Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 258 (19330)
10-08-2002 12:45 PM


This is from an exchange in another thread. Peter Borger, creationist, has strongly implied that all gene trees shoulkd match each other and therefore should be identical to a species tree. This despite the fact that he claims to be a molecular biologist and should know that different loci mutate independantly of any other locus and therefore incongruities are not unexpected.
Despite the fact that it is Borger's claim that all gene trees must match, he demanded I supply him with citations demonstrating that gene trees are not always expected to match:
quote:
SLPx:
It seems to me that YOU should be the one to provide documentation, since YOU are the one that claims that evolutionary biologists DO believe this. I am an evolutionary biologist (unlike you) and I know this is incorrect. I am the source.
But, you seem to know Futuyma. Maybe you have his text? Well, I do, And it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this:
BORGER:
MY RESONSE:
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GENES ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH SPECIES TREES, WHY IS THERE A DISCIPLINE THAT RECONSILES THESE GENES IN AN UTTERLY SPECULATIVE MANNER BY INTRODUCING/DELETION OF DUPLICATIONS? I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND SINCE YOU ARE THE EVO-BIOLOGIST ( I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANATOMIST BY EDUCATIN IN ANOTHER MAIL? 'HOMO UNIVERSALIS', I GUESS, LIKE ME) MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.
Well, musn't let a little falsification get in our way, must we Peter?
What is this 'discipline' whose sole function is to "reconcile" gene trees with species trees?
What if no reconciliation is necessary? Is that lineage hypothesis correct?
What we have is the tired old creationist wild extrapolation - Borger found what appears to be a unique case and extrapolates into a field-wide conundrum.
The old Woodmorappe "anomolies refute constancies" tactic...
quote:
"Coalescent theory tells us that under some circumstances, this gene tree, even if correct, may not be the same as the species tree, i.e., the phylogeny of the species form which the gene copies were taken."
MY RESPONSE:
WHO IS FUTUYMA? YOUR GOD? AND COALSESCENT HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T TELL ANYTHING, IT MERELY HOLDS SOMETHING. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO BRING AN HYPOTHESIS AS FACT?
No, Futuyma is an evolutionary biologist, one whom I believe you have quoted yourself. You asked for a citation, I provide one, you go off on this bizarre rant. If you read the quote, you would see that it is coalescent theory, and as one holding a docotrate in the sciences, I thought that you would know what a theory is, but I guess I was wrong on that count. Let me help you with your creationese, Peter - you should have written :Its just a theory. It isn't proven beyond a doubt, therefore, it is wrong."
There now - isn't that better?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 11:07 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 6 of 258 (19418)
10-09-2002 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by peter borger
10-08-2002 11:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
You write:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from an exchange in another thread. Peter Borger, creationist, has strongly implied that all gene trees shoulkd match each other and therefore should be identical to a species tree. This despite the fact that he claims to be a molecular biologist and should know that different loci mutate independantly of any other locus....
I say:
That is an assumption. As posted today, even mutations induced by radioactivity seem to be non-random, i.e on hotspots. From NDT perspectives this has NO explanation.
You can put your fingers in your ears and scream "I can't hear you!" all day long and it will not change the fact that science did find an answer to this - as has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. Perhaps you cannot understand it. Most likely, both.
quote:
....and therefore incongruities are not unexpected.
Despite the fact that it is Borger's claim that all gene trees must match, he demanded I supply him with citations demonstrating that gene trees are not always expected to match:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx:
It seems to me that YOU should be the one to provide documentation, since YOU are the one that claims that evolutionary biologists DO believe this. I am an evolutionary biologist (unlike you) and I know this is incorrect. I am the source.
But, you seem to know Futuyma. Maybe you have his text? Well, I do, And it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this:
BORGER:
MY RESONSE:
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GENES ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH SPECIES TREES, WHY IS THERE A DISCIPLINE THAT RECONSILES THESE GENES IN AN UTTERLY SPECULATIVE MANNER BY INTRODUCING/DELETION OF DUPLICATIONS? I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND SINCE YOU ARE THE EVO-BIOLOGIST ( I THOUGHT YOU WERE ANATOMIST BY EDUCATIN IN ANOTHER MAIL? 'HOMO UNIVERSALIS', I GUESS, LIKE ME) MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, musn't let a little falsification get in our way, must we Peter?
I say:
If you admit that it IS a little falsification, than evolution theory is not complete, or worse, wrong. Certainly, it is NOT a fact!!
Silly creationist, I was referring to the falsification of your pitiful mantra about gene trees having to be congruent lest evolution be wrong. This little rhetorical gmae that you like to play is most unimpressive.
quote:
You say:
What is this 'discipline' whose sole function is to "reconcile" gene trees with species trees?
I say:
It can be found in most recent evolutionary studiebooks, for instance in "Molecular Evolution, A Phylogenetic Approach" by Dr. Roderick Page. I already gave you the references.
So, you are saying that molecular evolution is the field whose sole responsibility is 'reconciling' incongruent trees? Unreal.
quote:
You say:
