Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

With all the recent talk of Dumbski and his CSFI, I reacquainted myself with his character (or lack thereof) and rediscovered two salient points:
1) He was slated to appear as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial on the side of the creatards, but recused himself at virtually the last minute. So moral & intellectual cowardice are two main characteristics.
2) After Judge John E. Jones published his ruling, Dumbski's response was to post a video of the judge with simulated fart noises as the acompanying sound (fart noises apparently made by Dumbski). I found an edited version of the video here, after legal representation from the learned judge, still pretty nasty (and putting words in Judge Jones' mout e.g. "We will enter an order permanently enjoining defendants from from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparaging the scientific theory of evolution" wording which never appeared in his ruling, though the last "quote" shows how wacky Dumbski's thoughts on thought are) So now we can add malicious name-caller to that list.

Not the kind of person I'd be trumpeting if I were trying to gain acceptance for my point of view.

Hahahaha.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

And this is what J C considers "excellent" character.

J C

wrote:

EdgarFriendly
Mutations are almost guaranteed. It's external pressures, which allow for natural selection to filter mutations.

Imagine two mutations - One which leads to a more robust body, and another which leads to greater height. Different environments might favour each mutations. So if two populations of the same species migrate to two different areas, over time - natural selection will show a visual change between the two.

Unfortunately, mutations destroy CFSI and thus always lead to a less robust body ... otherwise people would by queuing up to undergo mutagenesis ... and even Evolutionists don't do this ... despite their belief in the 'power' of mutagenesis to change Pondkind into Mankind!!!

wrote:

Sarky
The transcription errors are further reduced in many multicellular organisms by a series of DNA repair genes.

Yet another observable phenomenon of life that defies any other explanation other than intelligent design!!!
A repair gene implies overview in design and definite specified pre-determined 'correct' master sequences to act as the templates to 'repair to'.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

And this is what J C considers "excellent" character.

His character (though excellent) has nothing to do with the validity of his arguments ... and claiming that it does is classic ad hominem.

... as for the linked video the noises sounded like a 'huh'!! to me ... and it is a typical American thing to set up these annoying satirical sites ... here is an example of another satirical site ... this time at the expense of a Christian pastor
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/19/california-pastor-outraged-to-find-bible-filed-under-fiction-at-costco/

Please don't take life so seriously!!
The sight of an anti-theist moralising over a funny satirical cartoon is certainly something to behold!!!:)

I guess some people can give it ... but they can't really take it!!!

Doctor Strange

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Dammit, saw "without J C" at the top of the page and wrongly assumed he'd been given a smack of the banhammer.

J C

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Dammit, saw "without J C" at the top of the page and wrongly assumed he'd been given a smack of the banhammer.

Why do you want to ban the only opposing voice on this thread.
You guys sound increasingly like medieval churchmen ... whose answer to any questions that seriously undermined their worldview was to 'silence' the person asking the question.

... and just like you guys are trying to justify banning me for simply annoying you ... the medieval churchmen also used similar arguments in order to silence those with whom they disagreed.

... sometimes they 'hyped up' the charge to undermining faith in God ... just like you guys sometimes 'hype up' the charge to undermining faith in science or Atheism or whatever is closest to your hearts!!

Have we learned nothing about the downsides of the censorship of ideas ... and the oppression of those who hold them?

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

another question.

with regard to a new species arising, is there a standard number of generations for a new one to appear or does it depend on the pressures causing the mutation?

Bannasidhe

J C wrote: »

Why do you want to ban the only opposing voice on this thread.
You guys sound increasingly like medieval churchmen ... whose answer to any questions that seriously undermined their worldview was to 'silence' the person asking the question.

... and just like you guys are trying to justify banning me for simply annoying you ... the medieval churchmen also used similar arguments in order to silence those with whom they disagreed.

Have we learned nothing about the downsides of the censorship of ideas ... and the oppression of those who hold them?

Ah now, I argued that we need you.

I need you JC - you make me reassess what I learned in school and rarely have the opportunity to take them out and have a good old poke round in them there ideas.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

His character (though excellent) has nothing to do with the validity of his arguments ... and claiming that it does is classic ad hominem.

So no comment on the fact that his response to the ruling that his ideology was a load of unsupported claptrap (which he was not brave enough to defend no less, you have to give Behe at least that, he fights to defend his BS everywhere) was to perjure himself by trying to turn the judge presiding the case into a fart joke?

