Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, October 16, 2006

Of replicators and living organisms

According to Thought Provoker, Richard Dawkins offers the following:

"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

However we know that living organisms require much more than replication, which is an issue unto itself. To replicate a strand of DNA (or RNA) one requires nucleotides, which do not occur outside of living organisms. Many nucleotides are required and in five (A,C,G,T,U) flavors. But not only is replication required but the same strand that replicates also needs to provide functioning proteins and enzymes. However for those pre-existing and functioning proteins and transport systems are required.

IOW what Dawkins offers just further exposes the attempt to try to "simplify" living organisms thereby making their existence much more palatable in an anti-ID and anti-Creation world.

40 Comments:

  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Telic Thoughts is having a discussion on the RNA world.

    Art even chimed in and basically said the Dobzhansky was wrong because Darwinian mechanisms were at play in the pre-biotic world (Dobzhansky told us that "pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction of terms").

    It's to bad these guys are over-looking the basics as pointed out in this OP- that nucleotides just do not form outside of living organisms by nature operating freely.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Support for what I posted can be read here:

    Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World

    "The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides in a sufficiently pure state to support RNA synthesis cannot be achieved using presently known chemistry. Each of the steps needed to assemble a nucleotide from very simple starting materials was demonstrated early in the development of prebiotic chemistry, but the reactions were inefficient, nonspecific, or both. Some progress has been made in developing more specific prebiotic syntheses, but formidable difficulties remain. This has led some researchers to explore a major new approach to the problem of molecular evolution—the search for polymers that could function as alternative genetic systems."
    (bold added)

     
  • At 2:44 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe,

    If your intent was to get me to respond, you succeeded. As you are no doubt aware I made several posts to the Telic Thoughts thread.

    Here is what I feel is a critical chapter in the book RNA World...

    http://rna.cshl.edu/content/free/chapters/03_rna_world_2nd.pdf

    It presents the Genomic Tag Hypothesis and provides scientific data to back it up.

    I will ask again that you present a counter proposal. Our history leads me to believe you will not honor this request and, instead, insist upon throwing darts from the sidelines while complaining about a "double standard".

    Alternately, you could answer a simple set of questions I posed on the Telic Thoughts thread…

    Are you familiar with the 1987 Weiner and Maisel proposal concerning early RNA reproduction?

    If you are familiar with it, I take it you disagree with it. In your opinion is this the fundamental leap in logic you disagree with?

    While I suspect you disagree with this 1987 proposal, if it did turn out to be correct, wouldn't the "genomic tag hypothesis" be an natural outgrowth of the 1987 proposal?

    What experimental data can you point to that would contradict the statement "As genomic tags enter a second decade, no evidence has appeared that contradicts the hypothesis…"?


    As I stated before, this is your blog. If you decide to continue to demand everything be done using your terms performing your experiments subject to your interpretations, don't be surprised if I don't respond.

    P.S. Please delete my previous mis-post

     
  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    If your intent was to get me to respond, you succeeded.

    Nope. What you provided in the OP was the catalyst of this thread. I visit Telic Thoughts a few times a week, noticed the subject, thought it was relevant, laughed when I read Art's post and thought I would link to that discussion.

    That way people visiting here can go there for some first-class flailing.

    To respond to the rest of your post I would say that the paper I cited is the experimental data that contradicts anu RNA world hypothesis- "The prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides in a sufficiently pure state to support RNA synthesis cannot be achieved using presently known chemistry."

    IOW the RNA world can't even get started. And it would also be the
    For some reason your link was truncated:

    http://rna.cshl.edu/content/free/chapters/03_rna_world_2nd.pdf

     
  • At 9:22 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe,

    Thank you for fixing the link to Chapter 3.

    Your reliance on Orgel for supporting the idea that "...the RNA world can't even get started" is misplaced.

    Joyce, and Leslie E Orgel co-authored chapter 2 of the book that was the subject of the Telic Thoughts' thread. The link you provided included Orgel stating...

    "It will be necessary to study each potentially important reaction in parallel on tens or hundreds of different mineral samples. Whether or not this approach will lead to the discovery of a plausible prebiotic route to the nucleotides, as the believers in the Molecular Biologists' Dream hope, remains to be seen, but it is likely that many novel mineral catalysts will be discovered in this way."

    These are the words of cautious scientists identifying the additional steps needed. As we discussed in the TT thread, Orgel is doing the RNA world one better and identifying a pre-RNA world called the "PNA World".

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Your reliance on Orgel for supporting the idea that "...the RNA world can't even get started" is misplaced.

    I'm not relying on Orgel I am relying on the data.

    Also I am relying on the data provided by the 79th comment in that Telic Thoughts thread:

    Stability of Ribose and Other Sugars:

    "It is apparent that ribose cannot be synthesized from formaldehyde by the Butlerow reaction in yields substantially higher than other pentoses and hexoses. Related syntheses may possibly give higher yields of ribose. However, sugars are known to be unstable in aqueous solution, but there are no kinetic data available. We therefore have measured the rate of decomposition of ribose at 60 to 120° and pH's between 4 and 8. The half-life of ribose at 100° and pH 7 is 73 minutes and 34 years at 0°. These results show that ribose is too unstable for prebiotic use unless it is used immediately after its synthesis. The other pentoses and hexoses decompose at a rate approximately proportional to their free aldehyde content. It therefore seems unlikely that sugars could have played a role in the first informational macromolecules."
    (bold added)

    And as I said in another thread in this blog the following offers up-to-date stuff on the RNA World. Just scroll down to "What's New".

    BTW I am well aware of "PNA". I follow this topic perhaps more than any other...

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe,

    You are still on the sidelines throwing darts. Your Miller link includes him saying...

    "The objectives of my research are to demonstrate the prebiotic synthesis of various purines and pyrimidines as well as alternative backbones to ribose phosphate in the first genetic material of the pre-RNA world."

    These are not the words of a discouraged scientist. Miller is searching. If there were no puzzle pieces left to figure out, Miller would have finished his search and be working on the next scientific puzzle.

    It is easy to throw darts at someone putting together a puzzle. Your position is equivalent to saying "Ah Ha! You don't know where that piece goes and you will never figure it out."

    Your other link in another sideline dart thrower.

    Neither of you are providing an alternative.

     
  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    You are still on the sidelines throwing darts.

    That must mean you are still way up in the stands picking your nose.

    Thought Provoker:
    These are not the words of a discouraged scientist. Miller is searching.

    Of course he is (still searching). When you are as wed to "sheer-dumb-luck" as he is that is all you have left.

