Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[tas8831]

And you keep responding.

I'm a sucker for trolls, I guess.

Perhaps one day a creationist will materialize that does not rely on unwarranted condescension, logical fallacies, equivocation, etc.

But I doubt it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I actually had stopped debating this subject for almost a decade before I came to this site late last week. It's a temporary guilty pleasure for me right now. And there is no way I'll get into the weeds with lengthy "evidence ridden" replies. It's a waste of time, for both sides. Again, this is something I learned when arguing AGW

It's only a waste of time when one side has no evidence to bring to the table. Oh wait

As I've said before, my biggest problem with the whole evolution "thing" is the discussion of things that happened "millions of years ago" as fact rather than hypothesis or conjecture.

It's not purely conjecture, because there are aspects of the past which are directly measurable (such as Neanderthal DNA and ancient air bubbles trapped in ice, amber, etc.). Also, hypothesis still means testable, and after a hypothesis is tested enough and stands up to scrutiny, what does it become? Rhetorical question, it becomes a theory.

 

[tas8831]

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.

I see that you don't know what projection is, either.

And I get that you are totally enamored with your own parables (pride) - like the one above.

I don't trust (or believe) people that cannot be straight talkers, at least now and then.

And i see that you don't know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is either - allow me:

http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf

Basically, it is the phenomenon in which people tend to be more confident about issues that they are the most ignorant of.

You clearly know very little about evolution, yet freely pontificate on how wrong it is.

I don't do that.


YOU do. Creationists do. And folks like you refuse to admit error.

I mentioned in another thread that elephants do not have bone-to-bone connections between their pectoral girdles and their axial skeleton. A creationist replied by declaring that of course they did or their bodies would pull away from their forelimbs. I provided 3 links proving I was correct. the creationist replied to that post, but utterly ignored his error.


You just claim 'opinions vary' and can never support a claim. But you want to claim I am projecting.

Is it fun trolling? I never saw the fun in it. I find it more rewarding to prove creationists wrong.

 

[tas8831]

I really don't know about that. My knowledge of it is more in the AGW fake science front rather than this.

What's this?

ANOTHER non-scientist science expert on all issues?

And 'fake science' to boot?


LOL!

The hubris of these people...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who told you that and why did you believe them?

Of course, it's also possible they did exist but went extinct. With ID there are all sorts of possibilities. When someone comes up with a better explanation, I'll buy it.

It is a logical conclusion. If you could think logically you would see that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't know about that. My knowledge of it is more in the AGW fake science front rather than this.

I actually had stopped debating this subject for almost a decade before I came to this site late last week. It's a temporary guilty pleasure for me right now. And there is no way I'll get into the weeds with lengthy "evidence ridden" replies. It's a waste of time, for both sides. Again, this is something I learned when arguing AGW

As I've said before, my biggest problem with the whole evolution "thing" is the discussion of things that happened "millions of years ago" as fact rather than hypothesis or conjecture.

The problem is that you can't argue with evidence. You have none. You do not appear to understand the topic and as predicted you do not seem to want to learn.

Once again, the fact that there is no evidence for the creationist side is why they continually lose in courts of law. You could at least try to learn the nature of evidence, though I understand what that would frighten a creationist.

 

[mindlight]

Please drop the faux outrage. I asked you a specific question that you chose to evade giving a meaningful answer to. If we are to have serious discussion on a scientific subject then we need to employ the appropriate scientific terminology. "Kinds" is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. [If any one is entitled to outrage, real or affected, it would be me.]

Now, as to your response here. Canis is a genus. Passer domesticus is a species. Based on this I am at a loss to determine which taxonomic level you think constitutes a kind. It seems that when you are talking about dogs, wolves and coyotes then kinds are genera, but when you reference sparrows, they are species. Would it be simpler if we just agreed that you lack the education in this topic to deliver a cogent argument? Or will you give me a properly considered answer to my question; which taxonomic level constitutes a "kind".

Genus two examples of which are Canis ( dogs) and Passer (Sparrows)

 

[tas8831]

Actually, a lot of my posts on this subject ARE projection, but in a "being a man, I know the heart of man" sort of way.

The thing is, I see this as, at its core, an argument between two different religious beliefs, but only one side admits it.

Then you see it incorrectly.

The creationist sees this as a battle for their souls, for that have taken the middle eastern myths of yore at face value. The creationist must find a reason to justify their beliefs, for to allow that their beliefs might be mistaken on a literal Genesis, they might be mistaken on their eternal salvation - can't have that.

And so, the creationist does what they do - spin tales, puff themselves up, condescend, ignore facts, make up facts, distort lie and obfuscate - all to, at the end of the day, tell Jesus how great a warrior they were that day.

One side is trying to explain the natural world around them, the other is actively denying it in order to prop up their deity belief - and all the while pretending to be above it all.

You've gotten terribly predictable and boring, even for a troll.

Ignore list.

 

[mindlight]

Until and unless I have read the material you are refering to in the second edition I can hardly accept your characterisation that it is "speculative analogous rationalisation".

I have assumed you meant cannot demonstrate rather than can demonstrate. (That Freud chap was a bit of a cad.)

No i meant "can". There are things science can demonstrate but when we speculate on the basis of facts we move beyond what science can demonstrate

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's this?

ANOTHER non-scientist science expert on all issues?

And 'fake science' to boot?


LOL!

The hubris of these people...

