|
|
|
kytheskeptic
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2010 : 19:04:18 [Permalink]
|
So my friend seems grossly misinformed and stubborn, where I don't think any amount of evidence would change his mind.
His long comment below
"ky:
Hahaha, yes i do know that there is more than one retrovirus. The point i was making is that even after the split from this common ancestor, species that are similar to human kind as well as those who are further removed share a same retrovirus that Humans do not. What i was trying to explain (and it probably came off poorly because well lets face it facebook discussions lose context and depth) is that in the Video, Dawkins was showing the diagram of the branching from the common ancestor, if this common ancestor had the retrovirus, all of its descendants should have it, others do, but humans do not, this is interesting because it takes place after the "split" that these species that are more similar to humans than apes have it but humans do not while apes do. The DNA strands are indigenous and similar in some instances, but not enough to extrapolate the existence of an ancestor of which there is no evidence of. Now if we started to find and complete and fill in the fossil record (even if just for the evolution of human kind) these sorts of ideas would be permissible, but as of now they dont provide any tangible new information.
I do have one question, where do you stand on "junk dna?" i couldnt quite tell where you stood on "junk DNA," but Junk DNA is an illusion. Every part of the DNA serves a purpose, there is no "leftover" information from the evolutionary process, there is no residual information"
David:
Firstly id like to say, i set the bar pretty high on each science, its called accountability and its not meant to be derogatory, its meant to actually investigate. On that note i believe you are making assumptions about who i am and how i think, of which you dont have any evidence for, so im hoping that you dont conduct your scientific experiments that way. haha but all kidding aside, LUCY, really? The Lucy skeleton is so incomplete the models that were developed are not based on any sort of real and tangible creature, but rather it is the creation of Owen Lovejoy, and even his own colleagues questioned his work. So lets just dismiss that because it isnt based on any hard science. until we actualy find a population of these creatures and not just an incomplete singularity lets not waste time and energy arguing in circles.
As for your points about hominids; finding incomplete skeletons here and there, is not evidence of transitional creatures. I hope you understand that the transitional forms are supposed to be "incalculable" (according to darwin himself, ive read his works). We are still coming up empty on just the evolution of man as well as every other kind of species.
Maybe you dont like the word "invent" fair enough, lets say; "generate." In any case you seemed to have either missed the point of the argument entirely, or decided to not address it. The point is that INFORMATION (DNA) DOES NOT SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATE OF ITS OWN SELF AND "NATURAL SELECTION" CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CAUSATION OF INORGANIC MATERIAL BECOMING ORGANIC! THAT IS IT CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW WE WENT FROM NOT LIVING TO LIVING!IT CAN ONLY EXPLAIN HOW A SPECIES MAINTAINS DOMINANCE OR DIES OUT.
I will say you do make an interesting point and i commend you for stating that "Even if a creator is involved, he is outside of what science can investigate." You are completely accurate in that statement, If there is a God He would have to be infinite, therefore any and all finite means of calculating Him would be inadequate. Unfortunately for both sides, this is the reality of the situation, that is, unless God made Himself apparent sometime in natural recorded history, but that is another argument all together.
I certainly hope you are not serious. Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are not the same thing. Variations within a species does happen, we both know that, but at the end of the day, thier DNA still shows that they are a DOG or a CAT. I would like to see these supposed mutations actually beget a new kind of species, if everything came from the same common ancestor all those years ago then there should (again ill quote darwin) be "incalculable" transitional fossilized evidence. and before we point to "punctuated equilibrium" lets realize that there is no evidence for this concept at all. Its an empty explanation that attempts to draw attention away from the still lacking fossil record. Each and every Branch of species has a class, there is not intermediary classes, and there is no evidence of this "common ancestor" its backwards logic.
somehow we have worked ourselves backwards from micro-evolution/macro-evolution/biological evolution/chemical evolution/celestial evolution/singularity, OF WHICH WE CAN ONLY OBSERVE MICRO EVOLUTION IN REAL TIME.
I do want to say that i appreciate your input, though we may disagree i enjoy civilized conversation. You guys are certainly people who think, and i definitely appreciate that. Keep on truckin (that is keep on investigatin good sirs)." |
|
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 19:15:08 [Permalink]
|
A little story about creationists and genetic information.
One of the main themes of Ham's talk was that biologists have no explanation for how information growth can occur in the course of evolution. The idea is that evolution supposedly began with simple bacteria possessing small genomes, and later produced humans with big genomes. So where did all of that extra genetic information come from? The argument is usually fleshed out with a lot of biology jargon that's guaranteed to impress ignorant audiences.
This question might be cute coming from a first-year biology major, but from someone passing himself off as an expert in these things it's just silly. There are quite a few natural mechanisms that can lead to information growth, such as duplication with subsequent divergence, lateral gene transfer, symbiosis, and polyploidy. The first one has probably been the most important in evolution since the Cambrian, the next two were especially important in the early stages of evolution, while the fourth occurs primarily in plants. |
How does Ham react when this is pointed out to him?
Ham stuttered a bit and finally suggested I walk over to the book exhibit and pick up a copy of the book In the Beginning was Information by Werner Gitt, where I would find answers to all my questions. I politely thanked him for the suggestion and walked away. Happily, quite a few of the other audience members came with me and asked me some follow-up questions. I was more than happy to answer them.
Feeling masochistic I bought and skimmed through Gitt's book. It parroted the same bogus charges Ham had made in his talk, but made no mention of any of the standard mechanisms I mentioned previously. I decided it might be fun to go another round with Mr. Ham.
My chance came as I saw Ham by himself walking across the convention floor. I fell into step next to him and politely showed him that I had bought Gitt's book, as he had suggested. I then pointed out that Gitt makes no mention of any the standard mechanisms biologists cite to explain information growth. Since these mechanisms figure prominently in any textbook on genetics, it seemed like poor form for Gitt to not even address them in the course of a two hundred page book. |
Just read on... |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 19:57:50 [Permalink]
|
I responded with this:
David Glück http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100621151119.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
@Daniel:
"The Lucy skeleton is so incomplete the models that were developed are not based on any sort of real and tangible creature, but rather it is the creation of Owen Lovejoy, and even his own colleagues questioned his work."
As you can see by the above links, Afarensis was not a singular find (Lucy) nor was she "so incomplete." By inference, she was amazingly complete. Please site your sources.
As for incomplete fossils, again, being that fossilization is a rare occurrence, it's amazing how many hominid fossils we have. And by the way, I don't really care what Darwin said. He developed his theory 150 years ago and there has been a lot of science done since then. The very fact that we have so many hominid fossils that show increasing modernity as they move up through time should tell you that all of them are transitional. But I understand that you can't go there. To admit that is to admit that "macro" evolution happens.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Just wondering. What do you make of finds like whales with legs and feathered dinosaurs?
"INFORMATION (DNA) DOES NOT SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATE OF ITS OWN SELF AND "NATURAL SELECTION" CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CAUSATION OF INORGANIC MATERIAL BECOMING ORGANIC! THAT IS IT CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW WE WENT FROM NOT LIVING TO LIVING!"
That's another science. Abiogenesis. Natural selection is about what happened AFTER life occurred. Evolution is about change over time. Not about the creation of life or how life came to be. Nice caps though...
Also, you misunderstand what Punctuated Equilibrium is about. There are plenty of transitional fossils in the record. Punctuated Equilibrium was a way to explain small changes within a taxa, at the species level. As Gould says"
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
What you are correct about is that Punk Eq is not universally accepted by evolutionary biologists.
"OF WHICH WE CAN ONLY OBSERVE MICRO EVOLUTION IN REAL TIME."
Again with the caps...
Well, if you want to disregard the predictability of the fossil record, (you do know that any good theory must be able to make predictions, right?) just go ahead and produce a devonian bunny rabbit. That would pretty much take down evolution and get you a Noble Prize as well. Another thing you can do is to disregard forensic evidence both here and, while you're at it, in criminal justice cases just to remain consistent. The idea that inferences can't be made without direct observation based on predictions does not count as good science is just silly. I mean, we have whales with legs!!! We have tetrapod fish with boney fingers!!! |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
kytheskeptic
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 20:07:23 [Permalink]
|
Kil, you're amazing... I got so much to learn. I really haven't had discussions like this, so I sometimes don't know what to say. I don't have skeptic friends that I can talk to and correct me when I'm wrong. This is my first forum I ever really joined, and I'm loving it. It feels great to have people correcting me, where I can grow and understand this reality in such a greater depth.
Thank You all fellow skeptics! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 20:15:34 [Permalink]
|
Hahaha:| ...AND "NATURAL SELECTION" CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CAUSATION OF INORGANIC MATERIAL BECOMING ORGANIC... |
Since "organic" means "containing carbon" and inorganic means "not containing carbon" (with a couple exceptions), he's absolutely correct, but he has no clue why.| IT CAN ONLY EXPLAIN HOW A SPECIES MAINTAINS DOMINANCE OR DIES OUT. |
That is evolution. In his context, since natural selection is synonymous with evolution, he's complaining that evolution can only explain itself!
