|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 12/26/2010 : 13:49:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
First of all, religious creationist or not, appealing to an intelligence to do the designing more than suggests that something both powerful and outside of ourselves is doing the heavy lifting. Call it what you will… |
I believe that power to be quantum mechanics as I discussed in the paper. Do you think creationists would agree with that?
I don't. How you get that I am a creationist from what I have posted is beyond my grasp. Perhaps we do use some of the same arguments but it would not go beyond that.
| A greenhouse is not a closed system. Plants would not grow if there was no energy input into the environment. Whether it's the sun, or grow lights or some other method, the system is receiving enough energy or it will not be viable. Also, if there are any people maintaing such a system, that would also count as energy input. |
I hope I cleared that up in a previous post. I have heard more than one thermodynamicist use a greenhouse as an example for a closed system. It would have to be sealed, yes, I understand that. But it works as an analogy.
Try me. My point is that if you are correct, most physicists will have to agree with you. How about sending out some letters to random physicists? Ask the question.
And no. If you can find a physicist who is qualified to talk about the second law of thermal dynamics as it applies to evolution, that is not an appeal to an authority. That's a source. All of your crap about design engineers is an appeal to authority because they are not qualified to talk about how physics applies to evolutionary biology. |
What I find ironic is that I believe you to be a reasonable person. Yet, you seem to think that SLOT would apply to everything EXCEPT complex macroevolution. May I ask you what it is about mutating genes that you think would protect them from the decaying effect of the second law? I mean they ARE spontaneous events that for the most part do not involve energy transfer.
Roger Caillois (an anthropologist) stated, "Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right."
Physicist Lambert Dolphin has stated in his physics lessons on thermodynamics that SLOT would have caused a problem for complex evolution, but he is a Christian so I'm sure you would dismiss that outright.
SLOT is a universal law that applies to everything. Genes are not exempt and that is why they mutate.
So how about if you do this. Get serious about learning how natural selection works. I’m not here to be your teacher. |
I'm afraid I don't need a teacher. I just need you to defend your argument.
When a part of the jaw became a part of the middle ear, it changed function. Why is it that you think the parts we have now were always “intended” to fulfill their current rolls in our anatomy? And that’s not even getting into new structures (a realignment of cells by way of mutation that conferred a benefit on the species.) Our inards have been evolving for around a billion years. (Going back to the first multicellular life.) Is that not enough time to for our innards to have evolved as they have? (By the way. It's not a particularly good design. Sure it gets the job done but I'll bet just about any design engineer could have come up with something better. The problem is that while we do keep what is beneficial in terms of survival, that doesn't mean what we have evolved is best case. Just look at how many things go wrong and ask yourself, is this the best an intelligent designer could do |
This is easily explained. When is a car at it's best? When it is brand new on the showroom floor. SLOT then takes over and it ends up rusting away in a junkyard.
Design, in an organism, is at its best when first designed. Devolution then takes over. That's why you have things going wrong.
BTW, you never did explain why selection would select for a non-functioning component. The jawbone analogy doesn't cut it.
You come right out and state that other explanations are not necessary because it looks so obvious to YOU. Clearly any other explanation like natural selection must be ruled out because, god damnit, it looks designed!
What you said above is called an argument from incredulity or ignorance. But I have tried to be kind to you so I stuck with "incredulity." |
You are over-blowing this. I have never stated that something is designed because it look designed to me. Those are your words and a strawman.
We find design in objects and artifacts using science, probability and mathematics. Not intuition.
Ummmm… So you are going to school me on the sci-method? You may not be a creationist, but the above argument is one of their favorites. Guess what. Evolution has passed every test you have named and is one of the best supported theories in all of science. It really doesn’t matter whether you like its status or not. But check me out on this. Evolution is a theory and a good one. ID is nothing more than a hypothesis that defies testing in general, (a designer did it is not a testable hypothesis) but has gone down in flames when it asserts that individual claims, like those of bacterial flagellum, could not have arisen naturally. |
We are not discussing evolution. We are discussing Darwinism. And it would be impossible for you to go back in time thousands of years to do any breeding experiments at all.
