My Igneous Challenge

TLK Valentine · May 23, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Physical Age - Existential Age = Embedded Age

Ah -- so you invented existential age in order to concoct embedded age.

I see I did make an error -- I thought you invented one term; you invented two.

TLK Valentine · May 23, 2015

whois said:
well?
where is the empirical evidence?

Did you read the entire article, or did you stop at half the abstract?

whois · May 23, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
Did you read the entire article, or did you stop at half the abstract?

yes, all 6 pages of it.

TLK Valentine · May 23, 2015

whois said:
yes, all 6 pages of it.

Can you post a link? The only ones I can find are pay sites.

whois · May 23, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
Can you post a link? The only ones I can find are pay sites.

no, you can buy it just like i did.

TLK Valentine · May 23, 2015

whois said:
no, you can buy it just like i did.

Except you didn't buy it. You didn't read it.

whois · May 23, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
Except you didn't buy it. You didn't read it.

maynard goes on to say:
"in many of the transitions listed in table 1 we find the common phenomenon that entities capable of independent replication before the transition can only replicate as parts of a larger whole afterwards"

so again i ask, where's the empirical evidence?
you will also note these changes was a result of major changes, not "small accumulating" changes.
he also states there is no theory that explains this.

what do you make of this truth?

Mr Strawberry · May 23, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
Can you post a link? The only ones I can find are pay sites.

Is this it:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...ransitions/links/0a85e52e3ee0391fab000000.pdf

I put the abstract in google and the first result is a pdf file that comes up with the whole article.

whois · May 23, 2015

Mr Strawberry said:
Is this it:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...ransitions/links/0a85e52e3ee0391fab000000.pdf

I put the abstract in google and the first result is a pdf file that comes up with the whole article.

the text appears to be the same.

Mr Strawberry · May 23, 2015

whois said:
the text appears to be the same.

So how much did it cost you?

whois · May 23, 2015

Mr Strawberry said:
So how much did it cost you?

apparently too much.
what does that have to do with post 167?

TLK Valentine · May 23, 2015

whois said:
maynard goes on to say:
"in many of the transitions listed in table 1 we find the common phenomenon that entities capable of independent replication before the transition can only replicate as parts of a larger whole afterwards"

so again i ask, where's the empirical evidence?
you will also note these changes was a result of major changes, not "small accumulating" changes.
he also states there is no theory that explains this.

The purpose of the article wasn't to present empirical evidence, as you would've known had you read it through:

"The article is more an agenda for future research than a summary of what is known. But there is sufficient formal similarity between the various transitions to hold out the hope that progress in understanding any one of them will help to illuminate others."

IOW, you're holding the pirate's map, complaining that gold doubloons aren't spilling out of it.

Doesn't work that way, son -- the map only shows you where to dig; you still have to do the work.

what do you make of this truth?

Much like your first "truth," it becomes much more useful when you show it all, and don't just stop at half.

Mr Strawberry · May 23, 2015

whois said:
apparently too much.
what does that have to do with post 167?

You must have wanted to read it really badly.

whois · May 23, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
The purpose of the article wasn't to present empirical evidence, as you would've known had you read it through:

"The article is more an agenda for future research than a summary of what is known. But there is sufficient formal similarity between the various transitions to hold out the hope that progress in understanding any one of them will help to illuminate others."

IOW, you're holding the pirate's map, complaining that gold doubloons aren't spilling out of it.

Doesn't work that way, son -- you have to dig, first.

Much like your first "truth," it becomes much more useful when you show it all, and don't just stop at half.

i see.
so, there is no empirical evidence (maynard presents none), and there is no theory (maynard presents his guess as to a theory).
i also suppose maynard was talking nonsense when he said these changes were major changes not "small accumulating" changes.

Paul of Eugene OR · May 23, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
Half-truth, you mean.

I think the quote is a lot more interesting when it's not mined.

"There is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so. Nevertheless, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists, and so on. This increase in complexity may have been achieved as a result of a series of major evolutionary transitions. These involved changes in the way information is stored and transmitted."

Its good to get the whole context of the quote out there, but I have to disagree with the premise. In particular, I think there is every reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time.

Paul of Eugene OR · May 23, 2015

AV1611VET said:
A simple formula is hard to understand?

Easy to understand, hard to believe. The idea of "embedded age" instead of real age isn't true. God would not indulge in such deception as providing evidence of events that never took place.

whois · May 24, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Its good to get the whole context of the quote out there, but I have to disagree with the premise. In particular, I think there is every reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time.

what exactly are you saying?
these doctors of science don't know what they are talking about?

the deeper meaning of this article spells almost certain death for evolution as you know it.

Subduction Zone · May 24, 2015

whois said:
what exactly are you saying?
these doctors of science don't know what they are talking about?

the deeper meaning of this article spells almost certain death for evolution as you know it.

Why do you think that it "spells almost certain death for evolution as you know it"? I saw nothing there. Perhaps it lies in the word "complex". Creationist are always trying to claim that one life form is more complex than another, but they can never define what "complexity" is. It seems to be much like their undefined "kinds", which I have hijacked until they come up with a better definition. My definition of "kinds" is a synonym of "clade".

AV1611VET · May 24, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Easy to understand, hard to believe.

Then show me you understand it.

The idea of "embedded age" instead of real age isn't true.

You're entitled to your opinion.
But as long as you demonstrate you don't understand it, I'm not going to take you seriously.

God would not indulge in such deception as providing evidence of events that never took place.

He didn't.

Embedded age is "maturity without history."

What you described is Omphalism or Last Thursdayism.

Subduction Zone · May 24, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Then show me you understand it.

You're entitled to your opinion.
But as long as you demonstrate you don't understand it, I'm not going to take you seriously.

He didn't.

Embedded age is "maturity without history."

What you described is Omphalism or Last Thursdayism.

And you have yet to show any difference at all. Call me when you finally do show that there is any difference.

My Igneous Challenge

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

rational

I've already read the books you want burned.

rational

I've already read the books you want burned.

rational

Newbie

rational

Newbie

rational

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

rational

Finally Old Enough

Finally Old Enough

rational

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Similar threads