Face it JC not alone is it a sad indictment of Dumbski's character, it also shows that he knows he has no argument in support of creationism, nor any competing theory to modern ToE, otherwise he'd have both testified in court, and laid out his case after rather than publishing toilet humour in an attempt to libel an officer of the court of his country.

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

How about those propositions JC?

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So no comment on the fact that his response to the ruling that his ideology was a load of unsupported claptrap (which he was not brave enough to defend no less, you have to give Behe at least that, he fights to defend his BS everywhere) was to perjure himself by trying to turn the judge presiding the case into a fart joke?

When the legal system engages itself in a partisan way in a religious issue ... some people may resort to satire in response!!!

Atheists have been doing this for years in response to some of the more pompous prognostications of high churchmen ... with whom they disagree!!
... and if religion and state are truly separate ... then the state should stay out of religion ... as the proof that all religion (including Atheism) is staying out of the state.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Face it JC not alone is it a sad indictment of Dumbski's character, it also shows that he knows he has no argument in support of creationism, nor any competing theory to modern ToE, otherwise he'd have both testified in court, and laid out his case after rather than publishing toilet humour in an attempt to libel an officer of the court of his country.

... and I suppose you also believe that nobody should never oppose the prognostications of an 'officer of God' AKA a high churchman !!!

... and your childish use of the 'Dumbski' name calling, tells us more about you, than it does about Dr Dembski B.A., M.S., M.Div., PhD

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

koth wrote: »

another question.

with regard to a new species arising, is there a standard number of generations for a new one to appear or does it depend on the pressures causing the mutation?

Let's just ignore J C's impotent attempts to defend a man guilty of perjury with a list of petty nastiness to his name as depressingly long as the time J C has spent refusing to learn a single thing about evolution. I mean, until he tackles even one of those papers, he has nothing of value to say.

There's no standard number of generations, speciation depends on rate of mutation and selective pressures (which vary considerably by location), as well as mutations happening that actually cause speciation- if the selective pressures result in only hair colour being a viable mutation, then you'll just get different populations of the same species.

Doctor Strange

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C wrote: »

Why do you want to ban the only opposing voice on this thread.

Because the "only opposing voice" has been belligerent and ignored all evidence put to it, thus removing it's purpose as an opposing voice, and becoming more akin to the pigeon on the chessboard.

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Eh, wasn't Terrlock opposing too? Come down off that high horse, JC. :pac:

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Let's just ignore J C's impotent attempts to defend a man guilty of perjury with a list of petty nastiness to his name as depressingly long as the time J C has spent refusing to learn a single thing about evolution. I mean, until he tackles even one of those papers, he has nothing of value to say.

How did Dr Dembski commit perjury? ... or is this just a further attempt at unfounded name calling that has no significance for the validity of his ideas ?

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Eh, wasn't Terrlock opposing too? Come down off that high horse, JC. :pac:

Where is he now? ... and where was he throughout most of the tread?

He is also an 'old Earth' believer ... and he conceded that he didn't believe in Noah's Flood as worldwide ... so his opposition to you guys is only partial .
... and he is practically one of you guys when it comes to the scientific arguments on this thread.

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Sarky wrote: »

There's no standard number of generations, speciation depends on rate of mutation and selective pressures (which vary considerably by location), as well as mutations happening that actually cause speciation- if the selective pressures result in only hair colour being a viable mutation, then you'll just get different populations of the same species.

With regards to the early stages of speciation, does it follow some sort of template? I.e. a single offspring of the new species is born, or would they be born in clusters within the population.

Apologies if the questions seem scattershot, but it's just how they're popping up in the head.

J C

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Because the "only opposing voice" has been belligerent and ignored all evidence put to it, thus removing it's purpose as an opposing voice, and becoming more akin to the pigeon on the chessboard.

I am not behaving beligerently...
... and if I agreed with everything you said then I wouldn't be opposing you.

... I haven't ignored any substantive evidence ... but I have certainly found that a paucity of evidence was presented by your side ... perhaps you guys were far too busy trying to think up unfounded prejudicial personal remarks about myself and other Creationists to do so.

J C

koth wrote: »

With regards to the early stages of speciation, does it follow some sort of template? I.e. a single offspring of the new species is born, or would they be born in clusters within the population.

Apologies if the questions seem scattershot, but it's just how they're popping up in the head.

