divisions of the baraminologist for I doubt any own is claiming prophetic baramin knowledge(pehaps there are cists(you terminology who do however). I have my own place in all this because when I SAW A&B I thought I was looking at BONES at first which might primarily be due to me considering that in fact URNA is Bridgeman'sp27"The effect of the motion on the rate of a clock, or indeed how the rate of moving clock may be defined, is immaterial, Whatever it may be, it does not enter the defintion of self-measured velocity, which specifies a unique procedure and therefore a unique result for any given motion."

I think my particpation on this board has shown that it is no longer a matter of "experience" to determine this as it was in 1983 OR 1962 or earlier. So rather than slam the only advance in making less walking life's library I would like to stay with positive side only. I am far from asserting that polybaramins are universal biological frameworks. But dont hold your breath unless you have billions of years. Thanks..You cant "fake" this kind of writing. It done completely by me with no help from my teachers. Morality has nothing to do with it. I will leave making the word "horixion" univocal for c/e purposes as later exercise as this post introduces the axis no matter where it is actually, "z-ing", to try to avoid any neologistics in the future as I want students to go back before they go forward ONLY. You ideed have done to me it seems what Safrati is accusing or was accused of by Ross. Right?. I can dig Bridgman's use of the word "of" up in this context if this last is an issue. It shouldnt be else I will stop posting with you for the tiring reason of my age only. I am weary of seeing the GIFT horse not under the bed but only getting the mouthback.

byPeter Hilton-Doc no ted I......s..sentaf a stneherp revc nt saf saf sar etc etc etc......with modification.
Can we not get back to BEHE himself then??

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-30-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2004 12:51 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 176 of 223 (96341)
03-31-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Brad McFall
03-30-2004 4:34 PM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
There is no need for you to try to follow me around this board. If you simply settle into any particular thread I will adapt my discussion accordingly.

Wasn't aware that I was. It may seem that way as we appear to be interested in similar topics (but not all the same when I look at what threads posted to (click on names)). Fascinating.

last Friday's NPR scienceFriday ... The subject was fossil primate DNA analysis

No, did not get to listen, the (3) NPR stations here do not carry that show (that I am aware anyway and we get program notices) and it sounds like a program of interest, yes. I will look on web for streaming version.

UPCMA produces a rooted tree of a special kind. The edge lengths in the resulting tree cana be viewed as times measured by a MOLECULAR CLOCK with a constant rate.

Now here I have a little trouble. Why does it have to be a constant rate, rather than an average rate or a varying rate? Artistic aesthetics imposed on the concept? Or is that just because it makes the math work out easier (similar to looking under streetlight for lost keys). One would need to show why one organism living in a very sheltered environment would could should have the same rate as one living in a very exposed environment. There are spots on DNA known to be more susceptible to mutations and others where mutations are usually fatal early and others where no effect noticed for longtime.

Seems to me that the rate of susceptibility to mutation has evolved to reach a certain equilibrium levels with the need to change to adapt to constantly varying environments - Nash equilibriums if you will. This would necessarily be a rate of change larger than needed to maintain species change within a stable environment because there is no stable environment but ones that oscillate around median values.

This could have occurred within the first billion years of existence and it could still be ongoing fine-tuning with variations in exposures in different environments thus allowing organism (A) above to have near same rate as organism (B) above, or one more optimum for life where it lives. Thus (mito)Eve and (ygene)Adam have same numbers of mutations (roughly) and near match to Ethiopia's oldest anatomically modern humans but number game diverging and amount accelerating with greater age into diverse past.

No known natural trees have property of equidistance nor do any phylogenic that I am aware, why should this be any different.