You do know the definition of a sexual species: any two organisms that can interbreed and produce viable, fertile, offspring.
You cannot look at two fossils and state, OK, this sprung from this. Not and still stay within the method.
The truth is, you have done little testing at all. You rely only on morphology.
| By the way. You said “Once the testing is peer-reviewed and agreed on by consensus; only then you have a theory.” Yes. I’ve been mentioning that consensus. What ID lacks is anything close to a consensus. So I’m happy to see that you consider evolution a theory and ID a hypothesis. Now if only there were ways to test for ID… |
Another strawman. You're getting good at this. ID is not a hypothesis OR a theory. Haven't we been here before?
What is the theory of biology. What is the theory of psychology? See how silly that sounds?
And in this way, you can dismiss every transitional species (that's what creationists do) and really any inference made by paleontologists looking at and interpreting the significance of fossils. You can wave away all pre-historical science just as the creationists do and claim that evolution is not a theory. So all five of you are in agreement on that one. Should I post the crackpot index?
And yet, so far you have not shown us how our innards could not have evolved naturally. Because you can’t.
|
Sorry the Creationists are tough on you. You seem fascinated with them...LoL
[Edited to fix layout: Quote-hierarchy. //Dr. Mabuse] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/26/2010 14:57:18 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 13:50:35 [Permalink]
|
JerryB.
There is NOTHING you can show in the fossil record that would substantiate gradualism. Gould openly admitted this and it is the very reason he came up with punk eek. |
Gould said no such thing. His work was done on the species level only. And even though there are transitionals on the species level, he wanted to sort out the problem of why we don't see more of them. So he developed a hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium which might explain why we don't see more transitionals AT THE SPECIES level only. Periods of stasis and rapid change of habitat seemed like a fairly good explanation, given the rarity of fossils during one of these events. Again and again, he was only speaking about changes at the species level. He postulated that a change could occur quickly, over a period of what might be only 50,000 years or so. The only thing instant about that is if you consider that time frame in light of the geological age of the earth.
Stephen Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge:
The intense controversies that surrounded the youth of punctuated equilibrium have helped it mature to a useful extension of evolutionary theory. As a complement to phyletic gradualism, its most important implications remain the recognition of stasis as a meaningful and predominant pattern within the history of species, and in the recasting of macroevolution as the differential success of certain species (and their descendants) within clades. |
Stephen Gould:
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. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible. (Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory . |
JerryB.
The record is STRONG and DIRECT evidence for ID. We see no gradualism at all. What we do see is long periods of stasis interspersed with relatively (remember the word relatively) sudden periods (Cambrian Explosion??) of new life forms fully formed and ready to go in their environment. |
This is a complete misunderstanding of what Gould and Eldredge were proposing. The theory was proposed as an adjunct to gradualism. It was never meant to replace it or to deny it. As Gould said about those who suggest that it is, they are doing it whether through design or stupidity... Which one of those is your reason, Jerry? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 14:28:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The second law of thermodynamics does no such thing. |
The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, matter will tend to go from whatever state it is in, to a more disorganized state. |
If you could quote (with a link) the actual definition of the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps we could agree.
| The word "spontaneous" is the key word. |
The thing is, in a self-organizing system, spontaneous reactions happens that can actually decrease the level of entropy. A classic example is the Belousov-Zhabotinsky- or the Briggs-Rauscher-reaction.
| In chemistry, this simply means that no energy is inputted into the reaction. |
In chemistry, yes. In biology, no.
| If energy is inputted into the system, then all bets are off. |
Agreed.
| But random mutations just happen. They are random and spontaneous. |
No they are not. They are the result of an enery transfer of one sort or another. It can be an atomic decay, in which case the energy was released from the nucleus, or it could have been an external particle affecting the DNA, like a high-energy photon, neutron, or another ion, colliding and/or trading places. The other time when mutations happen is when the cell or bacteria divides; when the DNA is copied. This does not happen unless the organism has energy to use when it goes through mitosis. Enery drives the copying process. An abundance of chemical energy that the bacteria acquired from its surroundings, which is expended as the DNA-copying progresses. Sometimes, there is a transcription error. It is random, but since energy is constantly supplied to keep the process running... as you say "all bets are off".