It usually occurs instantaneously via a chromosome number shift ... and or a substantive complex specified frame-shift ... all indicative of pre-existing Intelligent Design.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

koth wrote: »

With regards to the early stages of speciation, does it follow some sort of template? I.e. a single offspring of the new species is born, or would they be born in clusters within the population.

Apologies if the questions seem scattershot, but it's just how they're popping up in the head.

You can ignore J C again, he's still talking bollocks.

It's such a gradual and iterative process, nobody in either population would really notice it. There's no defining point where you can say "Yup, that newborn is a new species". It takes many generations for a single mutation to become the norm in a population. Speciation requires rather a lot of mutations. Too many too fast and you get organisms with serious genetic problems, they don't last long. Mutation is a semi-random event, so it's possible that either scenario could happen. More likely to be single offspring than a cluster of newborns with the same mutation(s), but not impossible.

Probably more apparent in creatures that give birth to litters or have very frequent/short reproductive cycles. You can see crude evolution in bacteria and viruses in a matter of days or weeks, but given how they reproduce you're talking millions of generations, with just as many evolutionary dead ends that weren't as effective or were fatal to the bacteria/virus.

nagirrac

There is a significant downside to the creationist versus science debate and that is it has led to increasing balkanization within the scientific community. What I mean by this is that there is a segment of the scientific community that instead of doing science is fighting creationism/ID while the broad scientific community is doing what it should be doing which is doing science. There is a tendency though within this "gated community" of evolutionary biologists to resist change to the gene-centric dogma of the modern synthesis, as somehow they regard challenges to the gene centric view of evolution as giving fodder to creationists. Whether it does or not should be irrelevant to science.

The reality of course is that science will just continue on its merry way and slowly but surely new ideas will replace old ones. The very definition of evolution is undergoing significant rethinking and redefinition, Darwin's "descent with modification" is a very broad definition, a much more specific modern definition is "biological evolution is a change in the distribution of phenotypes in a population due to the gain, loss or replacement of individuals". This can be a very simple process that does not involve any genetic change at all ,a very simple example is the fact that in Japan since the 19th century the average height of adults has increased from 5ft to 5.5ft. This is due entirely to cultural evolution, as the population has changed their diet from mainly rice to much more protein from meats, fish and vegetables. There are some who would argue that this is not evolution, but it absolutely evolution, a change to the distribution of phenotypes in a population. As diet changed and shorter people died out and were replaced by taller people, the population of people in Japan got taller and by a significant amount.

As it happens, culture, which is part of environment, is a very strong force of evolution, along with mutation, migration, genetic drift, and selection. There is more to it than this however. The whole idea of random mutation leading to natural selection as the sole force of biological evolution is now hopelessly out of date, a mid 20th century theory which became dogma and is really hard to shake, especially for scientists who staked their whole reputations on it (Dawkins, Coyne). All of the central assumptions of the modern synthesis have been disproven, but the tragedy and travesty is that because of all of the noise between creationists and Neo-Darwinists, this is unknown in the general population.

The attached paper by Denis Noble, a leading systems biologist, provides much food for thought for those wedded to the modern synthesis.

http://ep.physoc.org/content/early/2013/04/12/expphysiol.2012.071134.full.pdf

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

nagirrac wrote: »

There is a tendency though within this "gated community" of evolutionary biologists to resist change to the gene-centric dogma of the modern synthesis.

Are you sure? Because I've worked in a fair few labs and institutions at this stage, and there's none of that.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Are you sure? Because I've worked in a fair few labs and institutions at this stage, and there's none of that.

You wouldn't see it in normal labs where science is done, only in the ivory towers occupied by former scientists. Read the Noble paper and tell us what you think. I am very convinced that systems biology, integrating physiology and evolutionary biology, is the path to further progress in understanding biological evolution.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Well, yeah. That's why nearly every university in this country with spare funding is hiring people like me to do their bioinformatics and systems biology. Plenty of that kind of scientist in those 'ivory towers' you don't seem to like.

I think you're being a bit alarmist, tbh.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

You can ignore J C, he's talking bollocks again.

It's such a gradual and iterative process, nobody in either population would really notice it. There's no defining point where you can say "Yup, that newborn is a new species". It takes many generations for a single mutation to become the norm in a population. Speciation requires rather a lot of mutations. Too many too fast and you get organisms with serious genetic problems, they don't last long. Mutation is a semi-random event, so it's possible that either scenario could happen. More likely to be single offspring than a cluster of newborns with the same mutation(s), but not impossible.

