|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Insulin from cows and pigs. Why would their insulin work in us if we were not all related? Not only that, but large groupings of species have the same proteins, but slightly different in their amino acid sequences. I would assume that some proteins are present in some groups, but not in others (eg, proteins for milk production would be found in all mammals, but not in non-mammals). Despite creationist "improbability of producing a complete protein by chance" claims which posit an 80-amino-acid protein with every single locus in the protein chain requiring one-and-only-one specific amino acid "or else the protein won't work", a lot of those loci can accept other amino acids; from Awbrey and Thwaites' two-model creation/evolution class syllabus (not quoting verbatim):
quote So while active sites on a protein are restricted in the number of amino acid substitutions they can tolerate without affecting the function of the protein, nearly half of the loci are primarily structural and can take any of 20 amino acids. That means that the same protein can exist and function in many different species despite many amino acids being different. Therefore, protein sequence comparisons between species has been a way to measure how closely related species are. And of course closeness of relatedness implies them sharing a common ancestor. My web page, The Bullfrog Affair, discusses this topic; the title is from Duane Gish's infamous bold-face lie on national TV about a protein that shows humans to be more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. Yeah, that one definitely blew up in Gish's face and created a standard response to creationist claims, "BULLFROG!" The thing is that protein comparisons has been a valid scientific tool for measuring relatedness between species and it has been found to closely correlate with phylogenetic trees. There are even a few O'Reilly books on that field, bioinformatics. I even played around with the software tool, BLAST, 30 years ago. While ID tries to poo-poo the fact that every eucaryote's biochemistry is the same and uses the same proteins, it cannot explain the differences we see in the non-active parts of the proteins' sequences, nor why the pattern of those differences line up with how closely or distantly the species appear to be to each other. Only descent from common ancestors can explain that. And extrapolating those common ancestors back to one common ancestral species does certainly appear likely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
... , but ignorance and stupidity lead nowhere. That is not true. And history is filled with examples of where ignorance and stupidity do lead. The short list includes famine and death. For example, Lysenkoism:
quote Most other treatments have referred to crop failures and famine due to Lysenkoism. Add to that medical examples, like a national authority advising that, since bleach kills the COVID virus, we should inject bleach into our bodies. And ignorance and stupidity related to vaccination leading to the reemergence of very serious diseases that had been eradicated (eg, polio showing up in New York City wastewater, meaning that it is circulating within the population).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
My creation/evolution website includes two quotes regarding creationists, the first one being Sun Tzu's "Know your enemy and know yourself ... ".
The other is from my memory of an NPR interview with a Mississippi governor in the 80's or 90's. In support of his efforts at educational reform, he said (quoting from memory):
quote And yet they keep trying ignorance, over and over again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Also, that has been answered so many times that you have no basis to claim that it has not be answered. No amount of your stubborn willful stupidity could ever justify your endless repetition of your BS nonsense. Therefore, every time you post that nonsense, that means that you are lying through your ass (which, like with your stupid troll-god, is your true face). Therefore, your new song:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Please show me a dictionary definition of "know" that includes the word"tentatively" or "theory". ​ Here's one dictionary definition of "know": Argumentum ad dictionario is one of the stupidest fallacies committed by evil creationist trolls. The moment that one starts to try to change reality by redefining (and twisting and distorting) the meanings of words, then we know exactly what kind of lying, deceiving low-life we're dealing with (eg, apologists, creationists, theologians, lawyers).
Words and definitions are intended to describe what we observe, not create an entirely new reality. IOW, WORD MAGICK DOES NOT WORK! It's not a real thing. As you're jumping about shouting "ooga booga!", consider the words of Mexican President José López Portillo on 60 Minutes circa 1980: quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Und bei Deutsch gibt's drei:
Können is also the modal verb for being able to do something as in the English "can". So "Do you know German?" would be "Kannst du Deutsch?" Somehow I seem to recall that French or Spanish would use "savoir" or "saber" respectively for knowing a language or how to do something, but I'm somewhat rusty on that point.
However, kennen can also be used for a language as in the well-known adage: quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Yep ... who the hell cares what the dictionary says or how 99.99999% of the population interpret a word, when you can hijack a word like "know" a put your own spin on it? Wow! So you have never learned any kind of trade or profession or held any kind of a job? You have only ever spent time on the streets and never in school? You are really so intellectually impoverished? Well, you have only yourself to blame. Every single profession or trade or field of study has its own vocabulary, which outsiders call jargon:
quote I've been through public school, college, university, military tech school, and military classroom training. Usually the very first lecture consists of us being given the terminology that we are going to use and the meanings of those terms within the context of the class. Dictionaries are of limited use because they normally only give common general-population definitions, though for some words they will refer to a specialized field explicitly (and almost never for the field that you need). So using general definitions for specialized terminology is a very grave offense indeed! For that matter, one of the most common forms of creationist misquoting of scientific sources directly employ semantic shifting, a kind of bait-and-switch (always part of a con or swindle) wherein they quote the words from a scientific source, but then substitute different meanings for those words, usually general usage, thus completely changing the meaning of the quoted text. But then we both know that creationists are evil; this is just one way of many ways in which you creationists practice your evil. For the edification of other members and of visitors reading this, using a foreign language dictionary to find their word for an English word is like waltzing through a minefield. For example, look up the German word for "round", which in English has many possible meanings. I have collected multiple language dictionaries between various languages that I know so that I can cross-reference words; eg, I'll look up a French word from English, but then I go to my Deutsch-Französisch Langenscheidt, or even to the French-Spanish dictionary I snuck out during the divorce, to verify that I hopefully chose the right word. For example, on a now-extinct C programming forum I used to participate in, a programmer from Portugal asked us how to work with lights in C. Nobody had any clue what he could be talking about, but, even though I don't know Portuguese, I had a hunch from Spanish, plus he had included something that hinted him trying to do multithreaded or multiprocessing programming. In multithreading, you have separate independent processes, threads of execution, which share common resources such as memory. To keep them from clobbering each other's work, they use a signaling system to let the other threads know to leave a resource (eg, a particular memory location) alone until they get the signal that they can proceed with it. That's called synchronization and one tool is semaphores. In Spanish, the word for a traffic signal is semáforo and a quick visit to the Portuguese Wikipedia confirmed that Portuguese uses the same word. So he had looked up semáforo in his Portuguese-English dictionary and it though he was talking about "traffic lights" so it told him the English word would be "lights" (eg, "Turn left at the second light."). I explained his error to him ("The dictionary is not your friend!", same as you shouldn't do what those voices in your head tell you because they're not your friend) and gave him the correct English word, "semaphore". I also advised him to look up the subject matter in his own language on Wikipedia and then switch to the English version, which would also teach him the specialized vocabulary of that subject. Let me repeat that for those who work in more than one language (as opposed to those like Sludge who don't even know one): Wikipedia is an excellent tool for learning the specialized terminology (AKA "jargon") of a particular field. Look it up in Wikipedia, then switch to the target language which will be written using that language's version of the jargon. In Sludge's case, he will continue to refuse to learn anything, so Marcus Lycus' beratement of an employee for not trying to improve himself apply to him:
quote
DWise1 writes:
Oh, the irony! The moment that one starts to try to change reality by redefining (and twisting and distorting) the meanings of words, then we know exactly what kind of lying, deceiving low-life we're dealing with (eg, apologists, creationists, theologians, lawyers). You willfully stupid complete idiot! Specialists construct their own specialized vocabularies in order to facilitate clear and unambiguous communication among themselves. No attempts to change reality, but rather to enable themselves to better describe reality. Rather it is you self-admittedly evil creationists who twist and distort the meaning of words in order to generate confusion and to practice deception. And you're so stupid that you think it's the other way around? Ha! Oh the irony!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Over in his older topic, The Power of the New Intelligent Design..., I discussed the matter of intelligent design based on my own professional experience as an intelligent designer -- I'm a retired software engineer. Refer to such messages as Message 83, Message 283, Message 290, Message 467, Message 469, Message 470.
Also, as a retired software engineer I have far more practical experience than MrID (self-described civil engineer who designs bridges and the like) in the dichotomy and struggle between the engineering concepts of elegance and complexity. Engineers strive for elegance in their designs, minimizing the design in both size and complexity to the simplest it can be and still be functional -- eg, a bridge consisting of a single solid block of concrete would work, but it would be far from elegant whereas a suspension bridge would be much more elegant. Complexity -- especially excessive complexity -- must be avoided as much as possible in designs, but that is not always possible. Unlike something simple and straightforward like a bridge or building, software becomes very complex very quickly, especially if we use an evolutionary approach to design. So often in software projects, we are not given the time nor funding to write it from scratch, so we take existing code in a product that is somewhat similar to the new product yet very different and we modify that pre-existing code to perform a new function. Then in the life cycle of that product we go in to tweak the code or to copy and modify sections of code to perform new functionality, etc, in an analogy of how evolution works. And the end result is very high levels of complexity, levels so high that even the programmers have difficulty understanding what the code does (as we must try when fixing bugs -- [voice=road_trip_song]99 bugs in the code, take one bug and fix it, 117 bugs in the code[/voice]). An intelligent design is recognizable by its elegance. Products of evolution are recognizable by their extreme complexity akin to a Rube Goldberg machine, the furthest thing from an intelligent design What we see in nature is so extremely complex that it makes Rube Goldberg machines appear elegant in comparison. When we see something in nature that is highly complex, then that is evidence of evolution, not of any "intelligent designer". And that's not even mentioning how entire sections of an intelligent design can be redesigned with completely different components and tech, something that evolution could never do. The example I've given is:
DWise1 writes: Another intelligent design aspect of OOP is the ability to replace objects with entirely new object that have the same interface -- in hardware design, that would be a pin-compatible module. Internally, the new class could work entirely differently than the old one (eg, old one had a fixed set of dummy data points used for design testing whereas the new one would actually generate live data) and the program would not know the difference since they both look and behave the same (ie, they both have the same interface which is the program's only access to them). That is how you can replace an automotive component that used electro-mechanical relays with one that used transistors and then that with one that used integrated circuits and the car wouldn't know any different. You could even replace an American car engine with a Japanese engine and the car wouldn't know any different. Now that's intelligent design. To take the intermittent windshield wipers analogy further, automotive engineering made ingenious use of the engine's vacuum line to many ends, such as pop-up headlights and intermittent windshield wipers (possibly also to power windshield wipers if we go back far enough). But then solid state electronics offered a much simpler and more elegant design -- before the invention of the transistor (1947), imagine using vacuum tube electronics to control your windshield wipers. The point is that if evolution had produced something like intermittent windshield wipers, it never could have switched from the vacuum line to electronics, whereas intelligent design could. And what do we observe in nature? Products of evolution, not of intelligent design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Well, if you really want to know, the ASK SOMEBODY WITH THAT DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE, LIKE A MEDICAL RESEARCHER!
If you wanted to know something about computer programming, then you'd ask a programmer. If you wanted to know something about Catholic theology, then you'd ask a Catholic priest or theologian. If you wanted to know about some point of the law, then you'd ask a lawyer. If you wanted to know something about chip manufacturing, then you'd ask a chip manufacturer. If you wanted to know something about the inner workings of a particular car engine (especially regarding settings), then you'd ask a car mechanic, preferably one with experience with that kind of engine. If you really want to know something, you would ask the people who are expert in that subject. Pestering people repeatedly with the same idiotic bullshit question will not yield your answer, but rather will only serve your chosen purpose of being a fucking stupid troll. If you actually want to know the answer, then ask the professionals. If you don't, then shut the fuck up! Fucking evil troll!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
That's mathematics, boy. You can't argue with mathematics. Nah, he'll just say, "Mathematics doesn't prove anything!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Wow! Dredge finally realized that what he was saying and insisting on and trolling us on is complete and utterly ignorant BS. But instead of acknowledging it, it tried to wipe it out of existence. Fortunately, AZPaul3 quoted Dredge's stupidly ignorant assertions in Message 758, which I repeat below. OBTW, I had read Dredge's now-deleted post and can verify that AZPaul3 quoted him truthfully:
Dredge writes: But in a whale, there's no sign whatsoever of a pelvis between its spine and tail - in fact, it's impossible to tell where its spine ends and its tail begins. Dredge writes: So Darwinists would have us believe that, through the mysterious magic of evolution, not only did the entire original pelvis detach itself from the spine and tail to operate elsewhere in the body, the tail then attached itself to the base of the spine. So he thinks that ... what? OK, from what he has written, here is what Dredge appears to think and is claiming:
quote: The thing is that I had already explained the anatomy of the pelvis about three weeks ago in my Message 560. However, apparently Dredge had not seen it yet because he was replying to ringo's Message 555 from an hour earlier. What I think happened to Dredge's "bigly" Message 757 is that after having "replied" to ringo, he then read my explanation of the anatomy of the pelvis and, realizing how completely and utterly stupid his claim was, abruptly deleted it hoping that nobody had read it yet. But we had read it already. From my Message 560:
DWise1 writes: Besides asking Dredge the obvious necessary question of why he thinks that poses any problem, we also need to ask him a couple other questions:
Of course, I'm more familiar with human anatomy, so I'd like to hear from someone familiar with the pelvic anatomy of other animals. Though the story should till be somewhat the same (except possibly for the necessity of expanding the pelvis during birthing). So with ligaments being all that hold those pelvic bones (AKA ilia) in place, strong and tight ligaments would be beneficial for land mammals and loosing or loss of those ligaments detrimental; we can easily tell which would be selected for and which against. But when the structural requirements for strong and tight ligaments are no more, then loosening or loss of those ligaments would no longer be selected against -- I'm not sure what the trade-off would be that might make retaining those ligaments detrimental. Now some information about the spine. My knowledge is based primarily on human anatomy, so I will try to practice caution when applying that to other species. Also please keep in mind that a rigorous anatomist or zoologist would probably find things to quibble about in this list:
IOW, Dredge's entire whale pelvis argument is complete bollux (do they say that there in his Upside Down?). The next question is: where did Dredge get this BS nonsense from? By his own admission (verified by his lack of performance), he is far too stupid (both by being a low-grade idiot -- mental capacity less than that of a three-year-old -- and by being stubbornly willfully stupid) to have come up with it on his own. That means that he must have gotten it from some creationist source. So what is his source for the putrid bullshit nonsense lies that he keeps gorging on?Edited by dwise1, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Nah, the "basic created worm kind" has all of them beat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Not a good look admittedly, but I'm looking forward to having my editing privliges restored in the fullness of time. You grossly abused your privileges, so what should you expect? In the service, we receive General Military Training (GMT) on many subjects, including Rights and Responsibilities. You can be granted a privilege, but if you abuse it then it can be taken away. You have abused your privilege, so suck on it. You want your privileges back? So demonstrate that you will not continue to abuse them. Duh?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024