Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 101617181920
Results 476 to 496 of 496
  1. #476
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    That's not even remotely where I was going with that... I stated that only to enlighten (or remind) you that many biologists (many doctorates if that suits your liking better) don't believe in evolution because the evidence really doesn't support the leaps required by the theory. The fact that dissension exists doesn't mean that what they believe is any 'truer'.

    But face it... many of you all repeatedly hide under the umbra of the prevailing 'scientific' notion... and attack others simply for believing otherwise. That's the dynamic I wanted you all to recognize.

    Many posters here, including yourself at times, keep implying that to not believe in macro-evolution is illogically stupid. Were that the case 'learned' astrophycistis, biologists, geneticists, geologists, etc... wouldn't have made the conscious choice to reject the underlying premise in the theory. The problem is that you all also imply that if we've come to that rejection that somehow we're being intellectually dishonest. But why on earth would we want to lie to ourselves..??? I gain nothing from lying to myself. I simply believe what I do, and have shown the reasons why.

    Not having an alternate theory that suits your naturalistic framework doesn't mean that belief in Darwinian-evolution is my only real choice.
    Rejecting a theory on the basis of evidence is not intellectually dishonest.

    Deliberately distorting the views of others or the theory itself in an attempt to disprove it is.

    I have no doubt that some of the distortions or misstatements are honest mistakes, but the sheer volume of mis-information, and the way it is presented gives me cause to believe that not all of this is unintentional.

  2. #477
    Corpus Christi Spurs Fan Phenomanul's Avatar
    Location
    Corpus Christi
    Post Count
    10,357
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Air Force Falcons
    That doesn't really answer my question as asked.

    2nd time:
    If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

    (given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)
    While your observation may be logical (lack of fossilization tendencies for plains' people - where unicorns also frolicked ). The fact that we've yet to find conclusive linkages to a common primate ancestor, after hundreds of years of searching for said link, after multiple fraudulent attempts to claim as much, one would begin to think that the people in your camp are hinging on blind faith.

    Those links haven't been found. Their genomes haven't been mapped. Hence there is no proof said linkage[s] exist.

  3. #478
    Corpus Christi Spurs Fan Phenomanul's Avatar
    Location
    Corpus Christi
    Post Count
    10,357
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Air Force Falcons
    Rejecting a theory on the basis of evidence is not intellectually dishonest.

    Deliberately distorting the views of others or the theory itself in an attempt to disprove it is.

    I have no doubt that some of the distortions or misstatements are honest mistakes, but the sheer volume of mis-information, and the way it is presented gives me cause to believe that not all of this is unintentional.
    Who makes you the judge of that?

    Distortion implies 'bending' or 'steering' away from absolute truth. So again, you are implying evolution is a form of 'absolute' truth all while stating that you don't hold it to that standard. Which is it?

    Anyways... I must go... peace!

  4. #479
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    That is not generally the norm... more like the exception....

    For that matter, why hasn't Lenski revealed the genomic changes from his experiments? He has all the necessary cultures?
    Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say "data not shown", which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website.

    It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then - as some of your acolytes have suggested - you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren't very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it's not that we claim to have glimpsed "a unicorn in the garden" - we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]

