Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Here comes another one...

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 10
 [ 192 posts ] 
Here comes another one...
Author Message
Dave B.Posts: 119Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." ~ Bertrand Russell
Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:16 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Greetings,

I see Gilbo has returned - welcome back!

And I also see that you're still conflating - dare I say, equivocating!? - "non-physical" and "supernatural". Despite my explaining about magnetic and gravitational lines of force.

Also, to remind you - since the discussion has transferred here:

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Gilbo12345, you seem to have missed a number of my responses.

Here, here and, most recently, here.

Kindest regards,

James

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:27 pm
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Here comes another one...

First of all, my apologies for not replying until now, and due to life (such as it is), further replies may be equally delayed.

Unrelated: Thank you Frenger and hackenslash: as long as someone understands what I am attempting to get across, then it is certainly worth the effort.

Note below that I've condensed a couple of related quotes below for the sake of ease.

gilbo12345 wrote:If you bothered to read my reply you would know why... There is no "line of transition" from one specimen to the other. Essentially you are taking a leap of faith to assume X organism became Y organism when you do not have a clear line of transition displaying every single small variance in the fossils.. Considering the "millions of years" these organisms have existed for there should be enough fossils lying around to demonstrate all these small variances... (I mean in the order of say 20 to 30 fossil organisms between each assumed transition demonstrating an observable progression from one to the other). Without this you ARE assuming that one organism became another since you have no reason to claim they did, apart from your own evolutionary assumptions.

I'd ask what EXPERIMENT was done to verify that each of these supposed "whale transitions" are indeed whale transitions? As I have been saying no experiment = no verification = no sale.

If you claim that X organism became Y organism then THAT is linear... Between X and Y... That is what I am saying with the "line of transition" if you cannot demonstrate the changes between X and Y why in the world should I do as you do and assume they occured?


This is precisely what I was talking about when I said this in my previous post: Please, please, please stop thinking of evolution as a linear process, because it is at the very root of the issue with your criticisms, and I can guarantee will cause problems in other areas not yet discussed.

It is rather tactless of you to accuse me of not reading your reply when you have just repeated exactly what I stated. That you have done this demonstrates that while you may have glossed over what I said, you are not understanding or internalizing it, and as a result you cannot apply it. Nothing you said above disagrees with my statement that the specimens do not transition into the other. I told you that we do not assume this, and I am telling you again. Frenger also told you. Yes, it would absolutely be a leap of faith. Please stop accusing us of making assumptions, because we are not the ones at fault here. This is exactly where your inconsistency lies, and this is why I took the time to specifically spell out for you that transitional lineages only track the appearance of traits in relation to their ancestral and derived lineages. A transitional fossil is one that has characteristics in common both with its ancestor and its descendent groups. There is nothing in that definition that assumes one transitional fossil evolved into the next, more derived one, and if you have read even one scientific article documenting any fossil lineage, you would know that no scientist assumes this either. It is the characteristic themselves that are the most important factor; those are the things that go into constructing a phylogeny; those are the things that are used in the calculations. I gave you a reference to a paper on the Tetrapodamorpha that does exactly what you asked for: conduct experiments to show relatedness using characters. I can give you any number of papers outlining the very experiments you keep on demanding, but if you continue fight with us on how science uses transitional fossils and constructs phylogenies, it is impossible for you to ever get what you are asking, and you and you alone are perpetuating that. Here are some papers on whale phylogeny:
1) https://www.montclair.edu/profilepages/ ... _whale.pdf
2) Uhen, M. D., 2010. The origin(s)of whales. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 38: 189-219.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152453
I barely had enough time to write this reply, and you are in no position to demand a summary or list of relevant quotes from me or anyone else here. We’ve already done the work; we understand it, now it’s your turn. What I will do is tell you to pay attention to the materials/methods and discussion sections. I also suggest reading the supplementary material because that is where they record all of their data.

gilbo12345 wrote:What makes you say that? A creationist perspective is similar design = similar DNA needed for the similar functions to be utilized by the similar organisms. However surely you realise that with the advent of epigenetics (which was halted by the evolutionary blunder of "junk" DNA belief), means that DNA is not the be-all-end-all for similarity.

If you didn't know epigenetics demonstrates that organisms with the same genes could produce totally different gene products from those genes, meaning two organisms with similar genetic structure could be totally different.


Keeping in mind the genome itself is unaltered, only the heritable changes affect evolution, and it doesn’t really involve significant changes in morphology such that you would not be able to recognize them as related taxa.

gilbo12345 wrote:Additionally the methods for DNA analysis are flawed in that

a) they allow the addition of gaps in "alignment" on the basis that evolution has occurred and thus mutations have altered the DNA. Meaning to use DNA analysis to support evolution is an example of circular reasoning...

b) The addition of these gaps ensures that the process is entirely arbitrary since the sequences are aligned to whatever you are testing them with. I tested this myself whilst studying this.

I had lots of different plant sequences DNA A,B,C,D,E and W,X,Y,Z, all of which are similar being crop plants (so no trees etc)

I aligned DNA A with B,C,D,E and aligned DNA A with W,X,Y,Z and guess what I found... The gaps given to DNA in each alignment were totally different...

Meaning the computer was incorporating the gaps in an attempt to force similarity between the sequences I was testing. How do we know that the first alignment is correct or the second one is? If we switch the DNA A's over there is almost zero similarity. On what basis can this be a true representation of reality when it is being doctored?

What I'd like to see would be DNA sequencing done with NO alignment, just the RAW DNA being tested for similarity. But that will never happen because there will be very little similarity.


Study harder. They aren’t assuming evolution is occurring, they’re testing their predictions of what would they would see if evolution did occur. That is not the same thing. Gaps are also a prediction that test the presence of potential homologies at specific sites. Moreover, how are any of us supposed to criticize this “experiment” of yours when you summarized it in only a few sentences? What crop plants did you use? Which program? What methods? And please correct if I’m wrong, but are you saying that the computer added gaps between DNA B,C,D,E and W,X,Y,Z (if anyone else here cares to answer, that's fine as well)?

gilbo12345 wrote:Obviously in order to make such a statement you have never heard of the inconsistencies between morphological trees and genetic trees.. I suggest rather than living in a bubble, pop your head into reality and LOOK at the real data. Some honest scientists are starting to realise this as per the article below.


Of course I’ve heard of the inconsistencies, and because I’m not the one in a bubble, I know what inconsistencies exist are minor in comparison, often corrected later on, and are still outweighed by the consistencies. This is the second time you have projected your own faults onto me. I suggest you stop, especially since the best you can do is toss in a link from a news website that doesn’t actually contradict anything I said. My use of the word tree is not in direct contrast to anything said in this report, because it involves a restructure primarily of the base due to the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer in unicellular organisms. This does not overturn phylogenetics, and a cursory glance at the literature would have told you the same thing:
1)Kim, Junhyong and Benjamin A. Salisbury. 2001. A tree obscured by vines: Horizontal gene transfer and the median tree method of estimating species phylogeny. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 6: 571-582.
2)Kurland, C. G., B. Canback and Otto G. Berg (2003) “Horizontal gene transfer: A critical view”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 9658-9662. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1632870100v1

gilbo12345 wrote:I wasn't using it as evidence? I was giving a definition because you asked, remember?


I was asking for a definition because you said fish=fish=still fish showed evolution did not occur, remember?

gilbo12345 wrote:Significant?


Indeed. The fact that you accept the definition of fish you provided means you accept that everything within the group is related. By default you accept that jaws appeared near the base of the group, as well as limb bones in a certain derived group. Limb bones that happen to be found in tetrapods as well.

gilbo12345 wrote:How in the world does this advance any form of rebuttal to my asking for the EXPERIMENTS that verify evolutionary inferences?

This was why I didn't reply before because it advanced nothing for the topic, and didn't address my question, as well as being a shotgun making this thread expand into topics I don't want to discuss on this thread. I would rather discuss the experiments (or lack thereof) supporting evolutionary assumptions at least Liam is addressing my question.


The mere fact that you can't see the relevance or the connection I've been making here while other members in the forum can, is highly indicative of your level of understanding of biology and science in general.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:37 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Gilbo returned and seemingly has ran away again.
Image
Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:32 pm
Dave B.Posts: 119Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

australopithecus wrote:Gilbo returned and seemingly has ran away again.

Give him a break. I'm sure he's busy with school. :lol:
Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:04 am
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 531Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Here comes another one...

I bet he's over at EFF boasting about his "victory" over those atheists. I swear every thread over there is "I bet evolutionists can't explain this..." while being completely ignored by the world at large then they claim that "silence = victory."

Gilbo has never picked up a biology or an ochem textbook in his life. This assertion is backed by the evidence of his statements. Drink deeply from that Kool Aid gilbo!
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:08 am
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Dave B. wrote:
australopithecus wrote:Gilbo returned and seemingly has ran away again.

Give him a break. I'm sure he's busy with school. :lol:


If by school you mean here... Same shit, but in a comfort zone. :lol:



gilbo12345 wrote:Perhaps if the hypothesis was "there are fossils in this hill" then digging to find them would be an experiment for that hypothesis.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:14 am
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

I enjoyed Hackenslash's napalm entry.

Well played.
Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:07 pm
WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Mine is but to serve...
Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:19 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Prolescum wrote:
Dave B. wrote:Give him a break. I'm sure he's busy with school. :lol:


If by school you mean here... Same shit, but in a comfort zone. :lol:



gilbo12345 wrote:Perhaps if the hypothesis was "there are fossils in this hill" then digging to find them would be an experiment for that hypothesis.


It is amazing that gilbo12345 knows how to use the quote function on that forum. That makes one wonder why he was unable/unwilling to do the same here.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:36 pm
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Gitbo12345 wrote:I believe Ron used the context, VALIDATE... Go read what you quoted.


I did read what I quoted, and in fact Ron used the term proof, in big shiny fucking capitals and everything. Proof does not occur in science except in the negative form. We cannot say that a given theory is true, only that it is false or not yet proven false.

Besides this is merely a point of semantics,


Semantics deals with what we mean when we say a thing, and is thus the heart of communication. To dismiss a point because 'it's semantics' is therefore the intellectual equivalent of, to employ a favourite football metaphor, diving in the penalty area.

'Oh noes the world is going to end because someone typed the wrong word'....[sic]


He didn't type a wrong word, he uttered a false fucking statement, in direct response to the correct statement of somebody else.

Get over yourself mate.


I'm not your fucking mate, I'm the enemy, and don't forget it.

Evolution has been observed? Like in an experiment?... Care to post one?


Several have been given in this very thread, not that you'll acknowledge any of them, because they fail to genuflect before your preposterous masturbation fantasy. Lenski's E. coli experiments are an observation of evolution. The formation of caecal valves in the lizards of Pod Mrcaru are another.

(Without assuming "evolution did it", like our friend BeesKnees).


Learn the fucking difference between an assumption and an experimentally validated postulate. I don't have to assume anything because, once again, it has been fucking observed occurring. That evolution occurs is not an assumption, it's an observed fact.

Or will you dodge like all the others on this...


I don't do dodges, unlike your professional evasion of my challenge.

Is that what you wanted?


No, but I've seen the modus operandi on the EFF forum, and it's what I predict, quite correctly as it turns out. That's fucking science, not the palsied fucking caricature of it you and your ignorant cronies present.

Then don't complain about being banned when you know full well that you have gone against the rules.


See me complaining, genius?
Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:19 pm
Dave B.Posts: 119Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

gilbo12345 wrote:Perhaps if the hypothesis was "there are fossils in this hill" then digging to find them would be an experiment for that hypothesis.

Perhaps if the hypothesis was, if the Theory of Evolution is correct, then we would expect to find a transitional fossil in this exact location. We did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:21 pm
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Here comes another one...

There is also the issue of whether or not he has access to many of the experiments he's asking for. I have my suspicions.

Dave B. wrote:
gilbo12345 wrote:Perhaps if the hypothesis was "there are fossils in this hill" then digging to find them would be an experiment for that hypothesis.

Perhaps if the hypothesis was, if the Theory of Evolution is correct, then we would expect to find a transitional fossil in this exact location. We did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik


Without an understanding of what a transitional fossil actually is, this will mean nothing to him. He fixates on the tetrapod footprints from Poland, thinking it is an invalidation.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:57 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

:?:

Hackenslash, I see gilbo12345 respondingto a post you made, but I do not see the post from you. Have they already removed it or am I not looking hard enough?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:00 am
YIM WWW
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 531Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Here comes another one...

he_who_is_nobody wrote::?:

Hackenslash, I see gilbo12345 respondingto a post you made, but I do not see the post from you. Have they already removed it or am I not looking hard enough?


They deleted the post. Standard operation at EFF.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:56 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Dustnite wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote::?:

Hackenslash, I see gilbo12345 respondingto a post you made, but I do not see the post from you. Have they already removed it or am I not looking hard enough?


They deleted the post. Standard operation at EFF.


That is what I thought. Thanks.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:00 am
YIM WWW
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Isotelus wrote:Without an understanding of what a transitional fossil actually is, this will mean nothing to him. He fixates on the tetrapod footprints from Poland, thinking it is an invalidation.


I've tried to explain this twice to him now, but because he still thinks evolution works in a straight line, it falls on deaf ears.
Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:35 pm
WWW
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Here comes another one...

Frenger wrote:I've tried to explain this twice to him now, but because he still thinks evolution works in a straight line, it falls on deaf ears.


That makes four times between the two of us. The fact that he and others cannot see that we agree fossils evolving into others is a bad assumption is representative of their general incapacity. It is the one critical barrier preventing them from understanding phylogenetic, cladistics, etc.

And speaking of which, I forgot to reply to this one particular comment earlier:
gilbo wrote:Considering the "millions of years" these organisms have existed for there should be enough fossils lying around to demonstrate all these small variances... (I mean in the order of say 20 to 30 fossil organisms between each assumed transition demonstrating an observable progression from one to the other).


If he means transitions between species, then rather typically he's asking the wrong question, as it would be astronomically dense to assume such high resolution in the fossil record (except in the case of fossil marine foraminifera, where you can quite easily document transition at a species level in a given sequence). However, if he's looking for 20-30 examples of higher taxonomic transitions, then I would point him to the same two whale phylogeny papers I provided in my last response, which will likely go unanswered. With respect to Gatesy et al., and emphasis on Fig. 10, pg. 24, the caption explicitly states it's character based, with representative genera of the relevant families placed in concordance with their shared-derived traits. However, there are more fossil genera that, without cluttering up the tree, would bring the transition to over 20 examples (such as Ichthyolestes, Babiacetus, Protosiren, Artiocetus, Protocetus, Dalanistes, etc).
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:41 pm
Dave B.Posts: 119Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Here comes another one...

He's a scientist now! :lol:

Gilbo wrote:
You admitted that you are not a scientist, I am and so are my colleagues...


http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//in ... st&p=95036
Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:08 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Here comes another one...

He's exactly as much a scientist as I am a Boeing 747.
Image
Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:26 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 10
 [ 192 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests