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.

AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
 [ 89 posts ] 
AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3218Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:Bob Enyart Live asked me to post this:

AronRa seems to be backing out of his offer to debate Bob Enyart in writing. On the air AronRa agreed to debate Bob here at the League of Reason. Our proposal (see http://kgov.com/AronRa-debate-offer#proposal ) to start the debate was rejected by Aron. Here's the last paragraph of his reply:

"My primary contention is with Bob's proposal that failure to post a reply within a single week constitutes a loss by default. It normally takes me longer than that just to catch up on my email! I'm not kidding either. I don't have assistants like yourself. Neither do I have an online ministry peddling books and DVDs and so on. I'm supposed to start my own radio show soon, apart form my podcasts with DPR Jones, but I'll never have sheep to shear like Bob does. So I still have to work for a living, and I more work to do off the clock than on. For example, it Bob posted today, it would take me a whole month to reply to him. I have multiple presentations, promotions, and protests to prepare, and just a few weeks to complete them all. These next few months, I'll be all over the place. I can't put one of these real-world events on-hold, and cannot prioritize Bob above any of them. That and I also have a large and demanding family on top of everything else. At this point, the best I could agree to is no more than a month between posts. I'm sorry, but I'm already sweating just over the amount of time I took me to write this message to you." -AronRa


We'll wait. By Aron's suggestion that the rules permit a month between written posts (relatively brief posts at that), a 10-round written debate would take more than a year to conduct, and three such debates might take half a decade. While Bob is eager to debate Aron, he doesn't want to marry him. It seems to us that AronRa is merely backing out of his on-air agreement that he would debate Bob Enyart in January of 2012. If Aron ever decides to debate in writing and if Bob is still alive, then Aron can accept the above format, modify it, or suggest something else, and we'll be happy to proceed! Online thankfully there's no need to argue about the shape of the table. :)


I do not understand how you can suggest AronRa is backing out of a debate, when you post in the thread AronRa created for the debate. AronRa is simply saying that he does not agree with the rule that not posting in a week results in a default. If that one rule were to be modified, I am sure AronRa would be more than happy to debate Enyart.

However, the ball seems to be in Enyart's court. AronRa has already posted several lengthy opening posts for the debate. Enyart simply has to reply to them. Furthermore, as I have already suggested, AronRa's opening posts can be moved to the debate thread if Enyart does not want to deal with reading through all the other posts on this thread.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:53 pm
YIM WWW
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

I agree with he_who_is_nobody. Aron didn't back out, he wants a modification of one rule, just as dotoree and I have done. Aron did ask for a modification of that one rule, so how is this "If Aron ever decides to debate in writing and if Bob is still alive, then Aron can accept the above format, modify it, or suggest something else, and we'll be happy to proceed!" applicable?
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:08 pm
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4277Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

I believe I mentioned dishonesty.,..
Image
Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:55 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3218Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

australopithecus wrote:I believe I mentioned dishonesty.,..


It appears you are correct. After looking at the link YesYouNeedJesus provided, the second bullet you see there reads as follows:

Bob Enyart Live wrote:* AronRa Backing Out of Written Debate Offer: On the air AronRa agreed to debate Bob in writing at League of Reason, an online venue that he's comfortable with. Our attempt to start the debate was rejected by Aron. Here's the last paragraph of his reply:


I snipped out the paragraph from AronRa because AronRa has already posted it here long before YesYouNeedJesus posted it.

It appears to me that Enyart et al. are trying to muddy up the waters and stay face for their fans. They provide no link to the League of Reason thread AronRa created for the debate. No one that was a regular listener to Enyart would know that AronRa has already posted an opening for the debate. They are also trying to spin it in away to make it look like AronRa is the one backing out of the debate he has already started.

Not only is Enyart being dishonest, but also his actions, at least to me, are coming off as very cowardly. He seems to be using any excuse to try to back out of the debate and blame it on AronRa.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:21 pm
YIM WWW
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

Wow...

Let's forget whose side we're on for a minute and look at this. I can't quite believe what I'm reading.