    Thought Provoker:
    If there were no puzzle pieces left to figure out, Miller would have finished his search and be working on the next scientific puzzle.

    But he is making up the puzzle as he goes...

    Thought Provoker:
    Your position is equivalent to saying "Ah Ha! You don't know where that piece goes and you will never figure it out."

    That is just sheer stupidity. First my position is no where near that strawman. Second I want people to look into the anti-ID and anti-Creation position on the origin of life. Ya see the more we know the better ID looks as an explanation.

    So now going by what the data demonstrates is "throwing darts". Truly idiotic.

    Also one doesn't have to provide an alternative before understanding the data and knowing what said data does to the "sheer-dumb-luck" position.

    By your "logic" if I researched Stonehenge as if it arose by nature, operating freely. I would be conducting scientific research and anyone who said differently would fall into that strawman you tried to make for me.

     
  • At 4:20 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    Without a positive hypothesis, saying "Stonehenge was designed" is as useful as claiming "the moon was designed". For Stonehenge we have a hypothesis for who created it and how they did it.

    Do you have a similar hypothesis for the origin of the moon or life? If you do, let me know when you are willing to bring it out onto the level playing field with the other hypotheses.

    Until then, I will go back to lurker mode.

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Without a positive hypothesis, saying "Stonehenge was designed" is as useful as claiming "the moon was designed".

    As I have stated many times now FIRST design has to be determined BEFORE any further investigation can take place as that investigation depends directly on that determination.

    IOW just saying something was designed is VERY important indeed- just as reality demonstrates.

    Thought Provoker:
    For Stonehenge we have a hypothesis for who created it and how they did it.

    Great, when explanatory narratives gain weight and are OK to passed off as actual scientific data you may have a point.

    Thought Provoker:
    Do you have a similar hypothesis for the origin of the moon or life?

    You mean as opposed to "sheer-dumb-luck" without any verifying data? I am sure I could make up a story as if that will do the trick.

    Thought Provoker:
    If you do, let me know when you are willing to bring it out onto the level playing field with the other hypotheses.

    Made-up stories basedc on "sheer-dumb-luck" do not belong on any playing field. But I understand why you would think that they do.

    However if you really want a good story read "Starlight and Time" by Dr Humphreys. It has that narrative you clamor for.

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "As I have stated many times now FIRST design has to be determined BEFORE any further investigation can take place as that investigation depends directly on that determination."

    That is incorrect. Typically, the inference of "design" entails evidence for the artifact, art and artisan. The more evidence collected connecting these three facets, the more confidence we have in our inferences.

    Thought Provoker: Do you have a similar hypothesis for the origin of the moon or life?

    joe g: "You mean as opposed to 'sheer-dumb-luck' without any verifying data? I am sure I could make up a story as if that will do the trick."

    You are still apparently confused on the scientific method. A hypothesis is a *tentative* assertion proposed for the purpose of developing predictions and verification of those predictions. So, we might hypothesize that humans made Stonehenge. From this hypothesis, we then attempt to detect signs of humans associated with the lithic site, or indications of human manufacture, or evidence of how the stones were transported. Each bit of evidence adds to our confidence, but no one thing can be considered absolutely conclusive. Rather, each new discovery leads to new and possibly more specific hypotheses, and further testing.

    joe g: "Made-up stories based on 'sheer-dumb-luck' do not belong on any playing field."

    Equivalent hypotheses for the Theory of Evolution can be constructed. For instance, from the hypothesis that whales are descended from land mammals, we could look for fossil organisms with intermediate characteristics. Specifically, we could look for whales with hind limbs in strata dated at about 40 million years ago. Of course, no one bit of evidence can be considered conclusive, so we continue to look for evidence, fish with limb bones, dinosaurs with feathers, hominids, each always placed in specific historical strata, and so develop an overall picture of the history of life.

     
  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "As I have stated many times now FIRST design has to be determined BEFORE any further investigation can take place as that investigation depends directly on that determination."

    Zachriel:
    That is incorrect.

    Only to the delusional few.

    Zachriel:
    Typically, the inference of "design" entails evidence for the artifact, art and artisan.

    That is incorrect. The/ an "artisan" can be inferred from the determination of "artifact". If we knew the artisan then we wouldn't have to determine artifact, we would already know.

    Zachriel:
    The more evidence collected connecting these three facets, the more confidence we have in our inferences.

    Duh. However, as reality demonstrates, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the "artisan" is by studying the artifact in question.

    joe g: "You mean as opposed to 'sheer-dumb-luck' without any verifying data? I am sure I could make up a story as if that will do the trick."

    Zachriel:
    You are still apparently confused on the scientific method.

    You are still apparently an anal-pore. I have known and understood scientific methodology since before you were born.

    Zachriel:
    A hypothesis is a *tentative* assertion proposed for the purpose of developing predictions and verification of those predictions. So, we might hypothesize that humans made Stonehenge. From this hypothesis, we then attempt to detect signs of humans associated with the lithic site, or indications of human manufacture, or evidence of how the stones were transported. Each bit of evidence adds to our confidence, but no one thing can be considered absolutely conclusive. Rather, each new discovery leads to new and possibly more specific hypotheses, and further testing.

    We might hypothsize that nature, acting alone, configured Stonehenge. From this we attempt to look for processes nature may have used- erosion, glacial deposits, winds, floods and eons of time. Heck given that nature, operating freely, cobbled together living organisms, such a simple structure like Stonehenge would be no problem at all.

    joe g: "Made-up stories based on 'sheer-dumb-luck' do not belong on any playing field."

    Zachriel:
    Equivalent hypotheses for the Theory of Evolution can be constructed.

    LoL! They are only "equivilent" to the extremely gullable.

    And any normal person understands that fins are limbsand strata are dated by the fossils they contain, which relies on the allged "evolutionary history" for "calibration".

    Ya see what is required is solid genetic data that would demonstrate that such transformations are even possible. However reality demonstrates "Wobbling Stability".

    I will go with reality over your continued whining any and every day

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "If we knew the artisan then we wouldn't have to determine artifact, we would already know."

    That doesn't even parse into English. What does "determine artifact" mean? If you imply that the determination of artifice is the only goal of science, then you have a very strained idea of scientific inquiry.

    joe g: "However, as reality demonstrates, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the 'artisan' is by studying the artifact in question."

    Not quite. You have specifically eliminated only direct knowledge of the artisan, but not indirect knowledge, nor of the art itself. We might find firepits or scrapped bones associated with stone flakes. Or we could, for instance, attempt to replicate the process of making stone tools to test our theories as to how they were originally manufactured.

