Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
I USE REALLY BIG FONT AND ALL BOLDED CAPS THEREFORE I'M RIGHT AND THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS WRONG!!!!!!!!
Upvote
0
-
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.
Intelligent Design / Evolution
- Thread starter idscience
- Start date
- Status
I USE REALLY BIG FONT AND ALL BOLDED CAPS THEREFORE I'M RIGHT AND THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS WRONG!!!!!!!!
Goalposts... you really must come up with another catch phrase. I posted a paper that shows evolutionists have no idea what is going on. All they can keep repeating is it happened we just don't know how, or why, or when.
The only thing the ice cores show is the imagination of scientists who see what they want to see.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
For the love of.... !
You said that there are no examples of Gradual Evolution in the fossil record. That was your claim. I showed you several examples. You then shifted the goal posts by complaining that the specific genetic changes resulting in the morphological changes in the fossils were unknown. Of course they are! All we have for these species are fossils!
Of course, you are ignoring that I refuted your original claim. Now are you going to Man Up and admit you were wrong, or not? Secondly, they are deep sea cores, not ice cores!
And you have the nerve to claim that "evolutionists have no idea what is going on."
Unbelievable....
Upvote
0
Aahahahah,
I love quotes from the intelligence deniers handbook. didn't the entire scientific community believe at one time that blood was produced by the liver, cooled by the lungs then consumed by the body. The theory of circulation was not well received either. Along with a long list of other theories the "consensus" fought against.
It isn't about science anyways is it. As Coyne put it, its a war on religion by atheists. The lack of evidence isn't going to convince anybody, so religion must be attacked.
Who are the loudest defenders of common descent is science? Atheists/agnostics
Who are the loudest on this forum? Atheists/agnostics, why? the most to loose from being wrong. Common descent has to succeed at all costs and that is why despite underwhelming evidence, it is paraded around and marketed as a fact while any evidence to the contrary is demonized, conspiracized, and anyone who disagrees is ostracized.
The desperation of the evolution lobby is obvious. Scientists running around chasing their tales trying to prove the unprovable. The only apparent thing they can wrestle into submission is subjective. This looks like that, so they came from the same other.
And please, the goal post thing? Do you even know what you are saying?
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
So, the article (from a I.D. website) complains that Industrial Melanism is just "Evolutionary variation." Evolution is defined as a change in gene frequencies over time. This is what we see quite clearly with the peppered moths, even if it is indirectly via the phenotype rather than genotype.
There was a paper cited from 2010 which indicated that we don't yet know what gene is causing the phenotypic difference: "Industrial melanism in the peppered moth is not associated with genetic variation in canonical melanisation gene candidates." PLoS One. 2010 May 28;5(5):e10889. OK. So, they looked at the most obvious candidates, and none of them matched up. In the abstract they conclude: "The implication is either that we have failed to characterize an unknown enzyme-coding gene in the melanisation pathway, or more likely, that the 'carbonaria gene' is a higher level trans-acting factor which regulates the spatial expression of one or more of the melanisation candidates in this study to alter the pattern of melanin production." More research will eventually provide the answers to which genetic sequences are responsible. That is how science works. What is the problem????
What is "THE PEPPERED MYTH" that you are screaming about???
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
The point is your obnoxious use of large bold font doesn't do anything to support your assertions. Evidence might.
Nonsense. For us, it is all about science. Evolution is a scientific theory, no matter how many times people like you try to assert differently. But thank you for confirming that for you and most I.D./Creationists, it really is all about religion, and not science at all.
There are plenty of theistic evolutionists posting here as well. Since this is the only place where non-believers are allowed to post about the subject, you will find a preponderance of agnostics and atheists here. This surprises you? Try posting in the Christian-Only area of the forum if you want to interact with more theistic evolutionists.
We don't prove in science. Please at least get that much down.
Yes, I believe I have explained myself quite clearly and honestly. You on the other hand, seem to be too big a coward or too arrogant to admit when you are wrong. One last time:
Are you going to man up and admit you are wrong about examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record, or not?
Upvote
0
The point is your obnoxious use of large bold font doesn't do anything to support your assertions. Evidence might.
Nonsense. For us, it is all about science. Evolution is a scientific theory, no matter how many times people like you try to assert differently. But thank you for confirming that for you and most I.D./Creationists, it really is all about religion, and not science at all.
There are plenty of theistic evolutionists posting here as well. Since this is the only place where non-believers are allowed to post about the subject, you will find a preponderance of agnostics and atheists here. This surprises you? Try posting in the Christian-Only area of the forum if you want to interact with more theistic evolutionists.
We don't prove in science. Please at least get that much down.
Yes, I believe I have explained myself quite clearly and honestly. You on the other hand, seem to be too big a coward or too arrogant to admit when you are wrong. One last time:
Are you going to man up and admit you are wrong about examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record, or not?