When Bob Enyart and AronRa were talking on the radio show in November, they both agreed that the science topic is best handled in written form. Bob and Aron agreed to do a written debate and Aron suggested that it be done here, so that posts wouldn't get deleted. Bob agreed. Aron said that he wouldn't be available to do this until January.

So Bob Enyart waited until January to contact Aron and set up the details for the debate. Well, unknown to us, Aron spent the month of December researching and preparing a book's worth of material and posted it on League of Reason. Why did he do that? I'm not really sure, but whatever. After posting all that material, here is what Aron emailed me:

Aron wrote:I posted my summary of the points covered on the show...If he does not want to respond to that post, if he wants a debate arranged in a different format in the same forum, he's welcome to do that too.


I don't know about you guys, but I've never heard of 2 people agreeing to do a debate months down the road, and one side of the debate showing up unannounced with a small book that they've written, handing it over and saying, "Here's my opening statements. Your turn." Huh?!?

Further, Aron said in his email quoted above that Bob does not have to respond to his post, and can debate in an arranged format. That's usually how debates go, and that's what we had expected. Is that too much to ask?

I agree with Bob's willingness to wait. In anyone's busy life, I think a few paragraphs of information could be finished in a week's amount of time. That was the point of choosing 3 specific topics, so that massive effort wouldn't be necessary and so that we might actually get somewhere. I could be wrong, but I feel like Aron posted all this info here because he did not think he did well on the radio show. I think he did it to try to save face. And I can't help but think that he'd rather not debate Bob here either. I definitely want to be proven wrong, just being honest.

-Will
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:32 pm
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4277Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:I could be wrong, but I feel like Aron posted all this info here because he did not think he did well on the radio show.


You're wrong, insomuch that regardless of whether or not Aron thinks he did well or not, by virtue of understanding the concepts he was discussing, did well.
Image
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:45 pm
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

australopithecus wrote:You're wrong, insomuch that regardless of whether or not Aron thinks he did well or not, by virtue of understanding the concepts he was discussing, did well.


I really don't care about this minor detail. I just want to get the show on the road. My comment had nothing to do with whether or not he did well, but whether or not he thought he did well. Did you listen to the entire audio from the radio show?
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:52 pm
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4277Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

When Aron first posted it, yes I did. Frankly it was exactly what I've come to expect when someone who knows what they're talking about debates someone who doesn't. In case you're wondering that's Aron and Bob respectively.
Image
Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:55 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 511Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

AronRa wrote:If, -after reviewing our interview on the air- Bob still feels he can defend his position even in this format, then I'm all for it; that will be something to see.
YesYouNeedJesus wrote:AronRa seems to be backing out of his offer to debate Bob Enyart in writing.
No, it certainly does NOT seem like that, and you know better. Don't start lying before the debate even begins.

By Aron's suggestion that the rules permit a month between written posts (relatively brief posts at that), a 10-round written debate would take more than a year to conduct, and three such debates might take half a decade.
I never suggested a MINIMUM of a month between posts. It really doesn't matter how long this debate takes, but I predict it will not take even half a year regardless -unless HE wants to drag it out.

There is a comedic colloquialism that I've heard from a few creationists; "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit". This has been Enyart's battle plan from the beginning. But it didn't work with me, because I was already familiar with nearly all of the topics, people, or articles he brought up, and during the show I demonstrated a more accurate understanding of all of them than he has. Now I suspect that his plan is to (1) start the debate having pre-dismissed most or all of what I have already posted in favor of only three select points. (2) Lob so much erroneous and irrelevant nonsense at me at me that I couldn't possibly adequately refute it all in a single week. I suspect that Bob is counting on his insignificance in my world, so that I might forget about him while I am flitting back and forth between conferences and conventions on both coasts, and another one on the other side of the world. I'm also currently acting as state director for American Atheists, and am already compiling assignments all over Texas, to say nothing of everything else I've got going on right now. So it is unreasonable to hold me to the standard of posting every single week. Otherwise it is impossible for me to lose a debate with a creationist -except by technicality, and I have removed the one technicality Bob could have used.