    So, will we share the bacteria? Of course we will, with competent scientists. Now, if I was really mean, I might only share the ancestral strain, and let the scientists undertake the 20 years of our experiment. Or if I was only a little bit mean, maybe I'd also send the potentiated bacteria, and let the recipients then repeat the several years of incredibly pain-staking work that my superb doctoral student, Zachary Blount, performed to test some 40 trillion (40,000,000,000,000) cells, which generated 19 additional citrate-using mutants. But I'm a nice guy, at least when treated with some common courtesy, so if a competent scientist asks for them, I would even send a sample of the evolved E. coli that now grows vigorously on citrate. A competent microbiologist, perhaps requiring the assistance of a competent molecular geneticist, would readily confirm the following properties reported in our paper: (i) The ancestral strain does not grow in DM0 (zero glucose, but containing citrate), the recipe for which can be found on my web site, except leaving the glucose out of the standard recipe as stated in our paper. (ii) The evolved citrate-using strain, by contrast, grows well in that exact same medium. (iii) To confirm that the evolved strain is not some contaminating species but is, in fact, derived from the ancestral strain in our study, one could check a number of traits and genes that identify the ancestor as E. coli, and the evolved strains as a descendant thereof, as reported in our paper. (iv) One could also sequence the pykF and nadR genes in the ancestor and evolved citrate-using strains. One would find that the evolved bacteria have mutations in each of these genes. These mutations precisely match those that we reported in our previous work, and they identify the evolved citrate-using mutants as having evolved in the population designated Ara-3 of the long-term evolution experiment, as opposed to any of the other 11 populations in that experiment. And one could go on and on from there to confirm the findings in our paper, and perhaps obtain additional data of the sort that we are currently pursuing.

    Before I could send anyone any bacterial strains, in order to comply with good scientific practices I would require evidence of the requesting scientist's credentials including: (i) affiliation with an appropriate unit in some university or research center with appropriate facilities for storing (-80șC freezer), handling (incubators, etc.), and disposing of bacteria (autoclave); and (ii) some evidence, such as peer-reviewed publications, that indicate that the receiving scientist knows how to work with bacteria, so that I and my university can be sure we are sending biological materials to someone that knows how to handle them. By the way, our strains are not derived from one of the pathogenic varieties of E. coli that are a frequent cause of food-borne illnesses. However, even non-pathogenic strains may cause problems for those who are immune-compromised or otherwise more vulnerable to infection. Also, my university requires that a Material Transfer Agreement be executed before we can ship any strains. That agreement would not constrain a receiving scientist from publishing his or her results. However, if an incompetent or fraudulent hack (note that I make no reference to any person, as this is strictly a hypothetical scenario, one that I doubt would occur) were to make false or misleading claims about our strains, then I'm confident that some highly qualified scientists would join the fray, examine the strains, and sort out who was right and who was wrong. That's the way science works.

    I would also generally ask what the requesting scientist intends to do with our strains. Why? It helps me to gauge the requester's expertise. I might be able to point out useful references, for example. Moreover, as I've said, we are continuing our work with these strains, on multiple fronts, as explained in considerable detail in the Discussion section of our paper. I would not be happy to see our work "scooped" by another team - especially for the sake of the outstanding students and postdocs in my group who are hard at work on these fronts. However, that request to allow us to proceed, without risk of being scooped on work in which we have made a substantial investment of time and effort, would be just that: a request. In other words, we would respect PNAS policy to share those strains with any competent scientist who complied with my university's requirements for the MTA and any other relevant legal restrictions. If any such request requires substantial time or resources (we have thousands of samples from this and many other experiments), then of course I would expect the recipient to bear those costs.

    So there you have it. I know that I've been a bit less polite in this response than in my previous one, but I'm still behaving far more politely than you deserve given your rude, willfully ignorant, and slanderous behavior. And I've spent far more time responding than you deserve. However, as I said at the outset, I take education seriously, and I know some of your acolytes still have the ability and desire to think, as do many others who will read this exchange.

    Sincerely,
    Richard Lenski
    The man says he would be happy to share the base data, with a qualified scientist, and within normal channels.

    I have not kept up with the saga, but Mr. Lenski appears to have been more than patient with people calling him a quack or worse, and pestering him for the results of years of hard work.

    Has someone of appropriate qualifications acceded to his fairly reasonable conditions to acquire his research data?

  5. #480
    Corpus Christi Spurs Fan Phenomanul's Avatar
    Location
    Corpus Christi
    Post Count
    10,357
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Air Force Falcons
    The man says he would be happy to share the base data, with a qualified scientist, and within normal channels.

    I have not kept up with the saga, but Mr. Lenski appears to have been more than patient with people calling him a quack or worse, and pestering him for the results of years of hard work.

    Has someone of appropriate qualifications acceded to his fairly reasonable conditions to acquire his research data?
    Kind of wish I had the money to take him up on it.

  6. #481
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    While your observation may be logical (lack of fossilization tendencies for plains' people - where unicorns also frolicked ). The fact that we've yet to find conclusive linkages to a common primate ancestor, after hundreds of years of searching for said link, after multiple fraudulent attempts to claim as much, one would begin to think that the people in your camp are hinging on blind faith.

    Those links haven't been found. Their genomes haven't been mapped. Hence there is no proof said linkage[s] exist.
    That is the perfect example of an intellectually dishonest answer.

    I asked a simple, clear, question with either of two possible responses, not once but twice.

    Instead of answering it, you have chosen to deflect both times.

    Intellectual dishonesty
    the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
    Not only that, but have done what amounts to Moving the goalposts

    informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.
    Even if such an ancestor were produced, and its genome sequenced, you would then call for all such ancestoral genomes.

    This is where the goalpost got moved after scientists started finding all the intermediary forms of things creationists said wouldn't exist in the fossil record.

    I will ask a simple question in good faith one last time.

    If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

    (given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)

  7. #482
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Has someone of appropriate qualifications acceded to his fairly reasonable conditions to acquire his research data?
    Kind of wish I had the money to take him up on it.
    Again, not what I asked.

    You claimed rather directly that he has not "revealed the genomic changes from his experiments"

    He has explained, in 2008 why he has not shared with one particular person, and the fairly reasonable conditions under which he would do so.

    I can only assume that since you asked "why" he hasn't revealed his research data, you were aware of his initial refusal, as mentioned in his 2008 letter. Yet you didn't mention that it seems he has only really refused one particular requestor.

    Were you unaware of those conditions, or did you simply choose to ignore them?

  8. #483
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,358
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks

  9. #484
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Who makes you the judge of [what is intellectually dishonest]?


    Anyways... I must go... peace!
    The answer to that question is "no one".

    That must be determined on the basis of observed behavior, using one's own judgment.

    Some examples of intellectual dishonesty:
    Ad hominem logical fallacies
    Making statements that are only half-true, and deliberately leaving out the portion of the truth that one does not wish to admit to.
    Avoiding honest questions asked in good faith.
    Strawman logical fallacies

    Among others.

    I try, to the best of my ability to answer questions asked of me with honest answers, even when it might not support my case, and when I am aware of some relevant bit of information am compelled by the principles of intellectual honesty to put that forth, again, even if it doesn't support my case and especially when it doesn't.

    If one wants more concrete examples, start surfing infowars.com or any 9-11 "truther" website.

    , start reading the Apollo Moon Hoax thread, if you have the stomach.

    (edit)
    Distortion implies 'bending' or 'steering' away from absolute truth. So again, you are implying evolution is a form of 'absolute' truth all while stating that you don't hold it to that standard. Which is it?
    I have implied nothing of the sort.

    Half-truths would be leaving out half of a relevant data set.

    You and your brother both decide not to wait for after dinner to eat the wonderful cake mom has prepared. You divide it in half and each eat it.

    When your mother asks "who ate all the cake" you both respond with a half truth. "not me". Sure you have told part of the truth, you didn't eat ALL of the cake. But you left out the part where together you both ate it, a fact mom would find VERY relevant.

    The half-truths given by creationists tend to be along these lines.

    Sure I will get the part of the truth about research topic A or B that some creationists want me to hear, and it always sounds reasonable.

    Then, when I go digging, I almost invariably find the other half of the truth, the inconvenient part that was left out, usually very obviously deliberately.

    Time after time I have found this through decades of such discussions. There is a very logical reason that I tend to treat creationist claims with some very guarded skepticism.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 01-18-2011 at 06:11 PM.

  10. #485
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    By that premise, the belief that the production of massive genomes, billions of base-pairs in length arose from shorter ones is kind of a ‘given’ for both macro and micro evolution to hold true.
    It is reasonable, that complex organisms will tend to have longer genomes.
    This is implied by, but *not* one of the "given" assumptions of, evolution.
    The C-value paradox?

    I stated as much... .
    No, actually, you didn't.

    You said that "that complex organisms will tend to have longer genomes" was a "given for.. evolution to hold true".

    It is not one of the underlying assumptions of evolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma

    The logical way to disprove theories is to disprove the underlying assumptions. That is what real science does.

    It is obvious you want to make this implication into one of those underlying assumptions, so you can put it forth to disprove the theory.

    The C-value enigma, unlike the older C-value paradox, is explicitly defined as a series of independent but equally important component questions, including:

    1.What types of non-coding DNA are found in different eukaryotic genomes, and in what proportions?
    2.From where does this non-coding DNA come, and how is it spread and/or lost from genomes over time?
    3.What effects, or perhaps even functions, does this non-coding DNA have for chromosomes, nuclei, cells, and organisms?
    4.Why do some species exhibit remarkably streamlined chromosomes, while others possess massive amounts of non-coding DNA?
    The observed large genomes of simple bacteria being larger than that of complex organisms like humans is fully consistant with that of evolution.

    We have observed something that we might not have thought would be implied and have started answering why reality didn't conform to our expectations, by answering the above questions.

  11. #486
    Corpus Christi Spurs Fan Phenomanul's Avatar
    Location
    Corpus Christi
    Post Count
    10,357
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Air Force Falcons
    EDIT: after responding to your last array of comments. I will have to say that this is the end of the road for me (unless of course you decide to bump it in another 10 months... ). We've irreconciliable views that can't produce effective dialouge by any means. So once it begins getting personal, I've no desire left to continue (from whatever frustration... you think that I'm purposefully deceiving which clearly frustrates you; while I believe you misread and latch on to the slightest triviality in my arguments, derailing them - which becomes a frustration for me).

    Like I've told you before... I've no desire to come off as arrogant or condescending, which unfortunately given the controversial nature of these topics becomes rather unavoidable.

    Please don't take whatever statements I may have written out of frustration below personally... See you in the next worthwhile-to-chat topic, since you may be surprised to know that we share other common beliefs...

    Just not this one.


    That is the perfect example of an intellectually dishonest answer.

    I asked a simple, clear, question with either of two possible responses, not once but twice.

    Instead of answering it, you have chosen to deflect both times.

    Intellectual dishonesty
    First off, I did answer it... by stating that your observation was logical... so quit getting all sassy. Or did you want an actual "YES" or "NO" response??? {in my Mark Jackson impersonation} "You're better than that."

    Implicitly however, your observation is nothing more than an excuse. We've managed to find fossils of hundreds of specimens (all over the world) of creatures that roam[ed] the prairies... Or why else would early man [the hunters] have lived in the prairies if not to follow their source of food and their livelihoods? [I recommend you watch Dances With Wolves for a little elightenment on how plains people lived as far back as a century ago, with potential insight on how they may have lived eons ago...] So if we've found numerous fossils of Bison ancestors, Mammoths, early Antelope, etc. etc. etc. we should also find early primates - specifically one that can link humans to primates.

    Seems like you need to pick more suitable arguments on which to throw hissy fits. You've just burned a freebie.

    Your talk of intellectual dishonesty, from a rather condescending position no less, is nothing more than a diversion tactic [whether or not your willing to even admit it]... Why? Because for all that talk... you haven't presented one more fragment of evidence that man shares a common ancestor with the primates... You've instead decided to focus on strawmen knowing fully well in the back of your mind that nitpicking my statements won't ever register as evidence in your favor... "Picking" at my credibility or lack therof is hardly proof of anything. You should know that.

    Not only that, but have done what amounts to Moving the goalposts
    Oh that's rich....

    Call it what you want... Again, to prove an all-encompassing and grand theory such as Macro-evolution one needs ironclad proof. I've stated exactly what would suffice. And anything short of that fails (the scientific method fully requires as much). Since you know it doesn't exist, you keep trying to play games about what it is I'm trying to do... I'm simply pointing to the fact that said evidence doesn't exist. Funny that you would presume to judge what intellectual dishonesty is all about all whilst ignoring what the scientific method requires for validating the evolutionary premise. Who's the one moving the "goalposts"?

    If anything, the discovery of DNA 'moved the goalposts' on what would suffice as valid evidence for conclusively proving Darwinian evolution (considering that the theory was developed before the discovery of DNA/RNA - even despite our limited knowledge of Mendelian genetics at the time).

    Like I've stated before, every additional level of biological complexity that we discover only serves to drive the wedge further on Darwinian thought because it keeps raising the level of robustness that 'conclusive proof' must possess in order to validate the evolutionary premise.

    The existence of gene networks is the latest incarnation of that "problem". Or how about the problems that are raised by mapping ancient genomes? The genomes of bacteria, revived from ancient spores millions of years old show very little [if negligible] genetic drift when compared to their modern day relatives? That's why I kind of laughed at your 'more than certain' odds statement earlier; when you suggested that billions of iterations acting on bacterial cultures over eons could produce any gene observed today. That it was a "given". Some of those bacteria are 35, 150, even 250 million years old.... and yet they haven't genetically drifted all that much. Moving goalpost? More like "better evidence" shredding the incompatibilities of evolutionary thought against reality.

    Even if such an ancestor were produced, and its genome sequenced, you would then call for all such ancestoral genomes.

    This is where the goalpost got moved after scientists started finding all the intermediary forms of things creationists said wouldn't exist in the fossil record.

    I will ask a simple question in good faith one last time.

    If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

    (given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)
    The answer to your 'front-loaded' question is DUH! of course not... Which is also the very reason why we've yet to find unicorn fossils either...

    But consider that:

    1) Not all people lived in the plains... you assume too much.
    2) Fossils of many other plains' creatures have been discovered... I guess they ingested far more calcium.
    3) Our ancestors were probably as dependent on fresh water as we are today. Surely some of them died near a source of water. Again, you're the statistician... the odds are probable.

    But alas none of this matters... you've already made up your mind. "We must share a common ancestor with the primates, damn it!!!! Because... because... because we do!! And because it's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise!!"
    Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-19-2011 at 06:27 PM.

  12. #487
    Corpus Christi Spurs Fan Phenomanul's Avatar
    Location
    Corpus Christi
    Post Count
    10,357
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Air Force Falcons
    The answer to that question is "no one".

    That must be determined on the basis of observed behavior, using one's own judgment.

    Some examples of intellectual dishonesty:
    Ad hominem logical fallacies
    Making statements that are only half-true, and deliberately leaving out the portion of the truth that one does not wish to admit to.
    Avoiding honest questions asked in good faith.
    Strawman logical fallacies

    Among others.
    All of that is mere perception... Funny that I would perceive everything you do as falling in those categories... Like I said, we view our world with different lenses. Except I can admit as much, and you.... well, you would rather see this as some big exercise... I'm simply stating my opinions and my belief on the matter...

    You pry open doors and then call me out for explaining what's inside. That's not cool. Especially when you suggest and imply my "agenda" is deceptive... Wait... I have an agenda?

    Good faith? That's a good one. You keep getting hitched on the tiniest fragments of inconsistency in my statements. I'm not here writing a thesis. I'm on a message board, stating my thoughts. Do you wish to see a list of all of my citations and references? Well, if you should know... most are off the top of my head. I don't typically go around making sure that every single one of my statements is perfectly consistent with all the other ones, or perfectly consistent with the latest finds (since the field is in constant flux). If I did, I would never have the time to do this at all. Sure, there are logical issues with some of my arguments but many of them arise simply because I don't have the time to fully expound on them... Nevertheless, you pounce on said statements as if:

    1) I was trying to deceive you.
    2) I was purposefully trying to omit something... anything.
    3) I were trying to establish some other truth.
    4) I were playing some 'cute' game of wits.
    5) I were distorting mainstream truths.

    I'm simply describing why I believe Darwinian evolution is inadequate. It is my opinion and nothing more.

    I try, to the best of my ability to answer questions asked of me with honest answers, even when it might not support my case, and when I am aware of some relevant bit of information am compelled by the principles of intellectual honesty to put that forth, again, even if it doesn't support my case and especially when it doesn't.

    If one wants more concrete examples, start surfing infowars.com or any 9-11 "truther" website.

    , start reading the Apollo Moon Hoax thread, if you have the stomach.

    (edit)
    You may think you try when it comes to this subject... But your beliefs are so entrenched that even valid objections 'must have' some 'coniving half truth about them'... you approach them that way and have robbed yourself of the ability to be fully objective about them. Your scrutiny is driven by the motif that somehow these 'other' studies are deceptive; because even when they err out of ignorance you would rather suggest that they tried putting something past you - "oh the nerve of those people".

    There is no such thing as scientific proof for "origins" theories... and yet your 'scientific' viewpoint is defined by it. Who has actually slipped one past you? Who is kidding who here?


    I have implied nothing of the sort.

    Half-truths would be leaving out half of a relevant data set.

    You and your brother both decide not to wait for after dinner to eat the wonderful cake mom has prepared. You divide it in half and each eat it.

    When your mother asks "who ate all the cake" you both respond with a half truth. "not me". Sure you have told part of the truth, you didn't eat ALL of the cake. But you left out the part where together you both ate it, a fact mom would find VERY relevant.

    The half-truths given by creationists tend to be along these lines.

    Sure I will get the part of the truth about research topic A or B that some creationists want me to hear, and it always sounds reasonable.

    Then, when I go digging, I almost invariably find the other half of the truth, the inconvenient part that was left out, usually very obviously deliberately.

    Time after time I have found this through decades of such discussions. There is a very logical reason that I tend to treat creationist claims with some very guarded skepticism.

    Again, funny that you would talk about half truths... Evolutionists depend on it.

    "We had to descend from something..."

    You say creationist... I say Darwinian evolutionist [aka athiest, aka naturalist]... interchange those two classes of people, and I could have written the above paragraph too by subs uting the opposite term.
    Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-19-2011 at 06:23 PM.

  13. #488
    Corpus Christi Spurs Fan Phenomanul's Avatar
    Location
    Corpus Christi
    Post Count
    10,357
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Air Force Falcons
    No, actually, you didn't.

    You said that "that complex organisms will tend to have longer genomes" was a "given for.. evolution to hold true".

    It is not one of the underlying assumptions of evolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma

    The logical way to disprove theories is to disprove the underlying assumptions. That is what real science does.

    It is obvious you want to make this implication into one of those underlying assumptions, so you can put it forth to disprove the theory.

    The observed large genomes of simple bacteria being larger than that of complex organisms like humans is fully consistant with that of evolution.

    We have observed something that we might not have thought would be implied and have started answering why reality didn't conform to our expectations, by answering the above questions.
    Funny, 'cause my actual belief is that our genomes [and the genomes of other creatures] were once perfect...

    That is... we've actually been losing genetic wealth, and function over the years - not gaining it.

    Even some of the catalogued genetic changes observed in some of today's experiments are attained from loss of genetic code... not from the gain of new segments. And many perceived improvements come via the activation of pre-existing genetic material.

    But this is more nitpicking on your part and a nice attempt at subverting the argument once more [you really have a knack for wanting to venture down those tunnels]... So I'll present an expounded version of argument I was making.

    In the naturalistic framework, genomes don't just pop into existence do they? No, of course not, hence they had to commence from something smaller and shorter. Since genomes are large today, it follows that certain small genomes eventually made it to the longer lengths we see today. My argument wasn't that every genome today came from a smaller precursor. My point was that because the larger ones exist, and since we've established that they didn't 'pop into existence' fully formed and functional THEN they must have developed from smaller ones. By Occam's Razor it's the most logical explanation. Unless you would want me to believe that some super massive genome from our past with no real genetic value at all (that is key), shrunk, split and diverged to create the genomes we see today. Because if that's what you're implying... or are even fathoming the possibility, then you don't fully understand the nature of DNA.

    Anyways, that was just the subtext. The real beef of the argument [the one you seem to ignore repeatedly] is that a tremendous volume of information was also accrued from the time of the first true genomes to present, genome A(prime) to genome A(current). And since we've already established that languages don't just grow on their own, how is it we can believe that the language of genetics did? That dichotomy is poignant.
    Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-19-2011 at 06:25 PM.

  14. #489
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    [SIZE="3"][COLOR="Wheat"][B]EDIT: after responding to your last array of comments. I will have to say that this is the end of the road for me (unless of course you decide to bump it in another 10 months... ). We've irreconciliable views that can't produce effective dialouge by any means. So once it begins getting personal, I've no desire left to continue
    The closest thing to "personal" I have gotten is to charactorize your lack of response to a question as intellectually dishonest.

    If you were to ask someone a yes or no question, and their answer was "unicorns", would you say that was an honest answer?

    (note, this is a yes or no question in and of itself)

  15. #490
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

    (given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)
    The answer to your 'front-loaded' question is DUH! of course not... Which is also the very reason why we've yet to find unicorn fossils either...

    But consider that:

    1) Not all people lived in the plains... you assume too much.
    2) Fossils of many other plains' creatures have been discovered... I guess they ingested far more calcium.
    3) Our ancestors were probably as dependent on fresh water as we are today. Surely some of them died near a source of water. Again, you're the statistician... the odds are probable.

    But alas none of this matters... you've already made up your mind. "We must share a common ancestor with the primates, damn it!!!! Because... because... because we do!! And because it's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise!!"
    Finally, something close to an answer. I will take "of course not" as being equivalent to "it is more difficult to construct lineages of species that arose in plains/drier environments, given that fossilization of complete skeletons is more probable in wet invironments".
    The rest of your points seem to indicate a lack of awareness of what evolutionary theory and current thinking says about human evolution.

    1) Not all people lived in the plains... you assume too much.
    The topic of human transitional forms is not "people" i.e. Sapiens, but rather the species that proceeded humans.

    Of course *people* live and have lived in every environment on the planet, after they evolved somewhere else to become communicating tool-users.

    Human ancestors, the ones that you indicate we haven't found, are thought to have arisen in a fairly small area of Africa, although there are some who believe this may have been south Asia.

    Here is a fairly good summary of the state of current knowledge
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...uman_evolution

    We have found quite a few intermediate forms. I'm not sure what exactly you think it is we haven't found. I would say that is factually incorrect.

  16. #491
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Some examples of intellectual dishonesty:
    Ad hominem logical fallacies
    Making statements that are only half-true, and deliberately leaving out the portion of the truth that one does not wish to admit to.
    Avoiding honest questions asked in good faith.
    Strawman logical fallacies

    Among others.
    All of that is mere perception... Funny that I would perceive everything you do as falling in those categories...
    Perceive what you like.

    I have committed no logical fallacies, nor have I given any half-truths that I am aware of. I have answered your questions honestly, and to the best of my ability and will continue to do so.

    The one logical fallacy you have attempted to attribute to me, turned out to be either a misunderstanding or a strawman logical fallacy on your part.

    As for "mere perception", I say: "bull ". Logical fallacies are quite easily demonstrated. Their forms are fairly formal, and readily available.

    Here is a list of formal logical fallacies, although not entirely comprehensive:
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    Bull has been called. Either you can demonstrate at least one logical fallacy I have committed, or you can't.

    If you perceive what I am doing to be logically flawed, but can't prove it, what does that say about your perception?

  17. #492
    License to Lillard tlongII's Avatar
    Location
    Portland
    Post Count
    28,727
    NBA Team
    Portland Trail Blazers
    College
    Oregon State Beavers
    Game. Set. Match. RandomGuy must have been on a debate team at some point in his life.

  18. #493
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    1) Not all people lived in the plains... you assume too much.
    2) Fossils of many other plains' creatures have been discovered... I guess they ingested far more calcium.
    3) Our ancestors were probably as dependent on fresh water as we are today. Surely some of them died near a source of water. Again, you're the statistician... the odds are probable.

    But alas none of this matters... you've already made up your mind. "We must share a common ancestor with the primates, damn it!!!! Because... because... because we do!! And because it's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise!!"
    1, 3, 5, ... 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, ... 139, 141, 143, 145, ... 2265, 2267, 2269.

    Do we need to have every digit in this sequence to draw a reasonable conclusion as to the governing rule?

    Existance of a fossil is only part of the chain. Finding it is quite another matter entirely. It requires the right person, in the right place. If conditions preclude us finding a fossil, then we will not find it.

    If you were attempting to be intellectually honest or rigorous, you might have alluded to this. I assume you are aware of the various civil wars, lack of scientific education, and lack of physical infrasctructure in Africa.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was simple lack of thoroughness, as opposed to an attempt to mislead.

    The same cannot be said with your last point. That is an outright strawman logical fallacy.

    My beliefs, as I have clearly stated:
    It is reasonable to conclude that, based on the evidence, it is highly likely that we share common ancestry with modern apes in the distant past.
    This evidence includes, but isn't limted to: similar genetics and similar morphology.

    Evolutionary theory states that animals with similar forms will have more recent common ancestors, than animals with dissimilar forms. It does NOT state that we will find EVERY intermediary species of every modern animal going into the past.

    Description of Straw Man
    The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

    Person A has position X.
    Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
    Person B attacks position Y.
    Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
    In this case
    X = I think that the evidence I have seen of human ancestory supports evolutionary theory as being the most likely explanation.
    Y = "[you think that] We must share a common ancestor with the primates, damn it!!!! Because... because... because we do!!"

    The obvious implication is that X is flawed, because Y is illogical/circular reasoning.

    I have clearly stated my beliefs. You chose quite deliberately to distort them.

    That isn't my perception. That is demonstrable fact.

    As I have said before, when I see mostly one side in a debate committing these types of logical fallacies in almost every argument they make, that leads me to start assigning their arguments in general less and less weight as time goes by.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 01-20-2011 at 11:39 AM.

  19. #494
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Game. Set. Match. RandomGuy must have been on a debate team at some point in his life.
    Thank you.

    Actually, no, I have never been on a formal debate team. Probably should have.

    I have been arguing on the internet for over a decade in one place or another, and on a lot of topics that tend to attract people with illogical, dogmatic belief systems. My discovery of Nizkor.org, a website devoted to fighting Holocaust deniers, was one of my better finds.

    To be clear: creationists are not morally reprehensible as most Holocaust deniers are. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy no matter who makes the mistake, and yes, even people who believe in evolution commit them on occasion.

    The human tendency towards comfirmation bias being what it is though, means that people with really illogical belief systems tend to arrive at conclusions the same way, and resist information that contradicts their particular dogma the same way.

    If one only knew the Ad hominem (he is wrong because he is a bad person) or Strawman logical fallacies (see how illogical his position is, I distorted it to make fun of it, and that proves how wrong it is), that is almost all you need to know.

  20. #495
    Believe. MultiTroll's Avatar
    Post Count
    22,801
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    An Austin rhino is caught coming out.

  21. #496
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    50,672
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Yet another conversation that went no where.

    The people who think that some magic man in the sky created everything out of whole cloth will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to keep that belief.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •