Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
59 online now:
jar, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,691 Year: 9,439/23,288 Month: 454/1,544 Week: 168/561 Day: 8/63 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 55 of 141 (12284)
06-27-2002 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by degreed
05-25-2002 2:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by degreed:

One of my Favorite Flaws
--Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun).


Wow. I have read some doosies in my time, but this one is a mind-bender.

Perhaps you could provide some references for this, degreed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 2:54 PM degreed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by singularity, posted 07-31-2002 8:45 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 56 of 141 (12285)
06-27-2002 2:14 PM


JP posted his opener verbatim on the Baptist Board, got some replies, and engaged in his usual rhetoric. Here is my last response there, dated 6/17, as yet unanswered:

quote:
:

Scott Page:
The time constraint issue is a flim-flam

John Paul:
Things take time that much is for sure. Science is NOT in the habit of producing instant results. Surely a person in your position would understand this. The only flim-flam is the passing of the ToE as science.


Science does take time. But as you just admitted, creation had been the reigning paradigm since well before the ToE. Regardless of your personal distaste for and inexperience in the sciences, the ToE is, in fact, scientific and it has in its support data from numerous fields of science. These repeated charges of the ToE not being science and such smack of desperation and an ignorance of the available data.

quote:
:

Scott Page:
As for the ‘questions’ posed to evolutionists, they are largely of the type that there will probably be no answers for, as they seem to be in the realm of the origin and very early diversification of life. Not coincidentally, I’m sure, an area that there is very little physical evidence for.

John Paul:
Thank you. Then the ToE is out of the realm of science and out of reach of scientific method.


Now THAT is a non-sequitur. Please produce documentation that abiogenesis is the pillar of the ToE that you seem to be making out to be. If this one tangential issue is inaccessible to the normal routes of investigation, I fail to see any logic or rationale in proclaiming that the ToE is therefore not scientific. A dearth of physical evidence means simply that any given hypothesis will benefit from only a small amount of evidence. Your ‘conclusion’, therefore, is quite unwarranted.

quote:
:

Scott Page:
The questions have little to do with evolution as such.

John Paul:
They show the grand sweep of the ToE can’t be objectively tested.


No, they show that you have latched onto an area of research for which there is very little physical evidence and have proclaimed it the most important such area, and that if none of the handful of lurkers or participants on this discussion board can answer the ‘questions’ to your satisfaction – and I doubt you would accept any answer as valid regardless of the source or the amount of documentation – that, therefore, evolution must be wrong/unscientific/etc.

quote:
:

John Paul:
No it doesn’t. The EVIDENCE when applied objectively indicates a shared (i. e. Common) Creator. We have different number of chromosomes. That, taken objectively, would say we didn’t share a common ancestor unless chromosomal fusion could be objectively tested.


What do you mean “chromosomal fusion could be objectively tested”? Again, it appears that you believe that chromosomal fusion was the linchpin of the descent of humanity from an ape-like ancestral stock. While such a line of reasoning might seem to have merit to the underinformed, in reality, it is a non-starter.
For example, the chromosome numbers in the Primate superfamily Cercopithecoidea vary from 2n=46 and 2n=72 (Primate Anatomy, An Introduction, 2nd Ed. 2000.)

This guenon (C. mona) has 2n=66.
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/images/img4697.gif

This one (C. mitis) has 2n=72.
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/images/img4284.gif

Should we conclude:

1. That chromosomal fusions/splittings/rearrangements are paramount in the microevolution of these guenons?
2. That if we cannot “objectively test” whether or not such events can explain the descent of these guenons from an ancestral stock that they were independently created?

2a. If yes to #2, how then can any karyotypic evidence be used as evidence of any type of descent?

quote:
:


Scott Page:
Even creation science confirms this - see http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html
wherein the objective (molecular) data indicates a human-ape ancestry, but this is rejected in favor of SUBJECTIVE (morphological and ecological) data, even though the same data they rejected had been used as a ‘reliable’ indicator for other groups. I had some personal communication with one of the authors of the linked study, and made some disturbing discoveries regarding their use of morphological data as well, that I will expand on if necessary…

John Paul:
As I have stated several times now, Baraminology is a relatively new research venue. The current molecular data can easily point to a Common Creator. I am confident that once we decipher the genome, that premise will be borne out.


What does that have to do with Baraminology’s inability to apply criteria in an unbiased and arbitrary manner? These are supposed to be the ‘rising/shining stars’ of creation science. ReMine and Wise were consulted and/or used as references in these papers. I am confident that the more we learn about genome evolution, the more descent will be indicated. My confidence is being borne out on nearly a daily basis. Yours first needs to be filtered through the lenses of creationists who discard and wildly extrapolate what evidence there is to fit their preconceived notions.

quote:
:

Scott Page: What are the objective criteria upon which the exception for humans is premised?

John Paul: Baraminology is relatively new. But, unlike the ToE, I would hope it could be objectively tested before its conclusions are considered to be scientific dogma.

Scott Page:
So you have no answer then, fine. The methods employed by those using ToE-based hypotheses of descent have been tested on knowns.

Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.