So, this means that the genome, which is what I'm referring to in this particular situation, will disorganize....and that is what we see in actuality. Do you disagree with this? |
I agree that we can see mutations slowly increasing in numbers in the genome. This happens at a rate of once every billion or so base pairs. Some times a bit quicker, sometimes slower.
Some times, the mutation has a negative impact on the survivability of the organism, some times it has a positive impact on the survivability. Most of the time, the mutation is neutral.
If the mutation had positive impact, that gene will help its host become the dominant ancestor of its population, and soon all organisms will share the mutated gene and be better off for it.
It's Nature's way of discarding mutations that "disorganise" the genome.
Would you please get off this? You don't know me. |
Not from anything else than what you write here, and none of that is making a positive impression on me. What I see is a creationist in disguise, doing the same kind of errors and using the same kind of strawmen that creationists have been using the last 30+ years.
People that do, know that I have a degree in environmental chemistry with a minor in biology and post grad studies in thermodynamics. |
...and yet you insist on using SLOT where it doesn't belong. Makes me wonder how you got past graduation.
Someone (I think it was you) stated earlier that I know nothing about elementary biology. Well, that's weird since I used to teach the subject. |
If that's the case, I feel bad for your students. On the other hand, as long as you kept to school curricula (which I hope did not include Intelligent Design) they should be ok.
There is NOTHING you can show in the fossil record that would substantiate gradualism. Gould openly admitted this and it is the very reason he came up with punk eek. |
That's a misrepresentation of Gould's work.
"Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time." Found here.
| The record is STRONG and DIRECT evidence for ID. We see no gradualism at all. |
Then you're not looking closely enough.
| What we do see is long periods of stasis interspersed with relatively (remember the word relatively) sudden periods (Cambrian Explosion??) of new life forms fully formed and ready to go in their environment. |
Long periods of apparent stasis. And those "sudden periods" are sudden only in a geological era perspective. A transision in the strata can easily be more than 50,000 years, which translates to thousands, or even tens of thousands of generations.
| Which is simpler, your fairytale of man springing from protist over a couple or so billion years through millions of magic mutations, some very complex, or God dun it? :) |
So I only get to choose between "Magic did it" or "Someone did it with Magic"?
I reject all your alternatives, because none of them are naturalistic.
Evolution doesn't propose anything being magical, that's your fantacy.
| OK, I agree that DNA can be exchanged through viruses. And yes, that's one method concerning what you are discussing. |
No, I'm not discussing viruses. I'm talking about one bacterium exchanging strands of DNA with another bacterium of a different genera. That's something completely different from having a virus infecting a cell with DNA.
You asked for my words on what happens, and I gave you those, with two references to peer-reviewed articles. I've jumped the hoops for you, now I'd like to see you hold up your end of the bargain.
| But I eat cow DNA every day.......Man has been doing it for thousands of years. I wonder why we aren't growing 4 legs? |
What an utterly stupid question to ask. If you truly studied biology, then you should know the answer already. Hint: There's a difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
| Again disingenous. In every case you bring up, where we have positive evidence of a designer (and the ability to trace it, like chain saws and bicycles) the designer is human. The conclusion must then be that if the flagellum was designed, it must have been a human who did it. It's the only designer known to man. |
No it isn't. I don't think DNA was programmed by a human. Do you? |
No I don't, that's one of the reasons I discard ID as a plausible explanation.
I identify what I believe the be the designer in the paper I linked to in my first post. |
Aliens that evolved to Godhood, which operates on quantum level? I read your paper once, and it was so utterly unconvincing that I've already forgotten what the main thrust of it was. The only thing I recall is the double-slit experiment and that Tipler-guy who should have been a sci-fi writer and not a scientist. I also remember a blatant lack of citations. What was the point of that excercise, did you publish it anywhere?