It seems to us that AronRa is merely backing out of his on-air agreement that he would debate Bob Enyart in January of 2012.
No reasonable person could possibly have misjudged my continued enthusiasm for this discussion as badly as you now pretend. As previous posters have already noted, it seems that Bob Enart Live is trying to find whatever excuse ya'll can to get out of this. See? This is why I insisted that even negotiating terms should be a matter of public record. I've debated your sort before.

If Aron ever decides to debate in writing
....which I already have, as indicated in every post I have yet made to this thread.

and if Bob is still alive,
That won't make any difference either way. My victory in this debate was already guaranteed when we were still on the air.

then Aron can accept the above format, modify it, or suggest something else,
I did all of the above.

and we'll be happy to proceed!
Obviously not, since my counter proposal was met with false accusations. As others have already pointed out, it seems that you're trying to weasel out of inevitable humiliation by trying to project your own cowardice onto me. That's not going to work.

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:Wow...

Let's forget whose side we're on for a minute and look at this. I can't quite believe what I'm reading.
Wait, you believe that snakes and donkeys can talk?! That the earth is the center of the universe? And that everything was poofed out of nothing by an incantation spell? Yet you can't believe when rational people expect you to be held accountable for spewing falsehoods on mass media?! "Wow" is right!

When Bob Enyart and AronRa were talking on the radio show in November, they both agreed that the science topic is best handled in written form. Bob and Aron agreed to do a written debate and Aron suggested that it be done here, so that posts wouldn't get deleted. Bob agreed. Aron said that he wouldn't be available to do this until January.

So Bob Enyart waited until January to contact Aron and set up the details for the debate.
Bob never contacted me at all.

Well, unknown to us, Aron spent the month of December researching and preparing a book's worth of material and posted it on League of Reason. Why did he do that?
I didn't. I spent three or four days on a post which I agreed to have done by the first of the year, and I did that despite it being a very difficult time for me and my family. Good thing too, since I've already seen how you would respond if I posted any later than I did. You might have claimed victory by default already.

After posting all that material, here is what Aron emailed me:
Aron wrote:I posted my summary of the points covered on the show...

I don't usually get sticky about debate rules. All that matters to me is that I show how everything I said actually was right and everything Bob asserted turned out to be wrong. He is welcome to respond directly to that post. The first one is quite long, since it covers all seven parts of our interview, but since we're only verifying the points each of us made on the show, it should whittle down to nothing as each point is systematically conceded and listed on his errata link.

If he does not want to respond to that post, if he wants a debate arranged in a different format in the same forum, he's welcome to do that too. However most forums have debate rules which impose concise time limits on responses that I doubt either of us could adhere to. So I think having him respond directly to my existing thread is the best way to go.
You left out the important stuff I said, so I put it back in -in blue. The most important bit is underlined.

I don't know about you guys, but I've never heard of 2 people agreeing to do a debate months down the road, and one side of the debate showing up unannounced with a small book that they've written, handing it over and saying, "Here's my opening statements. Your turn." Huh?!?
Yeah, I never heard of that either, and that's not what happened. Instead I posted my notice at the beginning of the month, and you've waited way too long to begin negotiating what I thought had already been decided in November.

I'm sorry that Bob got so much wrong in that show that it seems like a book to you, but that's all his fault for going on for four hours. Do you think this was easy for me to have to sit and listen to all that again, while documenting every error? The next time he promises to defend all the claims he makes on any one show, have him make fewer of them. Have him do shorter shows, or at least see that he gets something right once in a while.

Further, Aron said in his email quoted above that Bob does not have to respond to his post, and can debate in an arranged format. That's usually how debates go, and that's what we had expected. Is that too much to ask?
As I remember, the point of this was to show which comments were correct and which comments were creationist. So yeah, asking that I ignore dozens of deliberately deceptive distortions while you try to change the subject is too much to ask. Why should I let you slide on any of them?