What if no reconciliation is necessary? Is that lineage hypothesis correct?
I say:
That's good for the hype, although it doesn't proof anything.
TRANSLATION: Yes, but I don't want to deal with that and I have a religion to prop up, so I cannot concede a single point.
Thanks, Pete. What is does proof is that you, like all creationists, are being quite unreasonable and inconsistent.
quote:
You say:
What we have is the tired old creationist wild extrapolation - Borger found what appears to be a unique case and extrapolates into a field-wide conundrum.
I say:
I thought that there was nothing inherently wrong with speculations, as long as they are presented as speculations and not as fact. And thanks for calling me a 'tired old creationist'. I am not tired and not old. You don't learn it, isn't it Dr Page?
Incomprehensible.
I do not see anything in your posts indicating that it was speculation on your part that species trees must match all gene trees, lest evolution be disproofed. You presented it as what I call a matter-of-fact statement. As such, you were quite wrong for a numnber of reasons.
quote:
You say:
The old Woodmorappe "anomolies refute constancies" tactic...
I say:
Anomalies demonstrate the theory not to be correct. Ask any physicist about anomalies.
Why would I ask a physicist about a biological phenomenon? But your dogged dogmatism is most inspiring.
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Coalescent theory tells us that under some circumstances, this gene tree, even if correct, may not be the same as the species tree, i.e., the phylogeny of the species form which the gene copies were taken."
MY RESPONSE:
WHO IS FUTUYMA? YOUR GOD? AND COALSESCENT HYPOTHESIS DOESN'T TELL ANYTHING, IT MERELY HOLDS SOMETHING. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO BRING AN HYPOTHESIS AS FACT?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say:
No, Futuyma is an evolutionary biologist, one whom I believe you have quoted yourself.
I say:
No, Mark24 was the first to mention him. I know who he is what he holds, and I know why I am an opponent of his visions.
So do I - you have a religion to protect.
quote:
You say:
You asked for a citation, I provide one, you go off on this bizarre rant. If you read the quote, you would see that it is coalescent theory, and as one holding a docotrate in the sciences, I thought that you would know what a theory is, but I guess I was wrong on that count. Let me help you with your creationese, Peter - you should have written :Its just a theory. It isn't proven beyond a doubt, therefore, it is wrong."
There now - isn't that better?
I say:
Sounds a lot better than the usual statements that it is a fact. Evolution theory is all but a fact. Only by the complete ignorance of all implications of contemporary molecular biology it can be propagated as fact. That is what happens in the media.
Then I suggest you straighten the media out then, rather than make a fool of yourself in front of those of us that know better.
quote:
And, I recommend you to get used to non-random mutations. Soon they will be introduced in evolution theory.
If you say so, what being an asthma researcher and all.
I take your lack of substantive response to be an admission that you simply went into ballistic creationsit mode when I disproofed your little notion about gene trees and species trees. Pity you didn't actually learn anything from that Rod Page book...
quote:
Finally, I assume you do not want to discuss the human ZFY region, since you edited it out? Another little falsification?
Please try to comrehend the words of others a little better next time.
What is to discuss? The twisted interpretation of a creationist asthma researhcer or that of anyone else?
You grow tiresome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 10-08-2002 11:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 11:00 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 258 (19635)
10-11-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by peter borger
10-09-2002 11:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr page,
All your responses are tacitly saying "Please, I don't wanna discuss this topic, but I wanna kick some creationist's butts".
No, they are saying "The creationist has already had his butt kicked, so why keep going over this same stuff".
quote:
I wonder, though, why did you register to this board? Maybe you didn't get it, but it is a discussion board!!
Yes, I realize that. One of the reasons I registered was to counter the propagandistic nonsense spewed by creationists. Especially those that present themselves as having some sort of expertise to make their arguyments look more imnpressive than they are.
quote:
So, I once more invite you to discuss the ZFY region in a scientific way. Let's find out where the problems are and how I solve them and how you solve them.
Best wishes,
Peter
I posted some recent citations addressing your 'anomolies' that I don't think you have responded to yet.
So, yes - let's discuss the science behind your claims.
That would be a first. Repeated assertions do grow tirsome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 11:00 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 1:17 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 13 by DanskerMan, posted 11-25-2002 4:58 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 10 of 258 (19636)
10-11-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by peter borger
10-09-2002 11:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,
You also still don't get the point of non-random mutations, is it? How many times do I have to repeat myself before this new insight is going to be understood. Read all my recent mail in the "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation" thread. In particular #184. If true, we can not discriminate between molecular common descent and non-random accumulations of mutations. Is this concept so difficult to comprehend?
O yes, the point I made was that the putative duplication required to reconcile the IL-1beta gene tree did not give rise to Il-1beta, but to IL-1alpha. So, this demonstrates the method to be invalid.
best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-09-2002]

