Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One Question for Evo-Bashers
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 102 (27188)
12-18-2002 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by DanskerMan
12-17-2002 12:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
quote:
Originally posted by John:

What you can do is trace the plane's, for example, origin back to the factory and the blueprints and the people who made the blueprints. We don't conclude that planes were designed because they "show evidence of design." We conclude they were designed because we know damn well what we build, how we build it, and what stuff we build looks like. It is pattern recognition.

There's no need to curse. Yes, you are correct, that's entirely possible, however, without going to all that trouble, it is still evident that a plane is designed simply by observing its features, mechanisms, layout, details, etc... deciphering a non designed object from a designed object is easy to do (ie. an eroded rock vs. a designed stone spearhead).
Likewise, we can infer design in life.

So, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we
1) don't understand, but may in the future, and/or
2) don't have the ability to understand due to our limited intelligence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 12:46 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 102 (27230)
12-18-2002 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by peter borger
12-18-2002 3:28 AM


quote:
PB: Apparently it has no ancestors. Untill you proof otherwise.
That is laughable, PeterB. The rational extrapolation from observations of nature is that the tree has parents. If you wish to assert otherwise, it is you who needs to prove it. ( note: the word is 'prove')
quote:
PB: That's your interpretation.
Yeah, and a pretty wild fantasy it is, as every living thing on the planet, as far has has been proven thus far, has at least one parent(used loosely).
quote:
I thought it was you who wrote elsewhere that you were fascinated by particles popping in and out of existence (uncertainty & quantum mechanics, I guess).
Right. And no one has shown this effect at larger than subatomic scale. I don't think the tree qualifies. Are you venturing into yet another area you know nothing about?
quote:
In fact you should be amazed by the Wollemia nobilis. It's obvious from such observations that biology is not as we thought it to be.
Actually, to real biologists, it is obvious that biology is exactly what we thought it to be.
quote:
PB: Apparently, biology is not as simple as you think it is. From a proponent of a 19th century theory one can expect it, though.
God, I love when you get all cocky and bombastic. It makes me warm and fuzzy all over. Of course, you may as well peg me for buying into that heliocentric claptrap too. That one is much older, and so obviously that much more incorrect.
quote:
PB: Different genera are indeed present in the record. Agathis and Wollemia are distinct genera. Agathis is still around, so is Wollemia.
Why not show a contemporary Agathis in comparison with Wollemia? Because its DNA is distinctly different.

Yeah, its DNA is distinctly different. Just like the DNA between any two genera. Hmmmm..... not the same critter == not the same DNA. Geez, PB, pretty insightful. Besides, this would be the case with your MPG hypothesis as well, so why is this even an issue?
quote:
Better compare it with something extinct, so nobody can track the molecular evidence.
Better compare it with something it actually resembles, rather than something it resembles less well.
Oh, and, my well informed friend, the genes of the two have been compared.
http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/conifers/ar/wo/ writes:
"Sequences were obtained for the rbcL gene from chloroplast DNA of the newly discovered Australian conifer Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), 5 species of Araucaria and 4 species of Agathis. Phylogenetic analysis of our new data and other available sequences indicate that 1) Araucariaceae is monophyletic; 2) Agathis and Araucaria are both monophyletic; 3) Wollemia is the sister group to Agathis; 4) the Pinaceae are the sister group to all other conifers, although the monophyly of the conifers is not unequivocally demonstrated" (Gilmore and Hill 1997).
quote:
PB: How does such organism look like, than?
That is part of the problem. We don't know, because we don't have one. The only hope is to weed out all of those critters that we know do have mommies and daddies, and spread the inference to anything similar as it it reasonable to assume that a tree that is similar to quite a few other trees also has a similar origin. In otherwords, for practical pruposes, it ought to not look like other species. That is the only way we'd be able to identify it. How different must it be? Maybe it uses only one of the four amino acids in DNA, something like that. Maybe it produces signifant numbers of proteins-- say 50% of the proteins it depends upon-- not found in any other animal.
quote:
PB: You asked for an organism that popped into existence in some kind of forest.
Discovered isn't 'popped into existence.' You must be confused.
quote:
I gave you an example that can be interpreted like that.
But not reasonably interpretted like that. The chances of you being correct are tiny. The chance that this tree has relatives is nearly 100%.
quote:
PB: You could care less because my vision opposes your evolutionary interpretation of data and I am able to scientifically defend my vision. That scares you.
No, PB. I don't care because I can't recall you ever once making a sensible argument.
And no, your vision doesn't scare me. Why would it?
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. A. Huxley"
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 12-18-2002 3:28 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 12-18-2002 6:10 PM John has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 102 (27237)
12-18-2002 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
12-17-2002 7:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

If we had cases of new organism being designed, formed, and plopped into the forest out of nowhere, then we could do exactly what you suggest and extrapolate from that data. We don't have new organisms popping into existence, but only animals that come from other animals. Whatever process formed the first life forms, has stopped.

