My Igneous Challenge

[TLK Valentine]

Physical Age - Existential Age = Embedded Age

Ah -- so you invented existential age in order to concoct embedded age.

I see I did make an error -- I thought you invented one term; you invented two.

 

[TLK Valentine]

well?
where is the empirical evidence?

Did you read the entire article, or did you stop at half the abstract?

 

[whois]

Did you read the entire article, or did you stop at half the abstract?

yes, all 6 pages of it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

yes, all 6 pages of it.

Can you post a link? The only ones I can find are pay sites.

 

[whois]

Can you post a link? The only ones I can find are pay sites.

no, you can buy it just like i did.

 

[TLK Valentine]

no, you can buy it just like i did.

Except you didn't buy it. You didn't read it.

 

[whois]

Except you didn't buy it. You didn't read it.

maynard goes on to say:
"in many of the transitions listed in table 1 we find the common phenomenon that entities capable of independent replication before the transition can only replicate as parts of a larger whole afterwards"

so again i ask, where's the empirical evidence?
you will also note these changes was a result of major changes, not "small accumulating" changes.
he also states there is no theory that explains this.

what do you make of this truth?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Can you post a link? The only ones I can find are pay sites.

Is this it:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...ransitions/links/0a85e52e3ee0391fab000000.pdf

I put the abstract in google and the first result is a pdf file that comes up with the whole article.

 

[whois]

Is this it:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...ransitions/links/0a85e52e3ee0391fab000000.pdf

I put the abstract in google and the first result is a pdf file that comes up with the whole article.

the text appears to be the same.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

the text appears to be the same.

So how much did it cost you?

 

[whois]

So how much did it cost you?

apparently too much.
what does that have to do with post 167?

 

[TLK Valentine]

maynard goes on to say:
"in many of the transitions listed in table 1 we find the common phenomenon that entities capable of independent replication before the transition can only replicate as parts of a larger whole afterwards"

so again i ask, where's the empirical evidence?
you will also note these changes was a result of major changes, not "small accumulating" changes.
he also states there is no theory that explains this.

The purpose of the article wasn't to present empirical evidence, as you would've known had you read it through:

"The article is more an agenda for future research than a summary of what is known. But there is sufficient formal similarity between the various transitions to hold out the hope that progress in understanding any one of them will help to illuminate others."

IOW, you're holding the pirate's map, complaining that gold doubloons aren't spilling out of it.

Doesn't work that way, son -- the map only shows you where to dig; you still have to do the work.

what do you make of this truth?

Much like your first "truth," it becomes much more useful when you show it all, and don't just stop at half.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

apparently too much.
what does that have to do with post 167?

You must have wanted to read it really badly.

 

[whois]

The purpose of the article wasn't to present empirical evidence, as you would've known had you read it through:

"The article is more an agenda for future research than a summary of what is known. But there is sufficient formal similarity between the various transitions to hold out the hope that progress in understanding any one of them will help to illuminate others."

IOW, you're holding the pirate's map, complaining that gold doubloons aren't spilling out of it.

Doesn't work that way, son -- you have to dig, first.



Much like your first "truth," it becomes much more useful when you show it all, and don't just stop at half.

i see.
so, there is no empirical evidence (maynard presents none), and there is no theory (maynard presents his guess as to a theory).
i also suppose maynard was talking nonsense when he said these changes were major changes not "small accumulating" changes.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Half-truth, you mean.

I think the quote is a lot more interesting when it's not mined.

"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, and so on. This increase in complexity may have been achieved as a result of a series of major evolutionary transitions. These involved changes in the way information is stored and transmitted."

Its good to get the whole context of the quote out there, but I have to disagree with the premise. In particular, I think there is every reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A simple formula is hard to understand?

Easy to understand, hard to believe. The idea of "embedded age" instead of real age isn't true. God would not indulge in such deception as providing evidence of events that never took place.

 

[whois]

Its good to get the whole context of the quote out there, but I have to disagree with the premise. In particular, I think there is every reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time.

what exactly are you saying?
these doctors of science don't know what they are talking about?

the deeper meaning of this article spells almost certain death for evolution as you know it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what exactly are you saying?
these doctors of science don't know what they are talking about?

the deeper meaning of this article spells almost certain death for evolution as you know it.

Why do you think that it "spells almost certain death for evolution as you know it"? I saw nothing there. Perhaps it lies in the word "complex". Creationist are always trying to claim that one life form is more complex than another, but they can never define what "complexity" is. It seems to be much like their undefined "kinds", which I have hijacked until they come up with a better definition. My definition of "kinds" is a synonym of "clade".

 

[AV1611VET]

Easy to understand, hard to believe.

Then show me you understand it.

The idea of "embedded age" instead of real age isn't true.

You're entitled to your opinion.
But as long as you demonstrate you don't understand it, I'm not going to take you seriously.

God would not indulge in such deception as providing evidence of events that never took place.

He didn't.

Embedded age is "maturity without history."

What you described is Omphalism or Last Thursdayism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then show me you understand it.

You're entitled to your opinion.
But as long as you demonstrate you don't understand it, I'm not going to take you seriously.


He didn't.

Embedded age is "maturity without history."

What you described is Omphalism or Last Thursdayism.

And you have yet to show any difference at all. Call me when you finally do show that there is any difference.