"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

... Are you coming on to me?

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

... Are you coming on to me?

You always have to lower the tone.
I was trying to have a serious, high brow discussion with you.
At this stage, you'd think I'd know better.

Sarky

At this stage, in this thread, with my reputation...

I'll stick to the bacteria, thanks. Far less fiddly and no jackasses from the ethics committee calling round to ask awkward questions about the dead test subjects in the boot of my car.

darjeeling

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Seems that some of JC's pals at ICR have scratched their heads trying to understand the paper above and come up with this feeble-minded crap:

Gorilla Genome is bad news for Evolution


PZ explains why their analsysis is bollocks:

A tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing


These people should really try to learn how to dig up.

It seems creationists are only recently latching onto this one, though the phenomenon of gene phylogenetic trees not always matching species phylogenetic trees has been discussed for years in the literature, with a variety of causes discovered.

In primates, we've known for over 30 years of a striking and extreme example due to selection acting to preserve diversity in immune system genes in the 'major histocompatibility complex'. Looking at MHC genes, you can find alleles within humans that diverged before human, chimp, gorilla and orangutan speciation (e.g. link).

That said, the figure of 30% of the human genome being closer to gorilla than to chimp is high when viewed against a three-way orangutan:chimp:human study which last year found that humans were closer to orangutan at just 1% of genomic sequences.

Several factors likely account for this high level of 'incomplete lineage sorting' (ILS) in gorillas, chimps and humans. One is the relatively close divergence time between the gorilla splitting away, and the later human:chimp split. An estimated ~4 million years elapsed between the gorilla branching off, and the later chimp:human split, whereas a much longer 10My passed between the branching from orangs and the human:chimp split. Another factor is the relatively large and sustained population size estimated for the proto-chimp/human population. This would have allowed multiple ancient alleles to persist until chimp and human divergence, when the alleles went on to get randomly sorted between the species we see today.

These factors are discussed in the orang genome paper from last year, which in turn cites studies over the previous 10 years that estimated likely gorilla : chimp : human ILS at over 25%, even before the complete gorilla sequence was obtained.

The final conclusion that is that in a 4-way comparison, humans are closest to chimps for ~70% of the genome, to gorillas for ~30%, and to orangutans for ~1%. This fits with the family tree inferred from both morphological measurements of the species alive today, and with the fossil record.

.

oldrnwisr

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Since J C Is so busy coming with with Dempskis proof, I feel the gap should be filled with knowledge!

The move from asexual reproduction to sexual repoduction.

I kind of imagine the process as moving from mitosis to a system like what plants have, to a distinct gender deal.

Problem is I have no idea what kind of selection pressures would account for the shifts.

Sorry, Gengiz, I missed this post the first time round. You're absolutely right, though, we should be able to discuss things of import in between bouts of crap from JC and dead one.

A friend of mine recommended a great website to me recently Open Culture which has a huge database of free online courses from top universities. Naturally I went straight for the science section and I found, among other things, this lecture from Stephen C Stearns (Yale) on the evolution of sexual reproduction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eRb4lNTXPE

and another from Robert Wyman (Yale):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzdqyXtPbbE

In addition to these, I would also recommend this book Sex and Evolution by George Williams. I'm reading Adaptation and Natural Selection by him at the moment and I have to say that I find his writing fascinating. It's a major smackdown of group selection.

J C

robindch wrote: »

You quoted Dawkins as saying "evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out" and that "this was a serious gap that I needed to close" and declared this was an "admission" that Dawkins has no "specific evidence for" the evolutionary history of mankind?

On a mod note, you are free to quote-mine whatever creationists you like and it's unlikely that anybody's ever going to go to the bother of verifying whatever creatrivia you dredge up.

However, as above, misrepresenting people who have dedicated their lives to contributing to the sum total of human knowledge is not allowed.

I didn't misrepresent Prof Dawkins ... I asked a serious question about what he has said.
Many people including eminent Creation Scientists, have dedicated their lives to contributing to Human Knowledge ... but this shouldn't mean that what they say cannot be analysed ... or that it becomes some kind of 'sacred cow' that nobody can question without retribution.

It is indeed amazing that Prof Dawkins has written several books that addressed the topic of Materialistic Evolution ... and yet he never explicitly set out the evidence for it.

It is fair and reasonable comment to ask the question as to whether the evidence actually exists given this self-admitted fact.
I should have thought that the first thing he would have written is the explicit evidence for evolution ... if it exists.

Science makes progress via the questioning of existing ideas ... and if this is to be suppressed or if those asking uncomfortable questions are censored, then science will go the way religion went in the Middle Ages ... clinging to power by the threat of retribution ... rather than deserving of it by the free exchange of ideas and their critical evaluation in an open and non-threatening environment.