Funny - did you not just ask me to provide with references for the methods in another thread?
How can you say they are invalid (they are not, I assure you) when you do not even know what they are?!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 10-09-2002 11:24 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 12 of 258 (19644)
10-11-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
10-11-2002 11:24 AM


See:
http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/zfy1a.htm
and my post in the thread on molecular 'proof'...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 11:24 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 24 of 258 (24432)
11-26-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by DanskerMan
11-25-2002 4:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
Sonnikke:
this is LOL stuff...WHO is spreading propagandistic nonsense? I tell you, the evolutionist has MUCH greater faith than the creationist.
To believe that everything we see and feel happened by chance without a designer...it goes contrary to all else that we know. No building ever builds itself; no organization runs smoothly without managament& planning (design)...there's design in virtually everything, why is it so hard for the evolutionist to attribute design to something so complex as life? It's all about faith in either THE God or the evo-god...

*yawn*
If you say so....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DanskerMan, posted 11-25-2002 4:58 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by DanskerMan, posted 11-26-2002 2:03 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 28 of 258 (24456)
11-26-2002 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by DanskerMan
11-26-2002 2:03 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by sonnikke:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by SLPx:
*yawn*
If you say so....
[/B][/QUOTE]
Gee, that was easy...glad you see it my way...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, your argument was so compelling and filled with supporting documentation that I would be a fool not to adopt your beliefs at once...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DanskerMan, posted 11-26-2002 2:03 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by DanskerMan, posted 11-26-2002 4:39 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 31 of 258 (24547)
11-27-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by gene90
11-26-2002 10:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I'm sorry you don't want to go out of your way to learn enough about evolution to follow us in the threads, but that is like asking us to to explain String Theory with no math.
I'd be much more interested to hear you tell us about evolution, to see if you really understand it.

Indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 11-26-2002 10:34 PM gene90 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 35 of 258 (24604)
11-27-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by DanskerMan
11-27-2002 9:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I'm sorry you don't want to go out of your way to learn enough about evolution to follow us in the threads, but that is like asking us to to explain String Theory with no math.
I'd be much more interested to hear you tell us about evolution, to see if you really understand it.

If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.

Yes. Talking donkeys... Curing leprosy by killing pigeons... The ark story... the Son of God having to work as a carpenter to most of his life....
Yes - does seem pretty preposterous, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by DanskerMan, posted 11-27-2002 9:58 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 90 of 258 (25439)
12-04-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by DanskerMan
12-03-2002 4:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
Perhaps it's time to re-examine the original statement.
Indeed. The purpose of this thread was to show how far creationists will go in attempting to 'prove' their points. Borger made factally baseless - or at best, wildly extrapolated - statements, and I addressed them.
Lets look at these individually.
****************************************************************
Evolution:
- There is no God (purists).
Absolute nonsense. The Theory of Evolution make sno statements concerning any deity at all.
- We are here by accident.
Unwarranted connotation.
- There is no purpose for life.
As Percy pointed out, no fields of science make any such judgements.
- There are no absolute morals (hence: abortions, genocide,etc)
Abortion was allowed by the church through approximately the 6th month (the time of "quickening") until relatively recently.
Genocide is not only mentioned in the bible, but is in fact commanded.
The 'morals' offered up in the bible are far from 'absolute'. More like the "do as I say, not as I do, unless I tell you to" pseudomorals favored by the political right today (not a coincidence, considering the religious fervor of the right).
You really aren't doing too well in your assessment so far.
- We are no different than the animals.
Well, we ARE animals, and evolution certainly does not say that we are not different from them.
You are ZERO for 4.
Creation:
- There is a God who loves us.
Debateable.
- We are here for a purpose.
What purpose is that?
- God knew us before we were born, and loved us, still does.
Irrational.
- There are absolute morals and values.
Wrong.
- We are NOT animals, but far superior, created in God's image.
Please explain to us - without resorting to metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and pleas to emotion and biblical verse - how, exactly, it is that we are not animals.
- We are so valuable that the Creator Himself gave his life for us.
So, was this before or after he felt that we were so wicked that he killed us all - save for 8 people that had to engage in monumental amounts of incest to give rise to all the peoples of today?
And He allowed himself to be killed to appease Himself?
Wow. Now THATS some good deity-work!
Now, which one is sadder for the mind??
Case closed!
Yes, I think it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by DanskerMan, posted 12-03-2002 4:40 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by DanskerMan, posted 12-04-2002 12:33 PM derwood has replied
 Message 94 by zipzip, posted 12-05-2002 1:00 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 92 of 258 (25456)
12-04-2002 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by DanskerMan
12-04-2002 12:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
What is the evolutionists definition of "animal"?

Probaly the same as everyone elses, without the emotional baggage appended to it by hysterical creationists.
From an online dictionary:
any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
Sounds pretty good to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by DanskerMan, posted 12-04-2002 12:33 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Syamsu, posted 12-05-2002 3:26 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 109 of 258 (25587)
12-05-2002 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by zipzip
12-05-2002 1:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
In defense of sonnikke, whose post I think was misconstrued by SLPx:
Sonnike appeared to be referring to the brand of atheist evolutionist perhaps better described as being an adherent of "scientism," ...
Then perhaps Sonnike should have been more clear?
quote:
What bothers me more was that the treatment of sonnikke's view of the creationist worldview was rather biased. I do not see how SLPx can say with certainty that there are no absolute morals and values, particularly since he/she has acknowledged that the existence of God is at least debatable (and therefore of finite probability).
Very simply because there are many cultures that have claimed to have attained/been given/etc. 'absolute' morals and values from various deities and they most certainly do not all coincide.
That is, that 'absolutes' come from a deity - the existence of which is debatable - and since different religions subscribe to different deities, each proclaiming theirs to be the one true deity (or the several true deities), and their 'absolutes' are not congruent, then it appears that there are no absolutes.
quote:
I will not respond to SLPx's mocking of God, because that was just plain stupid.
Truth hurts, I guess....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by zipzip, posted 12-05-2002 1:00 AM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by zipzip, posted 12-06-2002 4:05 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 113 of 258 (25659)
12-05-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Syamsu
12-05-2002 3:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Most likely the idea to put humans in the animals categorie originated from some anti-religious atheists as a way to jolt religious beliefs about humans as the crown of creation.
I'm sorry, I had an appointment on planet earth today....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Syamsu, posted 12-05-2002 3:26 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 114 of 258 (25660)
12-05-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by DanskerMan
12-05-2002 2:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
*******************
If it can be clearly demonstrated and proven that humans are **NOT** animals but are distinct and superior, the theory of evolution **COMPLETELY and UTTERLY** disintegrates!!!
******************
Well, sonny, I think it is about time you put your jammies on and went night-night.
I think you are in way over your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by DanskerMan, posted 12-05-2002 2:14 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 125 of 258 (25705)
12-06-2002 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Syamsu
12-06-2002 7:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
And in the same way you would dismiss equality of people as selfevident truth, without once considering the possibility you might be morally wrong.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What utter bullchips.
In my experience, those that rcognize the unity of nature (via evolution) are far more likely to be humanitarian and compassionate than are those that are strict adherents of ANY religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Syamsu, posted 12-06-2002 7:14 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 12-06-2002 9:22 AM derwood has not replied
 Message 133 by Syamsu, posted 12-06-2002 10:41 AM derwood 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