Speciation via mutagenesis is a non-sequitur, as the destruction of genetic information by accumulated multiple mutations, would kill the organisms involved.

Sarky wrote: »

Probably more apparent in creatures that give birth to litters or have very frequent/short reproductive cycles. You can see crude evolution in bacteria and viruses in a matter of days or weeks, but given how they reproduce you're talking millions of generations, with just as many evolutionary dead ends that weren't as effective or were fatal to the bacteria/virus.

Here's the thing ... if evolution were true and small selected variants in each generation propelled evolution (from Pondkind to Mankind) ... in 1,000 years we have more generations of bacteria than ever happened with higher animals (even assuming Old Earth timescales) ... and yet bacteria are still bacteria with very marginal 'changes' in their capacities.
http://www.cellsalive.com/ecoli.htm
The number of generations of bacteria @ 20 minutes per generation over 1000 years is over 26 million generations. A comparable number of generations for a mammal with a generation length of 5 years would be 130 million years ... which is the supposed length of time over which a rat-like creature supposedly evolved into man.
Once again, the maths simply don't add up for Evolution!!!:)

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Poor J C. Completely missing the point of selective pressures. And the last hundred years of scientific discovery.

Anyway, stop bothering me with your lies and ignorance, we've established your cluelessness once again beyond reasonable doubt for any newcomers to the forum, and there are far more interesting posters here who actually want to discuss things like grown-ups. Perhaps you can find a gullible credulous rube back in the christianity forum to swallow your dubious load?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Poor J C. Completely missing the point of selective pressures. And the last hundred years of scientific discovery.

Anyway, stop bothering me with your lies and ignorance, we've established your cluelessness once again beyond reasonable doubt for any newcomers to the forum, and there are far more interesting posters here who actually want to discuss things like grown-ups. Perhaps you can find a gullible credulous rube back in the christianity forum to swallow your dubious load?

The selective pressures you refer to exist ... but they operate on an inter-generational basis i.e. they select in each generation ... and therefore NS operates most rapidly in organisms with short generation lengths ... so why are bacteria still bacteria ... if NS and mutagenesis is powerful enough to change a rat into man over the 26 million mammal generations that supposedly existed since 120 million years ago ... why have bacteria practically not changed one iota over the same number of generations since 1000 AD? ... to say nothing of the previous 26 million generations of bacteria in the previous thousand years ... and the thousand years before that.

... and your childish name calling proves that you are not one of the people who wish to discuss these issues like thoughtful grown-ups.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

We tried that with you, remember? You called us Nazis for not agreeing with you. Your memory is really suffering, J C, you might want to see a doctor about it.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

We tried that with you, remember? You called us Nazis for not agreeing with you. Your memory is really suffering, J C, you might want to see a doctor about it.

My memory is fine ... but your fixation with unfounded name calling and adhominem about me ... is certainly not Refuting any point.
Can you guys not debate any point on its own merits without descending into nasty personal remarks and name-calling.

... not very nice behaviour for those who would tell us all how to run our schools and rear our children !!!

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Well, yeah. That's why nearly every university in this country with spare funding is hiring people like me to do their bioinformatics and systems biology. Plenty of that kind of scientist in those 'ivory towers' you don't seem to like.

I think you're being a bit alarmist, tbh.

I think you are spectacularly missing my point, tbh. I am not referring to any university or scientific institution where science is being done as an "ivory tower", nor am I critical of the great majority of scientists working in the biology field. As you know the biology field is now an enormous and fast moving one. The only scientists I don't like are a very small number of former scientists who are too busy fighting creationists to keep up with what is actually going on in science, and who are openly hostile to scientists who are challenging the modern synthesis, which is the very antithesis of science (being hostile towards science).

How am I being alarmist? What's your take on the paper I posted? You are the one who is most insistent we should focus on the science, so let's focus on the science. Do you think Noble is an alarmist, or might he just be right? How about all the scientific work referenced in the paper, science done in recent years, not 1940. None of the scientists involved work for the Discovery Institute by the way.

It may be just as simple as the modern synthesis is wrong. Darwin would still be right however, as his theory was broad and did not try and pin evolution down to a few assumptions.