So you're just passing gas after all. I figured as much.
| And who/what designed the chainsaw is irrelevant. |
No it's not. Different designers uses different approaches and different processes to design their stuff. We know things differ between humans, even though humans are basically the same. Nature is so radically different from humans, so why does the idea of nature designing things seems to preposterous to you?
| The point is that if you remove even one part, the machine will no longer function as a chain saw. |
No, it will function as an ordinary saw. But it will still do the job we need it to do: cutting down trees. Just not as efficiently.
| Tipler didn't dream up anything. He showed MATHEMATICALLY that the observer in the physics experiments (double slit) is a pocket of intelligent QM. |
I need to see some citation of this. Bring me a link too a peer-reviewed journal, because I'd love to see how he pulled that off.
| And no one has ever shown his math to be wrong. I suspect you're just making that up. |
Maybe it wasn't the math itself that was the problem, but the underlying assumptions and premises. If one premiss in a logical construction is wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong too, even if there is not flaw in the logical construction itself.
When Tipler brought in the Omega Point to be the Judeo-Christian god, and claiming to be able to explain Jesus' miracles as a result of intelligent QM, I knew he was out in La-la land.
The Physics of Christianity, get a used copy from Amazon for $1.88
You maintain that you're not a creationist, but Tipler's Omega Point just puts another nail in the coffin. LOL
| Horsehocky.....I've debunked about everything on their site at one time or another. It's all Darwinistic pseudoscience over there. |
I'd love to see you start a new thread about that. If you're convincing enough, you can still make me a believer.
More cluelessness about basic biology. Now I'm sure that your claims about biology classes in collage is just bullshit.
There's a world of differences between bacteria and multicellular organisms that reproduce sexually. |
Yawn.......and I am the one insulting you? LOL, why don't you just post to someone else...I seem to be irritating you.....
|
You're dodging. Come on... show me you know something about the differences between eukaryotes, bacteria, and archaea.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 14:47:16 [Permalink]
|
JerryB.
In fact, that is exactly what many design engineers do. They design weed eaters, coffee pots, lawn mowers, automobiles, etc. that work. Why would we muse anything but design when we examine a complex ICS such as a flagellum? |
Me:
You come right out and state that other explanations are not necessary because it looks so obvious to YOU. Clearly any other explanation like natural selection must be ruled out because, god damnit, it looks designed!
What you said above is called an argument from incredulity or ignorance. But I have tried to be kind to you so I stuck with "incredulity." |
JerryB:
You are over-blowing this. I have never stated that something is designed because it look designed to me. Those are your words and a strawman. |
Yes you did. Do you think the words I quoted are not available for everyone to see here? You absolutely made made an argument from incredulity and there is no strawman in my evaluation of your words.
As for distinguishing you from a creationist, as I said, call it what you will. If you are using many of the same arguments that creationists use, that's not my problem or a misunderstanding. Same argument=same argument. Whatever...
And again, if natural selection violates the SLOT than many if not every physicist would have said so. Finding one Christian physicist is not very impressive. You're right about that. But whatever...
| Roger Caillois (an anthropologist) stated, "Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right." |
Source.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 15:19:44 [Permalink]
|
JerryB said:
SLOT is a universal law that applies to everything. Genes are not exempt and that is why they mutate.
|
That is possibly the most retarded paragraph ever posted to this forum. It did make me laugh out loud though, thanks for that.
What I find ironic is that I believe you to be a reasonable person. Yet, you seem to think that SLOT would apply to everything EXCEPT complex macroevolution. May I ask you what it is about mutating genes that you think would protect them from the decaying effect of the second law? I mean they ARE spontaneous events that for the most part do not involve energy transfer.
|
Seriously, your ignorance is nothing short of amazing. You think you speak with authority on this topic, yet you are so uninformed about the processes involved you should be ashamed to speak.
Genes are replicated trillions of times with high fidelity. The addition of every single base pair in your 3 billion base long genome requires energy input. Mutations are a failure of the error correction systems and have nothing to do with increasing entropy. Aside from the fact that living organisms are not closed systems, and so SLOT is not applicable in the way you apparently think it is.
Then we can get to the fact that nothing about SLOT prohibits localized decrease in entropy within a closed system. Even if you want to think of the solar system (or the entire universe) as a closed system, SLOT does not prohibit localized decreases in entropy, it only states that the entire system must trend towards increased entropy.
The earth is not a closed system, living organisms are not closed systems, and your genome is not a closed system. SLOT does not apply.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 15:25:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But let me go back a few posts and address a whole bunch of stuff, not necessarily in order... |
| Since the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT) is a mathematical description of heat transfer, you'll have to show your math that proves that changes to DNA molecules (a genome) which confer whole-organism survival benefits would, if they occurred, be things we have never seen before in nature, like heat moving from something cold to something hot without an external supply of energy. |
This is simply not true. You are at least a hundred years behind in this science. While it is true that thermodynamic entropy is measured heat exchange, there are many other entropies that SLOT governs. Schrodinger used it to study the human cell, Prigogine won a Nobel for using it to study dissipative structures in open systems. Boltzmann used it to study the arrangement of atoms in gasses.
| I'll wait until I see your SLOT math before agreeing or disagreeing with this, since I don't see how SLOT says anything about how a length of DNA may or may not change. From a genomics point-of-view, that is. Clearly, SLOT applies as always at the atomic and molecular levels, but those interactions don't "know" anything about what may or may not confer survivability benefits on an entire species, and obviously don't prevent genetic mutations (for good or bad) anyway. |
When I get to the guy that wants to see the math, you will understand.
| SLOT says that temperatures in a closed system will tend to equalize, so how does it prohibit (for example) a single mutation in a beta-globin gene from conferring resistance to malaria? |
I don't see how it would. And that's not what I'm saying. In a few posts, I will unveil a university study showing deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome at roughly 1.6 mutations per generation since the split from chimps.
I'll then use Boltzmann's formula to calculate the entropy.
| (Of course, the idea that SLOT "prohibits" anything is an ignorant statement all by itself, since scientific laws are nothing more than descriptions of phenomena for which we have observed no or few exceptions. The "prohibits" construction comes from mistaking scientific language for common language, in which legal mandates - "laws" - seek to prohibit certain activities. Nevermind that the analogy fails horribly from the get-go, since laws passed by legislatures don't actually prohibit anything, they just impose penalties upon being caught engaging in particular behaviors.) |
Well, I suppose I see your point. But natural law DOES prohibit certain things in reality. For example, the law of gravity will prohibit you from throwing a baseball into the troposphere.
| What is "genomic entropy" and what does it have to do with SLOT? |
.
Entropy is the mathematical measurement of order/disorder due to SLOT. Genomic entropy is the measurement of this order/disorder within a genome due to beneficial/deleterious mutations.
| Nobody should be postulating any such thing. The only disagreement is that you think that a "designer" is required for ICS to exist, while biologists think that natural evolutionary processes are sufficient to "design" lots of stuff. This is another language hurdle, with design advocates conflating two different meanings of the word "design" in a pathetic attempt to prove that God exists. |
It would depend on what you mean by God. If you mean an elderly man living somewhere in the sky casting people into fire and brimstone then I would suppose you are talking creationism.
If you are referring to me, then I have nothing to prove. Quantum mechanics is already a well established field. And since I can show an observer out there in the universe via math and science that points to QM as a "god" of the universe, if you are an atheist, you can just view that God as nothing more than QM and we will have come to an understanding.
| Every instance of an ICS in which we humans witnessed its design was designed by humans. Humans have neither witnessed nor tested even a single ICS which was designed by some other intelligence. The evidence, therefore, must insist that ICS in biology was designed by humans. At least, that is the logical conclusion to that particular argument. Most design advocates stop in the middle, though, and feebly wave their hands around, protesting that they don't know anything about "the designer." |
Well, I don't protest that I know nothing about the designer I propose that I most certainly DO know what it is.
But, Behe showed you an ICS in a flagellum and I did in a cardio/vascular system. Highly doubtful those were made by humans.
| Please provide citations which demonstrate the truth of your assertion that "colds are caught from a chill" and "the sun orbits the earth" were ever scientific consensuses. |
Colds are NOT caught from a chill and Galileo was right and the consensus was wrong when he posited that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa. You missed my point.
Yes, he was because horizontal gene transfer caused by a viral infection is called transduction:
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/genetic-exchange/exchange/exchange.html
They simply were not calling it that when I was in school. But I am with him, now.
| Which biological law would that be? Citations, please. |
You really are not aware that dogs and cats don't interbreed and produce offspring with their shared genes? You need a citation for that?
| You don't think a chainsaw could be used as an axe? Sure, it wouldn't work well, but trees aren't generally very difficult to damage. Given enough time, one could cut down a tree with a nail file. |
I don't care if it can be used as an axe or a decorative lamp. It will no longer function as a chainsaw. That satisfies the definition for an ICS.
| Most designers I know don't know squat about quantum anything, they just look up materials properties in books. |
Then you may not know any design engineers because they are taught microstates define macrostates.
| How so? What is an "intelligent packet of QM," and why would anyone call such a thing "God?" |
Please read this paper and you will understand what I am talking about:
http://ozarkfresh.com/quantummechanicsinmetaphysics.html
| Since no definition of "machine" that I'm familiar with requires a designer, it is irrelevant wether a flagellum is a machine or not. |
Oh, you're not familiar with a vacuum cleaner? They are all designed by somene.
| Indeed! All the ICS for which we know the provenance were created by humans. Are you claiming that biological ICS are human-made, too? If not, why not? |
No....LOL....I'm not. I don't think we have the technology to mass produce flagella, do we?
| Please begin to demonstrate both parts of your premise. You haven't even started, yet. Instead, you've made a bunch of claims without evidenciary support. |
What claims? There were no claims in that paragraph, did you not see the "if I could" written in there?
| It can only be the arrogance of ignorance which allows a person like you, JerryB, to pontificate like that in spite of reality. In no way is a theory nothing more than a well-tested hypothesis. |
Did I state anything differently? I'm not following you at all on some of your statements. Please read what I post.
| So in your mind, historical events can never leave any evidence to show that they occurred. Yes? |
No, that is a strawman. I never said that.
So consensus in science isn't science.So you're saying that scientific theories, which you claim (above) depend upon consensus, aren't science. How self-contradictory of you.
|
LOL.....I give up because you are not understanding what I write. Global warming alarmists use the argument that there is a consensus that warming is occurring. That doesn't mean diddly in science because science is achieved via experimentation.
I then pointed out that IF the experimentation has been done it is quite all right to form a consensus on the science. That's a different animal. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/26/2010 : 15:27:07 [Permalink]
|
Horsehocky.....I've debunked about everything on their site at one time or another. It's all Darwinistic pseudoscience over there.
|
I take exception to this statement. Here's a little something from TO; debunk it if you can:
Hyracotherium:
common creationist claim is that Hyracotherium, which is informally called eohippus or "dawn horse," is nothing more than a type of animal called a hyrax. The hyraxes are a group of animals that are alive today and are not horses. Since Hyracotherium is generally considered to be the first "horse" the creationists conclude that this invalidates the commonly presented series of fossils showing horse evolution in specific and shows that evolutionists are incompetent in general.
|
Open the link, study the article, then show me something. Or, if you like, find something else at TO to "debunk." Otherwise, you have no more than a false and therefore useless claim.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/26/2010 15:33:25 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 15:36:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
The reason is simply that they cannot refute any of it, and know it, and therefore try to disparage it -- "shoot the messenger," as it were. The staff of the site are in the sciences, and none of them are engineers posing as biologists. Everything there has been meticulously researched. |
Then it's changed since I was hanging out there. And if it has then getting back their credibility will be one long row to hoe.
| The "designer" cannot be produced nor identified, nor even postulated with any degree of confidence and until that can be done, we are asked to buy a philosophical pig in a poke. Come to think of it, that pretty much covers all religions. And I remind: the ID concept was originally thought up by Christian creationists in order to influence science with the supernatural and to sneak creationist nonsense into the public school science classes. It ain't workin', I am happy to note. |
A physicist has produced the designer and identified it mathematically
and I'm afraid that my brand of designer has no religion anywhere in it anywhere.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 16:04:28 [Permalink]
|
A physicist has produced the designer and identified it mathematically
and I'm afraid that my brand of designer has no religion anywhere in it anywhere.
|
Reference, please.