I agree with Bob's willingness to wait. In anyone's busy life, I think a few paragraphs of information could be finished in a week's amount of time. That was the point of choosing 3 specific topics, so that massive effort wouldn't be necessary and so that we might actually get somewhere.
It doesn't matter how we do it, that massive list at the start of this thread are the errors Enyart made, and those are the points he will still have to address regardless what format we eventually agree on. If you want this to go faster, you could have him write a quick concession for every point he definitely got wrong. If he does that, this debate could be over by tomorrow.

I could be wrong, but I feel like Aron posted all this info here because he did not think he did well on the radio show. I think he did it to try to save face.
Bob lied to his audience about having 'bested' me, and this debate will certainly prove that for anyone who didn't notice it already. Bob knows he cannot defend anything he said on the air. His performance there was a total failure! He misrepresented all the data he cited, and I corrected him on most of these during the broadcast. Meanwhile everything I said turned out to be correct while every assertion he made was wrong. Not just some of them; ALL of them. He knows that, and now he faces a systematic refutation of everything he said. To my experience, creationists refuse to be held accountable for their errors. Bob can't save face on any point, and he knows it. Neither will he honestly concede his many errors as promised, yet he can't defend them either. That's why he told you to post the evasive excuses you just did.

And I can't help but think that he'd rather not debate Bob here either.
I'm tired of debating nameless anonymous internet nobodies. For years I have challenged creationists to bring me someone representative of their beliefs, someone with an actual identity to defend. Finally Bob shows up! Sadly I still don't think it will happen. He knows he can't win, not without gymnastic semantics ad absurdum of terms that I won't let him mis-define. Neither will this make him any money. So he'll posture and bluff and conjure excuses until he can find some way to escape being forced to admit how he is wrong.

I definitely want to be proven wrong, just being honest.
I do not believe it is possible to be an honest creationist, not once one begins investigating the claims on both sides. I think I have already proven that point a few times, and this debate will prove it again -if it hasn't already.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:47 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3218Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:Wow...

Let's forget whose side we're on for a minute and look at this.


I agree; let us forget whose side we are on. On that note, you should provide a link to this thread on the previous link you provided.

I do not think I have to say anything else. Everything else seems to be covered.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:54 am
YIM WWW
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

Aron, it's okay man, we're good here. You misunderstood the main thrust of my post, which was not directed at you, but to the commenters. The commenters acted like you started the debate, when that wasn't exactly your intention. I had no idea if you agreed with them, so my post was directed at them, not you.

My other post, (the first one), came from Bob Enyart Live, not me. Just FYI.

Bob told me he's willing to start Monday. He's gone for the weekend, but will post before midnight on Monday. I can't wait!

I actually agree with you that it's not best to have a set number of rounds. I also agree with you and Bob that we should stick to one topic at a time, so either side can't obfuscate. Let's dial this in with a laser beam. If we do that, you're right, it won't take too long. And I also think that if either side keeps avoiding the topic at hand, we should just move on and consider that topic over.

The first topic will be Aron's claim that "Everything we see in nature consistently adheres to everything we would expect of a chain of inherited variations carried down through flowering lines of descent." And that "the phylogenetic tree of life is plainly evident from the bottom up to any objective observer who dares compare the anatomy of different sets of collective life forms. But it can be just as objectively confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically."
Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:02 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3218Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:The first topic will be Aron's claim that "Everything we see in nature consistently adheres to everything we would expect of a chain of inherited variations carried down through flowering lines of descent." And that "the phylogenetic tree of life is plainly evident from the bottom up to any objective observer who dares compare the anatomy of different sets of collective life forms. But it can be just as objectively confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically."


:lol: You mean this?

AronRa wrote:
When Pastor Bob Enyart invited me to continue this discussion, he promised that he had an answer to my 'Phylogeny Challenge'. Unfortunately he still doesn't know what the question is. In the preceding portion of this discussion, I asked him to explain it. I expected him to play a clip from the Phylogeny Challenge video,where (from 8:40 on) I explain exactly what the challenge is. Instead, Bob played two separate audio clips from the wrong video, and thought that was it. The clips he played were just statements of fact which contained no challenge. So at the start of part 6, Bob opens on yet another false assumption based on really inattentive research.

