|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2004 : 19:57:24 [Permalink]
|
| H. Humbert, one of the folks on talk.origins suggested that I "ask her when her doctoral dissertation is up for Nobel Prize review." It's that much of a radical "biomechanical mechanism." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 20:11:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Welcome Peptide. I must first say, very originial arguments, I for one haven't heard of either. On your suggestion for the third:
From http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm :
<snip>
However you must be careful, out of this will surely come the, "Thats microevolution, not macroevolution" argument which I think we are all too familiar with.
Indeed, I'm fairly certain they will ascribe all of the above as either micro-evolution or man-made hybrids (=not evolution as it is not a gradual change over time)
Playing the Devil's Advocate:
quote:
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.
"Possibly, but these are plants, not people."
quote:
Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.
"Yes, but it's a hybrid, not a gradualistic change over time."
quote:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than 250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)
"It's still a mouse, it has only micro-evolved."
quote:
During a series of natural catastrophes, the Galapagos island finch- species Geospitza fortis developed a larger beak, necessary for consuming a variety of seed unaffected by the ravages. This was a new phenotype never observed before, made manifest i n just a few years time.
"Micro-evolution"
quote:
In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
Man-made hybrid proves intelligent design, since the gardener intelligent.
quote:
In 1973, L. D. Gottlieb documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis from a large population of S. exigua in Harney County, Oregon. He was able to document morphological differences in five characteristics plus chromosomal differences. Attempts at crossbreeding these plants produced hybrids having either scant seeds and pollen, or developmental abnormalities. (American Journal of Botany 60, pp. 545-553)
(can't come up with a response) How large was the chromosomal differences? Double only means that the meiosis(?) didn't work as it should. It would have been different if the number of base-pairs have increased in any chromosome, but since a mutation can not increase the information stored in DNA, this could not have happened.
quote:
After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969 produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids, which were not used for future breeding. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534547)
Man made hybrids = intelligent design.
quote:
There is a lot of literature about speciation in fruit flies and house flies. Different experiments have been carried out to examine separately the effects of natural selection and genetic drift. See, for example, J. Ringo, et. al, "An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation," The American Naturalist (1989) 126, pp. 642661, or A. B. Soans, et. al, "Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations," The American Naturalist (1974) 108, pp. 117- 124.
A fly is a fly is a fly. You all know who the Lord of the Flies is, you follow him since evolution is his teaching.
quote:
The question can be asked, is the sex ratio then just a non-adaptive consequence of the independent assortment of X and Y chromosomes in male sperm? Or, is the ratio adaptive and Mendelian assortment an adaptive trait that has evolved?
<snip>
This is a frequency-dependent kind of selection. As the sex ratio approaches 0.5, fish who produce a disproportionate amount of either sex will contribute less than average to the gene pool.
Finally, notice that evolution has occurred.
Yes, micro-evolution.
Edit: Cleaned up some spelling |
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 10/04/2004 22:16:11 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 20:50:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peptide
Speaking of which, will I be arguing against young earthers or old earthers? It will make a difference.
Young.
quote:
quote:
However you must be careful, out of this will surely come the, "Thats microevolution, not macroevolution" argument which I think we are all too familiar with.
What I would rather do is show a beneficial mutation come about and then observe that beneficial mutation move through the population. This would be direct observation of evolutionary mechanisms. Thus, science is not taking evolution "on faith" but applying mechanisms we see today and applying them to things in the past, just as other branches of science behave.
No dice. This is that "uniformitism" or whatever it is they go on about. They claim that scientists cannot assume that the way things are now are the way they've always been. They claim that any "assumptions" turn the science into an exercise of faith. I've seen them throw out whole arguments because of this.
Speed of light?--We don't know that it's always been constant.
Radioactive decay?--We don't know that it's always been constant.
Rate of sendimentation?--We don't know that it's always been constant.
Etc. Etc. Etc. All these arguments about fruit flies and viruses, while compelling to you and I, aren't going to be taken as anything other than evidence of microevolution (as Dr. M has already pointed out) if they accept the arguments at all.
See, what they are really questioning is the validity of science itself. They "assume" that science should never make assumptions in order to arrive at valid conclusions. Literally, if you can't watch something happen with your own eyes they reject it out of hand. tk (the creator of the site) even goes so far as to reject any experiment that could somehow objectively demonstrate evolution, since experiments have designers and thus are "unnatural." He claims that no verbal arguments can be made against the theory of Intelligent Design, since arguments themselves have design, therefore making us "hypocrites."
I don't want to discourage you from entering the debate, but there's no way to win on their terms. I'm simply trying to clue you in to how they think. This is going to be primarily a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. Facts are meaningless to them.
Edit: Hehe, yeah, Peptide, welcome! 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/04/2004 21:04:05 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 20:53:21 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and Peptide... Welcome! |
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 21:00:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Just in case you get a chance to use it, here's Dr. Marty Leipzig's Flood Math. This has never been refuted and to my knowledge, none have even tried. I laid it on Dr. Jonathon Sarfati a year of so back, and he went straight to ad hom. A most unpleasant individual.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm
Well, some of the creationists points out that the bible says water came from the ground. So many springs could have added a fair amount of the water of the flood. And mountains have risen after the flood: Mt. Ararat was the highest peak back then. After that, the Himalaya started to rise. So does the Scandinava too (not because Arctic ice from the latest ice-age), still as some cm/decade.
This invalidates the numbers in the flood-math. If the highest mountain was only half the height, the amount of water that rained should be cut in half, and if half of the water came from springs we're down to a fourth of the amount. But then, we have no mention of exactly how high the mountains were back then, and how much water came from springs, it could very well have been only a few percent that rained. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 21:10:51 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN Peptide.
quote:
Posted by Peptide:They are going to get a debate whether they want to or not.
Well, good luck. Those nitwits have no interest in debating you, and they will do nothing except make wild and unsupported assertions, then claim victory. They will straw-man you to death, and then refuse to allow you to criticize their incompotent reasoning. It would be an excercise in extreme futility to debate them, especially in a forum moderated by an obviously delusional individual.
quote:
Posted by H. Humbert:I'm tempted to disbelieve she has a degree in anything, let alone a Masters in biochemistry.
Exactly.
And, apparently, she is OK with just making shit up and telling complete lies to "prove" her point. No credible person would refuse to explain what "ccdi9" was, especially if it was the basis of their argument. It's pretty clear that she has no idea what "ccdi9" is. Anyone with the stones to claim a "refutation of gradualistic evolution" would surely be capable of explaining the basis of their argument upon request.
I think she has been drinking from the same supply of contaminated pond-water that verlch is drinking from. |
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 |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2004 : 02:19:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Just in case you get a chance to use it, here's Dr. Marty Leipzig's Flood Math. This has never been refuted and to my knowledge, none have even tried. I laid it on Dr. Jonathon Sarfati a year of so back, and he went straight to ad hom. A most unpleasant individual.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm
Well, some of the creationists points out that the bible says water came from the ground. So many springs could have added a fair amount of the water of the flood. And mountains have risen after the flood: Mt. Ararat was the highest peak back then. After that, the Himalaya started to rise. So does the Scandinava too (not because Arctic ice from the latest ice-age), still as some cm/decade.
This invalidates the numbers in the flood-math. If the highest mountain was only half the height, the amount of water that rained should be cut in half, and if half of the water came from springs we're down to a fourth of the amount. But then, we have no mention of exactly how high the mountains were back then, and how much water came from springs, it could very well have been only a few percent that rained.
"Could very well have been," is no argument at all. Anything could have been. At which point, I would demand references and empirical evidences, and ridicule the claim when such was not forthcoming.
Y'know, that is an apalling amount of water however it might have arrived. Even without the generated heat, it would be like hydrolic mining writ large and on a global scale. Goodby topsoil and 'most everything else life sustaining on the earth's surface. Hello bedrock under a layer of noxious mud.
Further, again discounting the heat and also the stripped earth, the fossil record would be a jumbled mass of virtually all species throughout virtually all strata. As we well know, this is not the case.
I'm betting that, per usual, they'll rant and gibber and name-call, but they won't touch the Leipzig.
Oh, and I heard that some few of 'em, a while back, made the claim that Iceland flipped over. Exactly where (and why) they came up with that turkey, I have not been able to find out. Mainly because I don't care enough to chase down nonsense. They can bring it to me, as is proper.
This is good practice.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2004 : 06:51:51 [Permalink]
|
tksgurl now claims she's "open and friendly." Really? Don't see that. She appears to me to be more closed-minded and arrogant. Obviously, that's really "friendly" to tk and other like-minded creationists, but there's little objectivity to be found over there.
According to some of the people on talk.origins, "ccdi9" may just be a typo of "cdc19," which is a protein required for cell division. If so, then tksgurl's argument seems to boil down to "irreducible complexity," rehashed with a new protein. In other words, it's an argument from ignorance combined with an argument from incredulity, as in "I don't see how it could have happened naturally, therefore it's too amazing to have happened naturally."
Boring, and in no need of refutation, other than to point out that her lack of imagination (and science's lack of complete protein evolutionary pathways) has no effect whatsoever on reality. The idea that objective truth ends where opinions also end is ridiculous. When the heck are people going to realize that postmodernism is a dead-end to knowledge? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2004 : 07:57:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
According to some of the people on talk.origins, "ccdi9" may just be a typo of "cdc19," which is a protein required for cell division.
Ah... Now all her rantings suddenly seems to make sense.
At least now I understand where she's coming from, though her argument does not hold up. Natural selection will prevent modification of the cdc19 protein in the offspring, that's why it would "stop evolution dead in it's track".
Still, she's ignoring the power of natural selection and random mutation. That is, if she really means cdc19...
Now to something completly different:
Argument against uniformitarianism: radioactivity not constant.
Creationists say that we can not use radiologic dating, because we can not be sure that the rate of decay have always been constant.
For radioactive decay NOT to be constant, we need to have a variable weak-nuclear-force. A change in the weak nuclear force would affect ALL matter, and would make the oxygen we breathe radioactive. Matter would not be able to exist as we know it. |
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. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2004 : 09:06:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh, and I heard that some few of 'em, a while back, made the claim that Iceland flipped over. Exactly where (and why) they came up with that turkey, I have not been able to find out.
Argument: God was bored, so he flipped Iceland. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2004 : 10:44:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
According to some of the people on talk.origins, "ccdi9" may just be a typo of "cdc19," which is a protein required for cell division.
If so, it's a "typo" she repeats throughout all the threads. Unbelievable. Methinks she's just a bit confused. Of course, her own arrogance precluded her from actually fact-checking herself to ensure she actually got the term right. She probably thought she didn't need to, as she was banking on nobody knowing what she was talking about. She just assumed it would be over all of our heads and that we would need to concede defeat. Man, at least now we know what the hell she's talking about.
Ricky, you feel like posting over there again and asking that brat if she meant cdc19? While you're at it, can you tell her that's why she needs to explain herself better, because she was actually using the wrong god damned term. I mean, it's pretty hard to argue against her own ignorance of her own professed field of study.
Oh, and, Dave. On the same page she claims to be nice she also claims to be an atheist. Huh? How can you be an atheistic creationist?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/05/2004 11:08:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2004 : 10:56:53 [Permalink]
|
Mab wrote:quote:
Ah... Now all her rantings suddenly seems to make sense.
At least now I understand where she's coming from, though her argument does not hold up. Natural selection will prevent modification of the cdc19 protein in the offspring, that's why it would "stop evolution dead in it's track".
Still, she's ignoring the power of natural selection and random mutation. That is, if she really means cdc19...
You've got the argument backwards, Mab.
If tksgurl means cdc19, the argument would be that since cdc19 (and other Minichromosome Maintenance proteins) are all required for eukaryotic cells to replicate (specifically, for DNA duplication), then they could not have evolved "gradually," since if you eliminate the functionality of any of them, cells cannot split.
Ironically, this argument (if it is the argument she's making), is a pro-uniformitarianism argument, since it assumes that cdc19 and the other MCMs have always existed in their current forms, for their current purposes. So, while tk on the one hand argues against assumptions, his girlfriend appears to argue for them.
And I stress appears because we do not know what tksgurl means by "ccdi9," and she seems reluctant (at the very least) to say what it means. It is unlikely, given her tone and self-protectiveness, that she will admit to a mistake - even one so minor as getting two letters out of order, and mistaking a one for an I. I would enjoy being surprised, but I doubt it'll happen. |
- 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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2004 : 11:06:10 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert wrote:quote:
Man, at least now we know what the hell she's talking about.
No, we don't. We have an educated guess about what the hell she's talking about, an educated guess which seems (to me, at least) to make more sense than the typo being to add a C to "cdi9," a "cadmium-binding protein in plants," which is even less damaging to evolutionary theory (especially given the example she presented was with mammals).
We still do not know what this mysterious "biomechanical mechanism" is. All attempts at identification so far rely on the assumption of either typos or outright fabrication of the term, neither of which is provable without tksgurl's assistance, which she is unlikely to provide. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2004 : 11:13:12 [Permalink]
|
I have a question about the idea that we can't assume that fundamental physical laws were the same in the past as they are today.
We can actually see into the past- the light arriving from, say, M31, has been in transit for something like 2.2 million years. When we look at such "old" light, we can recognize the spectra of elements that we know right here on Earth and in our sun- they might be red-shifted, but the patterns are still the same.
Doesn't that demonstrate that the good ol' periodic table was the same X MYA as it is today? And, since the emission or absorption spectrum of an element is determined by the laws of quantum physics, doesn't that also demonstrate that said laws were the same?
Anybody wanna clue me in on this?  |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