[6]
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 16:22:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by JerryB
I have calculated the entropy of the human genome and it increases every generation. Wanna see the math? |
Would we ever!!!
|
A tenet of ID is to show a devolving genome by the increase of harmful mutations over time and any particular species headed toward extinction as we have observed 98% of the species doing in the fossil record. The trouble is that considering vertebrates, we never had any studies on this until Eyre-Walker and Keightley published their study in Nature on a comparison of the genomes of Chimp and Man over a period of about 6 million years considering homo sapiens evolutionary walk from hominids.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0.html
Once this was published Eyre-Walker brought our observation into the scientific method experimentally because lo and behold, the researchers did not show the genome to be evolving via increasing information over time but to be devolving by the steady increase of detrimental mutations as this information is diffused down lineages from progenitors to progeny.
In fact, the study concludes in the abstract: "Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages."
Note that these accumulating deleterious mutations are considered AFTER those that were weeded out by natural selection. Then knowing this, we can learn just how this study was accomplished having it further explained to us by professor of genetics James Crow (I believe at U of Nebraska) who served as an interpreter in this study.
HERE: http://www.colband.com.br/ativ/nete/biot/textos/geral/007.htm we read: "Eyre-Walker and Keightley have made the analysis feasible by concentrating on protein-coding regions. They measured the amino-acid changes in 46 proteins in the human ancestral line after its divergence from the chimpanzee. Among 41,471 nucleotides, they found 143 nonsynonymous substitutions -- mutations where swapping one DNA base for another changes an amino acid, and therefore the final protein made by that gene."
Now let's get into some mathematical physics. Are you familiar with the work of Ludvig Boltzmann? Do you agree that he formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system?
The Eyre-Walker study showed this entropy increasing at the rate of 1.6 deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome each generation and our plight is to show this entropically. It just so happens that W in this formula stands for statistical weight--the total number of ways that matter/energy can be arranged-- and can be calculated as Feynman told us how to calculate it: "The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
Feynman never used Boltzmann's formula in this particular lecture but it is clear he is referring to it. So let's calculate this. Infodynamic theorists (IDists) use the same statistical method as do thermodynamicists and physicists as those "numbers of ways" are calculated using combinatorials or factorials.
The University of New South Wales, physics department has a good page on calculating entropy:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/PHYS3410/lecture5.html
This states that W will equal a factorial relationship of the differences of what we are considering (accumulating deletariously mutated genes as opposed to the rest of the genome) or W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! ~ (So let's just calculate our weight and then we can go to Boltzmann's math to calculate entropy.
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
There ya go, entropy is increasing, has increased for at least 6 million years that we know of, and there is not a shred of evidence it has ever done anything BUT that.
This makes it impossible that man could have evolves from a protist because the genomic entropy would have had to decrease dramatically for that type of order to occur.
Of course, we could come out in joules, but nobody bothers with that anymore considering statistical entropy. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 16:28:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
A physicist has produced the designer and identified it mathematically
and I'm afraid that my brand of designer has no religion anywhere in it anywhere.
|
Reference, please.
[6]
|
You guys are just going to HAVE to read the paper I wrote on this to understand virtually anything I'm discussing:
http://ozarkfresh.com/quantummechanicsinmetaphysics.html
And I'm sorry, I don't have time to do the research to debunk anything right now. I'm getting so many posts that I am not even keeping up with that. But I am trying! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 17:33:59 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I read it. Didn't understand much of it and I wonder about "intelligent particles." That, I think, would require a definition of "intelligence." But I found Frank Tipler interesting. I vaguely recall having heard of him some years back.