Everything we see in nature consistently adheres to everything we would expect of a chain of inherited variations carried down through flowering lines of decent. ...Because the phylogenetic tree of life is plainly evident from the bottom up to any objective observer who dares to compare the anatomy of different sets of collective life-forms. But it can be just as objectively doubly-confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically."

There is overwhelming testimony from evolutionary biologists that everything you just said is completely wrong, and I have in front of me quotes and specifics. You might claim that I'm taking them out of context, but I'll post the references on this show's summary. I am not taking it out of context. The very day that the testimony was taken in Texas, (I mentioned January 21st 2009) that very day, New Scientist published a cover story on the tree of life. And that cover story goes through the proceedings of the N.A.S. and Nature and Science, and everybody, and it quotes an army of evolutionary biologists who say that genetically the tree of life lies in tatters, that it's being cut down.
Yes, I remember that article because they were talking about the horizontal gene transfer that I brought up in the beginning of the 10th foundational falsehood of creationism.
I know, and I watched that very carefully, but your assertion that genetics covers the tree of life is false, and I can establish that.
No sir. Your reference to, and reliance on, trite sensationalism shamelessly promoted by a popular magazine will not change the fact that genetics has already irrevocably confirmed a network of evolutionary ancestry for many different lineages of life. The reason I referred you to my videos on caniforme and feliforme phylogeny is because both of those videos prove the point, by examining and explaining published peer-revewed genetic analyses:

Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships, Science Direct
The Evolution of Cats, Scientific American
Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia) - Oxford Journal of Systematic Biology

Likewise my Phylogeny Challenge video also cites several juried papers in peer-reviewed journals:

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
Human and Non-Human Primate Genomes Share Hotspots of Positive Selection
Lineage-Specific Gene Duplication and Loss in Human and Great Ape Evolution
A Human-Specific De Novo Protein-Coding Gene Associated with Human Brain Functions
Human-specific loss of regulatory DNA and the evolution of human-specific traits

If you look up each of the listed citations above, you'll see a series of associated studies, none of which could even exist if your 'understanding' of the New Science article was correct. But they do exist, so my point is already proven, and genomic research continues to confirm evolutionary phylogenies.

"Comparison of whole genome sequences provides a highly detailed view of how organisms are related to each other at the genetic level. How are genomes compared and what can these findings tell us about how the overall structure of genes and genomes have evolved? Comparative genomics also provides a powerful tool for studying evolutionary changes among organisms, helping to identify genes that are conserved or common among species, as well as genes that give each organism its unique characteristics." -Nature (2010)

If these evolutionary biologists are right, then you're wrong, Aron. And genetics tears apart the tree of life, tears it apart. That's why they published a story titled, "Darwin was Wrong on the tree of life".
I remember the story, and I know what it pertains to; it pertained to, -it took the root out of the tree of life.
No! It took the whole branches, the twigs!
No, it took the root!
It slaughtered them!
Just that!
No, you're wrong. You didn't read it. You're wrong. The last time I read it was today. I read the whole article.
Then how did you miss the linked editorial at the very beginning, Uprooting Darwin's tree? In case your subscription isn't up to date, here is an excerpt.

" We now gaze on a biological world of mind-boggling complexity that exposes the shortcomings of familiar, tidy concepts such as species, gene and organism.
A particularly pertinent example is provided in this week's cover story - the uprooting of the tree of life which Darwin used as an organising principle and which has been a central tenet of biology ever since (see "Axing Darwin's tree"). Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature - it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable."


How did you miss this part of the article itself?

"Microbes have been living on Earth for at least 3.8 billion years; multicellular organisms didn't appear until about 630 million years ago. Even today bacteria, archaea and unicellular eukaryotes make up at least 90 per cent of all known species, and by sheer weight of numbers almost all of the living things on Earth are microbes. It would be perverse to claim that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because multicellular life evolved that way.

If there is a tree of life, it's a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life," says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of Exeter, UK."


So the article says the phylogenetic tree has no root, just like I said. Obviously I have read this article after all, but it seems you have not. Either that, or you glean for talking points rather than reading for comprehension. You should at least have noticed that the article interviewed two camps; those who say that the tree analogy no longer applies if it can't account for all biota, and the second camp, who say the concept of an 'unrooted' tree still works,at least with regard to animals, if not all other multicellular organisms.

I am sure you're aware that several scientists immediately posted harsh criticism of New Science for their deliberately deceptive title and misleading cover art. The article itself is factually OK, but it is unnecessarily emotive and especially confusing to laymen, obviously. It doesn't explain anything as well as it should have, but it certainly doesn't say what you wish it did either. I know what it's really talking about, and I had already addressed these points months before that article even came out.

Did you see Dennet's reponse?

"Nothing in the article showed that the concept of the tree of life is unsound; only that it is more complicated than was realised before the advent of molecular genetics. It is still true that all of life arose from "a few forms or... one", as Darwin concluded in The Origin of Species. It is still true that it diversified by descent with modification via natural selection and other factors.
Of course there's a tree; it's just more of a banyan than an oak at its single-celled-organism base. The problem of horizontal gene-transfer in most non-bacterial species is not serious enough to obscure the branches we find by sequencing their DNA.
The accompanying editorial makes it clear that you knew perfectly well that your cover was handing the creationists a golden opportunity to mislead school boards, students and the general public about the status of evolutionary biology."


So let me tell you why these evolutionary biologists are saying that Darwin was wrong on the tree of life. Right? Let me give you some of the reasons. This is from the proceedings of the NAS: "European researches examined more than a half a million genes from 181 prokaryotes" (Now I know they don't have a nucleus.) ""¦and found that 80% of them could not be interpreted as forming the branches of a tree of life, 80%. This turns out to be the rule rather than the exception even for eukaryotes, even for organisms that have cells with a nucleus.
At the microbial level, yes it does. However multicellular organisms are better able to protect their genetic core, substantially minimizing occurrence of horizontal gene transfer from 80% closer to 8%.

"Believe it or not, 8% of human DNA is actually old virus DNA. Some viruses, called retroviruses, put their DNA into the DNA of the cells they infect. HIV is a virus like this.
-geneticist, Carrie Metzinger B.Sc., Bergmann Lab, Stamford University

The article also mentions the influence of occasional hybridization and fluke occurrences like a snake bite transferring genes. But these events are so rare and easily identifiable that they do not pose any significant impediment to phylogenetics.

The university of California at Davis has compared 2,000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies, and nemotodes. In theory, they should have been able to use the gene sequences like you claim, to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships. They failed. The problem was that the different genes told contradictory stories.
I could spare us some time. It is what I told you at the beginning it was going to be,where it relates to viruses and horizontal gene transfer.
No! No! Were NOT viruses!
I guess your copy didn't include illustrations.

Image

"This is a image of the more or less current tree of life showing the 5 kingdoms and how genetic inheritance is now thought to be not exactly vertical but also includes horizontal gene inheritance via at least virus infection and maybe other routes such as the incorporation of mitochondria and plastids as symbiotic partners within Eukaryote cells."

In addition to the description of the illustration, the article also said this: "40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions (New Scientist, 27 August 2008, p 38). The same is probably true of the genomes of other big animals."

Beyond that, the article implies that the reason Syvanen could not construct a consistent cladogram inclusive of all six organisms was because of a bizarre case of horizontal gene transfer at the apparent origin of one of them, turning into a genetic chimera. Remove tunicates from the mix and a cladogram is still easily traceable for the five remaining organisms. In fact, we can still even determine phylogenetic clades for most tunicates.