Well arguably that process is what we creationists refer to as the creation.
If you're looking for "new organism being designed, formed, and plopped", then look to the fossil record, 140+/- years of documented fully formed distinct creatures extracted from the earth, validating the record of the process you mentioned.
We can infer design simply by common logic based on thousands of design cases in every day life, and if you really want, we can back it up by archaeologically verified ancient documents describing the creation event by an intelligent Designer.
Regards,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 12-17-2002 7:34 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John, posted 12-18-2002 5:45 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 12-18-2002 6:33 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 40 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:17 AM DanskerMan has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 102 (27252)
12-18-2002 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by DanskerMan
12-18-2002 2:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
If you're looking for "new organism being designed, formed, and plopped", then look to the fossil record, 140+/- years of documented fully formed distinct creatures extracted from the earth, validating the record of the process you mentioned.
The fossil record does not show what you think it shows.
quote:
We can infer design simply by common logic based on thousands of design cases in every day life
No we can't. But we've been through that. You are just repeating yourself.
quote:
and if you really want, we can back it up by archaeologically verified ancient documents describing the creation event by an intelligent Designer.
You can't seriously be making this argument. Sure we can back it up. We can back up several dozen creation-by-intelligent-designer events using archeologically verified documents. Do you accept al of those accounts? Or just one?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DanskerMan, posted 12-18-2002 2:38 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 10:17 AM John has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 35 of 102 (27254)
12-18-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John
12-18-2002 2:18 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Apparently it has no ancestors. Untill you proof otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: That is laughable, PeterB. The rational extrapolation from observations of nature is that the tree has parents. If you wish to assert otherwise, it is you who needs to prove it. ( note: the word is 'prove')
PB: Since when do we live in the upside down world? I have to proof a non-existence? Don't fool me. Ever heard about the scientific method? To proof a non-existence.....incredible, that you come up with such answers.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: That's your interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Yeah, and a pretty wild fantasy it is, as every living thing on the planet, as far has has been proven thus far, has at least one parent(used loosely).
PB: All theories start like phantasies. Thing is to provide evidence. I did that. Now there is denial, scoffing, mocking, argumenta ad hominem, etcetera. Since I am a stoic I don't mind. I rather present some new ideas than being blinded by 19th century vanity. As if random mutation and selection would be all....don't let me laugh.
Besides, the first organism ever to have 'evolved' through abiogenesis didn't have parents, so your assertion is false.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was you who wrote elsewhere that you were fascinated by particles popping in and out of existence (uncertainty & quantum mechanics, I guess).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Right. And no one has shown this effect at larger than subatomic scale. I don't think the tree qualifies.
PB: Why do you think so? It was you who invented quantum mechaniscs, I guess.
J: Are you venturing into yet another area you know nothing about?
PB: What do you mean? What is the other area I do not know anything about?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact you should be amazed by the Wollemia nobilis. It's obvious from such observations that biology is not as we thought it to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Actually, to real biologists, it is obvious that biology is exactly what we thought it to be.
PB: Now you must present me a reference. Real biologists are biologists advocating evolutionism?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Apparently, biology is not as simple as you think it is. From a proponent of a 19th century theory one can expect it, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: God, I love when you get all cocky and bombastic. It makes me warm and fuzzy all over. Of course, you may as well peg me for buying into that heliocentric claptrap too. That one is much older, and so obviously that much more incorrect.
PB: Apparently you don't get what I am trying to convey. It is dead-obvious that evolutionism is not the whole story in this universe. At least not as it has been set up in the 1930s. The theory is outdated and has been overthrown several times on all levels. I even contributed to it. So draw your conclusions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Different genera are indeed present in the record. Agathis and Wollemia are distinct genera. Agathis is still around, so is Wollemia.
