Looking for all the missing links

[AnotherAtheist]

Yep ...and I love it, but none I cannot deal with.

How are you going AV? Is anyone giving you a hard time?

Yes, ignoring valid points and side-stepping the issues is a common way of "dealing with" arguments you can't address.

 

[Astridhere]

I'm a person who has debated with you, challenged you on your faulty logic several times, but never received a proper answer. I'm very disappointed, as when you posted the link to Sanford's simulation, I thought there was the opportunity for some proper debate. As while Sanford's errors are obvious upon careful examination, they weren't so glaringly obvious that they are in instant facepalm territory. I was then very disappointed when you weren't able to properly discuss those issues, but just blustered on.

I have presented the reason why Sanford is correct. If you disagree then put some solid evidence up to refute me instead of your most humble opinion, as usual. Decreases in complexity have been found and this supports Sanford. Now you have a go with more than your opinion, which means nothing really.

You call it "crap", but you can't come up with an argument as to why it is "crap" that bears even cursory inspection. Hence I feel that you are proving my point, that my criticism of you is entirely justified by the evidence of what you post here.

Actually, I both summarised and posted a link to a sophisticated argument against Sanford. I note that you have not been able to counter this argument in any way, and once again, you bluster when you don't have anything to back up your claims.



Nobody is denying that mutations generally bring about deleterious effects. However, as shown by the work of Kimura, models of evolution with natural selection can produce evolution at far higher speed than is believed to happen in the real world, even if most mutations are deleterious. Sanford's simulation is based around assumptions concerning mutations that can be shown to be faulty, e.g. how many beneficial mutations occur that are strong enough to be selected for, and also the cumulative effect of many small deleterious mutations being ignored. I posted this some time ago, you have not been able to counter it.

No computer simulation can get all details right, but Kimura's work shows that the results of simulation depend greatly on fine details of the distribution of the worth of mutations (let alone cumulative and combinatorial effects). Hence the obvious conclusion is that no conclusion as to the change of complexity over time can be taken from that work. Note carefully that I not only say that Sanford's conclusions are unreliable, I say why Sanford's conclusions are unreliable.

Where are the evolutionary scientists that support Sanford? Once again you make blustering statements, but don't back them up. Not a single name, not a single reference. I'm sure you can find one or two, but is there any sign of a consensus supporting Sanford's claims? If so, where is this evidence?



Who are these scientists, and are they able to counter the very valid criticisms of Sanford's work that I have posted already? How do you think posting a link a review of Sanford's book helps answer these criticisms. Again, you prove my point. You can't counter these criticisms because you don't understand them. So, you just post links with blustering language.



And can you explain how vestigial molecular pathways support a .... wait for it .... overall decreasing complexity in clades.

Are there a significant number of clades where there is decreasing complexity from ancestor to descendent species? Can you show that these are the rule, rather than the exception?



Except that most junk DNA is still .... junk. Do you have a reference where it's been found that junk DNA doesn't exist and that it ALL has function? Or is it just the case that there has been some refinement of our understanding of the human genome so that we have a more accurate understanding of exactly which DNA is junk, and which isn't?



Have you actually read the papers that you are quoting? Can you explain how this paper supports your claims about decreasing complexity in clades when it talks about the emergence of the most sophisticated (arguable - but I'm including intellect as an important factor) species on this planet - us. Are you going to say that we show decreased complexity overall compared to a common ancestors of all apes (including us)?

If not - then this is exactly what I am talking about. You Astrid litter your posts with references and quotes. You don't explain how these support your arguments, and looking at them very carefully they appear to argue quite strongly against your own claims. This is exactly what I criticised, and after this post of yours, I feel even more justified in

The lack of ability to synthesise Vitamin C can be described as a very minor "step back". But whether or not we have overall decreasing complexity depends on whether or not the number of steps forward is greater or less than the number of steps back. What distinguishes us most from other members of Hominoidae is not our greater ability to synthesise our own nutrients, but our greater intellectual powers.

Anyway, at the top you ask:



It doesn't matter who I am. What matters is whether or not my criticisms of your argument and the logic behind your arguments (or lack of it) are valid. I don't just say that I believe that your argument style is poor because I'm me and I say so. I give a description of what I feel is wrong with your posts and arguments. And given your post above where you repeat all the same logical errors, and are unable to even discuss why Sanford's results cannot be taken seriously, it looks as if my description is correct.

The rest of this commentry is twoddle with not a link to any research in sight. Hence a waste of my time so no reply to it.

Try putting up some research to refute me or back your humble opinion, if you can, that is!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

rikerjoe I just love it when you give up in frustration.
.

When it comes down to it the majority of you evos have no clue about this science, or rather lack of it, you try to support.

Indohyus

Mouse deer

Indohyus poofing into a whale is ridiculous. Your evo researchers would have to be blind to not see the close similarity it has to a mouse deer.

You have been sucked in badly.

So if you understand the science enough to make statements like this, you can therefore explain to us the importance of the involucrum in the current debate about Indohyus's role in whale evolution. Also, why is it important that the mouse deer is a member of the artiodactyls? Also, how do the mesonychids fit into this picture? Why is the presence of osteosclerosic bones important?

