Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9106 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 907,465 Year: 4,346/14,231 Month: 1,061/2,209 Week: 225/324 Day: 62/17 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8334
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1066 of 1135 (908522)
03-16-2023 9:38 AM


Gish gallop
That was an unimpressive Gish Gallop.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1067 of 1135 (908531)
03-16-2023 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1065 by Dredge
03-16-2023 7:57 AM


Re: Typical?
Dredge writes:
Well said. Darwinoids like APauling are afraid of the light and see only what they want to see. All contrary evidence is blissfully ignored ... or explained away in some lame manner.
All claimed contrary evidence is never presented by ID/creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1065 by Dredge, posted 03-16-2023 7:57 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1074 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 6:11 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1068 of 1135 (908532)
03-16-2023 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1062 by Dredge
03-16-2023 7:40 AM


Re: Typical?
Dredge writes:
Providing an "alternative" has nothing to do with highlighting the deep flaws in the neo-Darwinian ToE.
And yet you can never tell us what these flaws are.
Furthermore, how can anyone provide an explanation for what produced the history of life on earth if no one even knows what happened?
We do know what happened. We have the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by Dredge, posted 03-16-2023 7:40 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1075 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 6:12 PM Taq has replied
 Message 1096 by Dredge, posted 03-18-2023 10:50 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 1069 of 1135 (908533)
03-16-2023 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1034 by Dredge
03-16-2023 1:34 AM


Dredge writes:
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself, old chap .... "evolutionary mechanisms" is the best scientific explanation, but you can't prove that that explanation is correct.
I can prove it, beyond any reasonable doubt.
The array of skulls depicted in the image you supplied is meant to portray the
"transitional steps in the fossil record" , but all you've done is provide yet another shameful example of Darwinoid dishonesty.

What Darwinoids don't tell readers about that image is that:

1. Not all the skulls are not found in the fossil record in the same (alleged) evolutionary sequence depicted in the image. The (alleged) evolutionary sequence is therefore patently fraudulent.

2. Some of the skulls are tiny relative to the size of some of the other skulls. It's like comparing the skull of a marmoset to the skull of a gorilla.

3. There is nothing remotely "evolutionary" about the skeletons belonging to any of the non-human skulls in that image ... skeletons that are no closer to human than any of the non-human primates we see today.
1. Those skulls are arranged by their age, as determined by radiometric dating. That you see a transitional series when they are arranged by their age says a lot.
2. A marmoset skull is not a marmoset skull because of its size. If you think all that matters is size then you don't know squat about paleontology or biology.
3. If those skulls are not transitional, then please tell us what features these skulls are missing that a real transitional skull would have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by Dredge, posted 03-16-2023 1:34 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1098 by Dredge, posted 03-18-2023 10:59 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 1104 by Dredge, posted 03-19-2023 5:23 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 1105 by Dredge, posted 03-19-2023 5:35 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1070 of 1135 (908534)
03-16-2023 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1040 by Dredge
03-16-2023 4:09 AM


Re: Typical?
Dredge writes:
In that case, any two organisms could form a nested hierarchy.
You have just proven that you don't know what a nested hierarchy is. You have to have at least three organisms to have a nested hierarchy.
Just like the vast majority of ID/creationists, you have no idea what the evidence is or how biology works. You also can't seem to understand that it was a creationist who discovered the nested heirarchy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1040 by Dredge, posted 03-16-2023 4:09 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1071 of 1135 (908535)
03-16-2023 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1042 by Dredge
03-16-2023 4:36 AM


Re: Typical?
Dredge writes:
You're in denial. If huge evolutionary gaps in the fossil record aren't real, explain why dDawkins wrote this:

"Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history ...
My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

(Dawkins, Richard, "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991 reprint, p.229-230)
Dawkins is also saying that the gaps are not real. He plainly states that the gaps are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Thank you for agreeing with us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by Dredge, posted 03-16-2023 4:36 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1111 by Dredge, posted 03-22-2023 1:15 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1072 of 1135 (908536)
03-16-2023 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1045 by sensei
03-16-2023 5:33 AM


Re: Typical?
sensei writes:
My new topic proposal is a model for point mutations in neutral DNA, where mutations do not give benefit or disadvantage to the individual.

