tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post4728460953322876075..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: The Ol' Information Bait-and-SwitchUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29709586205480118562010-01-18T19:22:37.755-05:002010-01-18T19:22:37.755-05:00Jeffrey,
The "accumulation" part of &qu...Jeffrey,<br /><br />The "accumulation" part of "an accumulation of genetic accidents" takes into account all selection processes.<br /><br />That is how they accumulate.<br /><br />Dawkins calls it "cumulative selection".Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-50771940787625100082009-12-17T05:32:46.634-05:002009-12-17T05:32:46.634-05:00So tell me Jeffrey how can we test the premise tha...<i>So tell me Jeffrey how can we test the premise that humans evolved from chimp-like knuckle-walkers via an accumulation of genetic accidents?</i><br><br>Exactly the <i>same way</i> we test <i>any</i> historical claim. We look at the evidence, and we see what hypotheses are most consistent with the evidence.<br><br>In this case we have a mountain of paleontological data showing a progression of creatures from ape-like creatures to hominids, and we have a mountain of evidence that well-known genetic mechanisms such as mutation, selection, and recombination can produce such changes. <br><br>If you want a comprehensive, step-by-step account, you're not going to get it in the near future, since our knowledge of the past is so fragmentary. But so what? I could just as well point to a single oxygen molecule in my room and demand that you explain how it got to that precise position. Despite the fact that we have a good knowledge of physics, no physicist in the world can retrodict the path of the oxygen molecule to say where it was yesterday. That doesn't mean that our theories about gases are suspect.<br><br>By the way, your claim about "accumulation of genetic accidents" is stupid, since it doesn't take into account the positive force of selectionJeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-36080005652444762232009-12-16T21:23:37.576-05:002009-12-16T21:23:37.576-05:00there isn't any genetic data that supports the...<i>there isn't any genetic data that supports the transformation requirement.</i><br /><br />You just lie, and lie and lie. At some point my patience will be exhausted with you.<br /><br />Your claim is false. We <i>know</i> that small evolutionary changes, such as polyploidy and changes to regulatory genes, can have a large effect on phenotypes. Now <i>you</i> can deny it all you want, but this is a <i>known fact</i>.<br /><br />This is the kind of thing that is <a href="http://serc.carleton.edu/genomics/units/cauliflower.html" rel="nofollow">studied</a> in an undergraduate course on evolution. But Joe just prattles on and on, vapidly displaying his ignorance while calling everyone else an idiot.<br /><br />I guess drinking all that hydrogen peroxide has affected his brain.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-36969062819703853892009-12-16T21:18:36.089-05:002009-12-16T21:18:36.089-05:00Stonehenge was designed and built in the past.
So...<i>Stonehenge was designed and built in the past.</i><br /><br />So you are claiming that there is some doubt about that?<br /><br /><i>Yes there are similarities but we would expect that in a common design scenario.</i><br /><br />But what we <i>don't</i> see in the biological record is innovations moving across kingdoms -- which is what we <i>do</i> see in human design.<br />Mark Isaak wrote a <a href="http://ncse.com/rncse/23/5-6/what-design-looks-like" rel="nofollow">splendid little article</a> about this kind of thing, explaining all the disanalogies with design that we see in the fossil record.<br /><br />So imply saying "we would expect that in a common design scenario" doesn't deal honestly with the mountain of evidence that has served to convince nearly all biologists.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60417673918682442852009-12-16T21:13:35.461-05:002009-12-16T21:13:35.461-05:00So tell me Jeffrey how can we test the premise tha...<b>So tell me Jeffrey how can we test the premise that humans evolved from chimp-like knuckle-walkers via an accumulation of genetic accidents?</b><br /><br />So why did Jeffrey point to a website taht doesn't even address that?<br /><br />As Dr Behe ahs said many times- evidence for Common Descent is not evidence for a mechansim.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-32621232887031344322009-12-16T21:09:30.421-05:002009-12-16T21:09:30.421-05:00Talk origins isn't a good starting place Jeffr...Talk origins isn't a good starting place Jeffrey.<br /><br />And archaeologists can test the claim that it took human intervention- or human-like intervention- to bring about alleged artifacts.<br /><br />Stonehenge was designed and built in the past.<br /><br />We take our knowledge of cause and effect to figure out how it could have possibly came to be.<br /><br /><a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/I3basicquestions.shtml" rel="nofollow"><b>Science asks three beasic questions</b></a><br /><br />1- What's there?<br /><br />2- How does it work?<br /><br />3- How did it come to be this way?<br /><br />But anyway, there isn't any genetic data that supports the transformation requirement.<br /><br />Yes there are similarities but we would expect that in a common design scenario.<br /><br />Yes similar genes are similar- so what?<br /><br />Similar genetics do not explain the physiological and anatomical differences.<br /><br />Cladistics is a man-made construct based on the assumption of Common Descent and trying to figure out the ancestry.<br /><br />It isn't evidence of Common Descent, it is our representation of how we think it went.<br /><br />More later...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-33624952044547656282009-12-16T19:07:29.951-05:002009-12-16T19:07:29.951-05:00By the way, Joe, I'm not going to comment any ...By the way, Joe, I'm not going to comment any more on this until you explain how you think theories in historical sciences <i>are</i> tested. Challenge for you: take <i>any</i> claim from an historical science about an event in the distant past, and explain how it is tested.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24205546854947387952009-12-16T18:54:16.351-05:002009-12-16T18:54:16.351-05:00So tell me Jeffrey how can we test the premise tha...<i>So tell me Jeffrey how can we test the premise that humans evolved from chimp-like knuckle-walkers via an accumulation of genetic accidents?</i><br /><br />Truly moronic, Joe, even for you. The theory that man and chimp share a common ancestor has been tested and is tested all the time: through genetic evidence, cladistics, and the fossil record. Go read<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/<br /><br />and come back when you've understood it.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37024482762169919882009-12-16T18:32:54.680-05:002009-12-16T18:32:54.680-05:00I have noticed that you haven't provided any w...I have noticed that you haven't provided any way to test the premise.<br /><br />You can call me a liar all you want but it is very noticeable that you can't support your claims.<br /><br />So tell me Jeffrey how can we test the premise that humans evolved from chimp-like knuckle-walkers via an accumulation of genetic accidents?<br /><br />Or admit that you are a fraud.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-57429688963186812522009-12-16T17:43:50.239-05:002009-12-16T17:43:50.239-05:00We have no way to test the premise.
A lie. Hypot...<i>We have no way to test the premise.</i><br /><br />A lie. Hypotheses in evolution are tested all the time.<br /><br />Joe <i>has</i> to lie, since he has no support for his claims.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-47783630488969612942009-12-16T16:37:31.422-05:002009-12-16T16:37:31.422-05:00Classic imbecilic response Jeffey.
Ya see we have...Classic imbecilic response Jeffey.<br /><br />Ya see we have no idea whether or not such a transformation is even possible.<br /><br />We have no way to test the premise.<br /><br />We can test the premise that someone can travel from Vitebsk to Hamburg and then to Philly.<br /><br />We cannot test the premise that a chimp-like knuck-walker can "evolve"/ "evolved" into a bipedal human via an accumulation of genetic accidents- nor any mechanism.<br /><br />IOW you don't have a "theory". You don't even have a testable hypothesis.<br /><br />All you have is a bald proclamation- as Mayr once said "we are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred..."<br /><br />And THAT passes for science!<br /><br />So now I am a moron because Jeffrey cannot support the claims of his position.<br /><br />Ain't life wonderful...<br /><br />PS-Perhaps your "theory" belongs in a history classroomJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37367818514223096252009-12-15T20:55:56.012-05:002009-12-15T20:55:56.012-05:00We can't even account for the alleged loss of ...<i>We can't even account for the alleged loss of that opposable big toe.<br /></i><br /><br />This argument is moronic, as usual for Joe.<br /><br />I can't account for exactly how my grandfather got from Vitebsk to Hamburg, his first leg on his journey to Philadelphia. But that doesn't cast doubt on my theory that he probably traveled by train, horse, or foot. Unfortunately, the evidence is lost.<br /><br />It's likely we will never know <i>exactly</i> how various evolutionary changes occurred, because the evidence is lost in the same way as for my grandfather's journey. But like my grandfather's journey, we have an excellent theory that accounts for change.<br /><br />Moronic creationists can't accept that.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-62015251428178454292009-12-13T09:55:12.665-05:002009-12-13T09:55:12.665-05:00cody, FYI-
I have read what JS wrote in SCiAm'...cody, FYI-<br /><br />I have read what JS wrote in SCiAm's "Origins" magazine...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48078029161535974472009-12-12T10:09:25.618-05:002009-12-12T10:09:25.618-05:00cody:
I disagree that no one has made those links,...cody:<br /><i>I disagree that no one has made those links, between genetics and anatomical & physiological differences among species;</i><br /><br />Do the research.<br /><br />We can't even account for the alleged loss of that opposable big toe.<br /><br />Also the theory of evolution doesn't make any predictions based on the proposed mechanisms of natural selection and genetic accidents.<br /><br />There isn't even a testable hypothesis for them.<br /><br />Why don't I accept the ToE?<br /><br />Because there isn't any evidence that the transformations required are even possible.<br /><br />Again do the research.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-90770099975581759802009-12-11T21:25:56.399-05:002009-12-11T21:25:56.399-05:00Joe G, I apologize for providing a popular descrip...Joe G, I apologize for providing a popular description of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_W._Szostak" rel="nofollow">Jack Szostak's</a> research rather than a <a href="http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/researchVesicles.html" rel="nofollow">technical description</a>—as I said before, I don't have a strong enough interest in evolutionary biology to pursue the papers or the background to understand them completely (nor do the ever-shrinking gaps bother me at all). (More information on the origin of life <a href="http://exploringOrigins.org/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and <a href="http://originoflife.net/" rel="nofollow">here</a>; these are again more "popular" references. Note too that Szostak's won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine this year—if you consider his research to be the product of his imagination, who's research do you consider actually valid, and why?)<br /><br />Since you blew off the popular description, if you really want, I will take the time to dig up and understand Szostak's work more fully, but only if you promise to discuss it with me further, (we can move the discussion off of Jeffery's blog, to be polite).<br /><br />When you say you were an evolutionist, but looking more closely/critically at the "evidence" changed that, could you expound that please? Obviously if you have something truly convincing, it would be worth the effort to provide it, as it may sway that vast mobs of unbelievers, so to speak.<br /><br />I disagree that no one has made those links, between genetics and anatomical & physiological differences among species; perhaps many (probably the vast majority) of specific instances remain unresolved at the moment, but certainly a large number have been linked in detail (simple example, tall parents tend to have tall kids). I consider this an inability to grasp the basic scientific process. For an excellent analysis of this issue, read Isaac Asimov's essay "<a href="http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm" rel="nofollow">The Relativity of Wrong</a>," and ask yourself if a gap in a theory makes it completely wrong, or if right and wrong are really more shades of gray.<br /><br />When I said before that "anyone who fails to understand the theory of evolution has also failed to understand the basic scientific process," what I meant was that, people who deny evolution often make nonsensical arguments in favor of their denial. For instance, when you say "can't even account for the …[observed] differences," you mean to say, 'does not currently account for the difference,' unless of course you have a mathematical proof that evolution is incapable of accounting for the differences. Which of course would make you plenty famous, though maybe you <i>think</i> you have a proof, and you just don't quite grasp the concept of proof? Similarly, when you say "[y]ou think they are in the genome- but no one has been able to make that link," you aren't actually saying that link can't be made (which is what science, and skepticism, demands, for you to reject evolution), rather you are just saying it hasn't been observed yet. Obviously this isn't a real problem for any theory, as many theories make predictions that require decades of technological development to verify, (e.g., many predictions from GR took decades to verify—some predictions are still being verified, nearly 100 years later!)<br /><br />I'm sorry if any of this offended you, I honestly don't mean to, I think it's important we come to a consensus. I look forward to discussing it all with you further. Best wishes Joe.codyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-51970980749147309502009-12-11T07:48:50.408-05:002009-12-11T07:48:50.408-05:00cody,
I understand the theory of evoluttion.
I w...cody,<br /><br />I understand the theory of evoluttion.<br /><br />I was an evolutionist before I started looking more closely and critically at thge "evidence".<br /><br />Ya see you can't even account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.<br /><br />You think they are in the genome- but no one has been able to make that link.<br /><br />Also youtube isn't a scientific peer-reviewed journal and that video doesn't contain any scientific data that shows that non-living matter gave rise to living organisms via blind and undirected processes.<br /><br />It is all someone's imagination.<br /><br />So if imagination equals scientific data then you have something.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-7849422551749483702009-12-11T07:42:17.002-05:002009-12-11T07:42:17.002-05:00Jeffrey:
Then I suppose everyone working in the ar...Jeffrey:<br /><i>Then I suppose everyone working in the area is a fool, since they all accept that it is evidence for abiogenesis.</i><br /><br />I doubt that very much.<br /><br />That is like saying that Stonehenge arose via blind and undirected processes because stones can arise that way.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-52958896400888959202009-12-11T01:38:30.845-05:002009-12-11T01:38:30.845-05:00Now that I've read some more comments, when Jo...Now that I've read some more comments, when Joe G said, "There isn't any evidence that non-living matter gave rise to living organisms via blind and undirected processes," I consider my previous comment to be a direct refutation.codyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30508966692882271082009-12-11T01:18:58.348-05:002009-12-11T01:18:58.348-05:00I haven't read all the comments in detail, but...I haven't read all the comments in detail, but I see there is a conversation about abiogenesis, and I want to share this video:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg<br /><br />I used to think that abiogenesis might possibly be a problem we would never solve (as a child, I imagined the fate of the dinosaurs in the same way), simply because it was so long ago, and so much has happened since to possibly erase the evidence. The resurgence of panspermia in the late 90s seemed like another possible solution, but obviously, unfortunately, it would completely sidestep the issue. But then I saw this video, and it more than satisfied all my interest in the subject. Since my interests are mainly physics and computer science, I consider the problem of abiogenesis to be satisfactorily resolved.<br /><br />Also, I think anyone who fails to understand the theory of evolution has also failed to understand the basic scientific process.codyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20011984832735596442009-12-10T20:35:12.613-05:002009-12-10T20:35:12.613-05:00...entrenched darwinist rubber stamps.
Funny, all...<i>...entrenched darwinist rubber stamps</i>.<br /><br />Funny, all those physicists reject papers claiming that the earth is flat, too.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-91928688722391201122009-12-10T20:34:14.108-05:002009-12-10T20:34:14.108-05:00Only a fool would think that is evidence for abiog...<i>Only a fool would think that is evidence for abiogenesis.</i><br /><br />Then I suppose everyone working in the area is a fool, since they all accept that it is evidence for abiogenesis.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61697598063270673912009-12-10T20:23:25.234-05:002009-12-10T20:23:25.234-05:00It doesn't matter how many peers review an art...It doesn't matter how many peers review an article if they are entrenched darwinist rubber stamps.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-82299565607684882872009-12-10T19:02:53.679-05:002009-12-10T19:02:53.679-05:00Jeffrey:
It is evidence that one step, which evolu...Jeffrey:<br /><i>It is evidence that one step, which evolution deniers claimed could not be bridged, can in fact be bridged.</i><br /><br />1- It has nothing to do with "evolution" which most people don't argue about anyway<br /><br />2- Who said it could not be bridged?<br /><br />3- Stonehenge is made up of stones- duh- so by your logic blind and undirected processes can account for it.<br /><br />4- I accept that the 4 nucleotides can be synthesized is evidence that they can be synthesized. Only a fool would think that is evidence for abiogenesis.<br /><br />IOW I understand your "reasoning".Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-59208244220237796462009-12-10T16:04:39.347-05:002009-12-10T16:04:39.347-05:00IOW it is NOT evidence that living organisms can a...<i>IOW it is NOT evidence that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.</i><br /><br />Sure it is. It is evidence that one step, which evolution deniers claimed could not be bridged, can in fact be bridged.<br /><br />At this point I cannot say any more. If you cannot accept this as evidence you are clearly not capable of reason.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38153486766380198922009-12-10T15:58:03.181-05:002009-12-10T15:58:03.181-05:00Jeffrey:
We know life on earth currently depends o...Jeffrey:<br /><i>We know life on earth currently depends on RNA and DNA. Therefore, any abiotic synthesis of these basis constitutes evidence towards abiogenesis. Why is this so hard to understand?</i><br /><br />It is only evidence that the 4 nucleotides can be synthesized.<br /><br />And living organisms depend on much, much more than RNA and DNA.<br /><br />IOW it is NOT evidence that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.<br /><br />Why is that so hard to understand?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com