Or is it that you just posted some pictures but you don't really understand the science behind those pictures?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep ...and I love it, but none I cannot deal with.

Sounds good to me!

When you can rattle their cages and get their attention, that's when you can make an impact!

Love ya or hate ya, they'll at least respect your faith.

I think it's ironic when someone with a faith icon that has transubstantiation or consubstantiation as one of their major doctrines starts talking all sciency against us.

How are you going AV? Is anyone giving you a hard time?

Well, I just got back from a 30-day "vacation" -- (if you know what I mean) -- so I'm not back up to par yet.

Give it time!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, ignoring valid points and side-stepping the issues is a common way of "dealing with" arguments you can't address.

Is that what I do?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Is that what I do?

I haven't seen enough of your posts with sizeable content to make any such comments about you. I was speaking about Astrid.

I'm hoping you can actually address issues and argue in a logical way. Is there any thread of yours that you would recommend that I look at?

 

[AV1611VET]

I haven't seen enough of your posts with sizeable content to make any such comments about you. I was speaking about Astrid.

You are the first one to ever say something like this, and I must admit, I'm impressed.

Usually newbies show up, telling me what I've said and what I haven't said over the past six years here; and I have to spend an inordinate amount of time defending myself against false accusations.

I'm hoping you can actually address issues and argue in a logical way.

Thank you, sir; but my arguments are theological, not logical; so I'm afraid I would just be a big disappointment to you.

Is there any thread of yours that you would recommend that I look at?

Again, in light of your statement ...

... ignoring valid points and side-stepping the issues is a common way of "dealing with" arguments you can't address.

... again, I'm afraid I would be a disappointment to you.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You are the first one to ever say something like this, and I must admit, I'm impressed.

Usually newbies show up, telling me what I've said and what I haven't said over the past six years here; and I have to spend an inordinate amount of time defending myself against false accusations.

I did spend quite some time trying to have a reasonable discussion with Astrid. I didn't just become .... dismissive straight off the bat.

Thank you, sir; but my arguments are theological, not logical; so I'm afraid I would just be a big disappointment to you.

Depends. To me the most logical statement of a YEC stance would be this:

(1) I have personal experience that convinces me that God exists.
(2) God has told me that The Bible is literally true.
(3) Therefore I believe YEC.
(4) Therefore I believe that evidence against YEC, such as fossils, was put there by God, perhaps in order to test our faith.

I have no problem with someone who says that. I cannot falsify that argument, as the logic itself is good. Provided that someone posits (1) and (2), then the rest logically follows. I don't believe that God exists, and hence I don't accept the argument. But, this highly theological argument, at least makes sense.

I don't know what your personal argument is, but I guess I'll learn it over time.

What I don't like is a stream of illogical arguments which aren't explored and discussed properly.

Again, in light of your statement ...


... again, I'm afraid I would be a disappointment to you.

I don't know. I've answered a post of yours in another thread. Let's see how it goes.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Sounds good to me!

When you can rattle their cages and get their attention, that's when you can make an impact!

Love ya or hate ya, they'll at least respect your faith.

That's stretching it.

Well, I just got back from a 30-day "vacation" -- (if you know what I mean) -- so I'm not back up to par yet.

Give it time!

Welcome back. Did your time in the slammer get you thinking at all about conduct here? Or was it somehow voluntary?

 

[AV1611VET]

Welcome back.

Thank you!

 

[FaithIsAll]

Thank you, sir; but my arguments are theological, not logical.

That's creationism in a nutshell.

It says therefore I believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's creationism in a nutshell.

It says therefore I believe.

QV my signature, please.

 

[DaneaFL]

Scientists used to say there was such a thing as zero gravity; now, they've amended that to say it is microgravity.

Creationists used to say there was ZERO evolution; now, they've amended that to say it is 'micro' evolution.

They just keep changing their minds!

Creationism can go take a hike!

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists used to say there was ZERO evolution; now, they've amended that to say it is 'micro' evolution.

In my time, it was called 'adaptation.'

 

[Tiberius]

QV my signature, please.

And about that, were you there to hear God say it, or are you just relying on the reports of others and hoping that they were right?

 

[AV1611VET]

And about that, were you there to hear God say it, or are you just relying on the reports of others and hoping that they were right?

I heard it.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[selfinflikted]

I heard it.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

From...?

 

[Tiberius]

In my time, it was called 'adaptation.'

And despite the different names, the process it is describing remains the same. Something you seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding *coughplutocough*

 

[AV1611VET]

And despite the different names, the process it is describing remains the same.

Which means Danea is wrong, doesn't it?

Creationists used to say there was ZERO evolution;

 

[Split Rock]

Thank you, sir; but my arguments are theological, not logical; so I'm afraid I would just be a big disappointment to you.

That's creationism in a nutshell.

It says therefore I believe.

QV my signature, please.

One of the things I admire the most about AVET is that he is up front and honest about why he rejects common descent. Just about all creationists who post here reject common descent, and in many cases deep time, for the very same reason... they just don't like like to admit it, because they think they have to make a "scientific" argument here. Not AVET.