Next relevant question would be, to estimate what portion of DNA this would apply to. How big of a part of DNA can be considered as "junk" and non-functional, where mutations have no effect to the organism?
Depends on the organism. For humans and most mammals, somewhere around 90-95% of the genome is junk. That number varies quite a bit amongst vertebrates and eukaryotes in general. For example, there are fish genomes that are about the fifth the size of the human genome but has about the same amount of functional DNA. A recently sequenced crustacean genome is about 15 times larger than the human genome is mostly junk. The bladderwort genome is about 1/40th the size of the human genome and only ~5% of that genome is junk. Bacterial genomes have very little junk, and viral genomes have almost no junk DNA at all.
If we are talking about the human genome, scientists use sequence conservation to measure the amount of junk DNA. If DNA is functional then deleterious mutations will occur in that DNA which will be selected against. As it stands, more than 90% of the human genome is not being conserved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 5:33 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 6:25 PM Taq has replied
 Message 1106 by Dredge, posted 03-19-2023 5:43 AM Taq has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2415
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.7


(3)
Message 1073 of 1135 (908542)
03-16-2023 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1064 by Dredge
03-16-2023 7:51 AM


Re: Typical?
Granny Magda writes:
if you want these ideas to be taken seriously in the scientific world,
Dredge writes:
Satan will not allow the scientific world to take creationism and ID seriously.
Sure. Invoking Satan is the way to be taken seriously in science.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1064 by Dredge, posted 03-16-2023 7:51 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1089 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2023 12:52 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 01-24-2023
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1074 of 1135 (908554)
03-16-2023 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1067 by Taq
03-16-2023 10:45 AM


Re: Typical?
That is false, but you don't seem to care about truth anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1067 by Taq, posted 03-16-2023 10:45 AM Taq has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 01-24-2023
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1075 of 1135 (908555)
03-16-2023 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1068 by Taq
03-16-2023 10:46 AM


Re: Typical?
You don't know. You guess. And you've guessed wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1068 by Taq, posted 03-16-2023 10:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1076 by Taq, posted 03-16-2023 6:23 PM sensei has replied
 Message 1102 by Dredge, posted 03-19-2023 5:17 AM sensei has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1076 of 1135 (908556)
03-16-2023 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1075 by sensei
03-16-2023 6:12 PM


Re: Typical?
sensei writes:
You don't know. You guess.
We know because we have the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1075 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 6:12 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1078 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 6:26 PM Taq has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 01-24-2023
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1077 of 1135 (908559)
03-16-2023 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1072 by Taq
03-16-2023 11:01 AM


Re: Typical?
If we apply the model of point mutations for neutral DNA with four different bases A, C, G and T, the similarity in junk DNA should drop to 25%.
If we were sharing a common ancestor with plants and insects, given the estimate that over hundreds of millions of generations have passed (or even more for many species with shorter life cycles), every base should have gone through several mutations already in the vast majority of individuals today.
It seems that we share too much DNA with such supposedly distant relatives, it does not really add up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by Taq, posted 03-16-2023 11:01 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1080 by Phat, posted 03-16-2023 6:35 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 1081 by Taq, posted 03-16-2023 6:39 PM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 01-24-2023
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1078 of 1135 (908560)
03-16-2023 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1076 by Taq
03-16-2023 6:23 PM


Re: Typical?
95% of your evidence is junk for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1076 by Taq, posted 03-16-2023 6:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1079 by Phat, posted 03-16-2023 6:30 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 1082 by Taq, posted 03-16-2023 6:40 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 1103 by Dredge, posted 03-19-2023 5:19 AM sensei has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17481
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1079 of 1135 (908561)
03-16-2023 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1078 by sensei
03-16-2023 6:26 PM


Junk In The Trunk
sensei,responding to Taq writes:
95% of your evidence is junk for sure.
This brings up a valid question. What is the methodology for deciding/determining or testing evidence? Is there a preconceived bias in the process or is the process simply done blindly, so as not to skew the results?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1078 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 6:26 PM sensei has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17481
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1080 of 1135 (908566)
03-16-2023 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1077 by sensei
03-16-2023 6:25 PM


Re: Typical?
sensei writes:
If we were sharing a common ancestor with plants and insects, given the estimate that over hundreds of millions of generations have passed (or even more for many species with shorter life cycles), every base should have gone through several mutations already in the vast majority of individuals today.
It seems that we share too much DNA with such supposedly distant relatives, it does not really add up.
What is "it" supposed to add up to? Is there a number in mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 6:25 PM sensei has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023