    You should be cautious about blanket generalizations, especially as regards empirical claims.

    joe g: "And any normal person understands that fins are limbsand strata are dated by the fossils they contain, which relies on the allged 'evolutionary history' for 'calibration'."

    So you are ready to publish the overthrow of the geological sciences, too. By the way, relative dating of strata predates the Theory of Evolution.

     
  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    That doesn't even parse into English. What does "determine artifact" mean?

    To determine whether or not the object in question is an artifact.

    Zachriel:
    If you imply that the determination of artifice is the only goal of science, then you have a very strained idea of scientific inquiry.

    I have gone over this too many times. That you would even post that just shows you are one ignorant SoB.

    joe g: "However, as reality demonstrates, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the 'artisan' is by studying the artifact in question."

    Zachriel:
    Not quite.

    Of course YOU would disagree with reality, but that is par for the course. I will stick withn reality.

    Zachriel:
    You have specifically eliminated only direct knowledge of the artisan, but not indirect knowledge, nor of the art itself.

    Are you dense or what? Of course we have the object, ie the "art itself". THAT is what we are studying and trying to determine artifact or not. Once it is determined to be an artifact then we gather other evidence and examine it IN THAT LIGHT.

    Zachriel:
    You should be cautious about blanket generalizations, especially as regards empirical claims.

    You should be more cautious considering your sloppy inference skills.

    Zachriel:
    By the way, relative dating of strata predates the Theory of Evolution.

    BTW index fossils are determined by the ToE.

    As for geological sciences, geologists are so far behind the times why bother?

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "I have gone over this too many times. That you would even post that just shows you are one ignorant SoB."

    But then you say

    joe g: "Are you dense or what? Of course we have the object, ie the 'art itself'."

    I have clearly made a distinction between the artifact, the artisan and the art, with art being the methodology of manufacture. I then described how indirect knowledge of the artisan, or knowledge of the art, can lead to knowledge of the artisan even in the absence of the artifact.

    art, an occupation requiring knowledge or skill.

    joe g: "As for geological sciences, geologists are so far behind the times why bother?"

    That's funny. I wonder how they find all those minerals used to run the modern industrial society.

     
  • At 2:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    I have clearly made a distinction between the artifact, the artisan and the art, with art being the methodology of manufacture. I then described how indirect knowledge of the artisan, or knowledge of the art, can lead to knowledge of the artisan even in the absence of the artifact.

    If we know the art then there wouldn't be a design inference. It would be a given. With ID ALL we have is the artifact. That is just the way it is. And IDists deal with that despite the idiotic protestations of the anti-IDists.

    And we also know that even knowing the artifact and the art we may never know about the artisan beyond speculation.

    joe g: "As for geological sciences, geologists are so far behind the times why bother?"

    Zachriel:
    That's funny. I wonder how they find all those minerals used to run the modern industrial society.

    Probably because one has nothing to do with the other.

     
  • At 7:08 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    You're almost making sense and actually engaging the argument.

    joe g: "If we know the art then there wouldn't be a design inference. It would be a given."

    If we knew the art, i.e. the mechanistic processes that led to modern biological structures, we would have critical information about the artisan. Saying "design" is only a single step in the process of understanding how life came about. How? When? Where? What materials were involved? Exactly how did the process work? All these questions are interrelated, and the answers support one another.

    And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    joe g: "That is just the way it is."

    You are claiming that there is no knowledge concerning the artisan or of the art, i.e. the manufacturing process. That is a claim which can't be reached a priori. And even if there was no knowledge of such mechanisms, that doesn't mean such knowledge is unobtainable or unworthy of study. In any case, though the origin of life is unknown, a lot is known about the history of life.

    If you have confidence in your "design inference", then you should propose a valid scientific hypothesis concerning the various facets of the process — the artisan, the art, the observable characteristics of the artifact — specific predictions that can be directly verified.

    For instance, I can tell you in what (undisturbed) strata to find hominid fossils, and that they will be found in no other strata. I can tell you that endogenous retroviruses will form a nested hierarchy of mutations that matches the posited phylogenetics of organisms. These are specific predictions that can be verified by different observers in a variety of different circumstances, and are explained by the Theory of Common Descent.

    What does your "design inference" tell us that we don't already know?

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    You're almost making sense and actually engaging the argument.

    I gave trying to "make sense" to you.

    joe g: "If we know the art then there wouldn't be a design inference. It would be a given."

    Zachriel:
    If we knew the art, i.e. the mechanistic processes that led to modern biological structures, we would have critical information about the artisan.

    So if you knew how I built my deck, what, specifically, would you know about me?

    Zachriel:
    Saying "design" is only a single step in the process of understanding how life came about.

    That is what I have been saying for years. It is a critical step.

    Zachriel:
    How? When? Where? What materials were involved? Exactly how did the process work? All these questions are interrelated, and the answers support one another.

    I've answered this too many times to count. These questions demonstrate that ID is NOT a dead-end. And they demonstrate exactly why it is science and why it (the design inference) matters.

    Zachriel:
    You are claiming that there is no knowledge concerning the artisan or of the art, i.e. the manufacturing process.

    Umm, no. I said in the absence of direct observation or designer input- some people claim the Bible is designer input. And I have always maintained that the individual books of the Bible should be allowed as independent evidence- for example just as "The Illiad" was used as independent evidence for Troy.

    Zachriel:
    And even if there was no knowledge of such mechanisms, that doesn't mean such knowledge is unobtainable or unworthy of study. In any case, though the origin of life is unknown, a lot is known about the history of life.

    As I have always said, and Wm Dembski reiterates in NFL, no one is preventing anyone from pursuing those questions. What you ask is just separate from the design inference- as I have been telling you since you started posting here.

    Zachriel:
    If you have confidence in your "design inference", then you should propose a valid scientific hypothesis concerning the various facets of the process — the artisan, the art, the observable characteristics of the artifact — specific predictions that can be directly verified.

    Don't even pretend to tell me what I should do. First things first.

    And right now IDists have there hands full with the design inference and fending off the idiotic attacks by anti-IDists.

    Zachriel:
    For instance, I can tell you in what (undisturbed) strata to find hominid fossils, and that they will be found in no other strata.

    And I will tell you there are signs of humans is strata "deeper" than humans are thought to have existed.

    Zachriel:
    I can tell you that endogenous retroviruses will form a nested hierarchy of mutations that matches the posited phylogenetics of organisms.

    And I will tell you that nested hierarchy is a sure sign of a common design. And that with the randomness of evolutionism no one would expect to see nested hierarchies.

    Zachriel:
    These are specific predictions that can be verified by different observers in a variety of different circumstances, and are explained by the Theory of Common Descent.

