What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

At this point it becomes clear that you aren't worth talking to. The discussion has gone on so long and become so repetitive that I would be surprised if anyone else was still reading or if they would learn anything that had not already been covered.

​

The idea that you have to make a false claim, try to pretend that you hadn't said it and then try to pretend that you didn't say that you didn't say it over and over again round and round in circles is bad enough. But this piece of lunacy proves that you are a hopeless case:

---

Misunderstanding me and than finally getting what I was saying all along, does not mean I was wrong in the first place. You are the one who misunderstood me.

quote:

---

The sun does NOT go around the Earth. The apparent motion of the sun is due to the Earth rotating on it's axis. If you don't know that much then there's little I can say.

---

I was actually talking about the movement of planets not taking into account geocentric viewpoint. When I said that the Sun moves areound the Earth, you could have read that as the Earth goes around the Sun. It would be fine by me.

quote:

---

As I said, we know that it would take a massive force to significantly change the rotation of the Earth and there is no likelihood at all that "it could do a 360 loop at 12 o'clock in the noon and than continue as if nothing happened." We don't even need to invoke gravity - conservation of angular momentum is rather more important ! Relativistic considerations aren't significant. either We know that Newtonian mechanics is an extremely reliable model for the masses and speeds involved.

---

Wrong. You just think that. That's the point. There could be such a force out there and you don't now it. That's the point!And another point is that it would be unreasonable to consider it. Why? Well because we never saw it happen.

quote:

---

It appears to this moderator that Smooth Operator is not going to be drawn into rational discussion. Anyone object to this thread being closed down? I'll wait a couple days for responses.

---

I object. I have put a lot of effort into this discussion. It's not my problem if others have problems with their logic. They can't even formulate simple arguments without making logical fallacies. And no I'm not going not call them out for it. If that's the reason we are going to have misunderstandings than so be it. But a logically inconsistent argument is still wrong.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

To be accurate, it's crappy resolution. Do binoculars work? Yep. However, this doesn't mean you can resolve single stars in a distant galaxy. These tools work, but not at high resolution.

---

Fine. Than we go back to my argument that as time goes on, we are going to have even better tools, and even less nested hierarchies will show up. And those that exist now will be shown not to be nested at all.

quote:

---

Then don't claim it. You claimed that all sheep have always required a specific ERV insertion in order to reproduce. You have asserted this without any evidence whatsoever.

---

Because that's a logical conclusion. Why? Because without it, they wouldn't be able to reproduce without it A logical conclusion follows from the premise wether you like it or not.

quote:

---

Evidence please. Please show that all ancestors of sheep were sheep and not non-sheep.

---

Evidence is in what we see. What I told you is what is the evidence. There is no evidence that sheeps are related to anything else but sheep. Why would I have prove a negative?

quote:

---

Chihuahuas give birth to chihuahuas, but not all fo the ancestors of chihuahuas were chihuahuas.

---

Defining them like that is wrong. Because Chihuahuas are dogs and all dogs reproduce. Regardless of their phenotype.

quote:

---

So where can we find the MCS's (multiple cloning sites) in our genomes? Where can we find antibiotic markers used for determining of the plasmids have inserted into the genome? Where are there examples of clear violations of the nested hierarchy that humans can easily produce using genetic engineering (e.g. the Glofish)?

---

We can find non-standard genetic codes. We can, and know where to find scientific articles that throw out 35% of data to make a nested hierarchy fit for all mammals.

quote:

---

Evidence please. Please link to the genome of the 100 million year old ancestor and the genome of the modern population. Please show that they are nearly identical as you claim.

​

You are also making the mistake of correlating small phenotypic changes with small genotypic changes. Changes and phenotype and genetic divergence do not correlate. Never have.

---

Nice to know you are standing by your killing of your own argument by saying that geneti change does not equal phenotypic change. Just checking.

quote:

---

Identical to which of the 100+ species of fossil coelacanth? Give me a genus-species name and we will compare.

