Circular Reasoning

[RickG]

it seems that it's you that has a problem with god and or creationism.
i've stated over and over that i find the concept ludicrous.
don't believe me?
check my posting history

You still can't see the forest for the trees. It was an example of what Pitman was doing using a different analogy.

 

[whois]

crjmurray dealt with your earlier incorrect claim.

i have crjmurray on ignore.
so, explain how he dealt with my "earlier" claim.

So I will deal with the latter, which is a creationist argument by the way.

the latter?
which "latter" would that be?

Horizontal gene transfer is limited mostly to single celled life. It may be how sexual reproduction started. It is not a threat to the theory of evolution nor does it destroy the tree of life. You do not seem to understand the science that you site.

you need to ask koonin why he says the things he does.
frankly, i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to ascertain things like this.

 

[whois]

Perhaps because we are not discussing isochrons. However, what Pitman states is that isochron dating is better and actually provides a fair description of it. When first reading his isochron description it would seem he has no problem with the method. However, reading on we find the following:

So, it is starting to look like isochron dating has solved some of the major problems of other dating methods. However, isochron dating is still based on certain assumptions.​

1. All areas of a given specimen formed at the same time
2. The specimen was entirely homogenous when it formed (not layered or incompletely mixed)
3. Limited Contamination (contamination can form straight lines that are misleading)
4. Isochrons that are based on intra-specimen crystals can be extrapolated to date the whole specimen

The fact is that none of that is "assumed". Even items 1 and 4 conflict with one another. In fact, by not assuming those so called assumptions is the premiss of isochron dating.

Also in reading through his isochron discussion he specifically cites a so called problem with disgussed in a Nature paper (Zashu et al, 1989) (one of his references) where some cubic diamonds yielded an impossible age of 6 billion years through the isochron dating method. It took me a little time to source the paper but I did. What Pitman failed to include that was was the paper was about, how it happens and how it is fixed. Of course, we do know that Dr. Pitman has no background in geochemistry and obviously gleaned that bit of "quote mining" from an ICR article by Andrew Snelling.

And for the gizillionth time, where did "you" come up with the idea that the Ar/Ar method is no longer used.

i see.
since you found the referenced paper, can you post how this apparent snafu was solved?

my mistake about ar/ar dating.

 

[whois]

You still can't see the forest for the trees. It was an example of what Pitman was doing using a different analogy.

i don't see how this applies, but okay, if you say so.

 

[bhsmte]

you need to ask koonin why he says the things he does.
frankly, i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to ascertain things like this.

And what would your science credentials be exactly?

And why would we have to ask Koonin? You are the one citing his work. Does this mean you don't understand enough about his work to discuss it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

you need to ask koonin why he says the things he does.
frankly, i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to ascertain things like this.

People who post here don't need credentials. They need to make sense, be accurate, and reference good leads as appropriate. And by the way, horizontal gene transfer mostly occurs among single celled life, it happens very seldom in multicellular life, and does not undermine the tree of life and is not a threat to the theory of evolution.

 

[whois]

People who post here don't need credentials.

yes, i noticed.

And by the way, horizontal gene transfer mostly occurs among single celled life, it happens very seldom in multicellular life, and does not undermine the tree of life and is not a threat to the theory of evolution.

like i said, take your complaint up with koonin.
i only posted an excerpt, verbatum, from what he published at NCBI.
make of it what you will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i have crjmurray on ignore.
so, explain how he dealt with my "earlier" claim.

the latter?
which "latter" would that be?


you need to ask koonin why he says the things he does.
frankly, i seriously doubt if you have the credentials to ascertain things like this.

Sorry, but if you put someone on ignore that is your problem if you did not read a post that deals with an error that you made.

And please, don't question my credentials when your actions here show that you have none to speak of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, i noticed.

like i said, take your complaint up with koonin.
i only posted an excerpt, verbatum, from what he published at NCBI.
make of it what you will.

I seriously doubt that you understand the work of Koonin that you keep referring to.

As I and others have pointed out HGT does not threaten the Tree of Life at all. It only makes the "roots" a little more complicated.

 

[whois]

And please, don't question my credentials when your actions here show that you have none to speak of.

you can join him.

 

[dad]

Now dad, don't be silly. You know that there was no flood.

Jesus says there was.

This is a scientific discussion which like it or not means that we are going to use scientific terms. In regard to "common descent", it has only one meaning in this context.

Then be clear that you mean evolving only from a certain point on the imaginary tree of life. The term has no stopping place till the depths of hell and madness spawned first lifeform conclusion. The term is also meaningless in the creation debate as it does NOT apply to the time of Noah that you have any science to show it does.

 

[RickG]

i see.
since you found the referenced paper, can you post how this apparent snafu was solved?

It wasn't a snafu, it was a discovery that is unique to minerals such as cubic diamonds formed only in the mantle. According to Zashu et al (actually Ozima was the lead author not Zashu as stated by Pitman) state that:

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif]
[/FONT][FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Cubic diamonds from Zaire show excellent correlations between potassium content and 40Ar/36Ar ratio, and between 40Ar/36Ar and 39Ar/36Ar, which can be interpreted to yield an 'isochron' age of about 6 Gyr. Now the discovery of a correlation between chlorine content and 40Ar, together with recent mineralogical and geochemical work concerning the origin of cubic diamonds, strongly suggests that the 40Ar is an excess component which has no age significance, and that the 40Ar and its associated potassium are contained in sub-micrometre inclusions of mantle-derived fluid.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]More recent work reinforces what Zashu, Ozima et al discovered. Here are links to these works.[/FONT]


[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_R_Wijbrans/publication/223835881_40Ar39Ar-ages_of_phlogopite_in_mantle_xenoliths_from_South_African_kimberlites_Evidence_for_metasomatic_mantle_impregnation_during_the_Kibaran_orogenic_cycle/links/0fcfd509c21f9b403c000000.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/maps/article/download/15607/15595[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GC003073/full[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jo_Anne_Wartho/publication/249551276_40Ar39Ar_ages_in_mantle_xenolith_phlogopites_determining_the_ages_of_multiple_lithospheric_mantle_events_and_diatreme_ascent_rates_in_southern_Africa_and_Malaita_Solomon_Islands/links/0c96053556507dd9c7000000.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v334/n6183/abs/334607a0.html[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v323/n6090/abs/323710a0.html[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016703783900443
[/FONT]

my mistake about ar/ar dating.

