|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 10:32:11 [Permalink]
|
| Lol the second article concludes that 'all new observable behaviors are but stuff that God left in their DNA waiting for when it's needed.' So no matter what we can never prove evolution! Even if the experiment proves to be faulty(which will be done by actual scientists), it in no way makes AiG's sophistry valid. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 10:40:22 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
I repeated his post here. Click on "re-bunking" for the deception exposed. |
No. What was predicted is that some creationist site would attempt to debunk the finding. It happens every time there is a significant finding. AIG didn't get that what was done and their comments on it completely miss the point. Even the scientists who did the experiment said this:
| Yeast evolved from multicellular ancestors, so it is possible that they had an easier time of recreating their ancient lifestyle. However, Ratcliff notes that yeast became single-celled organisms billions of generations ago, and would probably have lost the genes for multicellularity. Even so, he now wants to repeat his experiment with single-celled organisms that do not have a multicellular past, such as species of green algae from the genus Chlamydomonas. |
They also said:
| Ratcliff could even tune these stages. If he cultivated only those snowflakes that settled faster, he ended up with larger ones that grew bigger before splitting. This confirmed that natural selection was acting on the entire flake, rather than on the individual cells within it. “They survive as a whole, or they die as a whole. Selection shifts to the multicellular level,” says Ratcliff. |
By the way. This wasn't simply a matter of "hooking together" for survival as AIG suggests. What they formed were multicelular organisms with each cell taking up different functions within the whole, which is new. So what you did was to use a creationist criticism, posted here by Mooner, only because it was predicted that the experiment would be attacked by creationists. And they conveniently (but not surprisingly) left out significant developments not seen before, even in yeast cells. Hell. They even reproduced as a group, and no where is anyone saying that defensive clumps reproduce as a group. So what did you do? You fell hook line and sinker for AIG's claims which didn't come close to telling the whole story. Plus it's not known if vestigial genes were envolved either. That's the conjecture that is leading to another experiment using algie instead of yeast.
In short, there was no deception. And let me tell you something. Actual scientists in the field would have been yelling foul if the experiment was a fraud, or a deception. That's what they do. It's a part of the process. But being of the same mind as AIG, and wanting to discredit the research, your confirmation bias kicked in and you made unfounded claims about the authors. Shame on you!
AIG lied about the significance of the experiment and so did you. The blind leading the blind. Only your language was far worse than theirs. It's a flat out lie that the authors "hid" the fact that they were using brewers yeast, for example. That lie belongs to you, jamalrapper, and you alone. The paper clearly states that kind of cells they used:
From both Dave's link and mine from the Nature:
Multicellularity was one of the most signi#64257;cant innovations in the
history of life, but its initial evolution remains poorly understood.
Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. We subjected the unicellular
yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we
expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid
evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular
life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular
clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic con#64258;icts of
interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early
multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells,
but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell
death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity,
a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from
unicellular eukaryotes. |
Bolding is mine;
jamalrapper:
But as a skeptic it is your responsibility to understand the issues and not just react. |
How can you say that with a straight face when that's exactly what you did? And I just don't see how you, jamalrapper, didn't lie doing it. And for that you should retract your statement and admit that you lied.
The list of fallacies coming from you is getting pretty long. They include quote mining, ad hominem, confirmation bias, and outright lies. Care to go for more?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2012 : 10:54:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
But yet the experiment required an intelligent designer. |
Thus demonstrating that no experiment could ever possibly falsify ID, which proves that ID is not scientific.
|
As if science is the end all be all of truth when we all know the fact that humans doing science is what causes errors in science. It could never falsify/prove ID or macro-evolution with all the known and unknown errors that science undoubtedly contains. In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 11:14:53 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
It could never falsify/prove ID or macro-evolution with all the known and unknown errors that science undoubtedly contains. |
Transitional fossils are a smoking gun against the claim that macro-evolution doesn't happen. Just saying... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 11:44:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
It could never falsify/prove ID or macro-evolution with all the known and unknown errors that science undoubtedly contains. |
Transitional fossils are a smoking gun against the claim that macro-evolution doesn't happen. Just saying...
|
As if these "transitional" fossils are the end all be all to the truth or untruths of macro-evolution. Since we all know and must acknowledge the fact that humans doing science is what causes errors in science we must also acknowledge that this includes the science which classified these fossils as "transitional". It undoubtedly is contaminated by known and unknown human error. I know this is tough for you to acknowledge but acknowledge it you must because it is truth. Just because the current science of the day says so don't make it truth. I know you want it to but the truth is is that it is not. History has shown us plenty of examples where the science of today is not the science of tomorrow. So as I said before, in the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe. Just saying... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 12:15:53 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
So as I said before, in the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe. Just saying... |
So just exactly when did you become a post modernist? Look. Dinosaurs with feathers. Birds with features that are only found in dinosaurs. Whales with legs. Fish with legs and feet. These animals should NOT exist if macro evolution doesn't happen. They are not a mistake. Sure, mistakes happen. But we are talking about a lot of fossils found at levels where we would expect them to be. They match the predictions made by science. They exist. So what is reasonable for you to believe, given the evidence, I just don't get. I said you would deny that transitionals exist and you have proved me right. But trying to make a case that no real knowledge exists? WTF?
“The well-meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit.” - Carl Sagan |
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 - 02/16/2012 : 12:20:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Dave, Please read the first post by Halfmooner. The claim that scientist were able to transition single-celled yeast to multicellular yeast in a lab in 60 days. It was later exposed that the specific type of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae they used was in fact capable of multicellular dimorphism. This was known over a decade ago. |
Yes, it was "exposed" by the researchers themselves, in the very same article that you are trying to dismiss as a deliberate fraud. So answer my question about how you know the researchers were lying when they claimed that the behavior they observed is not pseudohyphal growth. Provide evidence that they "hid" the fact that they were experimenting on S. cerevisiae.| Ratcliff plans to try his experiment on “Chlamydomonas, [a] single-celled organism with no multicellular ancestry.(quite a reversal. |
Not at all. He was obviously anticipating the creationist lies like yours.Answers in Genesis has never debunked anything but arguments much worse than their own standard drivel. In that particular news bit, they simply ignore the fact that the researchers addressed pseudohyphal growth and instead tried to pass off their willful ignorance as an astounding revelation, just like you are trying to do. Are you employed by Ken Ham, or just a dogmatic follower of his?| If you don't know something then just ask. You don't have attack ever poster if help/clarification/explanation is what you are looking for. Just ASK!!!!!. |
Having read the original paper under discussion, I obviously know a lot more than you do about this particular subject. |
- 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 - 02/16/2012 : 12:42:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
But yet the experiment required an intelligent designer. |
Thus demonstrating that no experiment could ever possibly falsify ID, which proves that ID is not scientific. |
As if science is the end all be all of truth when we all know the fact that humans doing science is what causes errors in science. It could never falsify/prove ID or macro-evolution with all the known and unknown errors that science undoubtedly contains. In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe. |
Wow, that's a seriously post-modernist case of sour grapes you've got there, Bill.
Of course, what you're missing is that your earlier assertion makes ID unfalsifiable even in principle. If we hypothesize a day when science contains no errors and scientists are perfectly logical and unbiased - a time when we can gather "real knowledge" - the "humans designed the experiment" gripe still would apply, making ID impossible to test even under perfect conditions. Whining about human fallibility and metaphysical limitations on knowledge can't magically save ID from being non-science.
Good to see you back here, Bill. How about answering these old questions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 13:29:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
But yet the experiment required an intelligent designer. |
Thus demonstrating that no experiment could ever possibly falsify ID, which proves that ID is not scientific. |
As if science is the end all be all of truth when we all know the fact that humans doing science is what causes errors in science. It could never falsify/prove ID or macro-evolution with all the known and unknown errors that science undoubtedly contains. In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe. |
Wow, that's a seriously post-modernist case of sour grapes you've got there, Bill.
Of course, what you're missing is that your earlier assertion makes ID unfalsifiable even in principle. If we hypothesize a day when science contains no errors and scientists are perfectly logical and unbiased - a time when we can gather "real knowledge" - the "humans designed the experiment" gripe still would apply, making ID impossible to test even under perfect conditions. Whining about human fallibility and metaphysical limitations on knowledge can't magically save ID from being non-science.
Good to see you back here, Bill. How about answering these old questions.
|
Of course, what you're missing is that classifying ID under non-science has no bearing whatsoever as to whether it is true or not, just as classifying macro-evolution under science has no bearing whatsoever as to the validity of it's truth or not. The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. And when known and unknown errors abound in science you can never know that what you are holding on to is truth or not. How could you? It's full of errors. Heck, the science of today will not even be the science of tomorrow and vice-a-versa. Truth is constant while science is not. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 13:32:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Wow, that's a seriously post-modernist case of sour grapes you've got there, Bill.
Of course, what you're missing is that your earlier assertion makes ID unfalsifiable even in principle. If we hypothesize a day when science contains no errors and scientists are perfectly logical and unbiased - a time when we can gather "real knowledge" - the "humans designed the experiment" gripe still would apply, making ID impossible to test even under perfect conditions. Whining about human fallibility and metaphysical limitations on knowledge can't magically save ID from being non-science.
Good to see you back here, Bill. How about answering these old questions.
|
Yeah Bill. For proven falsifiability, you should stick to Young Earth Creationism. It's been pretty much totally falsified. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 23:32:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Truth is constant while science is not. |
How do you know?
|
Maybe a visit to wiki might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.
A skeptical point of view, demanding a method of proof, was the practical position taken as early as 1000 years ago. ( my insert...this was necessary when little was known about the real world. The knowledge of the world has increased dramatically since and yet this primitive ritual is practiced by small groups of people who have yet to assimilate all the new knowledge).
A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward, as explanation, from which stem predictions. The predictions are to be posted before a confirming experiment or observation is sought, as proof that no tampering has occurred. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress.
|
Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress!!!!!
Proof that science is also a religion.  |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 00:56:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress!!!!!
Proof that science is also a religion.
|
And the rest of the paragraph reads:
| This is done partly through observation of natural phenomena, but also through experimentation, that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions, as appropriate to the discipline (in the observational sciences, such as astronomy or geology, a predicted observation might take the place of a controlled experiment). Taken in its entirety, a scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimizing any effects of subjective bias on the part of its users (namely the confirmation bias). |
So what you're saying is that throwing out one hypothesis because it doesn't work, and moving on to testing a new hypothesis with perhaps better predictive power is like religion. How so?
| A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain. |
So what you're saying is holding all theories as tentative, subject to change with the introduction of new evidence is like religion. How so?
| A skeptical point of view, demanding a method of proof, was the practical position taken as early as 1000 years ago. ( my insert...this was necessary when little was known about the real world. The knowledge of the world has increased dramatically since and yet this primitive ritual is practiced by small groups of people who have yet to assimilate all the new knowledge). |
Skepticism is fundamental to the scientific method. But let's see if I understand you. What you are saying that we shouldn't approach a new hypothesis with some skepticism because we know more than we knew 1000 years ago. If we weren't using so "primitive" a method we would just accept whatever is being hypothesized, skip review and replication and go straight to theory, eh? And that works for you? Because if we do that, than science really would be like a religion, right? Just claim it and it's so.
I can see how that would work for ID. Doubt is so pesky, isn't it? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 02:04:10 [Permalink]
|
Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress!!!!!
Proof that science is also a religion. |
Similar to religion the more you disprove its predictions, the more progress it makes(it refers to religion) |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/17/2012 02:47:57 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 07:45:53 [Permalink]
|
No it wasn't.
There is no better way for you to shoot your own argument in the foot, than referring to Answers-in-Genesis.
AiG has publicly declared they are anti-science (see link, section 4, §6), so they have disqualified themselves from making any scientifically valid comments of any kind. Anything they say is suspect because of their dogmatic declarations that their religious beliefs trumphs any contradictive evidence.
|
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