---

I don't care about their names. The ones that we see today are the same as the ones that are supposed to have lived over 100 million years ago.http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/ng_coelocanth.jpg
http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/...1116/34-14-Coelocanth.jpg

quote:

---

You have changed your argument. You are arguing that genetic change occurs at the same rate as morphological change. Those do not correlate. A single mutation can drastically change morphology while a thousand other mutations can have zero effect on morphology. The rates of change (genotype and phenotype) do not correlate. The PATTERN of SHARED morphology DOES correlate with genetic divergence.

---

So since you have killed your argument, let me ask you. How do you know those patterns are casued by genetic changes?

quote:

---

DNA breaks down in much shorter time periods than millions of years. You are ignoring the much more likely conclusion that these are modern bacteria growing in salt that is millions of years old.

---

Could be. Or both are not millions of years old in the first place. Neitehr is any other fossil. How about that?

quote:

---

I assume you mean common ancestry. Using ERV's, if two organisms share a common ancestor then you should find multiple ERV's at the same base in their genome (i.e. orthologous ERV's). Not only that, but LTR divergence should correlate with amount of time in the lineage as determined by orthology.

---

Please let me enlighten you by using your own words agains you. You see I have a theory of my own. It's called 3 minutes theory. It claims that everything came into being from nothing 3 minutes ago in the form just as we see it now, including our memories. And just to show you that it's true this is how I test for it.Here comes the ironly where I quote you...Using ERV's, if two organisms came into existance 3 minutes ago from nothing in the form that they look like now, then you should find multiple ERV's at the same base in their genome (i.e. orthologous ERV's). Not only that, but LTR divergence should correlate with amount of time in the lineage as determined by orthology.Do you see a problem here? The problem is that my theory has not been shown to have the ability to produce the effect in question. It does correlate witht he effect. But that's not enough to test it. You first have to produce the evidence that the cause you are invoking, has the ability to produce the edsired effect. You have yet to do so.

quote:

---

These retroviruses insert among billions of potential insertion sites. These insertion sites make up 50% of the human genome, or about 1.5 billion bases. The chances of two independent insertions resulting in the same ERV at the same base in the genome are simply too high to explain the 10's of thousands of ERV's shared by humans and other apes.

---

Potential insertion sites for SPECIFIC ERVs. Some ERVs prefer some sites over others. Not all ERVs will insert in any hotspot. It's your article that actually says that...

quote:

---

They are random among the insertion sites which comprise billions of bases.

---

It doesn't say that anywhere.

quote:

---

Once again, these hotspots comprise billions of bases. You might as well claim that everyone should have the same lottery numbers because the lottery balls are non-random being that they have a hotspot between the numbers 1 and 50. If the lottery were truly random then any imaginable number should be in play.

---

But certain ERVs prefer certain spots.

quote:

---

All gravity has to do is move water uphill. Why can't gravity do that?

---

Becasue gravity is constantly pulling down, not pushing up. It has neevr been observed to push up.

quote:

---

It is not simple at all, despite your empty assertions. Bats would need to re-evolve the same genome as the non-feathered bird ancestors. How would that happen? After this long string of impossible mutations, bats would then need to acquire the same feather mutations leading to feathers, another impossible string of mutations. Using the lottery example again, you might as well ask why the winning lottery numbers are not the exact same for every lottery drawing.

---

So what? It happeend before. If you believe single celled organisms evolved into dinosaurs, than you would have no trouble believeing in this.Besides. Thi is not like water going uphill. Gravity never pushes up. Never been observet. But in the case of DNA.C can replace T or G or A.
T can replace C or G or A.
G can replace C or T or A.
A can replace C or G or T.Any nucleotide can repalce any other. No problem for evolving feathers.

quote:

---

It does matter. Orthologous ERV's are found at the SAME BASE IN EACH GENOME. If you are going to refute this evidence you need to use the same level of resolution.

---

I'm not refuting that evidence. I agree witht that evidence. What I don't agree with is your interepretation.

quote:

---

It is not my responsibility to remove your blinders. That's your job. It is not my fault that you refuse to admit that a 1 in 1.5 billion chance of two ERV's occuring at the same base is not random enough. For just 10 ERV's occuring at the same spot in two genomes due to independent insertions this would require a 1 in 1.5 billion to the 10th power occurence, or 1 in 1x10^100 odds. And that is just for 10 ERV's. Humans and other apes share 10's of thousands of these ERV's.