You really should reference your papers more thoroughly, giving your readers more to go on than just words.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 18:25:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Gould said no such thing. His work was done on the species level only. And even though there are transitionals on the species level, he wanted to sort out the problem of why we don't see more of them. So he developed a hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium which might explain why we don't see more transitionals AT THE SPECIES level only. Periods of stasis and rapid change of habitat seemed like a fairly good explanation, given the rarity of fossils during one of these events. Again and again, he was only speaking about changes at the species level. He postulated that a change could occur quickly, over a period of what might be only 50,000 years or so. The only thing instant about that is if you consider that time frame in light of the geological age of the earth.
Stephen Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge:
The intense controversies that surrounded the youth of punctuated equilibrium have helped it mature to a useful extension of evolutionary theory. As a complement to phyletic gradualism, its most important implications remain the recognition of stasis as a meaningful and predominant pattern within the history of species, and in the recasting of macroevolution as the differential success of certain species (and their descendants) within clades.
Stephen Gould:
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. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible. (Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory . |
They are finding Darwin in the Bible now? I think he was supposed to be a demon, so I guess they might....
I think you will agree that we don't need to go on a quote mining expedition. So, I won't.
Suffice to to say that we find no gradualism in the fossil record at all. You cannot show me one non-controversial transitional species in the fossil record. And this is what you need to be teaching in the schools! Not one? And you guys are supposed to be skeptics. Be skeptical of Darwinism because they are feeding you a crock and you are swallowing it.
This is a complete misunderstanding of what Gould and Eldredge were proposing. The theory was proposed as an adjunct to gradualism. It was never meant to replace it or to deny it. As Gould said about those who suggest that it is, they are doing it whether through design or stupidity... Which one of those is your reason, Jerry?
|
An adjunct to gradualism....LOL....the two are polar extremes. Gradualistic Punctuated Equilibrium? That is simply an oxymoron.
You have to pick one. It happened gradually, yet poof! It also happened all at once relatively speaking?
All this does for your philosophy is make you look silly and cause no one to take you serious. And you wonder why you are so controversial?
I don't see gravity physicists or chemists on here defending their sciences, why is it always you?
You need to do some introspection and truly become a skeptic.
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2010 : 18:32:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Ok, I read it. Didn't understand much of it and I wonder about "intelligent particles." That, I think, would require a definition of "intelligence." But I found Frank Tipler interesting. I vaguely recall having heard of him some years back.
You really should reference your papers more thoroughly, giving your readers more to go on than just words.
|
OK, Advice taken. I did reference that paper to what I thought to be an acceptable level, but maybe better next time.
You can ask questions about what you don't understand......It's tough reading!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 12/26/2010 : 19:43:00 [Permalink]
|
JerryB:
I think you will agree that we don't need to go on a quote mining expedition. So, I won't. |
Oh I see. It's quote mining when I quote the actual authors saying that your take on their work is not correct. Got it...
JerryB:
An adjunct to gradualism....LOL....the two are polar extremes. Gradualistic Punctuated Equilibrium? That is simply an oxymoron. |
I see. So you will not take the actual authors words for what they were proposing. Because you know better, eh? They never ever said that gradualism doesn't happen. They were suggesting that other processes were at work, especially at the species level that also plays a roll in what we see in the fossil recored.
And about transitionals. If you are prepared to reject whales with legs, dinosaurs with feathers, tetrapod fish and so on, just because we can't show a perfect lineage, than yeah, you will reject all transitionals. Yet another convenient way of viewing evolution, in this case the fossil record, that you share with creationists... And by the way, in no way does Gould suggest that transitionals do not exist. He never said they don't exist on the species level either. Just that they are rare.
Also, whatever controversy there is among scientists is where to place a particular species or how significant the find is. Those kinds of disagreements go on all the time in science. What you won't find outside of ID and creationist circles is the denial that transitionals exist. Among evolutionary biologists, there is no question that they do. The skirmishes are to be expected. That's one important way that science works.
Now, I do believe it was you who said that you think evolution happens. Does it happen without transition? You do know that evolution is defined as change over time, right? What the hell is your version of evolution?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
