Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 8:25 PM
27 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 64/29 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   One Question for Evo-Bashers
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 102 (27042)
12-17-2002 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
12-17-2002 2:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

We infer design based upon comparison with things that are not designed, like stone tools vs. rocks, or like a cave vs. an excavated shelter. We have no way to make this comparison with life in general. We need both known designed life forms and known not-designed lifeforms which we can then compare and work out the indicative differences between them. Then we can apply these differences to other life forms to determine if those are designed or not.


I see your point, however, as ToE concerns itself with extrapolating information about past events that were unwitnessed, to base current assumptions, it is likewise the natural conclusion based on the present known information, to infer design even without the comparison you mention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:26 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John, posted 12-17-2002 7:34 PM DanskerMan has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 102 (27092)
12-17-2002 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by DanskerMan
12-17-2002 2:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
I see your point, however, as ToE concerns itself with extrapolating information about past events that were unwitnessed, to base current assumptions, it is likewise the natural conclusion based on the present known information, to infer design even without the comparison you mention.

If we had cases of new organism being designed, formed, and plopped into the forest out of nowhere, then we could do exactly what you suggest and extrapolate from that data. We don't have new organisms popping into existence, but only animals that come from other animals. Whatever process formed the first life forms, has stopped.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 2:41 PM DanskerMan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 12-17-2002 8:34 PM John has responded
 Message 33 by DanskerMan, posted 12-18-2002 2:38 PM John has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 18 of 102 (27095)
12-17-2002 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
12-17-2002 2:26 PM


Hi Evo-guys,

Apparently it is hard for evolutionists to listen to what contemporary biology has to say. As mentioned several times in different threads: DESIGN CAN BE RECOGNISED BY (GENETIC) REDUNDANCIES. I am not going into it again. If you don't want to listen I don't mind. Stick to your outdated theory but don't bore us scientists with it.

Best wishes,
Peter

"Random mutation & selection. Don't let me laugh."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:26 PM John has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 19 of 102 (27102)
12-17-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
12-17-2002 7:34 PM


Dear John,

J: If we had cases of new organism being designed, formed, and plopped into the forest out of nowhere, then we could do exactly what you suggest and extrapolate from that data. We don't have new organisms popping into existence, but only animals that come from other animals. Whatever process formed the first life forms, has stopped.

PB: Apparently you missed my comments on the Wollemia nobilis. It is exactly what you want to see: 'A new organism popping into the forest (=Wollemi National Park) out of nowhere'.

Best wishes,
Peter

"Random-mutation & selection? Don't let me laugh."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 12-17-2002 7:34 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John, posted 12-17-2002 8:45 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 29 by David unfamous, posted 12-18-2002 6:01 AM peter borger has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 102 (27106)
12-17-2002 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by peter borger
12-17-2002 8:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Apparently you missed my comments on the Wollemia nobilis. It is exactly what you want to see: 'A new organism popping into the forest (=Wollemi National Park) out of nowhere'.

No. I didn't miss it PeterB. Your position is silly. But I am sure you won't listen to reason-- which is why I never entered that debate.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 12-17-2002 8:34 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 12-17-2002 9:08 PM John has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 21 of 102 (27111)
12-17-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by John
12-17-2002 8:45 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Apparently you missed my comments on the Wollemia nobilis. It is exactly what you want to see: 'A new organism popping into the forest (=Wollemi National Park) out of nowhere'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J: No. I didn't miss it PeterB. Your position is silly. But I am sure you won't listen to reason-- which is why I never entered that debate.

PB: Where exactly did it go silly? Till now nobody provided a reasonable explanation for the observations on the pine's DNA. It demonstrates exactly what you asked Sonnike for.

best wishes,
Peter

"Random-mutation & selection? Don't let me laugh."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John, posted 12-17-2002 8:45 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John, posted 12-17-2002 10:57 PM peter borger has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 102 (27116)
12-17-2002 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by peter borger
12-17-2002 9:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Where exactly did it go silly? Till now nobody provided a reasonable explanation for the observations on the pine's DNA. It demonstrates exactly what you asked Sonnike for.

The tree has identifiable ancestry going back 150 million years. That is hardly dropped into the forest from nowhere.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 12-17-2002 9:08 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 12-17-2002 11:02 PM John has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 23 of 102 (27118)
12-17-2002 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
12-17-2002 10:57 PM


Dear John,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Where exactly did it go silly? Till now nobody provided a reasonable explanation for the observations on the pine's DNA. It demonstrates exactly what you asked Sonnike for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J: The tree has identifiable ancestry going back 150 million years. That is hardly dropped into the forest from nowhere

PB: Untrue, it has NO fossil record.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 12-17-2002 10:57 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 PM peter borger has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 102 (27121)
12-17-2002 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by peter borger
12-17-2002 11:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Untrue, it has NO fossil record.

Sorry, bud. The people who study it say otherwise.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 12-17-2002 11:02 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 12-18-2002 12:10 AM John has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 25 of 102 (27123)
12-18-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by John
12-17-2002 11:32 PM


Dear John,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: Untrue, it has NO fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J: Sorry, bud. The people who study it say otherwise.

PB: Now you have to provide a reference for your statement.

The people who study it actually say that it resembles the Agathis jurassica, another member of the Auracariacea family, not that it is identical to the Wollemia nobilis (Ken Hill, senior botanist in Sydney's Royal Botanic Gardens, in 'The wollemi pine' by J. Woodford, science writer for the Sydney Morning Herald). So, it is not present in the fossil record. In addition, I had a look at the pollen of Wollemi pine and the ancient delwynites, alleged to be the pollen of ancient Wollemia. They don't match.
I wonder why you asked Sonnike for an example? I give you the exact example you asked for and next it is not good enough. What kind of strategy is that?

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John, posted 12-18-2002 1:00 AM peter borger has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 102 (27130)
12-18-2002 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by peter borger
12-18-2002 12:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
The people who study it actually say that it resembles the Agathis jurassica, another member of the Auracariacea family, not that it is identical to the Wollemia nobilis

Yeah. No kidding, PB. The tree is in a previously unknown genus. This does not mean it had no ancestors. You know... mommies and daddies? Though it looks like such may have died a long long time ago.

quote:
So, it is not present in the fossil record.

Neither is my mom, but she exists. Really, PB, you present a pretty warped version of biology.

Its family is present in the fossil record.

quote:
I wonder why you asked Sonnike for an example?

I bet sonnike understand why this isn't one.

quote:
I give you the exact example you asked for and next it is not good enough.

ummm... its not what I asked for.... what you have given me is your fantasy version of science.

quote:
What kind of strategy is that?

I'll talk seriously with sonnike. But you? I have seen what you write. I really couldn't care less what you think. Sorry.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 12-18-2002 12:10 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 12-18-2002 3:28 AM John has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 27 of 102 (27137)
12-18-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by John
12-18-2002 1:00 AM


Dear John,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
The people who study it actually say that it resembles the Agathis jurassica, another member of the Auracariacea family, not that it is identical to the Wollemia nobilis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J: Yeah. No kidding, PB. The tree is in a previously unknown genus. This does not mean it had no ancestors.

PB: Apparently it has no ancestors. Untill you proof otherwise.

J: You know... mommies and daddies? Though it looks like such may have died a long long time ago.

PB: That's your interpretation. I thought it was you who wrote elsewhere that you were fascinated by particles popping in and out of existence (uncertainty & quantum mechanics, I guess). In fact you should be amazed by the Wollemia nobilis. It's obvious from such observations that biology is not as we thought it to be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it is not present in the fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J: Neither is my mom, but she exists. Really, PB, you present a pretty warped version of biology.

PB: Apparently, biology is not as simple as you think it is. From a proponent of a 19th century theory one can expect it, though.

J: Its family is present in the fossil record.

PB: Different genera are indeed present in the record. Agathis and Wollemia are distinct genera. Agathis is still around, so is Wollemia.
Why not show a contemporary Agathis in comparison with Wollemia? Because its DNA is distinctly different. Better compare it with something extinct, so nobody can track the molecular evidence.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder why you asked Sonnike for an example?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I bet sonnike understand why this isn't one.

PB: How does such organism look like, than?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I give you the exact example you asked for and next it is not good enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ummm... its not what I asked for.... what you have given me is your fantasy version of science.

PB: You asked for an organism that popped into existence in some kind of forest. I gave you an example that can be interpreted like that. Now, it is not what you asked for. How do we recognise the organism you asked for, than?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of strategy is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J: I'll talk seriously with sonnike. But you? I have seen what you write. I really couldn't care less what you think. Sorry.

PB: You could care less because my vision opposes your evolutionary interpretation of data and I am able to scientifically defend my vision. That scares you.

Best wishes,
Peter

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. A. Huxley"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John, posted 12-18-2002 1:00 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 12-18-2002 3:51 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 12-18-2002 6:30 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 32 by John, posted 12-18-2002 2:18 PM peter borger has responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 28 of 102 (27145)
12-18-2002 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by peter borger
12-18-2002 3:28 AM


Hey Peter...where you been lately?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 12-18-2002 3:28 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 102 (27156)
12-18-2002 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by peter borger
12-17-2002 8:34 PM


Reading your post about the Wollemi Nobilis, I took a look around on the net and found this article taken from The New Scientist:

http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/trees.htm

The pine seems like a wonderful discovery, but certainly nothing supernatural. A 'living fossil' seems to be a description used by many.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 12-17-2002 8:34 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 10:16 PM David unfamous has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2033 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 30 of 102 (27163)
12-18-2002 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by peter borger
12-18-2002 3:28 AM


There seems to be your interpretation and the evolutionary
interpretation.

Why is yours more compelling than the evolutionary explanation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 12-18-2002 3:28 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019