    They are only "predictions" in your head. Reality demonstrates differently. We know evolution can take any direction- even make a population less complex. We know that sexual reproduction, although great for preserving variation, is the actual death knell for the type of common descent you spew.

    All alleged "predictions" are in fact mere accomodations, unsupported by observed reality.

    Zacriel:
    What does your "design inference" tell us that we don't already know?

    It depends what you count for "knowledge". And it appears you count fantasy and imagination as mainstays...

     
  • At 12:38 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "So if you knew how I built my deck, what, specifically, would you know about me?"

    I would know that you are a member of a technological civilization that uses electro-mechanical devices to implement planned construction.

    --
    Zachriel: You are claiming that there is no knowledge concerning the artisan or of the art, i.e. the manufacturing process.

    joe g: "Umm, no."

    joe g: With ID ALL we have is the artifact. That is just the way it is.

    --

    joe g: "Don't even pretend to tell me what I should do."

    In other words, you can't provide a "valid scientific hypothesis concerning the various facets of the process — the artisan, the art, the observable characteristics of the artifact — specific predictions that can be directly verified."

    joe g: "And right now IDists have there hands full with the design inference and fending off the idiotic attacks by anti-IDists."

    Two problems with that statement. The evidence of the art, artisan and artifact are always intertwined. The dearth of specific empirical evidence, and the lack of predictive hypotheses, leaves the "design inference" unsupported. Also, there is nothing in the "idiotic attacks" that prevents "design scientists" from collecting such specific empirical evidence and proposing predictive hypotheses. I have my magnifying glass and notepad at the ready to confirm these predictions.

    joe g: "And I will tell you there are signs of humans is strata 'deeper' than humans are thought to have existed."

    Don't just claim it. Point to it.

    joe g: "And I will tell you that nested hierarchy is a sure sign of a common design."

    In fact, even the simplest designs violate the nested hierarchy. People borrow ideas from one another, they learn from one another.

    joe g: "And that with the randomness of evolutionism no one would expect to see nested hierarchies."

    Then you clearly do not understand the nature of the nested hierarchy. Even without selection, but totally random mutation, descent with modification creates a nested hierarchy.

    joe g: "All alleged "predictions" are in fact mere accomodations, unsupported by observed reality."

    If someone can say they will find a whale with hind-limbs in the desert wastelands of Egypt, then they stick a shove in the ground and find this, they have validated a specific prediction. Waving your hands doesn't make Basilosaurus or Rodhocetus go away. A long series of successful predictions in a wide variety of related fields leads to our confidence in the Theory of Common Descent.

    joe g: "It depends what you count for 'knowledge'."

    As we are talking about scientific evidence, please provide specific predictions of empirical phenomena.

     
  • At 12:57 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "And that with the randomness of evolutionism no one would expect to see nested hierarchies."

    This is a critical misunderstanding on your part. A nested hierarchy is a specific mathematical pattern. It is the natural consequence of the descent of diverging lineages. Until you understand this basic mathematical pattern, you will continue to be confused on the evidence concerning common descent.

    Random descent of diverging lineages does not lead to random results, but recognizable patterns and correlations. Following is a typical and decidely non-random result.

    R...E.
    V...E.
    SHCA..
    SHCAK.
    .HX...
    .HXM..
    .KX...
    TKX...
    .MXV..
    .HXV..

    Try Zachriel’s Nest of Letters

     
  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "So if you knew how I built my deck, what, specifically, would you know about me?"

    Zachriel:
    I would know that you are a member of a technological civilization that uses electro-mechanical devices to implement planned construction.

    IOW you wouldn't know anything about me, just some generalization. And I don't know if a hammer and saw can be considered "electro-mechaniscal".

    Zachriel: You are claiming that there is no knowledge concerning the artisan or of the art, i.e. the manufacturing process.

    joe g: "Umm, no."

    joe g: With ID ALL we have is the artifact. That is just the way it is.

    This proves my point that you are a decptive moron.

    Don't post out-of-context snippets again- last warning.

    joe g: "Don't even pretend to tell me what I should do."

    Zachriel:
    In other words, you can't provide a "valid scientific hypothesis concerning the various facets of the process — the artisan, the art, the observable characteristics of the artifact — specific predictions that can be directly verified."

    Your leaps to faulty conclusions, your ignoring relevant parts of the response, as well as your total ignorance of ID, gives me pain. I bet that makes you happy.

    It should also be noted that with evolutionism we are told "there is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time", and its "process" is the very vague RM&NS:

    It thus seems the Darwinist really does not have that much of advantage over the ID proponent when it comes to the mechanism complaint. Not all scientists are convinced that all biological history = microevolution + deep time. [3] And when it comes to outlining the specific mechanisms at play, Darwinists often have little more to offer than just-so stories which have yet to be told in glorious scientific detail. Thus, if we are to be satisfied with a vague appeal to the blind watchmaker as the cause behind some biotic feature, there is little room to complain that "ID is the mechanism" is too vague. And if we demand the specifics of the implementation of ID (the actual mechanism), then we should be willing to offer the specifics of the blind watchmaker's ancient work.

    from ID and mechanisms

    whichg means you really don't have any place to talk.

    joe g: "And right now IDists have there hands full with the design inference and fending off the idiotic attacks by anti-IDists."

    Zachriel:
    Two problems with that statement.

    I am sure they are both yours, both imagined and both wrong.

    Zachriel:
    The evidence of the art, artisan and artifact are always intertwined.

    That is demonstrateably false. There are many cases in which we only have artifact and can only make generalizations/ speculations about the art and/or artisan.

    Zachriel:
    The dearth of specific empirical evidence, and the lack of predictive hypotheses, leaves the "design inference" unsupported.

    Sheer-dumb-luck is unsupported also so I guess we don't exist.

    ZAchriel:
    Also, there is nothing in the "idiotic attacks" that prevents "design scientists" from collecting such specific empirical evidence and proposing predictive hypotheses.

    It takes up valuable time and no one, I repeat, NO ONE, is answerable to you.

    What you should concetrate on is finding some empirical support for your anti-ID position.

    joe g: "And I will tell you there are signs of humans is strata 'deeper' than humans are thought to have existed."

    Zachriel:
    Don't just claim it. Point to it.

    "Forbidden Archeology" by Cremo and Thompson.

    joe g: "And I will tell you that nested hierarchy is a sure sign of a common design."

    Zachriel:
    In fact, even the simplest designs violate the nested hierarchy. People borrow ideas from one another, they learn from one another.