Thank you, we all make mistakes.

 

[Aureus]

everything rick has said about my source is incorrect.

Everything he has said about it has in fact been correct.

 

[crjmurray]

.

 

[crjmurray]

link to the post where i used a "creationist argument"
because you consistently refuse to clarify anything i post, that's why.
for example:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
-eugene koonin, the origin at 150, sourced from NCBI

and:
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. this increase of complexity was achieved by major evolutionary changes.
-john maynard smith, nature vol. 374 1995


is the above why you keep referring to me as a creationist?

You left out a sentence from the John Maynard Smith quote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus says there was.

Nope, he never made such a claim. A poetic verse is not an example of someone saying something.

Then be clear that you mean evolving only from a certain point on the imaginary tree of life. The term has no stopping place till the depths of hell and madness spawned first lifeform conclusion. The term is also meaningless in the creation debate as it does NOT apply to the time of Noah that you have any science to show it does.

Sorry, but hell is simply another made up and false Christian idea. In fact this whole paragraph of yours is incredibly wrong. I know that you can't argue scientifically or logically so there is no real need for you to answer this post.

 

[Blue Wren]

it seems that it's you that has a problem with god and or creationism.
i've stated over and over that i find the concept ludicrous.
don't believe me?
check my posting history

You find the concept, of God ludicrous, but you joined a Christian Forum?


I'm interested to know, if creationists gave you some of the blessings you have here. I have a feeling, that if they did, it is because they thought you were a creationist.

 

[whois]

You find the concept, of God ludicrous, but you joined a Christian Forum?

yes.
i have a lot of time on my hands, and i thought it would be a good way of keeping my occupied.

I'm interested to know, if creationists gave you some of the blessings you have here. I have a feeling, that if they did, it is because they thought you were a creationist.

i made it clear when i joined, i don't know where i stand on the evolution/ creation debate.
i've stated numerous times that i find them both ridiculous.
i am however leaning towards some kind of intelligence involved.
that's mainly due to the fact that evolution has employed shady practices to get itself established.
there is also an active effort in science to specifically exclude any type of intelligent/god origins.
in other words, if an hypothesis or theory implies one of the above, it must be reworded so that it doesn't.
i didn't believe stuff like that when i heard it, but i found it out last night when i was scouring the web for some of koonins work, and it wasn't from a creationist site.
darwin has made a mockery of science madam, and i'm afraid that evolution might be hard on his heels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes.
i have a lot of time on my hands, and i thought it would be a good way of keeping my occupied.

i made it clear when i joined, i don't know where i stand on the evolution/ creation debate.
i've stated numerous times that i find them both ridiculous.
i am however leaning towards some kind of intelligence involved.
that's mainly due to the fact that evolution has employed shady practices to get itself established.
there is also an active effort in science to specifically exclude any type of intelligent/god origins.
in other words, if an hypothesis or theory implies one of the above, it must be reworded so that it doesn't.
i didn't believe stuff like that when i heard it, but i found it out last night when i was scouring the web for some of koonins work, and it wasn't from a creationist site.
darwin has made a mockery of science madam, and i'm afraid that evolution might be hard on his heels.

You are making some very strong accusations there. How did evolution "employ shady practices"? How has Darwin made a mocker of science?

You do realize that Darwin is not deified in science, don't you? He was a brilliant man but his theory was not perfect. It has been corrected and tweaked, but his basic principles have been found to be correct. And you keep misrepresenting the work of Koonin. Horizontal gene transfer occurs mainly in single celled life. Since our ancestors left the single cellular stage on the order of a billion years ago I would say that Darwin's tree of life is still amazingly healthy. All that Koonin has shown is that the base is a bit more complicated that previously thought. Why do you think that is a threat to evolution at all?

 

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by whois

i made it clear when i joined, i don't know where i stand on the evolution/ creation debate.
i've stated numerous times that i find them both ridiculous.
i am however leaning towards some kind of intelligence involved.
that's mainly due to the fact that evolution has employed shady practices to get itself established.

What "shady practices" are you referring to? Please be specific.

there is also an active effort in science to specifically exclude any type of intelligent/god origins.
in other words, if an hypothesis or theory implies one of the above, it must be reworded so that it doesn't.

Gods, yes. Intelligence, no. Science cannot address deities because divine cause cannot be tested. If you know a way of doing so, please do tell. So far, there are no natural phenomena that scientists have been unable to address via natural causes. The origin of species is no exception.

darwin has made a mockery of science madam, and i'm afraid that evolution might be hard on his heels.

This is quite a statement to make. Please explain how Darwin made a "mockery" of science. He was not only a naturalist but a geologist as well. I doubt that your contributions to science come anywhere near to his.

Let's look at his main contribution to what we now call evolutionary biology... natural selection. Natural selection is still considered the primary mechanism of adaptive evolution, just as Darwin theorized. Do you agree or disagree?