Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(5)
(1)
Message 53 of 415 (661763)
05-09-2012 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bolder-dash
05-08-2012 9:41 PM


Re: Its a debate site??
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT ALLOW CREATIONISTS TO VOICE THEIR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT ON EvC, AND ALTHOUGH VIRTUALLY ANYTHING THEY SAY WILL EITHER BE CENSORED, OR THEY WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING "OFF TOPIC" EVERY TIME THEY MAKE A VALID POINT, AND EITHER BE SUSPENDED OR REFUSED POSTING PRIVILEGES, OR BE INUNDATED WITH A BARRAGE OF AD HOMINEN ATTACKS THAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO RESPOND TO OR AGAIN WILL BE SUSPENDED, THIS "IS" A DEBATE SITE, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT AND ANY OTHER DEBATE FORUM IS THAT DEBATING IS NOT ALLOWED HERE BY, BY DICTATE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.
Another prime example of pigeon chess.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-08-2012 9:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 62 of 415 (661845)
05-10-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by shadow71
05-08-2012 8:31 PM


Well my question is: is the CRISPRS system an example of a dedicated non random, beneficial change that evolutionary theorists have excluded to this day?
Yes, CRISPRS are an example of non-random mutations. A perfect example, in fact. I have said as much in other threads/posts. They aren't excluded by scientists or evolutionary theorists. In fact, it is those very people who discovered them and wrote about them.
What you are missing is that the CRISPR system is extremely limited. It is only found in a limited number of prokaryotes, and it only involves a very limited number of genes in the prokaryotes that have this system. CRISPR represents an extremely limited mutational mechanism that is not responsible for the overall evolution of any species. The fact that random mutations do not act like the CRISPR system supports our conclusions, not yours.
So what is the mechanism of genetic change that makes up the vast, vast majority of evolutionary change? Random mutations with respect to fitness. You have not presented ANYTHING that says otherwise. In fact, I even started a thread discussing a paper from an author that you suggested. You abandoned that thread when it became apparent that your argument had been refuted.
If so how can one have a debate when a valid point is ignored by the so called scientific experts, because it does not fit into their theory?
The CRISPR system is largely irrelevant to the evolutionary history to all but a handful of organisms, and even in the organisms that carry the CRISPR system the evolutionary effect is limited to a tiny portion of the genome. So why are you making such a big deal of the CRISPR system? That is the real question. Even more, why did you abandon the thread where I spent a lot of my time dissecting the Wright paper?
To bring this back towards the topic, the reason we have a creationist shortage is that their sacred cows are slaughtered quite quickly. I put the CRISPR issue to bed quite a while ago, and yet here it is again, back from the dead. Creationists think that if they wait long enough we will forget that their arguments were refuted. Sorry, not going to happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by shadow71, posted 05-08-2012 8:31 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-10-2012 9:29 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 63 of 415 (661848)
05-10-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by shadow71
05-10-2012 2:22 PM


The problem I have is many scientists on this board ignore the facts of the system and merely state all mutations for fitness are random.
If you take all prokaryotes and add up the mutations over the last 10 years in all of those prokaryotes, how many of those mutations occurred as a result of the CRISPR system? If that number turns out to be 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% can you really blame us for rounding up and saying "all mutations are random with respect to fitness"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by shadow71, posted 05-10-2012 2:22 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 144 of 415 (662408)
05-15-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by shadow71
05-14-2012 7:52 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Shapiro says I understand it, but the "scientists" on this board, most of whom have never read Shapiro say I don't understand.
Shapiro has never claimed, in black and white, that mutations are not random with respect to fitness. In your questions to him he skirts the issue time after time by using evasive language. We explained that to you multiple times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by shadow71, posted 05-14-2012 7:52 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
(1)
Message 145 of 415 (662410)
05-15-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Bolder-dash
05-14-2012 11:10 PM


Re: why there are no creationists here
Its about why creationists have given up attempting debating on this site.
The answer to this is quite simple. The evidence is not on the side of creationists. When creationists are systematically forced to base their arguments on evidence they have no argument. What is their reaction? Often, it's not very mature. In order to deflect their utter failure in the scientific arena they play the martyr card. "Oh, look at all these mean people saying mean things about me, whaaaaaaa!!!!". In fact, ID supporters produced an entire feature film that was nothing but whining. By doing this, they never have to face up to the intellectual bankruptcy of creationist/ID.
You can't understand why they don't bother?
After it becomes apparent that they will be forced to muster evidence to back their claims I think creationists just simply have nothing to post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-14-2012 11:10 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-15-2012 6:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 160 of 415 (662654)
05-17-2012 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Bolder-dash
05-15-2012 6:57 PM


Re: why there are no creationists here
You know , I think you may have something there Taq. I now realize, the reason evolutionists don't want to fairly debate their theory is because they have no evidence.
Fine then. Challenge accepted. I am hereby challenging you to a one on one debate where I will offer evidence in support of evolution, and you will in turn offer evidence of creationism. Are you up for this or not?
And what's their reaction when they are asked t give evidence
Notice how you have already deflected attention away from the lack of evidence for creationism. How predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-15-2012 6:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 161 of 415 (662655)
05-17-2012 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Bolder-dash
05-16-2012 5:21 AM


Re: why there are no creationists here
Doesn't all of the fossil evidence support the notion of guided evolution every bit as much as it does Darwinian evolution? With perhaps the caveat that it in fact supports the notion of guided evolution EVEN MORE SO, since what we find in the fossil record is fits and starts of new life forms, rather than smooth transitions.
It would be great if you would start a thread explaining how fits and starts in the very incomplete fossil record evidences a supernatural natural deity changing DNA.
Fossils say nothing about the process, just the result.
If you start a thread on this subject or include it in our 1-on-1 debate I will show that you are very wrong about this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-16-2012 5:21 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 167 of 415 (662768)
05-18-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by shadow71
05-17-2012 6:54 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
However you very rarely see Shapiro disparaged for his science.
Too bad that you refuse to focus on the science.
Overall, I think most scientists are willing to let Shapiro say what he wants to say out of respect.
Perhaps he is ahead of his time.
No. He is putting on a Barnum and Bailey's act. He is trying to sell his ideas through showmanship, and you know what PT Barnum said about suckers . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by shadow71, posted 05-17-2012 6:54 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 214 of 415 (668159)
07-17-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by marc9000
07-17-2012 8:09 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
They could only be convinced of that if they thought that one time dimension and three space dimensions were all there is to reality. Christians believe there is more to reality. So by claiming something as universally true, without admitting that it’s only a belief within one limited worldview, it makes it highly probable that it is in fact an agenda to turn people against God.
The problem arises when the "more to reality" is actually a set of beliefs that runs contrary to the physical evidence. What to do then?
Should we not teach heliocentrism because some believe that heliocentrism indicates that there is no God? Should we teach that diseases are caused by germs instead of evil spirits as some believe? Should we not teach anything in science that might contradict a religious belief either held now, in the past, or possibly in the future? Can science teach anything without being accused of attacking someone's beliefs in the supernatural?
What you are pushing for is the protection of dogmatic religious beliefs against the things we discover in reality. I think you are fighting a losing battle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2012 8:09 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(5)
(1)
Message 241 of 415 (668236)
07-18-2012 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Buzsaw
07-18-2012 5:18 PM


Re: Your God's Book Purposefully Deceives?
We who hold to the accuracy of the Genesis record and other miraculous allegements in the Bible are not afforded that advantage. We could in no way believe the Genesis record and claim to believe evolution nonsense.
I think this paragraph illustrates the problem. Not once do you reference the EVIDENCE. The phrase, "We who hold to the accuracy of . . ." is nonsensical. One does not hold to accuracy. One DEMONSTRATES accuracy through EVIDENCE.
We view the world through different philosophies. You think the world should conform to your beliefs. We believe that we should conform our beliefs to what we find in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Buzsaw, posted 07-18-2012 5:18 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 292 of 415 (669112)
07-27-2012 2:46 AM


marc9000,
If an airline pilot says that they, as pilots, would benefit the human race by pushing people away from religion would you conclude that aerodynamics is anti-God? If not, then why conclude that what a scientist says is somehow evidence that science is anti-God?
The fact of the matter is that conversions from fundamentalist christian to atheism is driven by people requiring an absolute rejection of reason, knowledge, and fact in order to be a christian. It is not as if scientists fudge data so as to counter what christians believe. Instead, scientists report the facts. It is christians who require their followers to hold beliefs that stand in direct contrast to reality. Is it really any wonder that those people, when faced with fact and reality, reject christianity? Buzzsaw inadvertantly spoke the truth when he said, "What true god would inspire a manual full of falsehoods for it's intelligent created beings to live by? ". Indeed. The evidence demonstrates that creationism is false, so how could a literal Genesis come from a true God? That is conclusion that creationism pushes people towards. It is not the fault of science that the facts are what they are. It is the fault of creationism that they expect people to believe stories that are directly contradicted by the facts.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 329 of 415 (669488)
07-30-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2012 1:39 AM


Re: levels and levels and levels
But the thing is, you don't really ever direct challenges to the underlying principles of Darwinian evolution, at least not in a comprehensive manner.
This is false. One of the fundamental principles of the modern synthesis is the independence of mutation and selection. This is expressed by the idea that mutations are random with respect to fitness. One of the posters here was citing Shapiro and Wright as supporters of the notion that mutations were not truly random with respect to fitness. So what happened? I took the time to read and understand an article written by Wright that dealt with this very issue. I spent the time going through each of the figures and tables and discussed both the methods and results in a way that was understandable to the layperson. I discussed how the evidence failed to show a non-random relationship beetween mutagenesis and fitness. You can find the thread here:
EvC Forum: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
Of your two posts in the thread both were deemed off-topic, and they clearly were. Neither of your posts discussed the Wright paper at all which was the topic of discussion. I would be happy to start another thread on the peer reviewed primary paper of your choice (no review papers please, they are just too long and cover too much ground for a focused discussion).
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 1:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 7:39 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 343 of 415 (669554)
07-30-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2012 7:39 PM


Re: who is the layperson?
During the topic of Shapiro and Wrights papers, the point of the modern synthesis was brought and how Shapiros and Wrights concepts could be incorporated into the modern synthesis. The comments from me (which were deleted by admin and deemed off topic!) were directly related to what the modern synthesis actually means in terms of evolutionary theory.
The focus of the thread was centered around whether or not the data in the Wright paper demonstrated non-random mutations. Bringing up redefinitions of the modern synthesis was completely off topic. You never commented on any of the data from the paper which was the topic. I started that thread so we could end those endless debates on what so and so meant. I thought it was more important to talk about about what the evidence actually indicated.
It is a perfect example of the absurdity of how discussions are controlled here. My sin wasn't being off topic, I was no more off topic than you were. My sin was making sense of the holes in your theory.
Then I urge you to go to that topic and demonstrate that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness, and use the data in the Wright paper to support your argument. Here is the link again:
EvC Forum: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 7:39 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 8:46 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 359 of 415 (669605)
07-31-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2012 8:46 PM


Re: who is the layperson?
In order to discuss randomness vs. non-randomness first we must know what that means.
I discuss those definitions in the thread with reference to the actual data. Again, I urge you to participate in that thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2012 8:46 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024