You may also be aware that Master Books had just come out with J. Sarfarti's REFUTING COMPROMISE A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of 'Progreesive Creationism' (billions of years) as popularized by Hugh Ross. wherein on page 158 (thanks to preprint of AIG) two circles A&B are labelled "Maximum distance light could have traveled" within a backfound ostensibly representing the "big bang"

Being promoted by AIG is not a bonus in my opinion (please see footnote below on integrity and AIG), a search of the book title gives me more information from other sources
  • amazon - " With brilliant clarity, Jonathan Sarfati, author of the best-selling Refuting Evolution (1 and 2) has produced a comprehensive and ringing refutation of the position of "progressive creationist" Hugh Ross, whose views are causing massive confusion about science and the Bible. This book is one of the most powerful biblical and scientific defenses of a straightforward view of Genesis creation ever written."
  • masterbooks.net - ibid (verbatim .... canned review?)
  • TASC - From Dr. Sarfati, If we marry our theology to todays science, well be widowed tomorrow . Those who wish to deny a particular interpretation of Genesis need to find a basis in the biblical text from the application of these rules; an appeal to general human fallibility is simply not sufficient compromise with materialism is impossible, for materialists will never be satisfied until all of Christianity is vanquished .
  • AIG Operation refute Compromise - Q: Shouldnt we at least look at scientific data when interpreting Scripture?
    A: Creationists have nothing against science being used ministerially, i.e. to build on the framework provided by the propositional teachings of Scripture, e.g. to build models to help elucidate Scripture . What we object to is using science magisterially to override what the text plainly teaches. For example, we object to using science to deny a global Flood at the time of Noah, because the Bible clearly teaches this. However, we use true science to attempt to figure out the pre-Flood/Flood boundary or the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geological record
Sounds like dissension in the ranks of creationists of rather profound depth (YEC vs OEC), that would need to be resolved before anything derived from it should be brought to the table of education imho. Furthermore, the interview clearly shows that Sarfati is looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion and discarding information that does not fit that conclusion, not a scientific approach. Given that mindset, there is no reason to think that any of his {creation related} work is scientific. Note that Dr Jonathan Sarfati works at AiG-Australia (where did he get that PhD?) -- so they endorse one of their own, no surprise there, but this makes the "interview" a set piece as both are on the same paycheck.

One of the most common attacks on the YEC model by old-earthers such as Ross is that light would supposedly not have had enough time to reach earth from distant stars(this is discussed in chapter 6). But the horizon problem is the big bangers' own "light travel problem."

This sounds like circular reasoning, but I don't see enough of the argument to judge that. Certainly the scientific explanation is consistent with the observations made to date, I know of no "horizon problem" in astro-physics here, but am not an expert in this field (perhaps Eta_Carinae could help?)

How can old earthers freely criticize YEC on the very problem that they have not yet solved from their own perspective?"

Indeed, how can OEC or YEC freely criticize scientists on the very problem that they have not yet solved from their own perspective?

I am not suggest that RNA fossil "leaves" may be seperated at these distances ... where I take it that critics of Safarti or me for that matter at this point would DENY that baramins are seperated by absolute motive motions(wihtout specifying the veolcity vs the simultanity of position etc) OR actually MOVE absolutely with respect to each other (on view only involves time and the other may equivocate between space and form(raw material))subjecitve divisions of the baraminologist

The problem comes down to having enough time to reach the present {state of species diversity} from an {original life state} given the rate of change within species on an overall basis. If you don't accept the time basis you have major problems with accepting the change over time model. If you accept the change over time model you have major problems with accepting a YEC model.

... due to me considering that in fact URNA is Bridgeman'sp27"The effect of the motion on the rate of a clock, or indeed how the rate of moving clock may be defined, is immaterial, Whatever it may be, it does not enter the defintion of self-measured velocity, which specifies a unique procedure and therefore a unique result for any given motion."

As noted above, I have problems with the rate clock mechanism being steady state and note that there are documented periods when mass extinctions have left a species vacuum in diversity and {habitat \ niche \ environment \ ecosystem}, the most recent being the end of the age of dinosaurs by cosmic fiat (asteroid, iridium layer). There is evidence of rapid relative speciation after such events, the most complete that I know of for the asteroid encounter being the Foraminifera record (click)
One of the last great extinctions occurred roughly 66 million years ago, ... and also wiped out a good portion of Earth's marine life -- including almost all species of planktonic forams.

Since the foram record extends through a major extinction event (some of the samples date back nearly 100 million years), ... says Parker. "How often is it that you get to almost wipe your slate clean and then watch an ecosystem start up all over again?"

Some scientists have theorized, but never been able to demonstrate, that in the absence of competition, an explosion of life takes place.

As foram survivors rush to occupy their new habitats, they seem to start experimenting will all sorts of body shapes, trying to find something stable, something that will work, Arnold said. Once a population in a given habitat develops a shape or other characteristic that stands up to the environment, suddenly the organisms begin to coalesce around what becomes a standardized form, the signature of a new species.

As the available niches begin to fill up with these new creatures, the speciation rate begins to slow down, and pressure from competition between species appears to bear down in earnest. The extinction rate then rises accordingly.


The major effect of reduced selection pressure would be allowing more changes to find survival strategies, increasing diversity and letting organisms that might be sub-optimal with competition be able to coalesce into more optimal forms before competition becomes problematic. There would also be a reduction in selection pressure on maintaining the rate of change and allow it to increase temporarily before the pressure resumes. I don't know if anyone has looked for evidence of that effect, but it would seem to me to be an area to investigate to resolve the question of the rate clock.

I would like to stay with positive side only. I am far from asserting that polybaramins are universal biological frameworks. But dont hold your breath unless you have billions of years.

My worldview does have billions of years, but I am not holding my breath either. Life on other worlds has yet to be demonstrated.

It shouldnt be else I will stop posting with you for the tiring reason of my age only. I am weary of seeing the GIFT horse not under the bed but only getting the mouthback.

Age? I figured you to be 30-40. Certainly not over 65. 'Weary' I can understand from experience on other boards.

Footnote on AIG and ICR re factual information:

Both sites continue to list arguments that have been invalided for some time. AIG tries to cover it with a list of "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" (click):

This page also shows why it is important for people to stay up-to-date with sound creationist literature, since these publications (e.g. Creation magazine, and TJ) have already revealed the fallacious nature of some of these arguments.

But it contradicts that by actively giving links to things on that list with no disclaimers or references to the list.

Search for {Paluxy} on the AIG site and you get 24 listings, #23 is the {do not use} list and #11 has it in the appendix and several others list it as "controversial" and several refer to articles in their magazine that are not linked (dont know what they say) -- but why are their any listings that promote it? Why have links to sites that actively promote it?

What does the {do not use} list say:

Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

Last sentence unsubstantiated and the words "Paluxy tracks" are hyperlinked to an ICR article - the Paluxy River Mystery, an article of hyperbolic hokum if I ever read one, but one that does not say the claims are false.

Also note that AIG vs Kent Hovind (click) has this:

[KENT H]:
Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
AiG: Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks.
KENT H: I disagree. 1. We do not need to find tracks together since, A. There is ample evidence from many sources that man and dinosaurs coexisted.

[AiG]: The repeated use of this approach (defending against something that was not stated, is beside the point, and equivocates on definitions) is hopefully not deliberate. Our point was simply that this particular line of evidence should not be used in its present condition of weakness.

But then they do the same thing (defending against something that was not stated) on their {do not use} list.

The article by Glen Kuban on TalkOrigins.org, on the other hand, tells of personal experience in determining the track are not mixed dinosaur and human but all dinosaur in origin with variations in prints found on other trails (see footprint variations) with some that match the "controversial" ones.

Simply put, the tracks don't size up. The integrity does not size up. Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my pet peeves (down boy): that false information is not taken off such sites, earning my label "creatortionista" - a combination of creation, distortion and fanatics ("-istas"). You will guess that ICR is high on that list.

end of footnotes.