---

If it was a random insertion that was going on, but it's not. Certain ERVs prefere certain spots.

quote:

---

Then please construct a cladogram using shared characteristics that groups the human eye with cephalopods and the fish eye with vertebrates. Show it.

---

You wouldn't do that because it doesn't form a monophyletic group. But that's just the point. When something does form a monophyletic group you use it do make a cladogram, and when it doesn't you don't. That's why it's unfalsifiable.

quote:

---

So we should not see a nested hierarchy if common ancestry is true? Please explain.

---

No, nested hierarchy may or may not apper regradless of CD being true or not.

quote:

---

So you admit that the nested hierarchy is falsifiable.

---

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying that it's not falsifiable precisely becasue you reclasify the species when it doesn't conform.

quote:

---

Because selection is determined by competition between individuals in the same way that a runner's place in the competition is determined by his time compared to the times of others. You can't look at the number of offspring that an individual has and calculate which genes are under selection in the same way that you can't use the time of an individual runner to determine his place in the competition.

---

But this is the question of detrmining the seelction pressure on certain genes. Not determining the unit of selection.

quote:

---

When the pattern being shown is one of hereditary relationships due to common ancestry, then being able to reproduce is the first requirement.

---

But they dont' show that. They show similarity. It's just you who is ASSUMING that it's produced by reproduction in the first place. That's an assumption on your part.

quote:

---

Curiously, showing gradual change alone is not sufficient for showing an evolutionary hereditary pattern due to common ancestry. Rock erosion shows gradual changes due to ecological conditions, but no scientist considers them hereditary.

---

Than why do you consider similar animals to be related?

quote:

---

Amusingly, pots and pans arbitrarily arranged on a computer do not show a pattern of gradual change because there is no natural way for one to change form.

---

N-O-N S-E-Q-U-I-T-U-R!Wow, you are the WORST when it comes to logic! Them not being able to change themself does not mean that they do not exhibit the pattern of similarity you find in animals! Because they do exhibit it. The question is WHY!?

quote:

---

Arbitrarily arranging them in a tree like structure with no regard for context to time and spacial relationships does not mean that the pots and pans actually show a tree like structure, or that anyone else would derive the same pattern from the same ad hoc elements chosen at random.

---

Neither is the temporal context used for animals. It's assumed that layers are all different ages. But that's all. And no, only the most naive person would say that EVERY scientist gets and IDENTICAL tree witht he same animals. They don't.

quote:

---

The astute reader will note that they start off by saying that you need to start with hereditary characteristics, just as I have said.

---

Which is an uprovable assumption, becasue you don't know that bats and humans were ever related. Yet you try to hide this fact by at the end proclaiming that the patternt is evidence for CD. And than you have circular logic. Because you started by assuming CD, and ended up confirming it! Great job!

quote:

---

They will further recognize that phylogenic trees are not based superficially on single traits, but on a multitude of traits.

---

What's the difference? Why is more traits better than a single trait? If one trait is not good enough by itself, why would more of them be? Where is the cut? How many traits does it take to be good enough?

quote:

---

The astute reader will also note that analogous features only seem similar at the top level of comparison - whether an animal has a wing, whether a pot has a handle - but that they are derived from different originating features ...

---

And you know that because...????

quote:

---

... that the fine structure and other details show different origins - the wings are derived from different internal structure, the pots and pans are made of different materials, formed by different fabrication techniques and are assembled in different ways.

---

No they do not. How do you know that fine structure shows different origin?

quote:

---

Simply put, homologies are traits that are traits that are repeated from one generation to the next, they are the parts of the phylogeny that do not change between the respective generation, while analogies are where traits in one population are imitated in a different population rather than being copied.

---

How do you know that all those homologous traits have been passed on from the first ancestor? How do you know if it's copied or imitated.

quote:

---

Curiously, this is one of the way design would be detected, by having traits copied rather than imitated, in different lineages such that copies could not be inherited. The same tires on different makes and models of cars show design.

---

Oh, please don't go into this... You know nothing about evolution, let alone ID. And you certainly shouldn't talk anything about design detection. Designers can pick and choose whatever they want. There is no need to either copy or imitate. But they can if they want to.

quote:

---

Now, perhaps Smooth Operator will haul out his Van de Graff machine and transform copper into steel ... or make up some other fantasy rather than deal with the real world. It would be amusing to watch if it weren't such pathetic self delusion.

​

Once again I note that I entered into debate with Smooth Operator with the expectation that he would prove to be unreasonable:

---

I like you, you're funny!Oh, and BTW, since all that crap about decay rates was not directed at me, I won't respond to them, unless you want me to. I will just let you know, that you are either a liar or you don't read my posts at all.

quote:

---

Which means that the radii of the different halos for the different daughter isotopes would change by different amounts - yet this is not observed in the Uranium halos .... and therefore Uranium halos are indeed evidence that the earth is very old.

---

You said this. This is a lie. I refuted this crap already an let me re cite myself again. Once more before you forget about it.

quote:

---

Even if all I showed you was wrong, that wouldn't mean that Uranium 238 halos were evidence for an old Earth. Uranium halos are not evidence for an old Earth because they are based on two assumptions you don't know anythign about.

​

So let's take it step by step...

​

1.) Half life of U238.
2.) Halo itself.

​

1.) As I said earlier, we do know accelerated alpha decay happens even today. Does that mean that the physics change? No, it simply means that the decay rates chages. So, my point is that you claim that U238 half-life is 4.5 billion years. Okay fine. How do you know that? Where has this been shown to be true. I'll tell you where. NOWHERE! You don't know that. You assume that. And since you don't know it, you don't know that it took 4.5 billion years to make ANY U238 halo. Even if, I repeat, even if, there was no accelerated alpha decay. You still wouldn't have any evidence for an old Earth. Why? Well because you don't know the half-life of the U238 to begin with. You never saw it form. You didn't, nor did anyone else I presume, stand there for 4.5 billion years and observe the U238 halo form. Since you never observe it form, you don't know it's half-life.

​

2.) And the second assumption, which is even worse. Is the assumption that the U238 halo was produced by a constand decay rate. And than you turn and say that since it was constant decy, it had constant energy, thus a specific halo was formed that can only be produced by constant energy. That circular logic. Since you don't know by what energy strenght was that halo formed, you don't know if it was formed by constant decay, and of course constant energy. And you don't know that, because you never saw a U238 halo form, and what energy it took to form the said halo, that you never saw form int he first place.

​

In conclusion...

​

a.) You don't know the half-life of Uranium 238.
b.) You don't know what energy and decay rates it takes to form a Uranium 238 halo.
c.) For any Uranium 238 halo you see, you don't know if it was formed by a constant rate of decay and energy, because you never observed them form in the first place.
d.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be 4.5 billion years old.
e.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be produced by constant decay rate and energy strenght.
f.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos are not evidence for an old Earth.
g.) Therefore go back to the drawing board.

---

Are you blind or something? Can't you read this? I told you, regardless of the radioactive decay being changed or not, regardless of the particle energy being changed or no, regardless of the halo being changed or not, U238 halos are not evidence for an old Earth. Deal with it.Oh, and the decay rate can be changed without any problem. There are tons of articles like this around. Just because you don't know about them, doesn't mean they are not there.

quote:

---

Measurements are reported of the acceleration of the first-forbidden beta decay of 137Cs by exposure to intense, low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Two separate experiments were done: one in a coaxial cavity, and the other in a coaxial transmission line. The first showed an increase in the beta decay rate of (6.83.2)10−4 relative to the natural rate, and the other resulted in an increase of (6.52.0)10− 4.

---

Observation of the acceleration by an electromagnetic field of nuclear beta decay - IOPscienceEdited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Then I suggest you find a board where people make sense to you.

---

I never said that EVERYONE here makes logical fallacies. A lot of them do. The majority of people here really do make a lot of logical fallacies. But not all of them. There are those here who I am pleased to debate with.For others, I do not care that much. If you haven't noticed I have a policy of ignoring people who have crossed the line. And I simply refuse to respond to them anymore. I'm very tolerant with other people. But when I see that nothing can be done to reason with a person, I will simply not respond to him anymore, thus making time available to debate with others. I think this is very reasonable.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Wrapping things up. Here are the general conclusions:

​

1. ID can not explain the nested hierarchy. Humans easily violate the nested hierarchy by transferring exact copy of genes across lineages as one example of intelligent design. There is no reason whatsoever that we should see a nested hierarchy if ID is true. Any pattern of homology, morphological or genetic, is possible if ID is true. However, the nested hierarchy is the only pattern that evolution can produce among lineages that do not participitate in horizontal genetic transfer. The overwhelming signal in metazoans is a nested hierarchy within the resolution of the phylogenetic algorithms used.

​

2. ERV's are unequivocable evidence of common ancestry, and their divergence over time illustrates how nested hierarchies work. The retroviral sources for these ERV's have been shown to randomly insert among billions of possible bases, negating hotspots as the cause for this pattern of orthologous ERV's.

​

3. The same nested hierarchy is seen in vertebrate and cephalopod eyes. It is easily shown that the human and fish eye have the same arrangement of nerves, same cell types, and same developmental pattern. The cephalopod eye differs in all three categories. How does ID explain this? It can't. We have the same function (focused image of light) filled by two different designs, and not only different designs but lineage specific designs. If ID were true you would not even be able to describe a group of organisms as cephalopods or vertebrates, much less describe lineage specific adaptations in each group.

---

You are free to have your opinion. I may disagree with out, but I won't hold it against you. My conclusion is as follows...1.) Any intelligent agent can produce a nested hierarchy. It doesn't have to but it can. Saying that there is no reason that there should be a nested hierarchy if ID is ture, is, well... true. But that doesn't mean anything. ID doesn't require nor exclude a nested hierarchy. Just as evolution, which does not have to lead to a nested hierarchy. It can, but it does not have to. So a nested hierarchy of animals is not evidence for evolution. Not only that but there is only a nested hierarchy if evidence is cherry picked.2.) Since everyone knows that ERVs insert themselves in certain hotspots, and since we know that some ERVs prefer certain hotspots to others, there is no reason to think that we can't explain any ERV with hotspot insertion. Universal common descent is an assumption. It hasn't been shown to even be a viable cause, simply because it's possibility has never been shown to be possible. Therefore, to use an an assumption that has no evidence whatsoever, to explain ERVs, is a circular logic. Because you are using common descent to prove common descent.3.) ID does not require a nested hierarchy. ID can produce groupings. Animals can be grouped with or without ID. Jsut as human products can. We can group cars, computers, planes etc... Groupings are obvious.4.) Evolution and ID can both be true. Therefore, this whole discussion was more or less meaningless.

For the supposed Nested hierarchy...1.) ID is not supposet to make a prediction about homology.
2.) Evolution can not by definition predict anything because the variations that drive it are random.
3.) It's not that there are 1.5 hotsposts for every single ERV. There are specific hotspots for a specific ERV.
4.) There are only nested hierarchies if a person you chooses to throw away 35% of the data for all mammals.
5.) ID can be falsified very easy. Either by showing that a natural law can account for an event in question orby showing that chance can account for it falsifies the design hypothesis.And as for the U238 halos...1.) Half-life of Uranium 238 is not known.
2.) It is not known what energy and decay rates it takes to form a Uranium 238 halo.
3.) For any observed Uranium 238 halo, it is not known if it was formed by a constant rate of decay and energy, because it's formation has never been observed.
4.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be 4.5 billion years old.
5.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos do not have to be produced by constant decay rate and energy strenght.
6.) Therefore Uranium 238 halos are not evidence for an old Earth.That's it for me. I'm not responding to this topic anymore...Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.