I use large bold twice and you get all emotional?
If it was about science, you wouldn't spend so much time insulting and conflating. That is why you get so emotional. That is apart from your evolutionary predisposition to being emotional.
There may be plenty, but it is the atheists who are doing all the ranting on this thread. Why would I post in Christian only? Does that mean they can't post here?
Word games, semantics, definitions, convolutions, smoke and mirrors. Everything but facts.
If there were evidence of transitional fossils there wouldn't be a push for punctuated equilibrium. Two guys/girls sitting around looking at organisms and arbitrarily deciding this one and that one are from the same common ancestor isn't convincing evidence.
Anytime we see phrases like, "they are rare" or "little evidence" we are seeing code for non and no. Can you imagine, a scientists trying to publish a paper that says "there are non" and "there is no evidence"? it would never be done.
The public are inundated and indoctrinated with the fallacy of mountains of and overwhelming evidence. Then we see papers with evolutionists telling us "really" there isn't much. when you look further, what isn't much, is conjecture and inference, not actual facts and data. We have to take someones word on it and have "faith" in their ability to guess.
UCA promises large and delivers little.
Upvote
0
That is nonsense not science. One day we will have the answer we are looking for? How about I say to you, we don't know how yet, but one day we will have the answer to the name of the intelligent designer? Would you accept that? of course not. But you expect others to accept your absurdity.
What is the problem? the problem is assertions of fact without the facts. Whats the problem? Pepper is a poster child for evolution and know one knows how it happened. This is good science in your world?
To many young people today are being trained/indoctrinated to believe what they are told, buy into the dogma now, and we'll worry about the evidence later. They are being sold a bill of goods which is precisely why so many are so scared about education bills protecting teachers when discussing the gaping holes in evolutionary theory/hypothesis.
If students actually begin to thing about it, and are exposed to the actual state of common ancestry today, your movement is in big trouble and they know it. Hence, the theist/communist style oppression of dissension.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
You used gigantic font to try and "shout" the rest of us down. That signifies emotion on your part, not mine.
You have no clue what my emotional state is... I think your posts are both sad and funny at the same time.
Don't complain that there are too many atheists and agnostics responding to your posts if you post in the part of the forum open to non-believers.
That's rich coming from a person who has supplied NO facts whatsoever in support of his position.
P.E. has nothing to do with an absence of transitionals. It has to do with stasis and the number of transitionals found in the record. I just provided you with a whole bunch of examples, in a nice gradual transition... but you're desperately trying to forget that.. aren't you?
Can you imagine an IDer actually not misrepresenting what the scientific literature says? I have to admit, I am having trouble doing so after getting through with you and "Dr. Zaius."
The evidence for common descent is indeed large and common descent is inferred, not "guessed" or based on faith. There is no amount of evidence that will satisfy you of this, however.
Sounds more like I.D. to me.
Strange that you would say this, considering the fact most IDers assert that ID cannot tell us who the "intelligent Designer" is. In any case, we have the data on I.M. and we know about Mendelian and Population genetics. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe the gene(s) involved will not be identified in the near future. When they are, will you sing a different tune then? I doubt it.
All because we don't have all the answers, doesn't mean we don't have any. I would think you of all people would be OK with that, since you don't even have one answer.
Wow... that is a really good explanation of the effect of I.D./Creationism! Especially since it is being taught to little kids as "God's Word" in Evangelical/Fundamentalist churches all over the country. The "scientific evidence," we are told, will come later.
There is no "movement" I am involved with. The "movement" is to continue making Evangelical/ Fundamentalist Christians distrustful of science, even though the technology their lives become more and more dependant on, is based on science.
Idscience, you and I are through now. There is little point in trying to carry on a discussion with someone who is so intransigent that they cannot even admit when they are wrong. You have nothing to discuss here, you only want a stage to make baseless assertions that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Its funny how IDers like yourself and Zaius don't act or sound any different from other creationists here, even the YEC crowd. Yet, we are told I.D. has nothing to do with creationism. That makes me laugh. In any case, I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you. Just so you know not to bother replying to my posts anymore, I am informing you that you are now on my Ignore list. Have a nice life.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Lion Hearted Man
Eternal Newbie
The bacterial flagellum and the immune system were examples that Behe brought up in court as examples of intelligent design and irreducible complexity. He was destroyed in court by the facts. Funny how you still use those examples though they've been thoroughly debunked, in a court of law no less.
Upvote
0
A court of law? that impresses you? How many innocent people have been put to death in the United States? How many murderers have been set free?
If by destroyed you mean ignored, or words put in his mouth, or ignored, or misrepresented, or ignored, then yes.
The judge did what is done here. Believed the lie. When Behe was on the stand the lawyers pulled a Perry Mason, dropping a pile of 50 papers and some books on the judges desk explaning the evolution of the immune system.
Behe later read them and surprise, surprise, it was another cite bluff. Non of them stated any such thing. All they talked about was similarites, and comparisons. None of them addressed where the increased information came from or how the cascading system arose. To date, you still cannot cite one paper that does.
Like most of you on here, you accept that as gospel. You don't need to know the details, all that is important is that no one tries to assert it didn't happen.
That is why papers are rarely cited here. When they are, they are just "Jones papers" All titles, descriptions and comparisons, no answers. There has been a few, Hobz had a mental breakdown a short time ago and posted over 300,000 papers that had nothing to do with the conversation. If Judge Jones was given those he would have cited them to becuse they had the word evolution in them.
The vast majority of his final statement was written for him by I think one of the VP's of sales and marketing over at the NCSE, or maybe the lawyers. The judge didn't even know what he was saying, but he did know he was going to get a lot of good press for saying it.
As far as the flagellar motor goes, you are day late and a dollar short. Your 'Jones'n' man. Sure would be nice if after someone made a ridiculous statement like yours then actually cite something other than their own opinion. Parroting sound bites or quoting the 'brothers for evolution' hand book is lame. I give you lots of grace because I know how little evidence is out there that can be twisted to resemble support.
Bacterial Flagellum (Irreducible Complexity) 34,257,574,
DOVER TRIAL:
How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors at Kitzmiller to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade
Five Years Later, Evolutionary Immunology and other Icons of Kitzmiller v. Dover Not Holding Up Well
Judge Jones's Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information
Kitzmiller v. Dover Not Holding Up Well
Dover in Review
Response to ken miller and judge jones
judge jones and citation bluffs
Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour
Response to Matzke and Padian's Revisionist History and Gloat Parade
Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover
"Whether Intelligent Design is Science: A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District," by Michael Behe;
With all the debunking going on you would think some smart fella here could come up the a cite showing the patheway that led to the buiding of said debunked theories. Maybe if you all got together on a conference call and pooled all your idea? I have seen plenty of the "well coulda been this way or that way, maybe", and "well, if this or that happened". Lots of specific commontary of that nature.
Upvote
0
Lion Hearted Man
Eternal Newbie
Yawn. Your wall of Discovery Institute links do not impress me.
I would be more impressed if you actually had any knowledge of the immune system or the bacterial flagellum. It is obvious that the gaps in your knowledge of these subjects have been filled with ID nonsense.
Find me an immunologist who publishes papers demonstrating that the immune system couldn't have evolved. Then refute Ken Miller's argument about the molecular evolution of the bacterial flagellum (and come up with some theological justifications for why the intelligent designer equipped cholera with such a brilliant virulence factor! Poor Haitian children...)
I would be more impressed if you actually had any knowledge of the immune system or the bacterial flagellum. It is obvious that the gaps in your knowledge of these subjects have been filled with ID nonsense.
Find me an immunologist who publishes papers demonstrating that the immune system couldn't have evolved. Then refute Ken Miller's argument about the molecular evolution of the bacterial flagellum (and come up with some theological justifications for why the intelligent designer equipped cholera with such a brilliant virulence factor! Poor Haitian children...)
Upvote
0
Well, it was a DI expert that you are questioning, I thought maybe you would be interested in his expert replies. But, they would probably be misrepresented as Behe was. Listen to the opposition, then just say what you want and claim that is what they said. What else can you do when you can't refute evidence?
Judge Jones was lazy and most likely didn't know what he was saying in his closing statement as it wasn't his words.
- " In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones' 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU." (By: David DeWolf & John West)
Miller has to arguments. he has ideas.
An Immunologist Explains Why the Immune System Isn't an Example of Darwinian Evolution
What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much
"microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all... Donald L. Ewert is a research immunologist/virologist who spent much of his career studying the molecular and cell biology of the immune system, as well as theories about its evolution."
"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover
In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade:
Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison
"A True Acid Test": Response to Ken Miller
By: Michael J. Behe
Bacterial Flagellum (Irreducible Complexity) 34,257,574,
About Irreducible Complexity
Responding to Darwinists Claiming to Have Explained Away the Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
The fit of a model to data can be improved arbitrarily by increasing the number of free parameters. On the other hand, simple hypotheses (those with as few ad hoc parameters as possible) are preferred.
As I mentioned before the statistical analysis that is free from real world parameters is useless. That is exactly what is going on here freeing the analysis from the constrictions of defining parameters.
Because model selection tests directly quantify the evidence for and against competing models, these tests overcome many of the well-known logical problems with Fisherian null-hypothesis significance tests (such as BLAST-style E values).
The divergence of proteins is directly quantified by the assumption of common descent in the competing models (another layer of statistical error could be introduced at this point) . The author claims a advantage to his approach over the Fisherian null-hypothesis test, this is really not saying much at all.
To quantify the evidence supporting the various ancestry hypotheses, I applied three of the most widely used model selection criteria from all major statistical schools: the log likelihood ratio (LLR), the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the log Bayes factor (LBF).
Good statistical methods but one might ask if the previous assumptions can be overcome to enable some objectivity?
This model (indicated by ‘AE+B’ in Fig. 1 and Table 1) comprises two independent trees—one containing Archaea and Eukarya and another containing only Bacteria. In these models the primary assumptions are:
(1) that sequences change over time by a gradual, time-reversible Markovian process of residue substitution, described by a 20[FONT="] [/FONT]×[FONT="] [/FONT]20 instantaneous rate matrix defined by certain amino acid equilibrium frequencies and a symmetric matrix of amino acid exchangeabilities;
Problems should be noted with the Markovian substitution model :
This study leads to the conclusion that the Markovian model is not suitable for the interpretation of protein mutational variability since: (1) The information about the history of a variable unit is included in its genetic code. (2) This information plays an important role in the probability of further possible changes of the unit. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.uz.zgora.pl/~jleluk/pdf/cc2.pdf
Same objections found in this paper…
http://compbio.berkeley.edu/people/brenner/pubs/crooks-2005-bioinf-amino.pdf
(2) that new genetically related genes are generated by duplication during bifurcating speciation or gene duplication events;
A purely evolutionist perspective is assumed.
and (3) that residue substitutions are uncorrelated along different lineages and at different sites. The model selection tests evaluate how well these assumptions explain the given data set when various subsets of taxa and proteins are postulated to share ancestry, without any recourse to measures of sequence similarity.
Idscience is completely correct when claiming that this research is 100% biased in presuming to fit the data to a preconceived assumption. Quote….
A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.
Isaac Newton
About your statement below….
I hear stories from the chamber / How Christ was born into a manger
And like some ragged stranger / Died upon the cross
And might I say it seems so fitting in its way
He was a carpenter by trade / Or at least that's what I'm told
--Mercy Seat, NickCave and the Bad Seeds
What a great source for the gospel of Jesus Christ… a rock musician. Something that was omitted from this synoptic passage, That Jesus Christ died for your sins and mine because there is no way back to the father except by the bridge God himself provided.
Accept Jesus Christ today and have that veil lifted to see things that you never imagined.
I have reviewed what you presented of Theobald’s paper and found it wanting as other researchers have… If you think I am incorrect you are welcome to comment… Argumentum Ad Nauseum…
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You see idscience? Now this is an actual critique.
You are conflating a common definition of the word "free" with the statistical one. Sad stuff Z.
Free Parameter definition | Dictionary of Electronic Statistics
Also, they are saying "as few as possible" not "none".
Nothing to do with the quoted passage (concerning logical problems of significance testing) though.
You are conflating a common definition of the word "free" with the statistical one. Sad stuff Z.
Free Parameter definition | Dictionary of Electronic Statistics
Also, they are saying "as few as possible" not "none".
common descent, yes. universal common descent, no.
Nothing to do with the quoted passage (concerning logical problems of significance testing) though.
Really? What's the chance you could be specific. What statistical error layer could be introduced, exactly?
Please explain, in your own words, why a significance test would have been better than a model selection approach. Otherwise, its you that is not saying much at all.
Which assumptions? And what does "enable some objectivity" mean? Perhaps rather than rephrasing your question you could provide an answer? (i.e. what should have been done to overcome these previous assumptions and enable some objectivity).
This was also my second problem with the paper. But I basically agree.
Right.
No, he is 100% incorrect. The authors assume evolution and then ask whether it is more likely that the 3 domains of life arose independently or from a UCA. There is no UCA preconceived assumption, which was idscience's primary allegation.
I recommend you listen to the whole song. It's the final thoughts of a man about to be sent to the electric chair ("Mercy Seat")
Except you want me to also deny reality. Not going to happen. I'd also have to give up my day job, and I quite like my day job and its associated pay check.
And I have done. I have a number of problems with the paper one of which you also mentioned. I don't actually have a problem with a critique, I was simply pointing out that idscience is incapable of producing one, and that whinging about some reporter's interpretation of the paper isn't one.
Upvote
0
You were wrong when you said the paper assumes UCA. You were wrong to call your interpretation of some reporter's interpretation a critique, you were wrong to call your reformatting a bit of the abstract with colors and bold a critique, and you had to wait for Z to haul you out of the fire before responding to me.
And you will note I had absolutely no problem agreeing with Z when he was right.
I promise, if it ever happens that you are right, I will not have a problem with it, but you are punching seriously above your weight here.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