Sadly I understand the mindset of many AGW deniers, I use to deny it myself. At that time there were a few scientists, but none climate scientists, that doubted AGW. I used their arguments. But I also listened to and read the sources of those opposing me. I started to have doubts, and I knew that my initial rejection was due to Al Gore, who I still can't stand. I hated the messenger.

Finally I was convinced that I was wrong by a very unlikely source. Lord Monckton made me accept AGW. I noticed how his tactics were almost identical to that of creationist "scientists". I quickly realized that an honest debater need not use those techniques and the scales fell from my eyes.

 

[mindlight]

If you saw 500 million years of evolution going back through time to the cambrian, then as rocks became more metamorphosed and as fossils lost their shells and became tougher to find (though soft bodied fossils have been found in the earliest parts of the cambrian and predating the explosion), then it is less plausible to propose the idea that cambrian organisms appeared out of thin air, than to propose the idea that they simply didnt fossilize (which is already evident in the less and less fossilized soft bodied organisms as you go further and further back in time).

It may sound reasonable to you but still it cannot be demonstrated and so the argument is speculative.

 

[mindlight]

Phylogenetic 'linkages' are premised on tested methodologies:


Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this is, 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.

You are talking about 500 million year guesses so I guess "premised" is the key word there.

 

[tas8831]

Interesting how quickly this line of discussion was dropped.

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may sound reasonable to you but still it cannot be demonstrated and so the argument is speculative.

No, you do not understand the meaning of the word "speculative".

 

[tas8831]

You are talking about 500 million year guesses so I guess "premised" is the key word there.

So you are determined to ignore or dismiss the relevance of the papers I referred to?

You described all this as - what was it?

"OL 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. "

and


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

You claimed it was all assumptions and 'homologous mappings' (whatever that means).

And the clincher:

" That science has invented new phylogenetic ways to support those links even without direct fossil evidence is deeply concerning as it depends on blind faith in the wisdom of the system and process itself. "


I present just 3 examples of these methods being tested, and you are content to just keep dismissing it?


How quickly "new forum creationists" become just like all the others.


Nothing about guesses at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are talking about 500 million year guesses so I guess "premised" is the key word there.

Apparent projection again. You may have to guess. Scientists are not allowed to do that. They have to test their ideas. Their ideas need to be testable, others have to be able to get the same results that they did, in other words the tests must be repeatable. Many creationists do not understand that the tests must be repeatable, not the event itself. Creationists have no testable explanation. They have no evidence for their claims.

 

[Almost there]

Right - "I'm outta here" is not "I'm leaving."

Whatever.



Always condescending mind-reading from pompous creationists, never anything of value or merit.

I think you are referring to a different thread. And that last line is a bit ironic.

I've been arguing this stuff since 1998 on the internet and decades before that in the real world. One thing I learned quite a while ago is that nobody changes their opinion, no matter what, and no matter which side they are on, based on internet forums. So, with that perspective, I just come here to have fun.

 

[Job 33:6]

It may sound reasonable to you but still it cannot be demonstrated and so the argument is speculative.

It isn't a geologists job to provide fossils for the very beginning of life in precambrian times. However, post the beginning of life, and in post ediacaran/cambrian times (ie in the last 600-500 million years of fossils and geology), the fossil succession and geologists very much stand behind and with biologists in support of the theory of evolution. You are correct though, that geologists like myself, could only speculate on what the very (and i mean very) first complex life looked like.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you are referring to a different thread. And that last line is a bit ironic.

I've been arguing this stuff since 1998 on the internet and decades before that in the real world. One thing I learned quite a while ago is that nobody changes their opinion, no matter what, and no matter which side they are on, based on internet forums. So, with that perspective, I just come here to have fun.

You're right. I don't expect to change the opinion of a creationist, and I have no intention of becoming a right-wing fundamentalist Protestant even if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow. I originally came to forums like this because I was in education and ran into creationists in real life. I wanted to see if there was any more to it than epithets and spittle. I stay because I had to live in the Bible Belt for a while and got a chip on my shoulder about all of the hostility and even violence that gets handed out when creationists think they have the upper hand. You're right again--it's fun.

 

[Almost there]

I stay because I had to live in the Bible Belt for a while and got a chip on my shoulder about all of the hostility and even violence that gets handed out when creationists think they have the upper hand. You're right again--it's fun.

I moved to the bible belt from Seattle six years ago. I've experienced what you are talking about, but not on this particular issue, obviously. The dogmatism is pretty rampant.

The problem with this particular issue is to get to the real proofs you have to really talk over everyone's head. It's like me trying to talk about C# or COBOL to a person that only knows how to use microsoft office. How do I convince them that structured code is better even though it might run slightly slower? The answer is that I don't use programming words. I use real language and analogies to allow them to understand the processes I'm talking about.

Of course, if all I'm trying to do is show them I know things they don't, I use developerspeak. Nobody understands me but I "sound" smart.

There is a lot of that going on in these threads.

My success as a BA is to talk about highly technical stuff to a pure business audience in a way that they understand what I'm saying. But most programmers can have a hard time doing that, just as most scientists have a hard time explaining this stuff. To them it is perfectly clear. To those that don't do it for a living, it's all greek and, frankly, comes across as snooty.

As we talk about anything complicated or technical I always think of what an acquaintance, who is a real rocket scientist, said: Even rocket science ain't rocket science. i.e. if people don't understand you, it's not them. It's you*.

*except for the genuinely "slow" people.