The arrogance of ignorance is strong in this one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2010 : 20:38:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hahaha:| ...AND "NATURAL SELECTION" CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CAUSATION OF INORGANIC MATERIAL BECOMING ORGANIC... |
Since "organic" means "containing carbon" and inorganic means "not containing carbon" (with a couple exceptions), he's absolutely correct, but he has no clue why.| IT CAN ONLY EXPLAIN HOW A SPECIES MAINTAINS DOMINANCE OR DIES OUT. |
That is evolution. In his context, since natural selection is synonymous with evolution, he's complaining that evolution can only explain itself!
The arrogance of ignorance is strong in this one.
|
Thanks Dave. I didn't catch that last one. I think I'll go back and use it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 21:43:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kytheskeptic
The point i was making is that even after the split from this common ancestor, species that are similar to human kind as well as those who are further removed share a same retrovirus that Humans do not. |
Is he seriously saying that retroviral sequences can't be lost over time?
| I do have one question, where do you stand on "junk dna?" i couldnt quite tell where you stood on "junk DNA," but Junk DNA is an illusion. Every part of the DNA serves a purpose, there is no "leftover" information from the evolutionary process, there is no residual information" |
And I suppose that he is going to supply you with evidence that there is not such thing as junk DNA (that actually, literally is JUNK)?
The Lucy skeleton is so incomplete the models that were developed are not based on any sort of real and tangible creature, but rather it is the creation of Owen Lovejoy, and even his own colleagues questioned his work. So lets just dismiss that because it isnt based on any hard science. |
Perhaps he could say what, scientifically, is wrong with Lucy.
| until we actualy find a population of these creatures and not just an incomplete singularity lets not waste time and energy arguing in circles. |
Is he seriously claiming that Lucy is the only example of A. afarensis ever found? Is he the guy that wrote in the very same paragraph as above:
| Firstly id like to say, i set the bar pretty high on each science, its called accountability and its not meant to be derogatory, its meant to actually investigate. |
| As for your points about hominids; finding incomplete skeletons here and there, is not evidence of transitional creatures. |
Does this guy know what a transitional is? I somehow doubt it. It is NOT necessarily a common ancestor of extant species.
| I hope you understand that the transitional forms are supposed to be "incalculable" (according to darwin himself, ive read his works). |
Wow, Darwin said so. Who cares. And, anyway, was Darwin talking about fossils?
| We are still coming up empty on just the evolution of man as well as every other kind of species. |
The only thing that is empty is this guy's rhetoric.
| ..."NATURAL SELECTION" CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE CAUSATION OF INORGANIC MATERIAL BECOMING ORGANIC! |
Given that organic molecules are formed abiotically all the time (think lightning and hydrothermal vents, for example), one has to wonder what this guy is trying to say.
| If there is a God He would have to be infinite... |
Why is that?
| Variations within a species does happen, we both know that, but at the end of the day, thier DNA still shows that they are a DOG or a CAT. |
That sort of depends on where you look. Anyhow, this is the very reason that we can use DNA to show the common ancestry of extant species. After all, the DNA of cats and dogs is more similar than that of a cat and a kiwi (the bird or the fruit).
| I would like to see these supposed mutations actually beget a new kind of species, if everything came from the same common ancestor all those years ago then there should (again ill quote darwin) be "incalculable" transitional fossilized evidence. |
Perhaps this guy could explain why we should find incalculable amounts of fossilised evidence. Is it because Darwin said so or does he have something more substantial?
| Each and every Branch of species has a class, there is not intermediary classes, and there is no evidence of this "common ancestor" its backwards logic. |
Classes are a human construct. There are no intermediaries, because that how the classification is done.
| somehow we have worked ourselves backwards from micro-evolution/macro-evolution/biological evolution/chemical evolution/celestial evolution/singularity, OF WHICH WE CAN ONLY OBSERVE MICRO EVOLUTION IN REAL TIME. |
Ah, the old "were you there?" argument.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 01:58:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kytheskeptic
Okay so... this is his reply
| ...In order for it to stand gorillas, chimps, and humans should all have similar forms of the same virus, yet there are viruses found in apes, chimps, and gorillas that are not found in human dna, such as pterv1. Since this is the case, the retroviris argument cannot be used for such a conclusion as a common ancestor. |
|
Your creationist friend is either badly informed, or intentionally lying about the PtERV1.
A virus can infect many species, which means that an ERV could infect both gorilla and chimp after the chimp-human speciation event.