Atchley WR, Fitch WM
“Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains.”

John Paul:
Wow, mice evolving into mice. Producing a genealogy tree? That’s what you are offering? Are you saying that because this appears to work on “knowns” that it is OK to extrapolate to unknowns? This is the crux of the debate- extrapolating from “knowns”. It is hardly a given.


You failed to grasp the significance of the results I cited. It is not a question of “mice evolving into mice” – it is an issue of the testing of the methodology employed examining hypotheses of descent. The methods employed in molecular phylogenetic analyses were used on a known geneaology of inbred mouse strains to see whether or not these methods would reproduce the known relationships. Pretty straightforward.
I am saying that when a methodology works on knowns, that it is standard procedure to then be confident that the conclusions based on these methods, when applied to unknowns, is valid. That is how science – and even, I would hope, engineering – works. Or do you, in designing software, have to continually re-invent the various methods of writing software?

quote:
:


Scott Page:
One example of many.

John Paul:
That’s great. So far it looks like evidence for variations within a Created Kind.


Please then explain how one would test a methodology on a ‘known’ set of evolutionarily related non-intraKind creatures to your satisfaction. All I see here is the common creationist tactic of setting up no-win situations for the ToE. Were I to cite a study in which a methodology had been tested on, say, whales and hippos, doubtless the authors would be accused of circular reasoning and the whole issue hand-waved out of existence. There is simply no way to meet the ever-changing, arbitrary, biased ‘demands’ of the non-scientifically oriented ideologue.

quote:
:

John Paul: Do you have a reference? [re:whale legs]

Scott Page:
I do . Here is one, though not on Minke whales specifically:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

John Paul:
It doesn’t mention a femur. The alleged “hind limbs” are actually only that in the view of evolutionists.


The pelvis is discussed a bit. What do you suggest a long bone associated with a pelvis be called?

quote:
:

Do we have any genetic evidence that would show that legs can be “erased” like that?

Let me explain: If these bones were at one time femurs that did form hind limbs, then what happened to the rest of the leg? For example, can we, with genetic engineering, alter some organism’s (with legs) genome and see if we can get an organism with only femurs for hind limbs? Or maybe take a whale and using genetic engineering splice the necessary sequence into the whale’s genome (or whatever was necessary) to see if fully formed legs appear?


What is this ‘genetic engineering’ all about? There are plenty of genetic conditions that result in the formation of stunted limbs (or no limbs at all). Meromelia is a condition in humans that results in limb malformations. Caudal dysgenesis results in the absence of the coccyx and in some cases the sacrum in humans. It is no real surprise that such anomalies exist. In the case of terrestial bipeds, these conditions are of course non-adaptive. So, yes, there is evidence that limbs or parts of limbs can be un-developed.

quote:
:

Wouldn’t they only be femurs if they belonged to legs? So by calling these femurs it is being assumed they are legs or were from legs.

Scott Page:
Grin… They are called femurs because they are attached to or associated with pelvi which are attached to or associated with the sacral portion of the skeleton, just like in us… and mice… and other mammals.

John Paul:
From Britannica:
FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal, used to support the body, provide locomotion, and, in modified form, assist in capturing and eating prey (as in certain shellfish, spiders, and insects). In four-limbed vertebrates all four appendages are commonly called legs, but in bipedal animals, including humans, only the posterior or lower two are so called.
Are you changing the definition of “femur” to suit your needs? Do you have a definition of “femur” other than the one Britannica offers?


I wasn’t aware that
1. Brittanica is the ultimate authority on scientific terminology
2.That shellfish, spiders, and insects have femurs (they have exoskeletons).
3. that a femur is a “limb or appendage”
Looking into point 2 above should make it clear what I think of my point 1.

I prefer to use ‘definitions’ that are relevant to the discussion at hand and that are produced in the proper context. From Kardong’s “Vertebrates”, 2nd Ed., 1998. In the section on the basic parts of the appendicular skeleton:
“The limb region closest to the body is the stylopodium, with a single element: humerus of the upper arm, femur of the thigh.”
A few pages later, there is some detail on the anatomy of living and fossil tetrapods and bony fish. On p. 314, Fig. 9.13 has drawings of the limb (fin) structure of some living sarcopterygians. In particular, the Neoceratodus fin/limb structure has a femur explicitly indicated. It is a single bone that connects the pelvic fin to the pelvic girdle (with a ball and socket joint, no less). I would dare say that such an arrangement – the presence of a femur in this fin/limb assemblage – has nothing to do with a leg. Of course, you should have paid more attention to your preferred Britannica definition (emphasis mine):
“FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal, used to support the body, provide locomotion, and, in modified form, assist in capturing and eating prey (as in certain shellfish, spiders, and insects). In four-limbed vertebrates all four appendages are commonly called legs, but in bipedal animals, including humans, only the posterior or lower two are so called.

quote:
:

Scott Page:
You responded with the above. It is a non-sequitur because it is clear in your quote (“I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that.”) that you think that the chromosomal fusion event was pivotal, indeed, perhaps caused the speciation event in question.

John Paul:
Not so. I think chromosomal fusion is part of it and a part we should be able to duplicate.


Duplicate what? What would we perform this fusion in? I was unaware that the ape-like ancestor from which humans and apes descended had been identified, much less that it is still alive and available for us to perform chromosomal fusion experiments on (please re-read the demolition of this premise above).

quote:
:

Alleged chromosomal fusion also just happens to be evidence used by evolutionists to claim humans and the great apes share a common ancestor.


It is but a small aspect, and it is certainly not used in the way that you seem to be implying. See my example of the guenons above. Are you going to claim that these Old world monkeys cannot possibly be related via descent because of the difference in chromosome number?

quote:
:

Even IF I did think what you said I think it still wouldn’t make it non sequitur as it still would follow the question. Do you have any information that the alleged chromosomal fusion was NOT pivotal or didn’t cause the speciation event in question?

I guess the only way to get around this issue is to do the experiment.


I have good reason to believe, based on the observations of obviously closely related species, that such a fusion was not pivotal nor did it cause any speciation event in the human historical lineage.
I, of course, would like to see some experiments that verify NREH in multicellular eukaryotes - and NOT anecdotes, phenotypic plasticity extrapolations, etc.

quote:
:


Scott Page: There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the chromosomal fusion event caused and speciation event.

John Paul:
Chromosomal fusion would be a start. We have to start somewhere, don’t we?

Scott Page:
See my last response above.

John Paul:
See mine. It is obvious when one sets out to show something there has to be a starting point in the process (to test the hypothesis). If you want to start out by genetically engineering all the other differences in the genomes first, fine.


I believe that you do not understand how scientific experimentation – especially in the realm of evolutionary biology – is undertaken. From my previous readings of creationists, were someone to undertake the very experiments you now seem to want, and recreate the evolution of some species in a lab, I have absolutely no doubt at all that you would simply declare the results to be supportive not of evolution but of Intelligent Design. It is a no-win situation for the evolutionist, a win-win for the creationist. What you apparently see – or at least want others to see – as some sort of ‘objective test’ of evolution is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy.

As I can see little coming form continuing exchanges in this thread, and also due to the fact that I have additional responsibilities at my job, I doubt that I will be able to respond in any sort of depth on this forum in the foreseeable future.

*******************************************************************

In Helen’s response, she wrote that chromosome number is no big deal. I replied to her:

And I suggest that you hook up with John Paul and the two of you decide which side of your mouths the creationism angle is going to be argued from. You see, he says that chromosome numbers are a big deal, you say they are not. It is easy to ‘win’ an argument when you argue both sides of the same coin, no?


Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by John Paul, posted 07-25-2002 5:38 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 62 of 141 (14222)
07-26-2002 12:13 PM


John Paul - is this the same guy that posts as JAFC on the No Answers in Genesis board? Named Joe Gallien?

Anyway, I invite anyone to read the linked thread. Also, this one:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=4

It is almost funny to see how the creationist tries to change topics, focuses on minutia, gerts away with posting insults by the libel-spewing 'administrators', and of course, gets totally embarrassed and doesn't even realize it at every turn.

Joe Gallien simply does not understand the topics he brings up - it was hilarious to see him claim that his 'language links' supported ReMine's contention regarding 1667 fixed beneficial mutations - the links DID NOT EVEN MENTION genes or mutations at all! The usual creationist mindless extrapolation at work...

Here is my last post to that thread, the one in which the administrators at BB (read: biased ignorant censors)called me a liar, and totally removed:
******************************************************

quote:
John Paul:
Same evidence different conclusions. The positive evidence for design is as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: ”Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”.

Behe’s personal incredulity is evidence of nothing but the fact that the answers he demands have not been found yet or have not been investigated yet – indeed, Behe has done ZERO research on the areas he claims to have evidence for design in.

quote:

And then we have Walter Bradley, Ph.D. in materials science; ”Evidence for design comes from three sources: 1) the simple mathematical form that nature takes; 2) the coincidence that the universal constants are exactly what they need to be to support life of any type on this planet; and 3) the coincidence that the initial conditions in many different situations are also critical and happen to have been exactly what they needed to be for the universe and life to come into being.”

That is not evidence either, that is emotional pleading.

quote:

Add those to the fact there isn’t any evidence to support a purely natural scenario to the origins of life (the Creation account & ID do care about that) and it is reasonable to infer that one of the alternatives is not only plausible but very likely.

So inference is OK for the creationist but taboo for the evolutionist?

quote:

If you knew what it was you were debating against you would know it is not merely saying that the evidence used in support of one theory is in fact evidence for something else, if, of course, you look at it the "right" way. Evidence is evidence, rocks are rocks and DNA is DNA. Evidence doesn’t talk, it has to be interpreted. It is obvious any interpretation would be influenced by bias. If you are biased by evolutionism then you would interpret the evidence in that light even though you can not verify that interpretation.

Ok, I guess I don’t know ‘what I am debating against.’ Please set me straight.

As for biases in interpretation, I have two questions for you:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. 2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?

quote:

What’s the positive evidence that random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the great transformations (as discussed by evolutionists on the PBS series Evolution) that is required if the theory of evolution is indicative of reality?

As I have mentioned several times, look at the sequence data. Does it pinpoint exactly which changes were ‘necessary’ to produce a ‘great transformation’? No, not yet anyway.
But it is good evidence, whether you accept it or not.
As an analogy, we can think of it this way. The DNA evidence is like a blood trail leading from a crime scene. It leads all the way to a suspect’s door. We knock on the door, but no one answers. The creationist would have us believe that, therefore, someone else did it.
I also suggest you learn a bit more about phylogenetic analyses before dumping it all in the lap of ‘bias’.
**************************************************

The censors over there are doing their damndest to make ignorant zealots like Joe Gallienb look like he actually knows something, but they can only do this by censoring opposing views.

Joe Gallien's primary response to anything presented to him is that he doesn't personally aqgree with/accept it, so it cannot be legitimate.

Also, Joe Gallien can't seem to tell the difference between fixed differences and all differences. Oh well, he's a creationist. What can one say?


  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 63 of 141 (14223)
07-26-2002 12:23 PM


Here's another one that the BB censors hacked to death to save poor Joe:

*************************************************************

quote:

Scott Page:
As much of ‘John Paul’s’ last post was tangential and did not add much to the discussion at hand, I will respond only to those issues which seemed substantive.

John Paul:
Impressive. The evolutionist cuts his losses and initiates damage control in one sentence.


Not impressive. The creationist engages in self-aggrandizement for no reason whatsoever.

quote:


Scott Page:
Please explain how one would go about objectively testing an historic event(s).

John Paul:
That is the whole point and that is why most of the ToE is out of the realm of scientific method, therefore not scientific. And yes I agree the door swings both ways.


I submit that you do not understand the scientific method if that is what you believe.

quote:

Scott Page:
We cannot – and need not - replicate JFK’s assassination to understand that it occurred – to objectively test the notion that the president was assassinated.

John Paul:
The fact JFK was assassinated hasn’t helped us find who did it.


So what? The point was that it did occur and that we cannot replicate it. Just as we cannot replicate the ‘grand sweep’ of evolution in a lab (which, as I already demonstrated, would be futile) does not mean that it did not happen, especially when there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for it.

quote:

Scott Page:
As I indicated previously, there is no way to objectively test abiogenesis , and I will append the alleged great transformations, to the creationist’s satisfaction. Any such testing had been pre-rejected by Wysong in the early 1970’s. Indeed, Wysong for some reason believed that “life” had already been created in the lab (testing abiogenesis?), but claimed that this was, in fact, evidence for Design rather than naturalistic abiogenesis.

John Paul:
Does Whysong represent all Creationists?


No, but his reasoning seems to be commonplace. Indeed, you have alluded to the same sentiment that Wysong spelled out.

quote:

Does that mean if I can find an evolutionist that says abiogenesis is part of the ToE it makes it so? Mine is from the 1960s.
The evolutionist Kerkut defined this ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ He continued: ‘the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’5

5. Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.


It is generally accepted practice that you cite your source. You cut and pasted the above copyrighted material from the young earth creationist ministry “Answers in Genesis”, form a propaganda piece by Sarfati. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/magnetochiral.asp
By the way, I have never heard of Kerkut, and he is not cited in any of the evolutionary texts I have.

quote:

And as I had replied and will repeat: Recreating it in a lab would be a start, sure it would. Then we could at least analyze what intervention was necessary.
At least by re-creating it in a lab would show it was possible. You can’t even do that.

“Then we could at least analyze what intervention was necessary.” Your assumption is that intervention is necessary. Wysong redux. Of course you cannot recreate the Creation, can you?

quote:


Scott Page:
Therefore, I see no reason to even pursue this line of reasoning and research.

John Paul:
I understand why you feel that way. Better off leaving it alone. Sooner or later people are going to wake up and demand real science be taught in science class and leave the philosophizing for some other class.


They already do. Properly educated individuals have been fighting for some time to keep the forces of religious conservatism from inflicting their right-wing propaganda upon students in the classroom.

quote:

John Paul:
Knowing this, statistics would tell us there would be nucleotide sequences that would match. That DNA also appears to be directly related to morphology, that humans & simians share some morphology, it would be safe to say that some nucleotide sequences should match, or be pretty darn close.

Scott Page:
Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology. This is a common creationist mantra, yet none have been able to provide any sort of support for this.

John Paul:
Grin… The theory of evolution tells us that or do you think our morphology is similar to the alleged starting population(s)? The ToE tells us that changes in the genome (DNA) led to the changes in the organism that led to the diversity we observe. If DNA isn’t responsible for those changes the ToE needs to be rewritten.


You can copy my writing style all you want to, and you will still be incorrect. The theory of evolution tells us that creatures with similar morphology will have similar DNA sequences throughout their genomes? Please tell me where I can read this for myself. The DNA that controls of influences morphology will obviously “be related to” morphology, but there is no rationale to assume that creatures with similar morphology would have similar synapomorphic changes in their genes that encode proteins having nothing to do with morphology. It Is not the ToE that needs to be rewritten, it is the creationist’s understanding of it that needs improvement.

quote:


Scott Page:
Why, for example, should the DNA sequences for blood proteins match due to morphological similarities? There is no logical reason for that other than descent.

John Paul:
Again you misrepresent what I posted. Continue reading:


I did not misrepresent you at all. In fact, I did not even refer to you in the above, rather it was rhetorical. Your repeated baseless accusations are noted.

quote:

quote:
Also, as you (obviously) know, serum albumin is a blood protein, so if two differently Created organisms had a similar blood-type (why would a Creator re-invent blood-types for every Created Kind?) one/ some/ most (all?) of the proteins contained in that blood-type should be similar (or even exact copies). Seeing that amino acids make up a protein, we should see a strong resemblance of nucleotide sequence if the protein is being used for the same thing even in different organisms. Again why would a Creator create different proteins that would do the same thing, especially in similar organisms?

Emphasis mine. What do you consider ‘strong’ ? Is 50% homology strong? Why would you assume that humans and non-human primates would have been created with ‘similar blood types’? And, again, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the actual data and how phylogeneitc inferences are made. It is NOT mere similarity.

quote:

Scott Page:
You did not even attempt to address the issues I suggested. I asked:

“…and please explain how the patterns of synapomorphy can be ‘explained’ (or inferred) via common creator, given that: 1. it is known that mutations occur; 2. it is known that mutations are passed on via descent.

John Paul:

I know what synapomorphy is. That mutations occur and may get passed on doesn’t mean humans and chimps share a common ancestor.


Then I submit that you do not, in fact, know what a synapomorphy is, nor what the implications of sequence analyses are.

quote:

That similar organisms share similar DNA sequences is evidence for a common design. I know this for a fact.

You do? Please share the evidence that allowed you to know this fact. Also please provide the documentation that demonstates that the patterns of synapomorphy seen in primates is due to design, rather than to heritable mutations.

quote:

You don’t go reinventing when there is no need to do so.

Right. Unless, of course, we are talking about the methods used 9in evolutionary biology.

quote:

If the primates in the study all had similar blood types then it would stand to reason that some proteins would have similar structure, therefore similar amino acid layout and thus similar nucleotide sequences. Similar nucleotide sequences, similar function could mean similar areas prone to mutations that can be tolerated.

If…could… Do you think that, say, guenons and orangutans have ‘similar blood types’? If so, please cite your sources, and explain what you mean by ‘similar’. Also note that in the link I provided, the bulk of the data is in noncoding regions, which have minimal if any effect on the expressed protein.

quote:

As for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding. Do you know what these mutations do, why would they be selected and become fixed?

Most likely they are neutral. As you should know, neutral mutations can become fixed in a population at the rate at which they occur in an individual. That you are implying that mere coincidence can account for the observed patterns is indicative to me that, again, you simply have seen no actual data.

quote:

Like I said & shown before- extrapolating knowns to unknowns isn’t as neat as you want us to believe.

Your contrived counterexamples notwithstanding, you have yet to demonstrate by any stretch of the imagination that applying the tested methods of molecular phylogentics to unknowns is unwarranted.

quote:


Scott Page
The creationist claims that it can be logically interpreted as evidence of a Common Creator using a Common Design. And putting patterns of synapomorphy into the taxa – patterns that mimic evolutionary hypotheses of descent – apparently just for fun?

John Paul:
They only mimic the evolutionary hypotheses of descent because of your bias towards evolutionism.


That is false and a completely unwarranted and inflammatory charge. Again, the only logical conclusion is that you are ignorant of the data.

quote:

Like I said similar organisms, with similar blood would have similar blood proteins.

You can say it all you want. What is your rationale for coming to this conclusion, other than the attempt to restrict the abilities and imagination of the Creator?

quote:

This confusing of the 2 models is what happens when alleged predictions are in reality post-dictions.

Wrong yet again. The prediction was that DNA sequence data would reflect evolutionary hypotheses of descent, were evolution correct, premised in part on mundane realities – mutations happen and get passed on. That the prediction has been and continues to be fulfilled (granted, with difficulties the further back in time we go, as should be expected) is support for evolution, not evidence of confusion and such.

quote:

quote:
John Paul:
Tetra(four)pod(foot). What are the four pods of a whale? How about a porpoise?
Scott Page:
The pectoral fins represent the forelimbs. The vestigial pelvi-associated bones are the hindlimbs.

John Paul:
You mean the alleged vestigial pelvi-associated bones. They do not connect like any other vertebrae’s femur does.


I do not mean alleged at all. You disagree for purely personal reasons. I suggest that you take it up with the proper authorities.

quote:

Scott Page:
See http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture15/sld034.htm
Embryology is very interesting…

John Paul:
Yes, I know it allows the evolutionist’s imagination run wild.


Yet another insult that snuck by the censor…. Noted.

quote:

We aren’t discussing whale embryos. We are discussing whales. I remember when evolutionists used to say (or do they still say it?) that human embryos have gill slits.

You do realize that big whales come from whale embryos? This attempted dodge would be funny if it were not such a clear sign of desperation. You implied that the Designer would be efficient – same shape, same blood proteins, that sort of thing. So here we have an embryo of a creature that, as an adult, has no recognizable hind limbs, yet in this early stage of development, has them. Is that an efficient Design? Or will this fall under the ‘we cannot know the mind of the Designer’ escape?
As for gill slits, the term itself is a misnomer, but the fact of the matter is that yes, human embryos possess the same primordia that in fish produce gills. It is called the pharyngeal (or branchial) apparatus.

quote:

quote:
Does a whale have a thigh?
Scott Page:
In the embryo, yes. (note: A limb bud contains all of the primordial necessary for a limb to develop, including a ‘thigh’)

John Paul:
Again we are not discussing whale embryos.


Whale embryos grow up into adult whales. I can understand why you would want to try to restrict the discussion, however, to do so is to ignore important aspects. Why are you so desperately trying to divorce the embryo from the adult?

quote:

quote:
Taking a look at guenons specifically we would have to know if the chromosome number remained the same throughout each particular species. If it does and the only difference in the number of chromosomes is between different species, it would be logical to infer ”That chromosomal fusions/splittings/rearrangements are paramount in the microevolution of these guenons”, until we have direct evidence to the contrary.
Scott Page:
This is at best tangential. The guenons in questions are far more similar morphologically than are humans and chimps, yet their chromosome numbers can differ by 6. If what you believe has merit – that chromosomal fusions and rearrangements are in fact very important in evolution (were it true, of course), then it stands to reason that the guenons in question should be worlds apart morphologically, if not behaviorally as well.

John Paul:
It doesn’t stand to reason. No one ever said that chromosome number would give you morphology that is world’s apart.


If we follow form your premise, then it certainly is a valid extrapolation.

quote:

However it would be logical to infer chromosome difference means something if the only difference in the number of chromosomes is in different species. That much should be obvious.

Are you implying that C. mitis and C. mona might really be the same species? What IS obvious is that the interspecies chromosome number is at best a tangential issue. But I am satisfied that you have stopped claiming erroneously that evolutionists use it as evidence of evolution.

quote:

quote:

What is this alleged genetic evidence that such an ancestor did exist?
Scott Page:
You can start by looking at the data in the link I provided before.

John Paul:
I did and like I said the same evidence is used to infer a Common Creator.


Oh, sure it is. But not in a logical or scientific manner.

quote:

quote:

The DNA evidence isn’t very objective if it can be looked at as being evidence for an Intelligent Designer, Common Creator or random mutations culled by natural selection.
Scott Page:
Yet it cannot rationally be done as you describe. As I have already explained, if one follows logically from observable premises (mutations occur and can be passed on) to analyses of sequence data, only one conclusion can logically be reached. In order for alternative conclusions to be drawn, one has to insert Divine caveat and whim into the mix. This may be theologically satisfying, but scientifically it is a dead end.

John Paul:
That mutations occur and can be passed on does NOT mean that all we observe owes it common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.


Ah – the sound of goal posts moving. I did not say or imply it did. That mutations occur and can be passed on is (one of) the foundational premise(s) underlying the reliability of molecular phylogenetic methods. These methods indicate that common ancestry is a valid concept. Even your Behe accepts common descent. The creationist will always be able to rush back to those points in time for which the evidence is most scarce and find safe haven.

quote:

As I have already explained & shown, extrapolating knowns to unknowns doesn’t always work.

I must have missed this. I saw some nitpicking and tangential analogies, but hardly any such demonstration. Whether or not you realize – or will admit – it, you are insisting that methods are basically one time events, that each time one addresses an issue, they should start with the assumption that the methods of examination are not to be trusted. This is absurd.

quote:

The only rational basis for the ToE is to exclude ID and Special Creation a priori. Despite what you say neither Special Creation or ID is a scientific dead end. The fact that you would say such a thing shows your lack of understanding of both.

I admit that I find it hard to understand either Creationism or ID (which is really creationism disguised). If creationism is not a scientific dead end, please tell us all:
At what point does one posit Divine Intervention in one’s research?
What happens when one discovers a natural explanation for what had previously been ascribed to Divine Intervention?

quote:

quote:

Scott Page:
What, again, is the objective test for special creation of humans?

John Paul:
The obvious- that we are very different from other organisms, that we can’t reproduce with other organisms,

Scott Page:
Those are not tests, by any stretch of the imagination. They are observations. The same criteria can be applied to pretty much ANY other organism.

John Paul:
Grin… Observations are part of scientific method. And yes that is part of how we would determine which are of the same Kind.


Yes, Grin… Again, you can copy my writing style all you want to, and you will still be wrong. Observations are part of the scientific method, but they are not tests. I hope that you can understand that. I asked for your objective tests that show humans were specially Created. It is clear that you have none, yet demand such objective tests from the opposition.

quote:

quote:

but the ultimate test will be once wedecipher the human genome.
Scott Page:
What do you mean ‘decipher’? Are you claiming that we do not understand the genetic code or something?

John Paul:
From http://www.idthink.net/back/evid/index.html
SNIP musing from anonymous creationist
That is what I mean by decipher. We might understand the syntax but not the message (instructions).


Interesting – I was under the impression that the ‘message’ was the protein that gets encoded and such…

quote:

I will save discussing the alleged genetic code for a new thread.

Please do. And I will dig through my files to find the posts form the last time you tried to claim this.

quote:

Scott Page:
I know that you have not been following this, but evidence, in fact, continues to accumulate that evolutionary hypotheses of descent (and other things) are correct.

John Paul:
I don’t know how you would know such a thing.


It is evident from your posts on this forum.

quote:

Scott Page:
Direct sequence analyses have continues to verify earlier estimates and conclusions drawn form DNA-DNA hybridization studies. Creationists have been claiming for some time now that information gleaned from the HGP will sound the death knell for evolution. I’m listening, but hearing nothing.

John Paul:
Some people can’t see the forest because of the trees-

Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine:


Gee – who would have thunk it? A creationist drawing creation-friendly impressions?
Dr.Scott L. Page


Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 1:48 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 64 of 141 (14229)
07-26-2002 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by John Paul
07-25-2002 5:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Is this the same Scott Page that doesn't even know what organisms have a femur? I responded to your diatribe on the Baptist Board.

Diatribe - another word I frequently use ...

quote:

If anyone is interested in seeing (ahem) professor page getting his lunch handed to him please go to the following link:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000158;p=3


I understand that you have a tendency to write the names of your opponants in lower case letters, as some sort of insult. How clever. Of course, the creationist will always claim to have the upper hand in any discussion - observe the bizarre antics of Karl Crawford, or Fred Williams, or Walter ReMine, or Helen Fryman, etc. etc. Always claim victory, no matter what.

Your own words are your worst enemy. that you cannot or will not see that is evident, JAFC...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by John Paul, posted 07-25-2002 5:38 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 72 of 141 (14390)
07-29-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by John Paul
07-26-2002 1:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Page you were handed your lunch now shut-up and eat it. You continued drivel is laughable...


I'm confused - you gave me my lunch? You are a waiter or something? I think the phrase you are looking for is that you ate my lunch.

But the bottom line is that you are convinced that you really 'won' over there. And I am still confused.

What is this victory?

Is it that I did not know that spiders have limb segments called femurs?

If that is your great victory, you can have it. It is irrelevant to the debate and tangential. You got me. Wow.

However, it is obvious to all that your love of minutia is your only mechanism to claim victory, for you totally blew it on the substantive issue.

I was especially tickled by your claim that the fact that whale embryos have limb buds is irrelevant because you were talkign about adult whales.
That clearly demonstrates your shallow debate skill and even shallower grasp of the material.
What do you think a limb bud does? Why would a creature with no hind limbs as an adult have a limb bud as an embryo?

Shitty design? No design? Or is this one of those "oh well, thats the Designer for ya!" moments?

I was also entertained by your convoluted mental gymnastics in which you tried so hard to 'explain' via analogy that tested methodologies cannot be used on unknowns. That was a hoot.

On this episode of Joe Gallien, Creationist Physician:

Doctor: I'm afraid you have cancer.

Patient: Oh... Are you going to start me on chemotherapy?

Doctor: Well, there are many therapies that have been used successfully on patients with your type of cancer, but there is no reason to suspect that they would work on you. You see, that would be extrapolating aknown to an unknown, and that just isn't how science works....

Yeah.... You gave me my lunch all right... Freudian slip?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 1:48 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by axial soliton, posted 07-29-2002 11:33 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 73 of 141 (14391)
07-29-2002 12:06 PM


I am also enjoying your continued flailing here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=5

plunk!
plunk!
plunk!
(sound of more conditions and criteria being added)


  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 75 of 141 (14395)
07-29-2002 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Fedmahn Kassad
07-29-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Page you were handed your lunch now shut-up and eat it. You continued drivel is laughable...


At least he only handed you your lunch. He was probably just being polite. Now if he had actually eaten your lunch, yes, that might be a bad thing.

By the way, I checked the posts at NAIG. It seems that John Paul was indeed posting under the name JAFC over there. He suddenly stopped when it was pointed out.


The oddest coincidence - I just read a post to JAFC that mentions the eating of lunch and having one's head handed to them, and John Paul has been writing about handing me my lunch...

[Fixed close quote. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-29-2002 1:34 AM Fedmahn Kassad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-29-2002 7:00 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 83 of 141 (14645)
08-01-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by John Paul
07-31-2002 4:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.


You did? I must have missed all that. Funny though - JAFC went on a tear at NAIG a few weeks back claiming that I misrepresented everyone...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by John Paul, posted 07-31-2002 4:05 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 1:28 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 84 of 141 (14646)
08-01-2002 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by singularity
07-31-2002 8:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by singularity:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:

One of my Favorite Flaws....

Hmmmmm- crude being the operative word here? And does this mean that SLPx accepts that very small organisms can evolve into other species? Better than nothing I guess....

Shane


Hmmm... I was quoting someone else there. That quadrillion years bit is a hoot!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by singularity, posted 07-31-2002 8:45 PM singularity has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 86 of 141 (14649)
08-01-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by John Paul
08-01-2002 1:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.


You did? I must have missed all that. Funny though - JAFC went on a tear at NAIG a few weeks back claiming that I misrepresented everyone...


John Paul:
I have no doubt that you missed it. All that shows is you are pathological and have no shame.

One more thing, I do NOT copy you, I MOCK you.


I'm hurt. All this time, I thought we were pals!

I even feel bad that you get spanked so hard on BB so often. Well, not really....

But I really am curious as to what you think you served me my lunch on...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 1:28 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 2:41 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 89 of 141 (14658)
08-01-2002 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by John Paul
08-01-2002 2:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
I even feel bad that you get spanked so hard on BB so often.

John Paul:
When and if that ever happens I might feel bad too.


The incompetent rarely know it, often are even boastful, study finds

By Erica Goode
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

January 18, 2000

Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "he who knows best knows how little he knows" now has some scientific support.

According to a Cornell University study, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.

On the contrary. People who do things badly usually are supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well, according to the findings of Dr. David A. Dunning, a psychology professor.

One reason that the ignorant tend to be the blissfully self-assured is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence, said Dunning, whose research was conducted with the assistance of a graduate student, Justin Kruger.

The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, the researchers suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," wrote Dunning and Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois.

This deficiency in "self-monitoring skills," the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.

Some college students, Dunning said, evince a similar blindness: after doing badly on a test, they spend hours in his office explaining why the answers he suggests for the test questions are wrong.

In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor also were the most likely to "grossly overestimate" how well they had performed.

In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed much greater distortions in their self-estimates.

Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for example, subjects who scored in the 12th percentile guessed that they had scored in the 62nd percentile and deemed their overall skill at logical reasoning to be at the 68th percentile.

Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to "identify grammatically correct standard English" and estimated their test scores to be at the 61st percentile.

On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an "expert" panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects also were more likely to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less conclusive.

Unlike their unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Kruger and Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their own competence. The researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others were
performing as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the "false consensus effect."

When high-scoring subjects were asked to "grade" the grammar tests of their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.

"Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others," the researchers concluded.

In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover whether training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance, they found.

The research meshes neatly with other work indicating that overconfidence is common; studies have found, for example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in statistical terms. And this
overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.

Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David Funder, a psychology professor at the University of California Riverside, for example, said he suspected that most lay people had only a vague idea of the meaning of "average" in statistical terms.

"I'm not sure the average person thinks of 'average' or 'percentile' in quite that literal a sense," Funder said, "so 'above average' might mean to them 'pretty good,' or 'OK,' or 'doing all right.' And if, in fact, people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really hard to evaluate whether
they're right or wrong using the statistical criterion."

But Dunning said his research and other studies indicated that there were many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency, and not be aware of it.

In some cases, Dunning pointed out, an awareness of one's own inability is inevitable: "In a golf game, when your ball is heading into the woods, you know you're incompetent," he said.

But in other situations, feedback is absent, or at least more ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And, faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out, "You stink!" -- truthful though this assessment may be.

All of which inspired in Dunning and his co-author, in presenting their research to the public, a certain degree of nervousness.

"This article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors or poor communication," they cautioned in their journal report. "Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 2:41 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-02-2002 9:58 AM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 93 of 141 (14756)
08-02-2002 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Fedmahn Kassad
08-02-2002 9:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
That was a good article, but you know that the incompetent will read it and think it doesn't apply to them.

FK


Oh, I know. I used to present it on a regular basis on the old OCW board, primarily for the benefit of Fred Williams. In the usual fashion, he ignored it...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-02-2002 9:58 AM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 94 of 141 (15093)
08-09-2002 12:09 PM


Well, Joe's 48 suspension is up. I am still wondering what it was he thought he fed me my lunch on at the Baptist Board. I suspect that since he caanot simply say what it was that he, like all creationists do at some point, declaring victory in the hopes that he can score points with those even less knowledgible. And, of course, make himself feel better.

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 08-09-2002 2:31 PM derwood has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 427 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 96 of 141 (15156)
08-10-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Admin
08-09-2002 2:31 PM


No taunts intended, rather, just a documentable observation. It is true that Joe has repeatedly claimed to have "handed me my lunch" or something similar in the previously linked Baptist Board threads. It is also true that I have repeatedly asked him to explain/point out what is was that he supposedly did this on. Ity is also true that in response to each request, if not ignored, he has simply reiterated his claims.

A rational logical conclusion is that he is simply posturing.

Reading the threads in question, the only point that I concede to Joe Gallien is the issue of insects having 'femurs'. That issue, as any reader caqn see by reading the threads, is completely irrelevant to the issue we had been discussing (whether or not whales have vestigial limbs). Of relevance is the fact that Joe Gallien simply blew off important issues, such as the fact that whale embryos have hind limb buds by saying that he was referring to adult whales. There are similar examples in the threads in question.

Again, it was not my intent to sound taunting, just an expression of my observations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 08-09-2002 2:31 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 3:13 PM derwood has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020