|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2011 : 10:43:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
As I said, creationist crapola. This argument so far has only been important to creationists. Why? Because the same process that causes organisms to mutate and evolved are at work whether we are talking about nylon eating bacteria or birds evolving from dinosaurs. I have no doubt that creationists would deny any and all evolution, if it weren't so friggen obvious at the microbial level in the here and now. If creationists agree to what are obviously transitional species, like dinosaurs with feathers, or evidences like ERV's, it's game over.
You can't go there Jerry, because you are a creationist.
|
No, no person in their right mind could take virology or microbiology in a university and deny evolution. Conversely, I personally don't understand how anyone in their right mind could study biology and buy into Darwinism. Why couldn't the notion that some dinosaurs had feathers be interpreted as "some dinosaurs had feathers" rather than: "then birds must have sprang from them?"
The former is the fact and the latter simply vivid imagination, IMHO. I am an avid skeptic, I'm afraid. So, there ought to be plenty of room for me on a skeptic forum.....lol
If I am a creationist, I am one different than any I've ever met. But if I am one, then so be it. From my perspective, I see the universe around me just as does science.
Science understands that living things don't pop out of inert matter. It also understand that programmed code (DNA) more complex than Windows XP doesn't form spontaneously given ANY amount of time.
You guys seem to think that a Windows XP CD could just pop out of a freaking rock given enough time..... |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 10:55:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
I calculated the configurational entropy of a genome disorganlzing over time via the accumulation of deleterious mutations.
You calculated the configurational entropy of the possible ways a designer could have arranged that genome at the time the genome was designed. You then subtracted the latter from the former. lol
Um.....let's see, I have 5 apples. Let's subtract 3 pears from that. How many apples do I still have? Well, gee....my 1st grade teacher would tell me that I STILL have 5 apples,,,,, |
I was hoping you would figure out this mistake. After all, you subtracted "deleterious mutations per generation" (pears) from "total nucleotides" (apples). If you can ignore the meaning of numbers for your calculation, why can't I?
|
No, I compared deleteriously mutated nucleotides with non-mutated ones. Any non-biased reader will understand that if they even know what we are posting about. There's really little difference in that than comparing heads verses tails in a fair coin toss series. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 10:57:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You clearly aren't understanding the argument. This isn't Oh, look-- Humans are susceptible to such-and-such virus and so are gorillas, so they must have a common ancestor!
This is much, much more complex-- and compelling. These are scars of ERV at particular points in our genome. We share a number of these scars-- at exactly the same points with various other primates. Moreover, just as evolutionary theory predicts, species that we assume through taxonomy to be more closely related share more of these ERV scars (again-- in the same parts of the genome) than species not closely related.
The best explanation for this-- indeed, the only compelling one-- is that these species that share ERV scars also share a common ancestor. |
No, I fully understand the argument. And of course the species sharing similar genotypes would exhibit similar virus infections. Dissimilar species usually aren't even susceptible to the same parasites. This surprises you? |
No. But again, that's not the point.
| Can you cite a paper from a scientist or university stating that there is such a thing as "ERV scars" and that these scars are found at exactly the same points? |
Sure. But if I do, and if I linked it, what would you do? Squirm around and change the subject?
|
No, I would read the danged paper and comment on it.....LOL |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 11:13:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Why couldn't the notion that some dinosaurs had feathers be interpreted as "some dinosaurs had feathers" rather than: "then birds must have sprang from them?"
The former is the fact and the latter simply vivid imagination, IMHO. |
The knife that killed Jack had Joe's fingerprints on it and was found in Joe's trashcan, but according to you, Jerry, the idea that Joe stabbed Jack requires a vivid imagination.| I am an avid skeptic, I'm afraid. |
Actually, no, you're an avid contrarian.| If I am a creationist, I am one different than any I've ever met. |
You're no different from many other creationists that we have met. Your ignorance of your fellow travelers doesn't make you unique.| But if I am one, then so be it. From my perspective, I see the universe around me just as does science. |
Except for where you ignore the science, just like many other creationists (who also claim to only be following the science).| Science understands that living things don't pop out of inert matter. |
Science "understands" that there is no clear dividing line between "living things" and "inert matter." DNA by itself is inert. Carbon inside living things is no different from carbon in an insert diamond. A brain removed from a skull becomes inert matter in short order. "Life" is a property of some matter undergoing particular chemical interactions, not a fundamentally different category of matter.| It also understand that programmed code (DNA) more complex than Windows XP... |
DNA is an extremely simple code which can be described in full in just a few pages of text (see Wikipedia references provided earlier).| ...doesn't form spontaneously given ANY amount of time. |
Complex genomes did not form "spontaneously" under any scientific theory of origins, only under creationist theories like yours.| You guys seem to think that a Windows XP CD could just pop out of a freaking rock given enough time..... |
No, that's your understanding of fliggle-warblies, which has nothing to do with evolution or Darwinism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 11:17:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
No, I compared deleteriously mutated nucleotides with non-mutated ones. |
So you're now saying that there are only 1.6 deleteriously mutated nucleotides in the human genome. Didn't you argue before that that was a rate?| Any non-biased reader will understand that if they even know what we are posting about. |
That sentence makes no sense.| There's really little difference in that than comparing heads verses tails in a fair coin toss series. |
Since you used to say that the 1.6 figure was a rate, it was like subtracting "number of tails flipped per hour" from "total number of coin tosses," which would make as much sense as your apples and pears example. |
- 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 - 01/16/2011 : 11:22:30 [Permalink]
|
JerryB
Why couldn't the notion that some dinosaurs had feathers be interpreted as "some dinosaurs had feathers" rather than: "then birds must have sprang from them?" |
Or tetrapod fish, or whales with hind legs, or even as clear an ancestor to humans as Homo erectus. They and literally thousands of other transitionals can be waved away with the same creationist argument. And in that way, a creationist can claim that there are no transitionals, no matter how obvious they are to anyone without a creationists bias. As I said, to admit the obvious for you guys means game over. A creationist can't go there.
And Jerry. You really aren't all that different from old earth Christian creationists simply because you have chosen a different god that's all sciencey sounding. Every other whackaloon out there uses QM to prove something or other. Didn't you see The Secret?
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 11:45:52 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, Jerry, I almost forgot: what metric of "complexity" are you using to compare "DNA" with Windows XP and determine that the former is more complex than the latter? It certainly can't be size, since the minimum XP install seems to be about 10.3 billion bits, while the human genome is only about six billion bits. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 12:16:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
| Can you cite a paper from a scientist or university stating that there is such a thing as "ERV scars" and that these scars are found at exactly the same points? |
Sure. But if I do, and if I linked it, what would you do? Squirm around and change the subject?
|
No, he'd probably complain the paper was too long and difficult to read, and we needed to give him the cheat notes version of it first. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 13:38:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Why couldn't the notion that some dinosaurs had feathers be interpreted as "some dinosaurs had feathers" rather than: "then birds must have sprang from them?"
|
And this is from the guy who thinks that quantum intelligence is the designer...? 
That was a good one, JerryB. Why bother with hypotheses when we can just state a number of facts. And while we're at it, why not add the straw-man that evolution says that birds MUST have come from dinosaurs.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