In the case of PtERV1 mentioned above, gorillas and chimps are estimated to have been infected 3-4 million years ago, and baboon and macaque around 1.5Mya. That is, after the chimp-human speciation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054891/
Just because ERVs are found in the genome does not, in itself, constitute evidence for common ancestry. It's the location of the ERV within the genome that is the smoking gun. Chimps and Gorillas don't have the PtERV1 in the exact same place in the genome, therefore we cannot say that this particular ERV is evidence of anything else than both species have been infected at two separate occations.
Your friend displays some very rigid thinking, and his constant denial of transitional forms (every species living or extinct are transitional from an older to a newer) makes me wonder if he is even remotely considering changing his mind if he is proven wrong. But alas, that is the mind of the devout theist.
His acknowledgement that more separate species is found, is just another variant of the "God of the Gaps". That is, as more of the empty spaces gets filled up, the more God shrinks.
There's an analogy for the PtERV1:
Let's say I have a photocopy of a paper I submitted to the University. In the copy, I can clearly see a rubberstamp I got when I turned it in. Now my teacher comes and complain about errors in the paper... He shows me his photocopy of my paper and compares it to mine. If the rubberstamp is in the exact same place, then we know that the copies comes from the same original. If the stamps are in different places, then we know it's been stamped at different times, so it must be different originals. In the PtERV1's case, different originals. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/23/2010 02:35:43 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 02:25:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kytheskeptic
somehow we have worked ourselves backwards from micro-evolution/macro-evolution/biological evolution/chemical evolution/celestial evolution/singularity, OF WHICH WE CAN ONLY OBSERVE MICRO EVOLUTION IN REAL TIME.
|
Using this logic, he will have to set a murderer free, even if the murder weapon contain both blood of the murderer, the blood of the victim, and the murderer's fingerprints. Just because noone actually wittnessed the murder.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/23/2010 02:36:21 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 12:10:20 [Permalink]
|
I was going to respond to the ERV thing, but I see Mab has handled it! LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 12:37:48 [Permalink]
|
I think Daniel done replying. And really, I kinda hope that he is.
But to Dude, Mab and Dave, if you click onto the link that Ky provided, you could weigh in yourselves... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 12:39:06 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps this has already been addressed, but the first thing that strikes me as that you are allowing this guy to frame the argument. He keeps throwing out "problems" with the ToE and you are always, in effect, playing "catch-up". By all means, keep knocking down his arguments, but you need to put him on the defensive: in what ways does his theory explain the fossil record, etc, better than ToE? It's all fine and dandy to pick apart supposed problems with ToE, but he needs to demonstrate how ID better explains and predicts than ToE.
Also, this guy has already poisoned the well with this comment:
| Firstly id like to say, i set the bar pretty high on each science, its called accountability and its not meant to be derogatory, its meant to actually investigate. |
In other words, if you don't interpret the science as he does, then you clearly haven't set the bar as high as him, and are therefore found wanting. It's almost Argument from Authority
But I wonder exactly how does he set the bar so high (i.e. in what way)? And what are his qualifications to do so? Qualifications don't justify his criticisms (see Argument from Authority above) but at least you can determine if he's one of these self-proclaimed "experts". |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 14:00:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I think Daniel done replying. And really, I kinda hope that he is.
But to Dude, Mab and Dave, if you click onto the link that Ky provided, you could weigh in yourselves...
|
Edit: Meh! What I wrote got lost in cyberspace...
Is there a direct-link to the conversation somewhere? I looked around Ky's page but didn't find the discussion.
Edit2: Ok, found it. Reposted what I wrote about PtERV1. Reworded somewhat.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/23/2010 15:16:44 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 14:12:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Kil has already given you a couple of great links.
If your creationist friend is fairly well versed in on-line debating against evolution, and/or not really honestly interested in "the facts", he may be put off by any references to Talk-Origins. He might be anyway, if his minister or other theist authority-figure have warned him that Talk-Origins is the Devil's work and nothing but lies.
|
Excellent point. You are up against Morton's Demon.
However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.
|
You are likely to have incredibly salient points dismissed with a wave of the hand. Good Luck
edited: one day I'll learn to type.
[Edited to repair link. //Dr. Mabuse] |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/23/2010 15:14:28 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 01:18:42 [Permalink]
|
At least Daniel is open and honest about it.
Sure the results of the finds can definitely lead a person to come to the conclusion you have, but i don't feel it is overwhelming evidence, but that's because i prefer to cross examine things through a lens you may not, not that you are wrong, you just don't agree, that is acceptable...
<snip>
...I promise that i have not intentionally misinterpreted any information i have entered here. Its only been through a lens that i see things. |
Emphasis above mine.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/24/2010 02:31:54 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Need help on replying to Creationist