    You continue to argue with your head up your arse. No surprise. Any common design would fall neatly into a nested hierarchy. Common being the operative word that Zach keeps ignoring to suit his nonsense.

    joe g:"And that with the randomness of evolutionism no one would expect to see nested hierarchies."

    Zachriel:
    Then you clearly do not understand the nature of the nested hierarchy.

    I understand the nature of NH perfectly. I understand that it is a mental construct.

    Zachriel:
    Even without selection, but totally random mutation, descent with modification creates a nested hierarchy.

    Perhaps to a very, very limited extent- as in within the same population.

    joe g: "All alleged "predictions" are in fact mere accomodations, unsupported by observed reality."

    Zachriel:
    If someone can say they will find a whale with hind-limbs in the desert wastelands of Egypt, then they stick a shove in the ground and find this, they have validated a specific prediction. Waving your hands doesn't make Basilosaurus or Rodhocetus go away. A long series of successful predictions in a wide variety of related fields leads to our confidence in the Theory of Common Descent.

    Out of the 50,000+ tyransitions you come up with a handful of speculative fossils? Too bad there isn't ANY genetic/ biological data that would verify such a transformation is even possible.

    You do understand that a biological theory requires biological data...

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: ""All alleged 'predictions' are in fact mere accomodations, unsupported by observed reality."

    In fact, being able to find a novel fossil organism and to predict its plausible characteristics *is* a valid prediction.

    joe g: ""Forbidden Archeology" by Cremo and Thompson."

    You are kidding?

     
  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: =The evidence of the art, artisan and artifact are always intertwined.

    joe g: "That is demonstrateably false. There are many cases in which we only have artifact and can only make generalizations/ speculations about the art and/or artisan."

    And when we lack such supporting evidence, we should be more cautious in our conclusions. If we suspect an artifact was manufactured, but have no evidence of the artisan, then we should be willing to reconsider our original conjecture.

    Meanwhile, when we make generalizations (theories), we use them to make predictions in order to test the validity of such generalizations. This is something you and the "Design Movement" refuse to do. I'm willing to look, but you wave away any actual evidence that doesn't support your preconceived conclusions.

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Don't post out-of-context snippets again- last warning.
    "

    Hehe. ID theory predicts that ID will censor non ID friendly posts, namely:

    o Those that ask 'forbidden questions'
    o Those that highly its scientific vacuity.
    o Those that make previous ID posts look foolish.

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Don't post out-of-context snippets again- last warning.
    "


    RH:
    Hehe. ID theory predicts that ID will censor non ID friendly posts, namely:

    o Those that ask 'forbidden questions'
    o Those that highly its scientific vacuity.
    o Those that make previous ID posts look foolish.


    Wrong, as usual, on all counts. I will censor/ ban posts that blatantly misrepresent my posts.

    As for scientifdic vacuity, no need to look any further of the anti-ID position of sheer-dumb-luck.

     
  • At 7:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: ""All alleged 'predictions' are in fact mere accomodations, unsupported by observed reality."

    Zachriel:
    In fact, being able to find a novel fossil organism and to predict its plausible characteristics *is* a valid prediction.

    Not unless one can verify how the novel fossil organism came to be. You see we can't tell phenotypic plasticty from geneotypic change from fossils. We can't tell convergence from divergence from fossils.

    joe g: ""Forbidden Archeology" by Cremo and Thompson."

    Zachriel:
    You are kidding?

    Not at all. That book is just as valid as anything you posted in support of evolutionism.

     
  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "That is demonstrateably false. There are many cases in which we only have artifact and can only make generalizations/ speculations about the art and/or artisan."

    Zachriel:
    And when we lack such supporting evidence, we should be more cautious in our conclusions.

    ALL scientific inferences are tentative.

    Zachriel:
    If we suspect an artifact was manufactured, but have no evidence of the artisan, then we should be willing to reconsider our original conjecture.

    Obviously an artifact was manufactured. And obviously artfact is evidence of artisan.

    ZAchriel:
    Meanwhile, when we make generalizations (theories), we use them to make predictions in order to test the validity of such generalizations.

    And sometimes alleged predictions are not predictions of the theory at all. Yet some or even many, claim them to be.

    Zachriel:
    This is something you and the "Design Movement" refuse to do.

    Spoken like a true ID ignoramous. ID makes predictions. There are several in "The Privileged Planet" alone.

    Zachriel:
    I'm willing to look, but you wave away any actual evidence that doesn't support your preconceived conclusions.

    Nice projection. However I know better. Ya see I was once an evo- babbler, much like you until I opened my eyes to the real scientific data.

     
  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "And that with the randomness of evolutionism no one would expect to see nested hierarchies."

    Zachriel:
    This is a critical misunderstanding on your part.

    I know the critical misunderstanding is all yours.

    Zachriel:
    A nested hierarchy is a specific mathematical pattern.

    NH, any NH, is a mebntal construct.

    Zachriel:
    It is the natural consequence of the descent of diverging lineages.

    With evolutionism we also have converging lineages. With evolutionism we have possible LOSS of parts that need to be accounted for.

    Zachriel:
    Until you understand this basic mathematical pattern, you will continue to be confused on the evidence concerning common descent.

    Until you realize you are blathering nonsense you will continue to use weak, unfounded, unsubstantiated, circumstantial "evidence" to help support your case.

    Zachriel:
    Random descent of diverging lineages does not lead to random results, but recognizable patterns and correlations.

    That is false for reasons provided, as well as the scientific data that supports it.

    And the fact remains that anyone who uses NH to support evolutionism doesn't understand a thing about either.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    rich hughes: "Hehe. ID theory predicts that ID will censor non ID friendly posts, namely..."

    Joe g has suppressed numerous on-topic posts, and delays all of them for no apparent reason. Clearly, he thinks he needs the handicap.

    joe g: " We can't tell convergence from divergence from fossils."

    It's easy to make broad claims, but convergence is an area constant of scientific investigation by evolutionary biologists.

    joe g: "That book is just as valid as anything you posted in support of evolutionism."

    Without any sense of irony, you insist that "Forbidden Archeology" has scientific validity. On this thread, I have cited Philip Gingerich. At the bottom of his page, you will find a large number published and relevant peer literature. Importantly, Gingerich provides real evidence that can be examined, verified and validated.

    joe g: "Spoken like a true ID ignoramous. ID makes predictions. There are several in "The Privileged Planet" alone."

    The only examples I noted were either non-falsifiable or non-observable. But you could try to be specific.

    joe g: "NH, any NH, is a mebntal construct."