I do think that AIG's list of "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" (click) should be required reading for all creationists as it shows where creationist arguments have had to yield to evidence that invalidates those arguments. Among them are one of my favorites "if we came from monkeys, why ..." -- which was posted recently.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Brad McFall, posted 03-30-2004 4:34 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2004 11:38 AM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 177 of 223 (96616)
04-01-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by RAZD
03-31-2004 12:51 PM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
what does the word "state" mean in state of species diveristy?

for if the rate is constant than this state might be apporached or approximted but if it might also be if it is not, but that is a harder problem. Can species diversity be correlated with "empty space" for instance? Are "species" actual units of space,time and form or do they incline to other notions of the same than is currently standard physical science? Is the biology still overdeterming this state instantiation?? I'll agree that in order to understand "steady state species" we need to have the horizion problem in terms of adapation or tensors sensu stricto but then the simple solution of stacking order vs end to end stacking reduces endemisms to incidence points but I dont see any biological reason to scale the location of protein on DNA incidentally with Trilobite distributions in NY vs NJ etc which would be possible if the light phenomenology bore. It may not but if there is to be any assumtion of materialism that is all I can reliably grant given that motion and time are not the same things. If anything I tend to be able to think of increased categories of selection thus I see no reason given the current mold of taxonomy to suspect a reduction at first. Even with tensors and adapation at possible conceptual odds I find first and foremost instead that there ARE MOST LIKELY stable environments (but something that Gould thought was "internal developmental constraints") dynamically supported by (not resulting in) changes in stablezing selection (either from extremes to central (starting with extreme selection) or central to extreme (starting with your "median" stat)due to the kinematics of this "environment" EXTERNAL to gene flow much as one tries to THINK of the twin traveling light problem alongide TWO corridiante frames. There is only on here that due to this performationist (but time intervaled variable)opening that was first spoken of by Maxwell witht he word "electrotonics". I just think the whole motion (no matter the matter) can be biologically mechanized by truths out of topobiology not bald claims or my age approxately guessed correctly by you as to relative stregth of mutation vs selection. Fisher and Wright agreed at USING 10-6 but simply assuming some value will not be possible as I understand all the "Chess" pieces of the science. It will probably do more good for you and I to cool the jets as we are having a hard time matching conversation and I for one have found simply responding IN RESPONSE to someone of less value than engaging in beneficial improvements and as since we can barely co-ordinate our own understandings to each other it is likley seeing even the difference of our views is not likely to benefit any of the other readers here on EVC (except perhaps for purely rethorical gleanings which is notmy intent). I would like to be able to be able to communicate beyond the degree Loudmouth recently acquired with me as to where the opposition is not simply visible ligusitically but ONLY numerically. This requires a certain degree of similar use of terms. The reason I posted the clock info under a constant rate was becuase I posted as much POSITIVE info from Cornell that I could for I was completely questioning this as a studnet there in 80s where I got an A- from the class on Molecular Evolution, but the field has not improved and my point here on EVC if FIRST to show that evolution students are prevented from doing even there back most work and THEN on that agreement sociallly communicate words univocally to IMPROVE how the state of the discussion got where it is from where it was. As if you and I can not agree on where it came from and where it is it makes making linkagaes in betweeen of less value I feel than not posting at all and rather spending a proportiontely more amount of time reading what others have or are contributing so as better to target the placement of posts. I probably could have avoided posting the line about you "following" me. That was written with more anger than anything else in mind . Thanks again for your effort and it is nice to know that you saw my work elsewhere as well. Best. Brad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2004 12:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2004 10:36 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 178 of 223 (96813)
04-01-2004 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Brad McFall
04-01-2004 11:38 AM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
what does the word "state" mean in state of species diveristy?
having enough time to reach the present {state of species diversity}

perhaps stage or status would work better, the number and distribution and multiplicity (why similar ecosystems have different "solutions" on different continents), all the species living in "... all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world ..."

Can species diversity be correlated with "empty space" for instance?

There is no "empty space" space time is a flux a dance of subatomic particles the lobster quadrille of matter and energy more in some places less in others. Perhaps the dance of particles is life on a larger scale, the 'being' that touches us all.

If anything I tend to be able to think of increased categories of selection thus I see no reason given the current mold of taxonomy to suspect a reduction at first. Even with tensors and adapation at possible conceptual odds I find first and foremost instead that there ARE MOST LIKELY stable environments (but something that Gould thought was "internal developmental constraints") dynamically supported by (not resulting in) changes in stablezing selection (either from extremes to central (starting with extreme selection) or central to extreme (starting with your "median" stat) due to the kinematics of this "environment" EXTERNAL to gene flow much as one tries to THINK of the twin traveling light problem alongide TWO corridiante frames.

Stable environments could be maintained by some biological feedback to a certain degree and likely to happen where species exhibit stasis as environment would have to be static enough to allow stasis to exist, grazing buffalo maintaining prairie habitat effect. Hard to say which causes what.

This requires a certain degree of similar use of terms.

That has always been a problem when the basis is divergent viewpoints.

class on Molecular Evolution, but the field has not improved

I think ME still has some growing to do.

It will probably do more good for you and I to cool the jets as we are having a hard time matching conversation and I for one have found simply responding IN RESPONSE to someone of less value than engaging in beneficial improvements and as since we can barely co-ordinate our own understandings to each other it is likley seeing even the difference of our views is not likely to benefit any of the other readers here on EVC ... As if you and I can not agree on where it came from and where it is it makes making linkagaes in betweeen of less value I feel than not posting at all and rather spending a proportiontely more amount of time reading what others have or are contributing so as better to target the placement of posts. I probably could have avoided posting the line about you "following" me. That was written with more anger than anything else in mind. Thanks again for your effort and it is nice to know that you saw my work elsewhere as well. Best. Brad.

I can live with that. Sorry to cause anger, not my intent, & apologize for it. I will still enjoy your posts as I think you are one smart cookie and devour a lot of books. A different view can open eyes with wonder. Enjoy, friend.
AL.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2004 11:38 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2004 11:23 AM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 179 of 223 (97029)
04-02-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by RAZD
04-01-2004 10:36 PM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
All of this is fine but where is BEHE or IC in all this. If there is empty space THEN there could be a complexity by GOD and Behe might be correct but I have not gotten there as you for instance denied even in question here as to "correlation". LOOK, when calculating heritibility (regardless of you and I cleaning up our own terms statistics wise)the current elite crop is looking for correlations genetically, ie -GEENTIC CORRELATIONS. I am looking at a differnt causal depth where themal current correlations may ordinate THE SAME DATA. I could be wrong but the possibility remands creationism's existence in general when not in particular, and in general we are supposed to be discussing behe here! It is fine for you to not want to know what I think (however the contrary seems to be the case, thanks god says I...)but if I can not introduce the information EVEN IN QUESTION there is thus an unfair use of language going on that prevents the "debate" from reaching the table or board for this matter. What I am arguing against here on EVC is the standard of A cROnell education that prevented me from matureing this very concept of heritable calculations. I feel that Lewontin is too generous to stake a claim for organisms constructing the environments, for one has to blue-print not TOE but the construction itself. He failed becuase he did not take topobiology and topology serious enough to the current issues such as co-adapatation but some of these opinions if I pressed them with you would veer off the main point of this thread, aka p or c ro on IC and Behe or not.

So to TRY to orient you back to the issue on tap locally,
in A life of Sir Francis Galton by Gillham p 183 you can read,

"Having tortured himself over Galton's paper, Darwin wrote his cousin on November 7, 1875: "I have read your essay with much curiosity and interest, but you probably have no idea how excessively difficult it is to understand. I cannot fully grasp, only here and there conjecture, what are the points on which we differ-I daresay this is chiefly due to muddle-headedness on my part, but I do not think wholly so. Your many terms, not defined, "developed germs"-"fertile" and "sterile" germs( the word "germ" itself fromk association misleading to me), "strip,"-"sept,""residue" etc.etc., quite confound me. If I ask myself how you derive and where you place the innumerable gemmules contained within the spermatozoa formed by a male animal during its whole life I cannot answer myself. Unless you can make several parts clearer, I beglieve(although I hope I am altother wrong) that very few will endeavor or succeed in fathoming your meaning." Darwin maked several passages in Galton's paper with numbers and enumerated his criticims in the text. One dealt directly with their disagreement over the heritbility of acquired characteristics. "If this implies that many parts are not modified by use and disuse during life of the individual, I differ from you, as every year I come to attribute more and more to such agency." Darwin was "very sorry to differ so much from you but I have thought that you would desire my open opinion.""

If there is ONLY one way to spread time across biological space (I could be wrong, I just wanted to set up some conditions under which BEHE could? be correct) AND heritbility is due to sequence correlations among (not necessarily between) DNA, RNA, and Protein (as per acutally timable differences of heat transfer and ionic flow)(hence Gould and company (and you?)) are looking for the correlations in the wrong place(and lewontin in the wrong prefix) (and it may even be possible to find one with repsect to the old prerelativity ether in the future of life exploration...)THEN we could even apriori dissus IC. That's what I look for. Use and disuse of thermal speeds of electron transit may even find a Darwinian Larmarkist anti-creationist possibility here but YEC would also be "scientific" in the same breath. This may be more than you would grant or others need find, but I can get here etc. Furthermore the issue of biochemical irreducibility would find an academic place among Lamarkianism, Croizatianism, Darwinism-Creationism(because of Gould etcwhen not was Provine...) but I do not impose my own "social insistutional" preferences on any one, sometimes rejecting them personally myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2004 10:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 11:34 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 180 of 223 (97476)
04-03-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Brad McFall
04-02-2004 11:23 AM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
Brad - sorry to take so long getting back to you on this one, I think we can work on looking for if not finding common ground.

All of this is fine but where is BEHE or IC in all this If there is empty space THEN there could be a complexity by GOD and Behe might be correct but I have not gotten there as you for instance denied even in question here as to "correlation". LOOK, when calculating heritibility (regardless of you and I cleaning up our own terms statistics wise)the current elite crop is looking for correlations genetically, ie -GEENTIC CORRELATIONS. I am looking at a differnt causal depth where themal current correlations may ordinate THE SAME DATA. I could be wrong but the possibility remands creationism's existence in general when not in particular, and in general we are supposed to be discussing behe here!.

Agreed, we are and have been way off topic here. All instances I am familiar with where Behe has introduced evidence for irreducible complexity (IC) have been reduced, as far as I know, to simpler systems that do function independent of final construct albeit for different purposes in some cases. Personally I think looking for IC in biological data is looking to separate a strand of grass in a stack of hay - you need to know the difference between straw and hay to discern it, whereas a needle would poke you with information. I would look to cosmology and quantum physics, for areas where we do not know what we know, and see if there are alternate explanations that work. This does not mean fantasy spiritual planes separated from the physical world by an unknown process but complexity within physics from observations not explained by previous theory, epicycle explanations after the observation to fix the theory.

Having tortured himself over Galton's paper, Darwin wrote ... Darwin maked several passages in Galton's paper with numbers and enumerated his criticims in the text ... Darwin was "very sorry to differ so much from you but I have thought that you would desire my open opinion."

All very interesting as historical documentation but little bearing on current biological thought and invalidated inheritance of acquired characteristics, Darwin being unfamiliar with genes in specific and genetics in general, and needing a mechanism of inheritance.

If there is ONLY one way to spread time across biological space (I could be wrong, I just wanted to set up some conditions under which BEHE could? be correct) AND heritbility is due to sequence correlations among (not necessarily between) DNA, RNA, and Protein (as per acutally timable differences of heat transfer and ionic flow)(hence Gould and company (and you?)) are looking for the correlations in the wrong place(and lewontin in the wrong prefix) (and it may even be possible to find one with repsect to the old prerelativity ether in the future of life exploration...)THEN we could even apriori dissus IC.

There needs to be a mechanism to spread biological systems across space that matches observed correlations between species at the genetic level -- it is the same as the question of animals from noah's ark, the "why there and only there" questions but related to genetic sequences within related species, tunneling back in time to the first ancestor, or possible group of ancestors as I don't think there needs to be a single ancestor for the mechanism to work and certainly the concept fails for sexual species (no single mito-Eve no single y-gene-Adam). Each group you look at within any point in time distribution would have similar genetic history pointing back to a first ancestor in deeper history due to the group having characteristics that have been filtered out since then to now (a Mandelbrot set complexity at different scales). This creates additional problems for first life forms generation in both philosophical and mathematical directions. Perhaps another place to look for IC for the Cist crowd?

enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2004 11:23 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Brad McFall, posted 04-05-2004 1:32 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019