... and please don't say that science needs to be protected from certain types of questions ... this is exactly what all dogmatic religions also say.
If science (or indeed any religion) doesn't have the answers ... or the answers are indicating something that science currently doesn't accept ... that is no reason to ban the questions ... or to censor the questioners!!!
... indeed this is the very reason that questions should be encouraged ... and questioners protected!!!

... and if it does have the answers ... then it should welcome the questions anyway!!!

... and if science doesn't have the answers ... then it needs to think about the questions ... rather then censoring the questioners.

robindch

J C wrote: »

I didn't misrepresent Prof Dawkins ... I asked a serious question about what he has said.

Here is your post:

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins [...] has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution [...]

That is (a) a statement, not a question and (b) a blatant misrepresentation of Dawkins' views.

I'm assuming here, btw, that your deliberately-degrading phrase "W2M Evolution" is creationist-shorthand for what trained, qualified biologists refer to as "the evolutionary history of mankind".

joseph brand

robindch wrote: »

Here is your post:That is (a) a statement, not a question and (b) a blatant misrepresentation of Dawkins' views.

I'm assuming here, btw, that your deliberately-degrading phrase "W2M Evolution" is creationist-shorthand for what trained, qualified biologists refer to as "the evolutionary history of mankind" trolling.

FYP

robindch

joseph brand wrote: »

FYP

Hard to say whether it's trolling or not -- JC has been banging on the same, tired drum for so long that I'm inclined to believe that JC may well actually believe it's possible to maintain an honest and open mind, and to deduce an accurate view of the world by using terminology specifically designed -- by people like the skilled corporate marketers employed by ICR, AIG and other well-funded, but batshit-crazy, organizations -- to deceive and disorient.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Here is your post:
Originally Posted by J C
Prof Dawkins [...] has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution [...]
That is (a) a statement, not a question and (b) a blatant misrepresentation of Dawkins' views.

On its own what you quoted might support your contention of misrepresentation ... but please look at my full quote ... (my comments on my quote are in blue)
FULL Originally Posted by J C :-
Prof Dawkins is somewhat agnostic about the existence of God
True he has said this himself... and he has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books)
the first part is an opinion based on the self-admmitted fact in the second part
... so his Agnosticism seems to be growing!!!
another opinion based on a logical deduction from the previous sentences

... and I admire him for that.
... and I do greatly admire Prof Dawkins as an amazing Human Being ... and an excellent intellectual. I admire and acknowledge greatness in people with whom I disagree. You guys recognise nothing good about Creationists ... while I can rise above my opinions and my biases to recognise and celebrate excellence in people who are not Creationists ... but you guys seem to be incapable of such objectivity when it comes to Creation Science.

robindch wrote: »

I'm assuming here, btw, that your deliberately-degrading phrase "W2M Evolution" is creationist-shorthand for what trained, qualified biologists refer to as "the evolutionary history of mankind".

Why do you think that the phrase 'Worm to Man Evolution' is degrading ... if its true ... we all better 'build a bridge and get over it' ... and if its not true ... then we better re-write a few books on Evolution.
I know a few top class Creation Scientists who could help.:)

Delirium

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDsNjhZn34

shizz

J C wrote: »

[/COLOR]... and he has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books)

Hold on. You do realise that is contradictory anyway. How can you say that he has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence, then only to say that "or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books".

If he so admitted that he doesn't have any evidence, meaning that he himself said he has no evidence and you apparently were a witness to that, then why would it be OK to say that if he has evidence he hasn't put it in his books when you said that he said he hasn't any evidence.... :pac:

J C

Doc_Savage wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6K43WSZrmI&feature=player_detailpage#t=2116s

sorry to butt in lads but listen to the first few words out of Dembski's mouth here...

oh the irony.....

... in many more ways than one!!!:)

cowzerp

J C wrote: »

Why do you think that the phrase 'Worm to Man Evolution' is degrading ...

it is misleading, no 1 is claiming worms turnd into man-if its correct the changes would have been bit by bit and not 1 day a worm and next a man, so man would have come from a similar type being that may or may not have come initially from something very different.

Galvasean

I finally get it. J C is using a strange version of 'the PUA game' to confuse us all into giving him gobbies.

Well that's my reading of teh last few pages.

Sarky

Called it.

Galvasean

Oh hey, I just won the game.

J C

koth wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDsNjhZn34

I particulary liked the references to the Ray Comfort edition of The Origins of Species!!!
... can we now look forward to the Prof Dawkins edition of the Bible????:D
... and is it my imagination ... or did Prof Dawkins look a bit uncomfortable ... even slightly Agnostic ... when discussing the unchanged Horseshoe Crab ... and the other creatures that haven't changed one iota over supposed millions of years ... while Cichlid Fish ... have produced many varieties of ... eh ... em .... Cichlid Fish ... over thousands of years in Lake Victoria.:)

robindch

J C wrote: »

On its own what you quoted might support your contention of misrepresentation ... but please look at my full quote[...]