    That's like claiming that a tree or bush do not make a specific pattern. The nested hierarchy is a well-defined pattern, and that pattern can be shown to exist in the phylogenetics of eukaryotes independently of any observer presuppositions. Entire fields, with journals and research facilities, are dedicated to studying these patterns, including Systematic Biology and Cladistics.

    joe g: "Until you realize you are blathering nonsense you will continue to use weak, unfounded, unsubstantiated, circumstantial 'evidence' to help support your case."

    The evidence I cite is to peer reviewed journals in biology and related fields. You reject the findings of the vast majority of scientists working in biology, geology, cladistics, genetics, microbiology, phylogenetics, paleontology, even astronomy. You wave away specific validated empirical predictions, such as Gingerich's discoveries concerning cetaceans. And you claim that all these scientists are wrong, so wrong that they are ignoranct evo-babblers; but that you, the proprietor of some blog is right and we should accept your conclusions.

    I remain unconvinced, but am willing to examine any actual evidence. It is incumbent on you to explain why all these scientists are wrong, while you, the proprietor of some blog, are right. But you won't bother to publish your results in the peer literature. You have disdain for those who actually study the evidence -- and the evidence itself.

     
  • At 9:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Joe g has suppressed numerous on-topic posts, and delays all of them for no apparent reason. Clearly, he thinks he needs the handicap.

    Umm, I have explained this already. This blog is not my life. Unlike Zach, I do have one. I will not repost the same refuted nonsense again and again. It gets us no where, just like this thread.

    joe g: " We can't tell convergence from divergence from fossils."

    Zachriel:
    It's easy to make broad claims, but convergence is an area constant of scientific investigation by evolutionary biologists.

    What the f'ck was that link supposed to do? It answered nothing to even remotely challenge what I posted.

    Unfortunately this is part of the problem. I say one thing and you answer with something irrelevant as if it meant something. Then you continue to harp on that irrelevancy as if it carries some weight.

    Try using the OPERATIVE words in what I post- FROM FOSSILS we can't tell convergence from divergence.

    Zachriel:
    The evidence I cite is to peer reviewed journals in biology and related fields. You reject the findings of the vast majority of scientists working in biology, geology, cladistics, genetics, microbiology, phylogenetics, paleontology, even astronomy. You wave away specific validated empirical predictions, such as Gingerich's discoveries concerning cetaceans. And you claim that all these scientists are wrong, so wrong that they are ignoranct evo-babblers; but that you, the proprietor of some blog is right and we should accept your conclusions.

    Hey asswipe the post Wobbling Stability is based on REAL observed scientific data. NOTHING you have posted even comes close to refuting that. And it was THAT exact observation, while doing field-work in Cebral America, that led me to say that Common Descent is BS, as far as a scientific theory goes.

    And I will challenge each and every one of your scientists to show us what makes an organism what it is so we could then objectively test their premise of common descent. Because if what you stated had ANY truth to it at all there wouldn't be any geneticists nor biologists who are Creationists. Yet I know of at least one geneticist who left common descent and became a Creationist BECAUSE OF THE DATA, but I never heard of it going the other way.

    And one more time- nested hierarchy is a prediction of common design. THAT is why it is observed.

    What neither you nor any one of the scientists who support common descent can do, is to demonstrate what causes the differences observed between populations. That you continue to even address that point is very telling about the strength, actually the weakness, of your argument.

     
  • At 11:10 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "I will not repost the same refuted nonsense again and again."

    I have never spammed your blog. (You can suppress advertising spam with the Word Verification feature of Blogger.) A level playing field requires that my posts are posted immediately and never suppressed. It isn't necessary that you respond to every comment, or delay comments until you have time to respond. People can read the entire thread and see what the arguments are.

    joe g: "What the f'ck was that link supposed to do?"

    It was a Google Scholar search for 'evolution' and 'convergence'. There are thousands of scientific papers on the subject. I was hoping you might actually try to do some research.

    More specifically, your assertion that "We can't tell convergence from divergence from fossils" is simply false. We can even provide evidence of intermediaries of this convergence, such as the reduction in legs in cetaceans until, in modern whales the existence of a vestigial pelvis, while dolphin embryos are clearly tetrapodal, and the genomic evidence predicted
    the characteristics of specific intermediate cetacean hand and feet found in Pakistan. Amazing, isn't it? That molecules from living animals can predict the fossil content of the rocks.

    joe g: "the post Wobbling Stability is based on REAL observed scientific data. NOTHING you have posted even comes close to refuting that. "

    Organic populations are a complex system, so, of course, there are oscillations. That's been confirmed by numerous observations. That would be expected, especially if the environment oscillates. And we certainly wouldn't expect to directly observe speciation in most animal species under normal observational time limits. An excellent example of direct observation of natural selection is the Grants' work with finches.

    joe g: "And it was THAT exact observation, while doing field-work in Cebral America, that led me to say that Common Descent is BS, as far as a scientific theory goes."

    Great. Which journal published your results? And as this evidence apparently overthrew a longstanding scientific theory, why haven't we heard about this?

    joe g: "And I will challenge each and every one of your scientists to show us what makes an organism what it is so we could then objectively test their premise of common descent."

    Having a complete theory of genetics or organic development isn't necessary a valid Theory of Common Descent, any more than having a complete theory of the planetary formation is required to have a Theory of Gravity. The way you test a theory is by constructing hypotheses, making predictions, testing these predictions, then publishing so others can replicate and extend your findings. The Theory of Evolution make a wide variety of different predictions, in a wide variety of fields.

    joe g: " Because if what you stated had ANY truth to it at all there wouldn't be any geneticists nor biologists who are Creationists."

    It doesn't work that way. Scientists represent a vast community of varying knowledge and wisdom. However, the vast majority of working biologists fully accept the Theory of Evolution, and they do so for scientific reasons. And you have provided no convincing evidence that they are wrong.

    joe g: "And one more time- nested hierarchy is a prediction of common design. THAT is why it is observed."

    Design predicts consistent violation of any uniquely defined nested hierarchy. That's because human designers trade ideas and cross lineages at will.

     
  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "I will not repost the same refuted nonsense again and again."

    Zachriel:
    I have never spammed your blog.

    No, you just post the same tired ole refuted nonsense over-and-over again. Nested hierarchies are a prime example.

    Zachriel:
    More specifically, your assertion that "We can't tell convergence from divergence from fossils" is simply false.

    Reality demonstrates the ONLY way to determine convergence from divergence is with genomes of the organisms in question.

    Finches remain finches, even after the Grants studied them. IOW no net "evolution" took place.

    Zachriel:
    And you have provided no convincing evidence that they are wrong.

    Neither they nor you have provided anything to show you/ they are right.

    Zachriel:
    Design predicts consistent violation of any uniquely defined nested hierarchy. That's because human designers trade ideas and cross lineages at will.

    Onmly a real moron would post something like that- especially in light of all that I have posted. Either you are just plain stupid or just plain dishonest. Or perhaps you suffer from a combination of both. Yeah, that must be it.

    It is responses like that which demonstrate your total lack of integrity, which then ruins anything you post that may have substance- although I am still waiting for that.

    There aren't any cetaceans with hands or feet. Anyone who says there is either is lying or doesn't know what makes a hand a hand nor a foot a foot.

    I will also notE that NOT ONE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF BIOLOGISTS WHO ACCEPTS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CAN SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATE ITS VALIDITY. NOT ONE OF THOSE SCIENTISTS CAN EVEN DEMONSTRATE THAT A BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM COULD "EVOLVE" IN A POPULATION OF FLAGELLA-LESS BACTERIA.

    IOW all Zach can do is hope that the majority is correct, in a time when we know science isn't done via majority rule and Zach's vast majority is so specialized they rely on someone, anyone, else to fill in the gaps their speciality doesn't touch.

    And sorry Zach it DOES work that way- that being IF you and your majority were correct there couldn't be ANY scientists, let alone geneticists and biologists, who are Creationists. That there are many should raise a flag to even subjective people, like evos.


    That the following remains unchallenged is very telling:

    What neither you nor any one of the scientists who support common descent can do, is to demonstrate what causes the differences observed between populations. That you continue to even address that point is very telling about the strength, actually the weakness, of your argument.

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "What neither you nor any one of the scientists who support common descent can do, is to demonstrate what causes the differences observed between populations."

    The mechanisms of the divergence from common ancestors are multiple. I have posted a large number of cites to peer literature concerning exactly this. That you wave it away with the flick of the wrist is of no particular relevance.

    joe g: "There aren't any cetaceans with hands or feet. Anyone who says there is either is lying or doesn't know what makes a hand a hand nor a foot a foot."

    And yet the majority of biologists who specialize in cetaceans disagree with you. Did you know that a dolphin embryo has hind limb buds? And even a child can look at the fossils and see the same sorts of bones found in other mammals, including a range of intermediate structures.

    joe g: "Nested hierarchies are a prime example."

    Let's start with the nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy
    is a set of groups, in which each group either contains, is contained by, or is disjunct from each other group. Lots of objects, natural and artificial, can be categorized in a nested hierarchy by various criterion, or by no criterion at all!

    However, biological structures form a single, natural nested hierarchy; that is, the relationships between groups can be efficiently arranged by characteristic in only one parsimonious way. Such a natural nested hierarchy is an inevitable consequence of common descent with branching and modification.

    Starting with the vertebrates, we can look at skulls. Or the vertebrae, or the limbs, or the jaw bones. Or we could look at the biochemistry or genomes. And, if you arrange these features in the most parsimonious fashion, you will find that not only do they form a nested hierarchy, but that they form parallel nested hierarchies!

    Now, please try to do this with objects that are known to be designed. You can arrange them into a nested hierarchy, but you will find there are always many ways of doing this depending on the characteristics chosen for sorting the objects. But please, try it. Be specific.

     
  • At 7:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "What neither you nor any one of the scientists who support common descent can do, is to demonstrate what causes the differences observed between populations."

    Zachriel:
    The mechanisms of the divergence from common ancestors are multiple. I have posted a large number of cites to peer literature concerning exactly this. That you wave it away with the flick of the wrist is of no particular relevance.

    It appears you cannot even follow along. Try this:

    With fossils ONLY there is no way to tell convergence from divergence.

    THAT has been my point all along yet you bring in a strawman response- which is your MO.

    joe g: "There aren't any cetaceans with hands or feet. Anyone who says there is either is lying or doesn't know what makes a hand a hand nor a foot a foot."

    Zachriel:
    And yet the majority of biologists who specialize in cetaceans disagree with you.

    That is false. A majority of biologists should know what a hand is and what a foot is.

    Zachriel:
    Did you know that a dolphin embryo has hind limb buds?

    Hind limb buds do not mean "hands or feet"

    Zachriel:
    And even a child can look at the fossils and see the same sorts of bones found in other mammals, including a range of intermediate structures.

    Very doubtful and also irrelevant.

    Zachriel:
    However, biological structures form a single, natural nested hierarchy; that is, the relationships between groups can be efficiently arranged by characteristic in only one parsimonious way. Such a natural nested hierarchy is an inevitable consequence of common descent with branching and modification.

    That is nothing more than wishful thinking. I have already refuted your nonsense with real data- that data which demontrates that common descent can go in ANY direction, and that survival is all that is requires for it to procede/ continue in that direction. Parts can be lost- that is both body parts and cellular parts.

    Zachriel:
    Starting with the vertebrates, we can look at skulls. Or the vertebrae, or the limbs, or the jaw bones. Or we could look at the biochemistry or genomes. And, if you arrange these features in the most parsimonious fashion, you will find that not only do they form a nested hierarchy, but that they form parallel nested hierarchies!

    Which one would expect to see if living organisms were the result of a common design!

    Zachriel:
    Now, please try to do this with objects that are known to be designed. You can arrange them into a nested hierarchy, but you will find there are always many ways of doing this depending on the characteristics chosen for sorting the objects.

    The same goes for biological organisms- it ALL depends on what characteristics are chosen.

    And THAT is why NH cannot be used as "evidence" for anything. It is a subjective mental construct, which was first used by scientists as evidence for common design.

     
  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "With fossils ONLY there is no way to tell convergence from divergence."

    This is incorrect, as the succession of whale fossils clearly indicates. However, no evidence can be accurately analyzed in a vacuum, and there is substantial supporting evidence from many other areas of research (as previously cited).

    joe g: "A majority of biologists should know what a hand is and what a foot is."

    Well, then, let's ask them.

    Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan

    Journal Science on Cetacean, feet

    Or Systematic Biology has a number of excellent cites for cetacean "hands", "feet", "ankle",

    I already pointed out the homologous limb buds on modern dolphin embryos. And they just discovered a dolphin with vestigial hind limbs.

    Apparently, biologists disagree with you.

    joe g: "Hind limb buds do not mean 'hands or feet'"

    Hind limbs are still vestigial evidence of a tetrapodal origin.


    Zachriel: And even a child can look at the fossils and see the same sorts of bones found in other mammals, including a range of intermediate structures.

    joe g: "Very doubtful and also irrelevant."