Why not show a contemporary Agathis in comparison with Wollemia? Because its DNA is distinctly different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Yeah, its DNA is distinctly different. Just like the DNA between any two genera. Hmmmm..... not the same critter == not the same DNA. Geez, PB, pretty insightful. Besides, this would be the case with your MPG hypothesis as well, so why is this even an issue?
PB: It is an issue since you claim that there is a mother and a father in the fossil record. But there isn't. And remember I do not have to proof a non-existence.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better compare it with something extinct, so nobody can track the molecular evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Better compare it with something it actually resembles, rather than something it resembles less well.
J: Oh, and, my well informed friend, the genes of the two have been compared.
http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/conifers/ar/wo/ writes:
"Sequences were obtained for the rbcL gene from chloroplast DNA of the newly discovered Australian conifer Wollemia nobilis (Araucariaceae), 5 species of Araucaria and 4 species of Agathis. Phylogenetic analysis of our new data and other available sequences indicate that 1) Araucariaceae is monophyletic; 2) Agathis and Araucaria are both monophyletic; 3) Wollemia is the sister group to Agathis; 4) the Pinaceae are the sister group to all other conifers, although the monophyly of the conifers is not unequivocally demonstrated" (Gilmore and Hill 1997).
PB: ...and they are both monophyletic. And what does the sistergroup mean scientifically? It is a 'trick' that holds that 'two immediate descendants of an ancestral species are of the same age. Hence, if A and B are two sister species (i.e. each other's closest relative) then A and B are at least as old as the oldest fossil of either A or B.' In other words: evo-blabla.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: How does such organism look like, than?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: That is part of the problem. We don't know, because we don't have one.
PB: So you are chasing something you don't know what it looks like? Vanity, all vanity.
J: The only hope is to weed out all of those critters that we know do have mommies and daddies, and spread the inference to anything similar as it it reasonable to assume that a tree that is similar to quite a few other trees also has a similar origin.
PB: Non-scientific inferrence. The usual evo-humbug that doesn't bring us a single step further.
J: In otherwords, for practical pruposes, it ought to not look like other species.
PB: What about the platypus? Not tracable in the fossil record.
J: That is the only way we'd be able to identify it. How different must it be? Maybe it uses only one of the four amino acids in DNA, something like that. Maybe it produces signifant numbers of proteins-- say 50% of the proteins it depends upon-- not found in any other animal.
PB: So you are making up your own criteria. Based on what? To keep up the appearance of evolution? Even if I presented you an organism like you describe you would back away. The usual evo-tactics. Try a black smoker, probably you will find this organism there.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: You asked for an organism that popped into existence in some kind of forest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Discovered isn't 'popped into existence.' You must be confused.
PB: So, how do you discriminate between 'discovered' and 'popped into existence'?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you an example that can be interpreted like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: But not reasonably interpretted like that.
PB: Are you the judge, or what?
J: The chances of you being correct are tiny. The chance that this tree has relatives is nearly 100%.
PB: No, the organism can only be explained with the GUToB. Whether or not is has been created recently, I don't care. My goal is to scientifically overthrow evolutionism and I will.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: You could care less because my vision opposes your evolutionary interpretation of data and I am able to scientifically defend my vision. That scares you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: No, PB. I don't care because I can't recall you ever once making a sensible argument.
PB: In the light of the outdated evolutionary vision I will never make a sensible argument. I don't care, since I have nothing to do with this ancient believe system.
Sometimes one has to think beyond the reigning paradigms. It will bring new science. In the 19th century everybody was looking for the ether. Einstein said there is no ether. End ether. In the 21st century everybody was looking for evolution. I say there is no evolution there is the MPG and non-random mutation. End evolution.
And no, your vision doesn't scare me. Why would it?
Have a nice day,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John, posted 12-18-2002 2:18 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-18-2002 7:12 PM peter borger has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 36 of 102 (27260)
12-18-2002 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by DanskerMan
12-18-2002 2:38 PM


Sonnikke,
quote:
If you're looking for "new organism being designed, formed, and plopped", then look to the fossil record, 140+/- years of documented fully formed distinct creatures extracted from the earth, validating the record of the process you mentioned.
Please tell me how the fossil record fits your version of creation.
If you are going to bring the flood into it, when did it end? The K-T boundary? If not, at what rough geological time (equivalent) did the flood deposits cease to be laid down?
quote:
We can infer design simply by common logic based on thousands of design cases in every day life,
Logical fallacy: Argument From Spurious Similarity.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...ptic/arguments.html#similarity
quote:
and if you really want, we can back it up by archaeologically verified ancient documents describing the creation event by an intelligent Designer.
What's an "archaeologically verified" document? Do we know the alleged authors had actual knowledge of what they wrote? Do we even know who they were?
What creation event did you have in mind that has "archaeologically verified" documents?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DanskerMan, posted 12-18-2002 2:38 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 102 (27265)
12-18-2002 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by peter borger
12-18-2002 6:10 PM


quote:
PB: Since when do we live in the upside down world?
Don't know really. When were you born?
quote:
I have to proof a non-existence?
Nope. You have to contradict the rational extrapolations from data that we already have. You need to show WHY these extrapolations are not adequate.
quote:
Don't fool me.
Oh, god forbid....
quote:
Ever heard about the scientific method?
Yep. And it does not go like this: Hmmmmm.... I found a new thing, therefore it must have been created ex nihilo.
quote:
To proof a non-existence.....incredible, that you come up with such answers.
I repeat, your job is to disprove the conclusions reached by pretty much eveyone who actually studies these things.
quote:
PB: All theories start like phantasies.
Well, I'm convinced.
quote:
Thing is to provide evidence. I did that.
You didn't provide evidence, PB. I know that you believe that you did, and I feel for you.
quote:
Now there is denial, scoffing, mocking, argumenta ad hominem, etcetera.
Yes. Being a man out of time sucks doesn't it?
quote:
don't let me laugh.
ummmm... I'll do my best to stop you.
quote:
Besides, the first organism ever to have 'evolved' through abiogenesis didn't have parents, so your assertion is false.
Did you miss the part where I said, "every critter alive today"? I'm pretty sure it was in there.
quote:
PB: Why do you think so? It was you who invented quantum mechaniscs, I guess.
I think so because no one have yet demonstrated this effect on larger than a sub-atomic scale, which is exactly what I said. What kind of response is this? And why is it that I must have been the 'one' who invented quantum mechanics to LOOK IT UP?
quote:
PB: What do you mean? What is the other area I do not know anything about?
LOL.............
quote:
PB: Now you must present me a reference. Real biologists are biologists advocating evolutionism?
They are the ones studying the trees. The ones that study and work in the field and publish things that other people actually read and respect.
quote:
PB: Apparently you don't get what I am trying to convey.
I picked up on the cockiness and the bombast right off the bat.
quote:
It is dead-obvious that evolutionism is not the whole story in this universe.
1) Lets just stick with Earth for now.
2) It is dead-obvious only to you, and you really provide nothing even to argue about.
quote:
At least not as it has been set up in the 1930s. The theory is outdated and has been overthrown several times on all levels.
Modified numerous times. Big deal. Such is science.
quote:
I even contributed to it.
In what way?
quote:
PB: It is an issue since you claim that there is a mother and a father in the fossil record. But there isn't.
Reasonable candidates for this trees ancestors are easily identified.
quote:
And remember I do not have to proof a non-existence.
No you have to demonstrate why everything we know about heredity is wrong.
quote:
PB: ...and they are both monophyletic. And what does the sistergroup mean scientifically? It is a 'trick' that holds that 'two immediate descendants of an ancestral species are of the same age. Hence, if A and B are two sister species (i.e. each other's closest relative) then A and B are at least as old as the oldest fossil of either A or B.' In other words: evo-blabla.
In other words, hand-waving away research that contradicts your theory.
quote:
PB: So you are chasing something you don't know what it looks like? Vanity, all vanity.
Don't be an idiot. I'm not trying to make the comparisons that require this thing that no one has found. Try to keep this in context.
quote:
PB: Non-scientific inferrence. The usual evo-humbug that doesn't bring us a single step further.
Your problem with logic isn't something I can help. Hand waving away what you don't like isn't convincing either.
quote:
PB: What about the platypus? Not tracable in the fossil record.
Come on. You can do better than that. Or don't you look these things up?
The Fossil Record
Based on a fragment of lower jaw found in opal deposits at Lightning Ridge in New South Wales, a type of ancestral platypus (Steropodon galmani) existed alongside the dinosaurs about 110 million years ago.
In 1991, a fossil tooth belonging to a different kind of ancient platypus (originally described as Monotrematum sudamericanum but now probably regarded as another Obdurodon species, see below) was discovered in the Patagonian desert of Argentina. The tooth was found in sediments deposited over 60 million years ago, at the time when Australia and South America were still joined as part of the southern supercontinent Gondwana.
Fossils belonging to three other extinct platypus species (Obdurodon insignis, Obdurodon dicksoni, and Obdurodon sp. A) have been found in Australian sediments deposited between 25 and 15 million years ago, while a leg bone from the first close relative of the modern platypus (Ornithorhynchus sp.) has been dated to about 4.5 million years ago.
The earliest known remains of the platypus in its current form (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) date back to around 100,000 years ago.
The platypus is sometimes described as a "living fossil" because of this ancient lineage and its combination of mammalian and reptilian features.
URL
quote:
PB: So you are making up your own criteria.
Just giving examples.
quote:
Based on what? To keep up the appearance of evolution?
To give you a fighting chance against evolution, actually.
quote:
Even if I presented you an organism like you describe you would back away. The usual evo-tactics.
The usual crea-tactics-- refuse to provide adequate evidence.
quote:
Try a black smoker, probably you will find this organism there.
Prolly.....? Really.....?
quote:
PB: So, how do you discriminate between 'discovered' and 'popped into existence'?
I have answered this already.
quote:
PB: Are you the judge, or what?
Apparently you feel as though you are. Look at the way you argue. That you haven't managed to convince anyone of your great find is an indicator of how reasonable your claims are. But, alas, posterity will prove you right, right?
quote:
PB: No, the organism can only be explained with the GUToB.
LOL...... if this were true, why is it that it is easily explained via much less exotic methods?
quote:
My goal is to scientifically overthrow evolutionism and I will.
Yes, I am aware of your goal. How did this become your goal?
quote:
PB:Einstein said there is no ether. End ether. In the 21st century everybody was looking for evolution. I say there is no evolution there is the MPG and non-random mutation. End evolution.
Einstein had evidence. Everyone knew there were problems with the existing theories. A lot of people were working on it. Einstein was the one who put it together correctly, first.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-18-2002]
{Fixed a quote box, and substituted "URL" for a very long URL - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 12-18-2002 6:10 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by peter borger, posted 12-19-2002 8:10 PM John has not replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 102 (27272)
12-18-2002 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
12-17-2002 2:26 PM


I appreciate the lather, so well worked up by you fellows, but you're taking this thread off topic. We aren't trying to establish whether ID/C is a valid science. ( it isn't )
I have another thread started that would suit this subject very well:
...have a viddy of the thread:
Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
http://EvC Forum: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? -->EvC Forum: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
If you see no problem with 'inferring a designer' because you WANT to see design in living things, perhaps there you might explain the methods & mechanisms used by this mysterious designer to implement and execute her alleged design ?
Why is this never addressed by the ID/C croud ?
They pretend there's a design, then a designer...and then call it a day and stop. Pretty thin stuff.
Ah, but I digress...
Why are there no secular creationists ?
Why does their 'science' only impress christian fundementalists who insist on a literal interpretation ( an oxymoron ) of Genesis.
Why aren't Hinduists & Buddhists impressed by Creation science and its evidence ?
It seems to me that if you have to join a religious cult to appreciate their brand of science....it very likely isn't good science, but more trappings of their religious cult.
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:26 PM John has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 39 of 102 (27417)
12-19-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
12-18-2002 7:12 PM


dear John,
J: Einstein had evidence. Everyone knew there were problems with the existing theories. A lot of people were working on it. Einstein was the one who put it together correctly, first.
PB: every self respecting objective scientist knows evolutionism is in trouble. I will give you 10 examples that bring it down:
1) the redundant Src kinase family,
2) the redundant alpha actinin family,
3) the 1G5 gene
4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn
5) the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
6) the ZFY region
7) the ZFX gene/exon
8) the insoluble IL-1beta incongruence
9) the LCR16a gene
10)the wollemi's invariable DNA
Genetic redundnacies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief (Nature - Not Found). The same accounts for adaptive mutations (Nature - Not Found).
Have a nice day,
Peter
"Random mutations & selection? Ancient humbug!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-18-2002 7:12 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:21 AM peter borger has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1953 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 40 of 102 (27441)
12-20-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by DanskerMan
12-18-2002 2:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
If you're looking for "new organism being designed, formed, and plopped", then look to the fossil record, 140+/- years of documented fully formed distinct creatures extracted from the earth, validating the record of the process you mentioned.
As opposed to half-formed? What does that mean, exactly?
quote:
We can infer design simply by common logic based on thousands of design cases in every day life, and if you really want, we can back it up by archaeologically verified ancient documents describing the creation event by an intelligent Designer.
So, because we know, say, computers are desinged today, and we know that, say, the pyramids were designed, therefore, it is logical to say that biological entities were also designed...
I see....
And all animals are human, too....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DanskerMan, posted 12-18-2002 2:38 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by DanskerMan, posted 12-20-2002 10:27 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1953 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 41 of 102 (27442)
12-20-2002 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by peter borger
12-19-2002 8:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear John,
J: Einstein had evidence. Everyone knew there were problems with the existing theories. A lot of people were working on it. Einstein was the one who put it together correctly, first.
PB: every self respecting objective scientist knows evolutionism is in trouble. I will give you 10 examples that bring it down:
1) the redundant Src kinase family,
2) the redundant alpha actinin family,
3) the 1G5 gene
4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn
5) the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
6) the ZFY region
7) the ZFX gene/exon
8) the insoluble IL-1beta incongruence
9) the LCR16a gene
10)the wollemi's invariable DNA
Genetic redundnacies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief (Nature - Not Found). The same accounts for adaptive mutations (Nature - Not Found).
Have a nice day,
Peter
"Random mutations & selection? Ancient humbug!"

As you have contributed to the overthrow of evolutionism, I was perplexed, as you can imagine, when I did a literature search for your name and 'evolutionism' and 'overthrow' and I got zero returns...
Perhaps you can provide a citation - or better yet, a reprint - of your seminal publications on this issue.
Thanks...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by peter borger, posted 12-19-2002 8:10 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:27 AM derwood has not replied
 Message 53 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 5:22 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1953 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 42 of 102 (27444)
12-20-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by derwood
12-20-2002 12:21 AM


PB:
the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
I do hope that you are still not trying to claim that the paper in question posits a human-chimp divergence at 150,000 years ago...If so, that one example will "bring down" your entire feces..
I mean thesis...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:21 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 12-20-2002 5:46 AM derwood has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6552 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 43 of 102 (27463)
12-20-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by derwood
12-20-2002 12:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
PB:
the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
I do hope that you are still not trying to claim that the paper in question posits a human-chimp divergence at 150,000 years ago...If so, that one example will "bring down" your entire feces..
I mean thesis...

Actually, everything on his list has been shown to be 1. a result of Borger's lack of any kind of relevant background in genetics and thus completely distorted views i.e. W.nobilis, ZFX 2. Ignoring the evidence exactly against what he is saying 3. claiming that the authors for any reference given against his point either say exactly the opposite of what they are saying or that the data says something that is does not i.e. 150 kya last common ancestor of chimp and human.
4. And most commonly, being repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong but then repeating the same falsehoods over and over without ever substantiating the claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:27 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 5:36 PM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 56 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 5:45 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 102 (27473)
12-20-2002 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by John
12-18-2002 5:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

The fossil record does not show what you think it shows.

Refresh my memory, there are about 250,000,000 catalogued fossils correct? And, arguably a handful of "transitionals".
quote:

You can't seriously be making this argument. Sure we can back it up. We can back up several dozen creation-by-intelligent-designer events using archeologically verified documents. Do you accept al of those accounts? Or just one?

I accept the holy bible.
Regards,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John, posted 12-18-2002 5:45 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by John, posted 12-20-2002 11:25 AM DanskerMan has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 102 (27474)
12-20-2002 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by derwood
12-20-2002 12:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:

So, because we know, say, computers are desinged today, and we know that, say, the pyramids were designed, therefore, it is logical to say that biological entities were also designed...
I see....
And all animals are human, too....

Why is that unreasonable in your opinion?
Speaking of the pyramids, I'm not sure what the latest news is, but I know that they have been the topic of discussion for many years, as to who and how? etc...It was never assumed by anyone that they were NOT designed, even though it happened in ancient times. Design was obvious.
Why is it so unreasonable to correlate known design with apparant design?
p.s. Correction, animals are NOT human

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by derwood, posted 12-20-2002 12:17 AM derwood has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024