Just for your amusement:
"Thirty new complete 18S rRNA sequences were acquired from previously unsampled tunicate species, with special focus on groups presenting high evolutionary rate. The updated 18S rRNA dataset has been aligned with respect to the constraint on homology imposed by the rRNA secondary structure. A probabilistic framework of phylogenetic reconstruction was adopted to accommodate the particular evolutionary dynamics of this ribosomal marker. Detailed Bayesian analyses were conducted under the non-parametric CAT mixture model accounting for site-specific heterogeneity of the evolutionary process, and under RNA-specific doublet models accommodating the occurrence of compensatory substitutions in stem regions. Our results support the division of tunicates into three major clades: 1) Phlebobranchia + Thaliacea + Aplousobranchia, 2) Appendicularia, and 3) Stolidobranchia, but the position of Appendicularia could not be firmly resolved. Our study additionally reveals that most Aplousobranchia evolve at extremely high rates involving changes in secondary structure of their 18S rRNA, with the exception of the family Clavelinidae, which appears to be slowly evolving. This extreme rate heterogeneity precluded resolving with certainty the exact phylogenetic placement of Aplousobranchia. Finally, the best fitting secondary-structure and CAT-mixture models suggest a sister-group relationship between Salpida and Pyrosomatida within Thaliacea."
-BioMedCentral

Now you see that only Appendicularia could not be firmly resolved. Can you explain why Aplousobranchia evolves so much faster than the rest?

I know the article. I know what it means. I already told you"¦
You completely misrepresented what it means. It's about humans. It's about human DNA. That's what the article is about.
No it isn't. It's about how we should abandon the concept of a single universal common ancestor for all forms of life, or even all eukaryotes. It's about whether phylogenetics has become so complex that it can no longer be adequately represented using the analogy of a tree. In point of fact the analogy fails because there is no root, there is no trunk, and of course there are no leaves. As the article said, life doesn't grow vertically either. Only the branching pattern remains, and that is only applicable to multicellular organisms. Even then, there is still a degree of HGT and hybridization which can,albeit rarely- confuse the tree analogy. However,at least with multicellular organisms, hybridization can only occur between two species of the same genus, so even if it happened frequently, it still wouldn't be significant in any protracted depiction. Personally I prefer to render phylogeny as a tumbleweed of life'. I think it is more accurate, and even more helpful in its illustration of evolutionary relationships at least among animals, which is what paleontologists and other folk are most often concerned with. Envisioning phylogeny as a 'tree' is a traditional convention just like your own 'family tree', except the phylogenetic tree is still a much more accurate analogy than the 'tree' in genealogy.

This is my proof that your claim is wrong, that genetics proves the tree. That claim is wrong, and there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who agree with me.
No there aren't. None of the scientists involved in this article agreed with you. Just to prove that, here is another excerpt from the editorial:

"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not."

I suspect that "an army" consisting of "thousands of evolutionary scientists" don't really agree with you just like "every cosmologist in the world" didn't really agree with you either.


This whole thread is a great example of Potholer's Law. Look how much effort goes into correcting just one error Enyart makes.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:20 pm
YIM WWW
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 511Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

So the way Bob intends to ignore all the questions, challenges, and evidence already posted against him is by opening a whole new thread where he can just talk past all that as if it didn't exist. Got it. That way he can dodge the systematic refutation of everything he got wrong, which is everything he said, and he won't be forced to acknowledge any of his errors. Then if he does provide a link to this forum, none of his fans will ever see any of the information in that other thread. They'll never know that every one of his 'assertions' turned out to be wrong, and they won't see how he misrepresented all the data he cited.

Pity Bob will not simply reply directly to this thread already created for that purpose, but as I said it's no surprise that he won't since creationists won't be held accountable. Still, that certainly would have made more sense -especially since the whole and sole purpose of this debate is for him to defend the falsehoods he spewed on the air. Not only is evidently not doing that, but he seems to be trying to change the subject. There is no point in choosing three 'topics', because he still can't lob any new nonsense at me that was not already brought up in the show. That is the one-and-only topic, which of our comments or claims made on the air turned out to be wrong. The goal posts are already moving. I guess I'll just have to repeat myself an awful lot in that other thread.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:53 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3218Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

AronRa wrote:Then if he does provide a link to this forum, none of his fans will ever see any of the information in that other thread. They'll never know that every one of his 'assertions' turned out to be wrong, and they won't see how he misrepresented all the data he cited.


