|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2005 : 08:03:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It may be 99% humidity in the cloud, but it's still mostly oxygen and nitrogen.  What can the water content be in the cloud? I bet no more than a few percent. I could calculate it, I guess, but I don't have neither the time or the energy to do it.
What bothered me most at the time is that Gish's opponent didn't even call him on the stupidity of the analogy. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 08:48:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It may be 99% humidity in the cloud, but it's still mostly oxygen and nitrogen. What can the water content be in the cloud? I bet no more than a few percent. I could calculate it, I guess, but I don't have neither the time or the energy to do it.
What bothered me most at the time is that Gish's opponent didn't even call him on the stupidity of the analogy.
Those who have debated Gish had to deal with the “Gish Gallop.” A very effective debating tactic that Hovind has mastered, as well. The debater is hit with so much baloney that he has to choose, on the fly, maybe one out of 10 or 20 ridiculous claims to respond to. Try it sometime… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 08:55:12 [Permalink]
|
| I believe Stephen Gould said it best in that these "debates" are ultimately useless because it isn't about seeking the truth, but winning an argument. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 11:38:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
I'm no biologist. Haven't we known that we share over 98% of our DNA for some time? Surely that implies that some genes will be identical and code for the same proteins?
What's new?
My thoughts as well. This is not new news by any stretch.
We also share many genes with yeast. It has become a study subject of choice for human genetics since we have so much in common.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/02/2005 11:39:27 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 11:40:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Yo verlch (or other like-minded folks), whaddaya think? Any pearls of wisdom? Alternate explanations? Or just dismiss it as fraud?
I would not say I am of the same mind as Verlch, but it's the 1% that makes all the difference.
And put another way, the difference ain't much. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 11:44:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
...my point was not well made. I was trying to make the point that it only takes one percent difference in genetic makeup to make the great differences we see in chimps and humans. It is quite amazing.
....
Which should help those who doubt evolution reconsider that nonsense about how impossible it is to get new species with a few genetic changes. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 11:04:06 [Permalink]
|
"Mutations in the DNA of many of those genes may well have occurred within the past 250,000 years, and because they proved so beneficial, they spread rapidly throughout the human population, he said. "
Assumptions made:
1. Mutations occurred
2. Such mutations, occurring in minute form continued to occur millions of times in sequence to result in a positive, beneficial change.
3. That "they spread rapidly" -- more rapidly than is even feasible
4. "throughout the human population" -- what human population? I thought this was what was being formed? You're talking about strange hybrid talking monkeys.
Flaws in argument:
1. Human population could have already existed.
2. Mutations that include the ability to walk upright and the ability to speak occurred in the same time frame?
3. What caused a brain to mutate into speech? Seeing how father and mother teach a child to speak a language, who taught the first mutant? For that matter, who taught the first chimps to communicate?
4. Do we see any correlation in chimp speech to human speech?
5. What happened to the painfully morphed chimps in between standing partially and fully? Was it a positive thing to be a mutant chimp, who was actually weaker and more vulnerable to the normal chimp, who couldn't run as fast, climb as well, or eat as well, or countless other weaknesses that must have occurred in mutation, causing such mutant chimps to be extremely vulnerable to extinction?
6.General overall weakness of argument: logical inferences destroy the very fabric of the argument. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 11:16:45 [Permalink]
|
| The "so called 1%) difference is, in fact, countless difference. Just looking at the appearance from a distance, say of many miles, one could see similarities in chimps and humans running along. As we got closer, the differences begin to be evident...the closer we get, the more differences we see. When we begin to look under a microscope at parts of chimps and humans, we see similarites again, and the closer we look under bigger microscopes the more similarities we can find. The facts remain, however, that chimps and human beings are vastly different in their looks, actions, complexity of reasoning, movement, speech, physical abilities, complex physical abilities, and so on. Similarities are not sufficient to make the case for descendency, as disimilarities are still extremely strong. Only by oversimplying an argument can one say man evolved from chimp. It is just as easy to say man started as man and chimp started as chimp. There is no certainty in any argument to assume ancestorship of man from chimp. It remains an assumption with "proof" still derived from assumption, nothing else. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 12:23:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
Only by oversimplying an argument can one say man evolved from chimp. It is just as easy to say man started as man and chimp started as chimp. There is no certainty in any argument to assume ancestorship of man from chimp. It remains an assumption with "proof" still derived from assumption, nothing else.
*BEEP* Way wrong answer. Nobody even remotely suggested that humans evolved from chimpanzees. Go back to the top of the thread. Re-read it all until you begin to understand. Whew.. no wonder we have such a problem with this issue. The people that don't get it don't even try to be intelligent about it.
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 12:36:03 [Permalink]
|
" Nobody even remotely suggested that humans evolved from chimpanzees. Go back to the top of the thread. Re-read it all until you begin to understand. Whew.. no wonder we have such a problem with this issue. The people that don't get it don't even try to be intelligent about it."
Original quote reads:
"confirming the long-held belief that chimps are humanity's closest living relatives.
But more than that, the scientists said, the landmark finding promises important advances in human disease research and supports many of the insights on evolution proposed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago."
Ah, what did I miss? I don't see a discussion started about human disease research in the "creation/evolution" thread category, do you?
What I see are blatant pro-evolutionary theory statements connecting dots that just don't connect automatically, but only with extreme suppostion. Adding ad hominem attacks about my intelligence doesn't help contribute to the argument now, does it? If you can refute the logic, then do so, or abstain. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 12:50:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
Ah, what did I miss?
You missed the fact that, and I repeat, nobody even remotely suggested that humans evolved from chimpanzees. Saying that chimpanzees are man's closest living relative is an entirely different thing. By your missing that essential, and clearly stated difference it appears that there's a lack of real intellectual consideration for the issue on your part. Also, nobody needs to refute your logic because nobody has made a claim that has anything to do with your contention. Like I suggested before, re-read the thread until you get it. Then perhaps you'll be able to make a more productive contribution to the conversation.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 12:58:01 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, did you "come from" your cousin? Closest relatives means we have related ancestors.
Also, if you would take the time to learn a bit more about genetics you'd see the mechanisms for getting from A to B are well understood and even possible to manipulate in the lab.
Our DNA is set up in sections so significant changes do not kill the organism. There is redundancy so we can tolerate a lot of change without killing the organism.
Single mutations can turn whole sections of DNA on or off.
It takes one mutation to go from 5 fingers to 6 if you want a simple example. That is a whole finger and not a lot of small changes.
You are just ignorant of the science of genetics. You don't have valid arguments. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 13:02:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Assumptions made:
1. Mutations occurred
Flaws in argument:
1. Human population could have already existed.
Logical error: non-sequiteur.
If human population exist or not have no bearing what-so-ever on the fact that mutations occur.
quote:
Assumptions made:
2. Such mutations, occurring in minute form continued to occur millions of times in sequence to result in a positive, beneficial change.
Flaws in argument:
2. Mutations that include the ability to walk upright and the ability to speak occurred in the same time frame?
Logical error: False dichotomy.
The argument does not take into account that all parts of the genome is subject to mutating events, at any given time. Several traits may very well develop in parallel.
quote:
Assumptions made:
3. That "they spread rapidly" -- more rapidly than is even feasible
Flaws in argument:
3. What caused a brain to mutate into speech? Seeing how father and mother teach a child to speak a language, who taught the first mutant? For that matter, who taught the first chimps to communicate?
Logical error: a) non-sequiteur, b)argument from incredulity(?), c) false dichotomy.
a) Whether changes in the genome spreads quickly ( b) "too rapidly to be feasible" may qualify as an argument from incredulity) has nothing to do the development of speech. c) Chimps do communicate with each other, just not as verbally as do humans. They do communicate in other ways. Chimps who have learnt sign-language have been known to pass their skill to their offspring.
quote:
Assumptions made:
4. "throughout the human population" -- what human population? I thought this was what was being formed? You're talking about strange hybrid talking monkeys.
Flaws in argument:
4. Do we see any correlation in chimp speech to human speech?
Logical error: Straw-man
The human/chimpanzee ancestor was neither human nor chimpanzee, and definitely not a monkey, but an hominid (possibly classifiable as ape, but I wouldn't know, I'm not a biologist).
And, as mentioned before, the ability to teach chimpanzees human sign-language proves that there are enough common concepts and abstractions in both humans and chimps to build a foundation to work from.
quote:
5. What happened to the painfully morphed chimps in between standing partially and fully? Was it a positive thing to be a mutant chimp, who was actually weaker and more vulnerable to the normal chimp, who couldn't run as fast, climb as well, or eat as well, or countless other weaknesses that must have occurred in mutation, causing such mutant chimps to be extremely vulnerable to extinction?
And you conveniently ignore any positive mutations, and positive aspects that will increase the chance of survival. The possibility to alert the rest of the flock about nearby predators, and by being more verbal, identifying the predator. An identified predator can be defended against by more specialised means, by having time to choose ground and other types of coordination not previously available. The same goes to forming more complex hunting strategies.
Also, necessity is the mother of invention. That goes for Mother Nature too. If a human/chimp ancestor was isolated from the security of climbing to refuge in trees, it bloody well had to learn to run fast in order to escape other predators. If one of them didn't have mutations that made it as quick as it's pals, it was quickly pruned from the gene-pool.
quote:
6.General overall weakness of argument: logical inferences destroy the very fabric of the argument.
Well, this final line is a very good description of your own post. |
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. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 13:50:23 [Permalink]
|
"Also, necessity is the mother of invention. That goes for Mother Nature too. If a human/chimp ancestor was isolated from the security of climbing to refuge in trees, it bloody well had to learn to run fast in order to escape other predators. If one of them didn't have mutations that made it as quick as it's pals, it was quickly pruned from the gene-pool." Sounds convincing, but certainly is not proof, as I can explain the same by another reason.
My point is, that logically, mutations in the degree that are talked about to turn a chimp into a man are so numerous and complex that as certain small mutations occurred, in process, such a mutant being would be subject to irradication, those small mutations being a hinderance, rather than a help while in process. It is a simple fact that men cannot run as fast, nor as they as strong as chimps, even in there current "evolved" form, much less in their weakened state of mutation. To you it is a "logical" thought to think that such mutated animals were accepted and received in their communities and flourished. I, simply, cannot see the logic behind such an assumption, seeing that a mutation from chimp to man makes that creature in a continuously weaker state to survive in the wild. Human babies are far weaker and more feeble than chimp babies, and, therefore, in their mutating state, they would be much more suceptable to death and pruned from the chimp population.
Furthermore, why do we no longer see these gross mutations occurring in the wild? Are we to assume that each creature has attained to it's highest state of perfection and no further alterations with new species are needed? Or maybe it just doesn't happen.
Hey, anybody can make up reasons for why stuff happens, just don't try to tell me it is some irrefutable evidence when you find a scientist making such assumptions.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