    The existence of intermediate structures forming a nested hierarchy in time is plain evidence of evolution.

    joe g: "The same goes for biological organisms- it ALL depends on what characteristics are chosen."

    This is incorrect. There is only one parsimonious nested hierarchy for biology, colloquially called the Tree of Life. There are entire journals and research facilities dedicated to systematics. I have provided multiple cites.

    Zachriel: Now, please try to do this with objects that are known to be designed.

    I note you didn't try. I assume that means you can't.

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "With fossils ONLY there is no way to tell convergence from divergence."

    Zachriel:
    This is incorrect, as the succession of whale fossils clearly indicates.

    The alleged succession is an illusion and that in no way refutes what I posted- that no one can tell divergence from convergence via fossils. One needs living organisms to compare morphology and genomes.

    And your shot-gun bluffing is also duly noted. I guess when one starts redefining words to suit ones needs- as in redefining whale, hand, feet- I would say that anything is possible.

    However without the real organism- fleshy parts included- the ONLY to say that cetaceans have/ had "hands" or "feet" is to assume common descent, but from what did the "hands" descend from?

    AND ONE MORE TIME-

    A FLIPPER IS ALSO A LIMB

    HOWEVER THERE ISN'T ANY GENETIC/ BIOLOGICAL DATA THAT DEMONSTRATES A HAND OR LEG OF A TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL CAN 'EVOLVE' INTO A FIN. ONLY WISHFUL THINKING.


    joe g: "Hind limb buds do not mean 'hands or feet'"

    Zachriel:
    Hind limbs are still vestigial evidence of a tetrapodal origin.

    Not at all and especially not without the data to support that claim.


    Zachriel:
    The existence of intermediate structures forming a nested hierarchy in time is plain evidence of evolution.

    But we only "see" that when data is cherry-picked. And it isn't an expected outcome of evolution for the scientifc reasons already provided.

    joe g: "The same goes for biological organisms- it ALL depends on what characteristics are chosen."

    Zachriel:
    This is incorrect.

    No Zach I am quite correct.

    I will tell you what Zach- I will post a list of designed somethings that fit into nested hierarchy if you can do the same with things we know aren't designed.

    Ya see I know that common design would yield nested hierarchies. Common descent with the way parts can be gained AND/ OR lost no one would expect it. However that does not prevent some people from trying to hijack an idea. You may fool some people, but I know better.

     
  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "There aren't any cetaceans with hands or feet. Anyone who says there is either is lying or doesn't know what makes a hand a hand nor a foot a foot."

    Zachriel:
    And yet the majority of biologists who specialize in cetaceans disagree with you.

    joe g: That is false. A majority of biologists should know what a hand is and what a foot is.

    You are not merely disagreeing with the conclusions of biologists, but are not making a claim about how biologists use terms. I provided a large number of cites to biological journals, including Systematic Biology showing how the terms were used. Biologists *do* use the terms "hands" and "feet" to refer to appendages in cetaceans.

    joe g: "However without the real organism- fleshy parts included- the ONLY to say that cetaceans have/ had 'hands' or 'feet' is to assume common descent, but from what did the "hands" descend from?"

    Biologists *do* consider extinct cetaceans as members of the mammalian order. You may disagree with their conclusions, but please don't misrepresent how biologists use the terms.

    joe g: " I will post a list of designed somethings that fit into nested hierarchy if you can do the same with things we know aren't designed."

    Almost anything can be arranged into nested hierarchies, and often are for convenience, but these nested hierarchies are generally arbitrary -- which is the very point, of course. This arbitrariness of classification applies to both natural and artificial objects; rocks, clouds, celestial objects, cars, stamps, etc., do not naturally form a singular, non-arbitrary nested hierarchy. However, the Y-chromosome does, and we can use this fact to determine paternity.

    joe g: "Ya see I know that common design would yield nested hierarchies."

    So, tell us of anything designed that forms a single, non-arbitrary nested hierarchy of characteristics.

     
  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    You are not merely disagreeing with the conclusions of biologists, but are not making a claim about how biologists use terms. I provided a large number of cites to biological journals, including Systematic Biology showing how the terms were used. Biologists *do* use the terms "hands" and "feet" to refer to appendages in cetaceans.

    Those who use those words when describing cetaceans do so ONLY because of strong pre-conceived bias towards common descent. Those structures are neither hands nor feet when applying commonly accepted definitions of either.

    Zachriel:
    joe g: "However without the real organism- fleshy parts included- the ONLY to say that cetaceans have/ had 'hands' or 'feet' is to assume common descent, but from what did the "hands" descend from?"

    Zachriel:
    Biologists *do* consider extinct cetaceans as members of the mammalian order.

    I never said nor implied otherwise. You have problems that require attention.

    And one more time no one would expect nested hierarchy if evolutionism was indicative of reality for the reasons provided. That you still cling to NH just underscores the vacuuity of your position as well as your total lack of understanding of the theory you support.

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: "Those who use those words when describing cetaceans do so ONLY because of strong pre-conceived bias towards common descent."

    But that wasn't your claim which concerned how biologists actually used the term. (They use the term because the structures are obviously homologous.)

    Joe G: "There aren't any cetaceans with hands or feet. Anyone who says there is either is lying or doesn't know what makes a hand a hand nor a foot a foot"

    Zachriel: And yet the majority of biologists who specialize in cetaceans disagree with you and frequently use the term when referring to cetaceans.

    Joe G: "That is false. A majority of biologists should know what a hand is and what a foot is."

    I have provided a large number of cites to support how biologists use the term. You are clearly being evasive when you say, "Those who use those words when describing cetaceans do so ONLY because of strong pre-conceived bias towards common descent." Now, it is a matter not of how the term is being applied, but the integrity or knowledge of those using the term.

    Joe G: "Those structures are neither hands nor feet when applying commonly accepted definitions of either."

    hands, the forelimb segment (as the terminal section of a bird's wing) of a vertebrate higher than the fishes that corresponds to the hand irrespective of its form or functional specialization.


    --

    Zachriel: So, tell us of anything designed that forms a single, non-arbitrary nested hierarchy of characteristics.

    I note you left this query unanswered.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: "Those who use those words when describing cetaceans do so ONLY because of strong pre-conceived bias towards common descent."

    Zachriel:
    But that wasn't your claim which concerned how biologists actually used the term. (They use the term because the structures are obviously homologous.)

    Don't tell me what my claim is. Your history here demonstrates you can't even follow along. And homolgy means from a common ancestor- which is obviously incorrect in this case.

    I will again refute nested hierarchy in a new thread- unbelieveable that I have to do this- AGAIN!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home