• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are going to get the kind of argument you are refuting ad-nausium.

Or perhaps it is that the argument is bogus?
I've found that with controversial issues like this, no amount of proof will suffice.



Projection.

It was creationist Ken Ham that said that his faith in the bible would prevent him from ever accepting evolution.
It's one of the reasons I stopped debating this years ago, though I accidentally stepped on a mine when I first joined this site.

And why were YOU 'debating' it in the first place, except to prop up a failing worldview? By your own admission, you lack any relevant background to understand, much less 'debate', the relevant science.

It's obvious to me that the more we know, the more evidence we find for design,

And yet you are dead-set against providing even a tiny bit of evidence that this is so.

You want to see 'design' everywhere, and so you do. Evidence is irrelevant to the creationist.

Just like Ham said.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,220
2,980
London, UK
✟960,657.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So what was Meyer threatened enough by to write a book on a subject that he has no track record or recognized expertise in?

The way Meyer himself described the process by which he came to write the book was the responses he received from his previous book "the signature in the cell" in which he argued that no chemical processes could spontaneously create the information required for a functioning cell so we had to attribute this to an Intelligence of some sort. This had nothing to do with evolution but was interpreted as such. Eventually he decided to write a book on evolution to deal with these confused and ill-informed responses which had interpreted his book as an attack on evolution
 
Upvote 0

Almost there

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,571
1,152
61
Kentucky
✟52,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe but the exercise is also valuable to clarify what can and cannot be argued. There are patterns in the rocks which we may never explain and knowing what is a credible thing to say , what is argumentative but hollow and what cannot be supported in any which way or form is a helpful process born of combat in my view.
Yes. I've been "debating" this stuff since the mid-80's. I was just clearing out some books yesterday and found "The Evolution Conspiracy". I'd forgotten I'd read that one.

I guess you could say I've handed off the baton. I've moved on to other stuff. It's a tag-team thing. :)

BTW, a favorite of mine is "The fingerprint of God".
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,220
2,980
London, UK
✟960,657.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, we look for patterns of shared mutation using methods that have been tested on knowns:



Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this has, in fact, based on tested methods:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.




In reality, the "junk code" contains a lot of very useful data in terms of evolution. Such DNA is under less constraint than is coding sequence, and so can accumulate more mutation, and this makes it easier for analytical programs to operate efficiently.


I know this because my line of research in graduate school specifically used noncoding DNA to look at phylogenetic relationships.

Before you spend too much time digging up scholarly articles on evidence for microevolution I must say that I agree with these findings. There were not 43 species of sparrow on the ark yet "speciation" has occurred rapidly since the flood. The world of dogs and apes has a similar diversity. Even mankind shares DNA with Neanderthals. But these linkages do not prove the type to type evolution implicit in the mythological tree of life diagram.

The ability to generalise from what is known to what is not known is the issue here.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In a word the Flood.


Ah - so did Meyer's amazing book provide evidence for this flood?

Did he explain the necessary (and impossible) genetics that post-flood diversification in the given timeline requires?
 
Upvote 0

Almost there

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,571
1,152
61
Kentucky
✟52,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Or perhaps it is that the argument is bogus?




Projection.

It was creationist Ken Ham that said that his faith in the bible would prevent him from ever accepting evolution.


And why were YOU 'debating' it in the first place, except to prop up a failing worldview? By your own admission, you lack any relevant background to understand, much less 'debate', the relevant science.



And yet you are dead-set against providing even a tiny bit of evidence that this is so.

You want to see 'design' everywhere, and so you do. Evidence is irrelevant to the creationist.

Just like Ham said.
So, you don't like or respect me. I get that. ;)
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,220
2,980
London, UK
✟960,657.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
False, actually.

Abiogenesis is not apart of the Theory of Evolution no matter how much creationist propagandists tell you it is.

That is not what I was apologising for. Theistic Evolutionists will accept the theory of evolution or indeed of abiogenesis and simply suggest that a naturalistic methodology can expound on how God did it. So this is not a purely atheistic or materialistic vision of reality. So I am apologising for suggesting that TEs are just as bad as atheistic materialists when it comes to observing reality.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,220
2,980
London, UK
✟960,657.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah - so did Meyer's amazing book provide evidence for this flood?

Did he explain the necessary (and impossible) genetics that post-flood diversification in the given timeline requires?

Meyer is not a Creationist, he is an Intelligent Design proponent.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
LOL you have clearly never questioned the assumptions and use of high probability matching that characterises the so called alignments that BLAST and NaligN produce for homologous mappings. There is no absolute precision or certainty here in the methodologies employed.

Tell me all about it.

I am unaware of any published real evolutionary biology papers that use BLAST for their actual analyses.

In fact, the only people that I am aware of who have done this are creationists - and one creationist in particular was completely humiliated when he was outed for not only using a buggy version of BLASTn, but for using parameters that all but guaranteed that his outcomes would favor his anti-evolution beliefs.

Bit no, please, go ahead and explain it. I have 9 or 10 molecular phylogeny publications, I sure don't want to have to retract them for using bogus methods (well, I never used BLAST, or NaligN, but whatever...).
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What's with the Ad-hominem attacks? Sheesh.


Another creationist that does not understand what an "ad hominem" attack is.


Please explain to us all, Oh Great IT Data Miner - why one's education, background, actual area of expertise, publication track-record, etc,. is NOT relevant when discussing that person's writings on a particular subject?

Ad hominems are, by definition, attacking an IRRELEVANT characteristic of a person rather than their argument.

One's knowledge base regarding a scientific issue is RELEVANT.

Sheesh.


Now how about you start a thread in which you outline your evidence for ID?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As a creationist I am far from agreeing with Meyer on the age of the earth or the necessity of macroevolution as an explanatory paradigm per see. But he gives a good overview of the Cambrian Explosion discussion and raises interesting and well communicated questions in his book. All truthes need testing in the end.


How do you propose to test creationist/ID truths?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The way Meyer himself described the process by which he came to write the book was the responses he received from his previous book "the signature in the cell" in which he argued that no chemical processes could spontaneously create the information required for a functioning cell so we had to attribute this to an Intelligence of some sort. This had nothing to do with evolution but was interpreted as such.

That book was torn apart by cell biologists and evolutionary biologists as well.

And of course it was about evolution - you yourself recently wrote in this thread that abiogenesis is part of evolution. This is what creationists do - they lump abiogenesis and evolution together because it is easier to attack abiogenesis (due to the limited amount of research being done on it).
Eventually he decided to write a book on evolution to deal with these confused and ill-informed responses which had interpreted his book as an attack on evolution
And that book wasn't that great, either.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Before you spend too much time digging up scholarly articles on evidence for microevolution I must say that I agree with these findings. There were not 43 species of sparrow on the ark yet "speciation" has occurred rapidly since the flood. The world of dogs and apes has a similar diversity. Even mankind shares DNA with Neanderthals. But these linkages do not prove the type to type evolution implicit in the mythological tree of life diagram.

The ability to generalise from what is known to what is not known is the issue here.


Um...

I guess you missed the entire point of me posting that:

"Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this has, in fact, based on tested methods"

in response to what you had written:

"You read the DNA with the assumption that similarities are links rather than ways in which the Creator solved similiar problems in different creatures"


What I posted were examples of 'proof of concept' type papers regarding the use of DNA data for phylogenetic research.

You test methods by using knowns.

Yes?
 
Upvote 0

Almost there

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,571
1,152
61
Kentucky
✟52,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another creationist that does not understand what an "ad hominem" attack is.


Please explain to us all, Oh Great IT Data Miner - why one's education, background, actual area of expertise, publication track-record, etc,. is NOT relevant when discussing that person's writings on a particular subject?

Ad hominems are, by definition, attacking an IRRELEVANT characteristic of a person rather than their argument.

One's knowledge base regarding a scientific issue is RELEVANT.

Sheesh.


Now how about you start a thread in which you outline your evidence for ID?
You were attacking him rather than what he actually wrote. Ad-hominem. Against the man.

Back in the early 2000's, I actually kept a link active to a good logical fallacy site because I participated in a few sites, one of which was on this subject, where logical fallacies were the tool of the "other side". The favorites are ad-hominem, straw man and red herring. But there is also a lot of Ad-populum. You know, as in "scientific consensus". :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Meyer is not a Creationist, he is an Intelligent Design proponent.


Yes I know.

But it is interesting that you make this distinction, but think it is OK that he wrote a book about evolution (or abiogenesis).
 
Upvote 0

Almost there

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,571
1,152
61
Kentucky
✟52,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
:rolleyes:


Whatever.


What I don't like or respect is people employing the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This is interesting. I was talking to a fellow at a large church about a rather controversial subject within Christian circles and he mentioned that after working at a church where many of the members were professors at the nearby Christian university, he found that the more one of them knew about the subject, the less sure they were of their opinion on it.

i.e. you are projecting.
 
Upvote 0

Almost there

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,571
1,152
61
Kentucky
✟52,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You want to see 'design' everywhere, and so you do. Evidence is irrelevant to the creationist.
I want to see my wife every day when I wake up. But my wanting to see her doesn't cause me to see her when she's not there.

You are still projecting.
 
Upvote 0