I have looked at your full quote and made sure to quote its sense accurately. The full quote is no different -- simple misrepresentation.

J C wrote: »

Why do you think that the phrase 'Worm to Man Evolution' is degrading [...]

I don't mind the phrase, since it's mostly accurate and I'm not ashamed of my ancestors.

What I object to is the use of the phrase in the same way that somebody like Mr Ham might do so -- to polarize a debate by using deliberately disjunctive terminology. Prose which is specifically designed to deceive and disorient people who are less familiar with the terrain, and specifically, to win them over not by appealing to their better, rational nature, but by implicitly declaring the debate an emotional one and thereby, relying on fairly cheap emotional manipulation to achieve one's ideological ends.

It's a fundamentally dishonest way of debating, but, that said, open dishonesty never seemed to cause creationist movement much obvious ethical discomfort.

dlofnep

J C - Do you think that certain species undergoing little change, rather than large change over time contradicts the theory of evolution? Because that's the impression you routinely give. I've already discussed this with you a number of times in great detail, and cited the Crocodilia family as a perfect example of a group that has only seen marginal change over time and explained very clearly why it was the case.

You continue to demonstrate ignorance with regard to Evolution.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

and the other creatures that haven't changed one iota for millions of years ... while Cichlid Fish ... have produced many varieties of ... eh ... em .... Cichlid Fish ... over thousands of years in Lake Victoria.:)

Why should it change if it's well suited to the environment? The selection pressure isn't there.

Doctor Jimbob

sephir0th wrote: »

Why should it change if it's well suited to the environment? The selection pressure isn't there.

CFSI. Obviously :rolleyes:

J C

robindch wrote: »

I have looked at your full quote and made sure to quote its sense accurately. The full quote is no different -- simple misrepresentation.

Every contrary opinion expressed about the writings of every person ... is 'misrepresentation' ... if we use your definition!!

robindch wrote: »

I don't mind the phrase, since it's mostly accurate and I'm not ashamed of my ancestors.

... so you're not ashamed of your supposed worm ancestry ... but I bet that you are not proud of it either ... and it's something that you have to believe anyway!!:)

robindch wrote: »

What I object to is the use of the phrase in the same way that somebody like Mr Ham might do so -- to polarize a debate by using deliberately disjunctive terminology. Prose which is specifically designed to deceive and disorient people who are less familiar with the terrain, and specifically, to win them over not by appealing to their better, rational nature, but by implicitly declaring the debate an emotional one and thereby, relying on fairly cheap emotional manipulation to achieve one's ideological ends.

... W2M Evolution distinguishes between 'evolution' within Kinds (which happens) ... and the 'big picture' stuff such as from worms to man (that has no supporting evidence).

robindch wrote: »

It's a fundamentally dishonest way of debating, but, that said, open dishonesty never seemed to cause creationist movement much obvious ethical discomfort.

You're always talking about dishonesty and lies ... are you sure that you're not projecting your own feelings of inadequacy onto other people???
I can say that Creationists are honest able people ... and I must say that Evolutionists are generally the same ... although the ones on this thread seem to lie about me lying ... a lot!!!!

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

Why should it change if it's well suited to the environment? The selection pressure isn't there.

The very same 'selection pressures' that supposedly evolved men from mice ... while simultaneously leaving mice looking roughly the same!!!
Sounds like special pleading to me.:eek:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Sounds lie special pleading to me.

Oh just go away.

Another ninja edit I see.

Ok bear with me. You seem to be saying things can't evolve if what they evolved from stays the same.
Yet you support speciation.
Think about it now.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

The very same 'selection pressures' that supposedly evolved men from mice ... while simultaneously leaving mice looking roughly the same!!!
Sounds like special pleading to me.:eek:

Yup, as expected - you don't understand the theory of evolution.

J C

Beruthiel wrote: »

I am also a lay person. But, for the fun of it, I had my genome sequenced.
From looking at my genes, they were able to tell me things about myself that were true.
They were able to trace my last known ancestor back to Jordan over 6,500 years ago.

Funny thing ... my last known ancestor was also from the greater Jordanian region ... just about that time ... and his name was Noah!!!!:)

We're cousins!!!!:)

J C

dead one wrote: »

You curse creationism and creationists curse you and i curse both of you. God Damned Gobbies . I don't want waste my life in this sh!tty business.

Creationists bless their opponents.
No need to curse anybody ... and I certainly wouldn't curse a Divinely Protected Christian ... as the curse will return onto the curser.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

The very same 'selection pressures' that supposedly evolved men from mice ... while simultaneously leaving mice looking roughly the same!!!
Sounds like special pleading to me.:eek:

1. There is more than one environment on this planet.

2. Humans didn't evolve from the modern mouse.

3. You believe all your childish 'Cat Kinds' evolved in ~500 years?

jayteecork

This thread is almost a "sticky" on the latest posts in the boards.ie homepage