Do not worry about this, I have provided a link to this thread at least two times in the Peanut Gallery. One of the links includes a quote from you, which should peak the interest of any reader.

BobEnyart only has to provide a link to the debate. The debate will have a link to the Peanut Gallery and the Peanut Gallery has links to this thread. Thus, anyone interested in the truth can find there way here.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:09 am
YIM WWW
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4277Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

Creationists seeking truth? I'll have to start funding into a swine runway.
Image
Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:17 am
chatmaggotUser avatarPosts: 6Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:22 am

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

australopithecus wrote:Creationists seeking truth? I'll have to start funding into a swine runway.


During the discussion between AronRa and Bob on Bob's program AronRa denied that he showed a video clip of Ken Ham while he (AronRa) talked over the video (1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism). Yet it is there for all to see around the four minute mark. Is AronRa's denial of what his own video shows being truthful?

In the actual debate thread AronRa states:

I must contest Bob on one other point in his first post here; the definition of faith. According to a consensus of every authoritative source, dictionaries, hymns, collective philosophers, sermons of theologians past and present, and even scripture (both eastern and Abrahamic) faith is juxtaposed to reason of evidence. Faith is an unsupported assertion of stoic conviction which is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. That is why I have to reject faith as inherently auto-deceptive.


AronRa states that Bob's definition of "faith" is contested by "even scripture". How can that be when Bob quoted scripture? Bob stated:

The Bible defines faith as the proper response to "the evidence of things not seen,"


This is a direct quote from scripture. Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


How can AronRa claim that Bob's definition is contested by scripture when Bob uses scripture's definition of faith?
Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:37 am
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

australopithecus wrote:I believe I mentioned dishonesty.,..

How can dishonesty be wrong according to your worldview? Your view of the universe absolutely, positively, CANNOT account for right and wrong. Not only can you not account for right and wrong, right and wrong, if they exist, are not physical! So I think you protesteth too much.
Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:10 am
scalyblueUser avatarPosts: 1417Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:02 am

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:
australopithecus wrote:I believe I mentioned dishonesty.,..

How can dishonesty be wrong according to your worldview? Your view of the universe absolutely, positively, CANNOT account for right and wrong. Not only can you not account for right and wrong, right and wrong, if they exist, are not physical! So I think you protesteth too much.


"Right" and "Wrong" are subjective. A cosmological model that accounts for right and wrong cannot be an accurate one.
_________________
悪夢の王の一片よ
空のいましめ解き放たれし
凍れる黒き虚無の刃よ
我が力 我が身となりて
共に滅びの道を歩まん
神々の魂すらも打ち砕き
Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:34 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 511Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:
australopithecus wrote:I believe I mentioned dishonesty.,..

How can dishonesty be wrong according to your worldview? Your view of the universe absolutely, positively, CANNOT account for right and wrong.
YOUR perspective cannot account for right and wrong. You're not judged for your works. You god ordered his people to lie, steal, pillage, murder, torture animals, and commit genocide. All sins can be forgiven -except disbelief. Wisdom is the only damnable sin which your god is incapable of forgiving, and the only criteria on which you are judged is your gullibility. Why? Because your belief is a lie. There can be no other explanation.

MY perspective however CAN account for right and wrong.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:58 am
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:
australopithecus wrote:I believe I mentioned dishonesty.,..

How can dishonesty be wrong according to your worldview? Your view of the universe absolutely, positively, CANNOT account for right and wrong. Not only can you not account for right and wrong, right and wrong, if they exist, are not physical! So I think you protesteth too much.


HealthyAddict has an excellent video entitled "Shit Christians say to Atheists". If you believe that ANYTHING she parodies is valid, you're wrong and should first actually ask what an Atheist believes or does not believe.
And obviously Aron plugged himself, and rightly so. ;) If you need any clarification on what Aron says in his video, ask away. The answer however is: Yes, we can account for morality quite easily.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:34 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
 [ 89 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests