Common Descent, science and empiricism
I have been asked (many times) whether or not I accept Common Descent- that is the premise that all of the diversity of living organisms on this planet (extant and extinct) share a common ancestor. Although I do not categorically deny the premise it is obvious that it is not a scientific premise. I will explain why:
Common Descent has never been observed- not even in the fossil record. The premise cannot even be tested via experiment because of the eons of time that are required.
Heck we can't even conduct an experiment that would show that a population of flagella-less bacteria can "evolve" a flagellum.
And in the end we still can't account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between alleged closely related species such as chimps and humans. No one knows whether or not any mechanism can account for them. You would figure that with such an alleged degree of similarity in genomes that those differences would be easy to flesh out. Yet still nothing but silence on this issue.
Ya see THAT is the main problem with Common Descent- it needs to account for those differences yet it doesn't even attempt to.
Main Entry: em•pir•i•cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em•pir•ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience (empirical data)
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory (an empirical basis for the theory)
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment (empirical laws)
4 : of or relating to empiricism
Main Entry: em•pir•i•cism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-&-"si-z&m, em-
Function: noun
1 a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b : QUACKERY, CHARLATANRY
2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically
3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
Any comments that expose the dishonesty and/ or stupidity of any anti-IDist or ID critic will be allowed and treated as "on-topic".
Common Descent has never been observed- not even in the fossil record. The premise cannot even be tested via experiment because of the eons of time that are required.
Heck we can't even conduct an experiment that would show that a population of flagella-less bacteria can "evolve" a flagellum.
And in the end we still can't account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between alleged closely related species such as chimps and humans. No one knows whether or not any mechanism can account for them. You would figure that with such an alleged degree of similarity in genomes that those differences would be easy to flesh out. Yet still nothing but silence on this issue.
Ya see THAT is the main problem with Common Descent- it needs to account for those differences yet it doesn't even attempt to.
Main Entry: em•pir•i•cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em•pir•ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience (empirical data)
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory (an empirical basis for the theory)
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment (empirical laws)
4 : of or relating to empiricism
Main Entry: em•pir•i•cism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-&-"si-z&m, em-
Function: noun
1 a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b : QUACKERY, CHARLATANRY
2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically
3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
Any comments that expose the dishonesty and/ or stupidity of any anti-IDist or ID critic will be allowed and treated as "on-topic".
posted by Joe G @ 7:37 AM
110 Comments:
At 10:35 AM,
blipey said…
So, is that a "Common Descent is not true"?
At 12:35 PM,
Joe G said…
From the OP:
Although I do not categorically deny the premise it is obvious that it is not a scientific premise.
IOW it could be true, it just isn't scientific at this point in time.
I take it you still have reading comprehension issues.
At 2:03 PM,
blipey said…
No. I see you making a grand statement like "CD is not scientific" not backing it up with anything except drivel. Then, in the same post, also sticking in a qualifier. You do this, just so when someone calls you on it, you can say, "uh, well, no, see I never said that, I have an open mind, it could be either way...."
So, which is it?
At 2:30 PM,
Joe G said…
I see you making a grand statement like "CD is not scientific" not backing it up with anything except drivel.
If it is drivel then you should be able to easily refute it. So, have at it. Show us where/ how/ when Common Descent has been observed.
Then you could show us those experiments that demonstrate or verify the premise.
Then, in the same post, also sticking in a qualifier.
The qualifier belongs in the post. What's your point?
Ya see blipey I used to fully and openly "accept" Common Descent. It was the scientific data that changed my perception.
So, which is it?
Common Descent is not a scientifically valid premise. It has never been observed and cannot be objectively tested.
To this day Common Descent has not been able to account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between closely related species such as chimps and humans.
Now if that is drivel it should be easy to refute. I await the scientific data which accounts for upright bipedal walking & running as well as the SD which accounts for the lose of the opposable big toe.
That would be a start. IOW it would show that you are more than a no-talent clown.
At 2:40 PM,
blipey said…
Great. So I'm putting you down in the "Common Descent is Crap" column.
Remind me again how common descent isn't an example of a nested hierarchy and then we can talk about observations and predictions of common descent.
At 2:50 PM,
Richard Simons said…
To this day Common Descent has not been able to account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between closely related species such as chimps and humans.
Of course not. It does, however, account for the similarities. It is comments like this that make you seem like a complete chump.
At 3:44 PM,
SustainableJames said…
What do you think evidence of Common Descent in the fossil record would look like?
At 4:09 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Great. So I'm putting you down in the "Common Descent is Crap" column.
Whatever. I'm keeping you in the "stupid fuckin' idiot" column.
blipey:
Remind me again how common descent isn't an example of a nested hierarchy and then we can talk about observations and predictions of common descent.
There is a huge difference between Common Descent and common descent.
And Darwin used well-timed extinctions to explain nested hierarchy- not Common Descent.
At 4:12 PM,
Joe G said…
To this day Common Descent has not been able to account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between closely related species such as chimps and humans.
Richard S:
Of course not. It does, however, account for the similarities.
But the similarities can be explained by alternatives to Common Descent. That is why Common Descent needs to explain the differences.
It is comments like this that make you seem like a complete chump.
Your comment just cemented your place in chumpdum.
Your village called- they want you back...
At 4:16 PM,
Joe G said…
currator asks:
What do you think evidence of Common Descent in the fossil record would look like?
Truthfully I wouldn't expect to see Common Descent in the fossil record. That is because not everything that has lived and died was fossilized.
I think it is silly to use the fossil record for anything except to show what was around at some time in the past.
At 4:17 PM,
Joe G said…
5 chime-ins and 0 rebuttals.
Another par....
At 5:40 PM,
SustainableJames said…
JoeG says:
Truthfully I wouldn't expect to see Common Descent in the fossil record. That is because not everything that has lived and died was fossilized.
I think it is silly to use the fossil record for anything except to show what was around at some time in the past.
So, if you don't know what Common Descent would look like in the fossil record how do you know whether or not it's been observed?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were posting anything worthy of a rebuttal. I thought you were just displaying ignorance.
There are plenty of things in the fossil record that suggest common descent. The fact that fossils of whales gradually lost their legs, and how horse fossils gradually grew taller and more horse-like from smaller mammals. You can claim those fossils don't exist all day. I can't rebut you putting your fingers in your ears.
At 7:49 PM,
Joe G said…
So, if you don't know what Common Descent would look like in the fossil record how do you know whether or not it's been observed?
I didn't say nor imply I don't know what Common Descent would look like in the fossil record.
I just said I wouldn't expect to see it in the fossil record.
Are you related to blipey?
I thought you were just displaying ignorance.
If I am the surest way to expose that would be to refute what I posted.
There are plenty of things in the fossil record that suggest common descent.
Common Descent is different than common descent. Also those "plenty of things" only "suggest" to those who are already singing in the choir.
The fact that fossils of whales gradually lost their legs,...
Umm out of the 50,000+ transitionals that should exist we have a few speculative specimens. Not one shows a gradual anything.
...and how horse fossils gradually grew taller and more horse-like from smaller mammals.
You mean the horse series that many evos don't use anymore?
You can claim those fossils don't exist all day.
Fossils exist. But they do not do what you think they do.
Now I can tell you this all day but with your head up your ass I doubt you will hear me.
Ya see in the end there isn't any biological data that supports the alleged cetacean evolution. IOW there isn't anything that explains those physiological and anatomical differences except for a heavy reliance on magical mystery mutations coupled with eons of time.
At 8:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Evidence for Common Descent:
"Therefore, the evidence for common descent* discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms."
This is key because ID is OK with Common Descent if that is what the scientific data affords.
*Universal common descent which is what I call Common Descent
Refutation of that evidence
2nd response to Dr Theobald
At 8:39 PM,
Jim Wynne said…
...ID is OK with Common Descent if that is what the scientific data affords.
ID is also OK with "poof" in the absence of data.
At 12:35 AM,
blipey said…
And Darwin used well-timed extinctions to explain nested hierarchy- not Common Descent.
This statement obviously proves that common descent is not a nested hierarchy. Thanks.
So, can you draw a picture of a nested hierarchy, please? Then we might point out the similarities that would be shown in one.
Pretty pictures with labels--might help someone out.
At 7:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Jim sez:
ID is also OK with "poof" in the absence of data.
Wrong. ID would only be OK with "poof" if that is what the data afforded.
Of course those ignorant of ID would say that ID is OK with "poof" in the absence of data. And ID ignorance is rampant amongst anti-IDists and ID critics.
At 7:22 AM,
Joe G said…
And Darwin used well-timed extinctions to explain nested hierarchy- not Common Descent.
blipey:
This statement obviously proves that common descent is not a nested hierarchy.
Only an imbecile would reach that inference.
However Common Descent wouldn't form a nested hierarchy for the multitude of reasons already presented throughout my blog as well as in the book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
Page 131:
“While hierarchic schemes correspond beautifully with the typological model of nature, the relationship between evolution and hierarchical systems is curiously ambiguous. Ever since 1859 it has been traditional for evolutionary biologists to claim that the hierarchic pattern of nature provides support for the idea of organics evolution. Yet, direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes.”
It is also worth repeating that nested hierarchy was FIRST used as evidence for a common design and all evos did when they took over was to replace archetype with common ancestor:
"One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor."-- Ernst Mayr
Simpson echoed those comments:
"From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different."
IOW nested hierarchy was and is used as evidence for Common Design.
At 8:44 AM,
blipey said…
3 Things and then I must stop poking the lion.
1. Wrong. ID would only be OK with "poof" if that is what the data afforded.
Do tell. What data might support "poof"? What might that look like?
2. For someone who thinks they're one of the funnier, wittier people on the net, you sure don't get sarcasm very well. As in:
This statement obviously proves that common descent is not a nested hierarchy.
Perhaps you couldn't read the words that followed immediately after:
Thanks.
So, can you draw a picture of a nested hierarchy, please? Then we might point out the similarities that would be shown in one.
3. However Common Descent wouldn't form a nested hierarchy for the multitude of reasons already presented throughout my blog as well as in the book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
Exactly; this is the dictionary definition of drivel. On one of those threads, you attempted to explain how a family tree is not a nested hierarchy--because people have fathers. yikes.
At 9:10 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
3 Things and then I must stop poking the lion.
Ummm you're not "poking" anything. You are just being yor usual imbecilic self.
3. However Common Descent wouldn't form a nested hierarchy for the multitude of reasons already presented throughout my blog as well as in the book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
blipey:
Exactly; this is the dictionary definition of drivel.
Are you saying that dictionaries define reality as drivel? Because reality demonstrates that we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy from Common Descent.
blipey:
On one of those threads, you attempted to explain how a family tree is not a nested hierarchy--because people have fathers.
I never said that. I never even thought that.
So I take it I should put you in the lying stupid fuckin' idiot column.
Nevermind, I already had you there.
For the record- family trees may be hierarchies but they are non-nested hierarchies. That is what I and others, have been saying for years.
At 9:11 AM,
Joe G said…
And again:
Nested hierarchies are built on similarities. Common Descent needs to explain the differences.
At 9:52 AM,
Joe G said…
1. Wrong. ID would only be OK with "poof" if that is what the data afforded.
Do tell.
I just did.
What data might support "poof"?
Observation(s) of things "poofing" into existence would be a good one.
What might that look like?
Something that wasn't there suddenly appearing.
2. For someone who thinks they're one of the funnier, wittier people on the net, you sure don't get sarcasm very well.
some points:
1- I do not think I am one of the funnier, wittier people on the net.
2- I get sarcasm
3- You're still a lying stupid fuckin' idiot who also happens to be a pencil-neck geek
IOW with point 3 being well known and universally accepted, you don't have a sarcasm card to play.
At 9:56 AM,
blipey said…
blipey:
On one of those threads, you attempted to explain how a family tree is not a nested hierarchy--because people have fathers.
joe:
I never said that. I never even thought that.
Sorry, you said that on my blog, not yours:
And again you use of an alleged paternal family tree is misleading and therefore deceptive. It is misleading because the guy at the top of your alleged tree really isn’t at the top. He is just another node in another subset. And therefore your use of it as an example of nested hierarchy is also wrong.
Read it here.
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL!!!
This:
And again you use of an alleged paternal family tree is misleading and therefore deceptive. It is misleading because the guy at the top of your alleged tree really isn’t at the top. He is just another node in another subset. And therefore your use of it as an example of nested hierarchy is also wrong.
Does NOT imply this:
On one of those threads, you attempted to explain how a family tree is not a nested hierarchy--because people have fathers.
Not even close. Only a dishonest stupid fuckin' idiot would even try to make such a connection.
A father is still a father. However a father did not come into being via the "poof" mechanism. IOW a father had a father- and a mother! Biology 101.
Family trees can form hierarchies but they are non-nested hierarchies.
At 10:25 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Do you enjoy exposing your dishonesty and stupidity?
Or do you just like to make other people feel intellectually superior?
Another possibility is that you are just a twisted fuck who really thinks he is on to something.
At 11:04 AM,
Joe G said…
And one more time:
A family tree isn't a nested hierarchy because NH is based on characteristic traits.
"Who's your daddy?" is not a characteristic trait.
At 10:33 PM,
Hawks said…
Joe wrote:
But the similarities can be explained by alternatives to Common Descent. That is why Common Descent needs to explain the differences.
Of course the similarities can be explained by alternatives to CD; that's science for you. But your suggestion "That is why Common Descent needs to explain the differences" is ludicruos. Do you just make this crap up as you go along?
At 7:21 AM,
Joe G said…
But the similarities can be explained by alternatives to Common Descent. That is why Common Descent needs to explain the differences.
Hawks:
Of course the similarities can be explained by alternatives to CD; that's science for you.
Then you should have no problem with those alternatives being presented in a science classroom.
Hawks:
But your suggestion "That is why Common Descent needs to explain the differences" is ludicruos. Do you just make this crap up as you go along?
If you are the same Hawks that posts on the ARN DB I understand that you are a little slow so I will type slowly:
If the similarities can be explained by a number of scenarios then they all must be presented unless one can separate itself from the rest.
Common Descent could do this by explaining those physiological and anatomical differences.
And if Common Descent can't do that then to just present it when other scenarios fit the same bill would be a double-standard.
IOW the people who would just have Common Descent presented are two-faced wankers. And both faces are ugly.
At 1:53 AM,
blipey said…
Here come the bees.
At 10:14 AM,
Joe G said…
They must have followed you dee-dee-dees...
At 11:17 AM,
blipey said…
Wednesdays, 10:00 am, the Midwest, seek shelter
At 4:11 PM,
Joe G said…
What are blipey's favorite days, favorite time of day, general location in the US and his nightly routine?
(cue Don Pardo)
At 10:36 PM,
blipey said…
Is there anything inane that won't get posted here?
At 10:16 AM,
Joe G said…
If I only allowed posts containing something significant I may have a comment-free blog.
This thread is a perfect example- every anti-OP comment is inane...
At 12:22 PM,
blipey said…
Gee, whatever happened to your policy of posting only on-topic comments?
I love this blog!
Think about the last question as well.
At 2:46 PM,
Joe G said…
As I stated earlier:
If I only allowed posts containing something significant I may have a comment-free blog.
That also holds true for on-topic comments.
IOW it is obvious that inane and off-topic comments are the best you can do.
And the bottom-line is anything that exposes anti-IDists for what they are is "on-topic" as far as I am concerned.
At 7:00 PM,
blipey said…
Have you forgotten your previous vow? That nothing that wasn't on topic would be published? Why change now? Consistency really isn't your strong suit. Nor is the obvious.
Of course I'm not on topic (as you can tell by the way I mention that I'm not on topic in the actual comment). Yet you publish it anyway. Hmmmm.
This is very much like your "I won't publish" / "I will publish" Zachriel's comments.
I love this blog!
At 7:31 AM,
Joe G said…
And the bottom-line is anything that exposes anti-IDists for what they are is "on-topic" as far as I am concerned.
I take it "reading is fundamental" never made it to Kansas...
At 7:43 AM,
Joe G said…
This is very much like your "I won't publish" / "I will publish" Zachriel's comments.
Umm that is not mine.
Thank you for continuing to expose your dishonesty. And that is on topic for any blog I moderate.
At 10:27 AM,
blipey said…
Look at me type!!!!!!
At 1:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Does Kansas allow in-breeding?
blipey, does your family "tree" have any branches? Is your mother also your sister? Is your father, and your father's father, the same guy?
Inquiring minds want to know...
At 9:48 PM,
blipey said…
Do some better research; I don't live in Kansas.
Echo...echo...echo....
At 9:15 AM,
Joe G said…
I should have known that you hail from MO. Kansas is a step up compared to Missouri. And you are definitely a step-down.
Is MO still meth central?
At 10:31 AM,
blipey said…
See Joe comment on his blog!
See Blipey have some fun.
See Joe not know what to do!
See Blipey as the only commenter.
See Joe tilt at windmills.
Tilt, Joe, tilt.
At 1:26 PM,
Joe G said…
See Joe respond to comments on his blog.
See blipey post substance-free comments on Joe's blog.
See Joe post reality.
See blipey post substance-free nonsense on Joe's blog.
See Joe have some fun.
See blipey flail away.
Flail blipey, flail.
The name is blipey.
A pinhead like Zippy.
It's neither man, nor women nor gay.
It's not just a pinhead.
In fact it is brain-dead.
Dead brains that have rotten away!
OLE!!!
At 1:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Two certanties:
Reading is fundamental (which to blipey means "fun to be mental") never made it to Missouri.
And
Inbreeding is allowed in MO.
At 2:30 PM,
blipey said…
More wasted time.
At 3:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Entertainment is nothing but wasted time and more wasted time. And entertainment is all you, as a clown, have to offer.
But I don't mind because you don't have one-
Wait- is that Freddy Fender I hear in the background.
The difference between blipey and myself-
blipey is a waste of time and I'm wasted most of the time.
"Dude, that's my skull! I'm so wasted!!"
At 4:08 PM,
blipey said…
Know him?
He was delicious!
At 5:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Jeffrey Dahmer had a son, e-i-e-i-o
He called it blipey and dressed it like a clown, e-i-e-i-o
I guess I won't be telling you to "eat me"....
At 9:16 PM,
blipey said…
Baseball is yummy.
At 12:29 AM,
blipey said…
Where is the drivel? We want the drivel??? Oh wait, I found it.
At 12:30 AM,
blipey said…
Did your wife tell you to close the thread for some reason? Huzzah to her.
At 8:46 AM,
Joe G said…
If blipey wants drivel all it has to do is to read its comments on any blog. Or blipey could read its blog for drivel makes up the bulk of the posts there.
However it is obvious that blipey would rather be a troll because that is all it can be- it's that drivel that prevents it from being anything else.
And it is blipey who has proven that entertainers are a worthless lot, whose presence, if removed from this planet, would not be missed by anyone of consequence.
IOW this planet would be a much better place without them. blipey knows this and that drives it to be the wanker portrayed on my blog.
Thanks blipey.
At 9:25 AM,
Joe G said…
I found the drivel.
blipey is no more than a little girly gossiper! You go girl.
BTW blipey- I doubt DaveScot disagrees with your "science". You obviously don't have one clue about the subject- if you do you certainly haven't demonstrated it on any blog I have read.
At 7:23 PM,
blipey said…
cheese, cheese, cheese, easy as you please. Somehow all the comments on this blog are cheese, cheese, cheese!
continue, sir! You are my hero.
At 7:23 PM,
blipey said…
Oh,I forgot to mention how original you are. That's why you are the greatest!
At 9:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Somehow all the comments on this blog are cheese, cheese, cheese!
All your comments are shit, shit, shit.
But you are full of shit so that is to be expected.
As for originality- LoL! You are nothing but a blind follower.
Hey bah, bah, your herd is moving...
At 1:59 AM,
blipey said…
Jump into the fray
Over and over we go
Even though there are no
Great secrets to be learned,
I troll the waters.
Searching for prey,
Somedays I pounce.
Today is one of those days.
Up and up we go,
Perilously high--
I defy
Discussion to be had.
At 10:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Now THAT is funny!
That someone of blipey's limited physical and mental stature searches for prey and somedays pounces is almost beyond humor.
But it is true that blipey defies discussion, for a discussion and blipey do not mix. And it is also true that blipey is a troll.
At 8:20 PM,
blipey said…
Joe,
You should really go here.
It might be educational.
At 11:43 PM,
blipey said…
How's that reading assignment going?
Or are you stealing a poem as we speak?
At 10:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Well I followed the link blipey left and this is what I can summize:
blipey's ignorance, while amusing, is growing quite dull.
I am not a christian blipey. I do not care about the Bible.
If the Bible was falsified today it would not bother me.
If it were shown that Jesus was a figment of someone's imagination I would say "That explains a lot".
Why does blipey think that ignorance would be educational?
I guess ignoarnce = education to a freakin' low-life clown.
blipey's ignoarnce isn't exactly a secret.
Good luck with that...
At 11:16 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey wants a poem-
Erik Pratt
Upon a rock he sat
And thought he was a cat
Imagine that!
Ole Erik Pratt
At 12:07 PM,
blipey said…
Perhaps you should put your training as a Scientist to work and stop trying literature.
At 12:08 PM,
blipey said…
Well I followed the link blipey left and this is what I can summize:
blipey's ignorance, while amusing, is growing quite dull.
I am not a christian blipey. I do not care about the Bible.
If the Bible was falsified today it would not bother me.
If it were shown that Jesus was a figment of someone's imagination I would say "That explains a lot".
Why does blipey think that ignorance would be educational?
I guess ignoarnce = education to a freakin' low-life clown.
blipey's ignoarnce isn't exactly a secret.
Good luck with that...
????????
At 12:10 PM,
blipey said…
I know it's a lot to ask, but can you actually cite the time I called you a Christian?
Thought not. Thanks.
I know I've called you stupid, but not a Christian--they're different, you know?
At 2:10 PM,
blipey said…
Stop looking for the time I called you a Christian; it's a waste of time.
Your public needs you!
More posts! More posts! More posts!
At 8:09 AM,
Joe G said…
I know it's a lot to ask, but can you actually cite the time I called you a Christian?
I didn't say you called me a christian, Erik. I just stated that I wasn't one.
But anyway enlighten me- Who would be interested in the Bible and the Bible code if not christians?
Please be specific.
Perhaps you should put your training as a Scientist to work
I do- every day.
and stop trying literature.
You're just a clown with a very limited educational background. IOW you have no place to criticize anything pertaining to literature.
Perhaps you should keep working on your clown bit and leave reality to the people who deal with it.
At 5:10 PM,
blipey said…
Nice, Joe. So, just what do you think my educational background is? I would be stunned if you even came close.
While we're on that subject, I see that you claimed to be a scientist. Exactly what was your degree in again?
Now, you asked me a question and again, unlike you and Ftk, I will now answer it.
Who would be interested in the Bible Code?
Specifically, and in no particular order:
1. Christians, especially those of a literalist tradition.
2. Conspiracy Theorists, especially those that see either governments or elitist cabals as being in control of everything.
3. Crazy People, perhaps those that think the Bible was written by a secret cabal of people bent on world domination.
4. Those who see the works of Nostradamus as words of wisdom.
5. Historians, especially those with a particular bent toward mathematics.
The list could go on and on. My reference to the Bible Codes was more a dig at the conspiracy theorist angle of many IDers. You know, in reference to te very obvious vertical message in my poem.
Once again I have answered a question directly and with explanation. While you certainly won't acknowledge those answers, surely you must acknowledge that I DID answer?
At 5:50 PM,
blipey said…
oooh, ignoring the claimed to be a scientist bit. A little too close to home, there bucko?
Too bad. I thought I might have to bow to your authoritah! Still time to dig up those scientist credentials, though; don't get frustrated.
At 6:18 PM,
Joe G said…
So, just what do you think my educational background is?
Judging from your comments and lack of reading comprehension skills I would say that your educational background is very limited. Which in Missouri means you have a university degree of some sort.
And the fact that you refuse to answer any and all questions dealing with science and the theory of evolution, it is obvious that your background in those subjects is minimal at best.
Then those alleged gramatical errors you have tried to pin on me only to have reality slap you down- that is indicative of a light educational upbringing.
And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.
Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.
While we're on that subject, I see that you claimed to be a scientist. Exactly what was your degree in again?
A degree does not make a scientist. Ya see it's shit like that which demonstrates you aren't very well educated.
My reference to the Bible Codes was more a dig at the conspiracy theorist angle of many IDers.
I guess that's the conspiracy theory that resides in your head. It must be a very small conspiracy.
Still time to dig up those scientist credentials, though; don't get frustrated.
If you can get a security clearance I may be able to show you what I do.
Never mind you are going to experience a science experiment first-hand- natural selection in action!
Cool beans...
At 6:33 PM,
blipey said…
So it must be your job training. Which is in?
A side note: I went to school on the east coast. You might want to try again. Or at least tell funny "your state here" jokes.
At 8:37 AM,
blipey said…
Again, just in case you missed it:
Should you be talking about your super, ultra-secret, jello recipe, crackerjack clearance on your blog? Wouldn't want the NSA or anyone else to get word of that, would you? OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
A laugh riot.
At 12:10 AM,
Hawks said…
Didn't even remember posting here before, but here is my response anyway:
Then you should have no problem with those alternatives being presented in a science classroom.
As long as they are scientific, then no problem. But that was not the alternative you had in mind, was it?
If you are the same Hawks that posts on the ARN DB I understand that you are a little slow so I will type slowly:
I encourage everyone to go to ARN and have a look at the threads where me and Joe have had exchanges. They are just as telling as the stuff Joe writes here.
If the similarities can be explained by a number of scenarios then they all must be presented unless one can separate itself from the rest.
Common Descent could do this by explaining those physiological and anatomical differences.
And if Common Descent can't do that then to just present it when other scenarios fit the same bill would be a double-standard.
IOW the people who would just have Common Descent presented are two-faced wankers. And both faces are ugly.
Common descent does not have to account for the differences. Science have various mechanisms for doing that that are totally independent of CD.
Nice ad hominems, btw.
At 9:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Then you should have no problem with those alternatives being presented in a science classroom.
hawks:
As long as they are scientific, then no problem.
But Common Descent isn't scientific.
It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be observed. It cannot be verified.
But that was not the alternative you had in mind, was it?
No idea what that means.
hawks:
Common descent does not have to account for the differences.
It can't.
Hawks:
Science have various mechanisms for doing that that are totally independent of CD.
Then we should wait for science to do so- as in demonstrate via scientific data that the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans (for example) can be explained by the proposed mechanisms.
So far not one scientist on this planet has done so. But that is because they can't.
With all the talking that evolutionitwits are doing it is amazing that they just refuse to discuss reality. The reality that demonstrates what they call "science" is nothing more than a sham.
Thanks for demonstrating that the theory of evolution is total nonsense.
At 4:35 PM,
blipey said…
Put the aluminium hat back on, Joe. SETI is outside your door and he's coming through right now!
At 8:05 AM,
Joe G said…
SETI is outside your door and he's coming through right now!
Ummm SETI stands for (the) Search (for) Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.
Which basically means your sentence doesn't make any sense at all.
Thanks for once again demonstrating your ignorance.
It is also very telling that not one evolutionitwit can support the theory of evolution.
At 12:20 PM,
blipey said…
Yeah, Joe. Well aware of what SETI is. I was referring to your strange use of the program in this comment:
JoeG: You do realize that humans are not the only designing agencies we know of...{sic}
Ever hear of SETI?
So you brought it up as a possible designing entity in and of itself. I've made fun of this usag twice before now, perhaps you didn't pick up on that?
At 4:12 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Yeah, Joe. Well aware of what SETI is. I was referring to your strange use of the program in this comment:
You mean YOUR strange inference. Allow me to spoon feed you once again:
I asked:
Ever hear of SETI?
to which blipey inferred:
So you brought it up as a possible designing entity in and of itself.
Not even close. I just asked if you had heard of it you twit. YOU made the statement about humans being the only designing agencies we know of. SETI isn't looking for humans, although humans could be the designing agencies behind any signal they may detect.
blipey:
I've made fun of this usag twice before now, perhaps you didn't pick up on that?
But the joke is on you. IOW because you are a twisted and ignorant fuck you can't even follow a simple discussion. And because you can't follow a discussion you remain clueless when you try to chime in.
Devolution at its best.
That is why DaveScot left you alone. You are the best thing going for ID and Creation- That's because anyone reading your posts will know that the theory of evolution is totally void of substance- just like you.
Thanks again.
At 4:33 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey is referencing the following:
blipey:
Do you think it is fair to say that we know things are designed because we have a pretty good idea of the skill set of human beings?
Nope.
You do realize that humans are not the only designing agencies we know of...
Ever hear of SETI? Ever see a beaver dam? How about a bee hive or ant colony?
We don't need to know anything about the designer(s) in order to infer design.
All we really need is to know what nature, operating freely, is capable of and couple that with the knowledge of what designing agencies are capable of.
Now by employing blipey's "logic" a beaver dam is a designing agency, as is a bee hive and an ant colony.
It's easy to see how stupid blipey is. All it has to do is post a comment...
At 1:04 PM,
blipey said…
Did you ever figure out what point you were trying to make by bringing up SETI?
Since it was humans that designed the SETI program, is proving that humans designed something somehow beneficial?
Still trying to work that one out (but not real hard).
At 8:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Did you ever figure out what point you were trying to make by bringing up SETI?
Yes I did and I posted it. I see you still have reading problems.
Ya see blipey, SETI is not looking for humans. IOW it was a response to what you posted:
Do you think it is fair to say that we know things are designed because we have a pretty good idea of the skill set of human beings?
SETI contradicts that statement- as does beaver dams, beehives and ant colonies.
But by all means continue to flail away.
Still trying to work that one out (but not real hard).
You're a clown blipey. You couldn't work your way out of a paper bag.
At 11:57 PM,
blipey said…
Wow. Your bringing up SETI in no way counters my claim that we know things are designed because we know something about the designers.
At 10:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Your bringing up SETI in no way counters my claim that we know things are designed because we know something about the designers.
Wow. The SETI researchers don't know anything about the ETs they are looking for.
In fact, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design in question.
And only a moron would question that well known fact.
So by all means, flail away- it just proves my point.
At 5:14 PM,
blipey said…
Can you give an example of what would trip the SETI alarm?
At 10:23 PM,
Hawks said…
Joe,
But Common Descent isn't scientific.
It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be observed. It cannot be verified.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "objectively tested", but you don't actually have to rely on direct observation of an event to draw conclusion as to what happended.
No idea what that means.
I think you do.
hawks:
Common descent does not have to account for the differences.
It can't.
We're agreed then. Why did you bring this up in the first instance?
Hawks:
Science have various mechanisms for doing that that are totally independent of CD.
Then we should wait for science to do so- ...
This is obviously totally beside the point. The issue was whether CD should account for the differences. We both agree that it doesn't... So, problem solved?
At 9:26 AM,
Joe G said…
But Common Descent isn't scientific.
It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be observed. It cannot be verified.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "objectively tested", but you don't actually have to rely on direct observation of an event to draw conclusion as to what happended.
Science is all about objective testing. That you don't understand the concept doesn't help your cause.
hawks:
Common descent does not have to account for the differences.
It can't.
We're agreed then. Why did you bring this up in the first instance?
It needs to but it can't. Go it?
The issue was whether CD should account for the differences. We both agree that it doesn't... So, problem solved?
And so we should both be in agreement that Common Descent is not a scientific concept.
I say that because it relies solely on subjective and circumstantial evidence. It cannot be objectively tested. That is tested without some pre-conceived biases and actually confirmed via experimentation.
There still isn't any genetic/biological data which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. And those two populations allegedly shared a common ancestor.
However science is mute when it comes to verifying that allegation. IOW our alleged common ancestor only exists in the minds of those who want one.
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Can you give an example of what would trip the SETI alarm?
A signal which nature, operating freely, could not produce. Or at least one that the researchers think it can't produce.
And we determine that by understanding what nature, operating freely, can produce.
At 6:04 PM,
Hawks said…
Joe,
Science is all about objective testing. That you don't understand the concept doesn't help your cause.
Science is about being able to test hypotheses. I'm just curious: what is the difference according to you between "objective" and "subjective" testing when it comes to science?
It needs to but it can't. Go it?
Broken record alert. No, it doesn't. You will probably never get it.
I say that because it relies solely on subjective and circumstantial evidence. It cannot be objectively tested. That is tested without some pre-conceived biases and actually confirmed via experimentation.
[sarcasm]Yeah, you DO understand science![/sarcasm] Most, if not all of science is built of previous hypotheses and theories (your preconceived biases). Heck, the sequencing of genomes depends on hypotheses about DNA and polymerases.
Let me present you with an example of why your "CD needs to account for the differences" is crap:
Once upon a time, your mum and dad got together, did the business, and some time later you were born. You are different from both your mom and dad - and I'm not talking about stuff that came about by mere recombination. Your DNA is different - you are a mutant. Your logic seems to demand that CD account for those differences but that makes no sense. Your DNA is extremely similar to both your mon's and your dad's which is something that CD explains. The differences, be they pure DNA mutations or environmental are explained by independent factors.
At 10:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Science is about being able to test hypotheses.
It has to be an objective test.
Right now there isn't any way to objectively test the premise that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
We have no idea if any amount of mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.
I'm just curious: what is the difference according to you between "objective" and "subjective" testing when it comes to science?
Subjective usually means that the outcome/ inference is subject to ones biases.
Objective means no spin on the outcome. The data is what it is.
One more time:
If Common Descent (universal common descent) cannot explain those differences then it is in no better of a position to explain the data than Special Creation, Common Design or convergence.
IOW all those scenarios are just as "scientific" as the other.
Most, if not all of science is built of previous hypotheses and theories (your preconceived biases). Heck, the sequencing of genomes depends on hypotheses about DNA and polymerases.
And how genomes arose does not. How genomes arose in the first place is crucial to the debate.
And as far as Common Descent is concerned it is barely earned the hypothesis status.
Let me present you with an example of why your "CD needs to account for the differences" is crap:
And I will explain why your explanation is crap.
Hawks:
Once upon a time, your mum and dad got together, did the business, and some time later you were born. You are different from both your mom and dad - and I'm not talking about stuff that came about by mere recombination. Your DNA is different - you are a mutant. Your logic seems to demand that CD account for those differences but that makes no sense. Your DNA is extremely similar to both your mon's and your dad's which is something that CD explains. The differences, be they pure DNA mutations or environmental are explained by independent factors.
Let;s see I'm talking about universal common descent and hawks gives an example of limited common descent.
I am still a human just like my mom and dad were. Also mutations don't have to happen.
I would love to see the data which shows my DNA is mutated betond the normal recombinations which occur during meosis.
What universal common descent needs is to explain the physiological and anatomical differences.
I do not have any physiological or anatomical differences when compared to my dad. Nothing that would make me a new species anyway.
But thaanks for demonstrating your dishonesty. It appears that is all evos can do.
I ask for one thing and they bring up something unrelated and say "see, there you have it" never even realizing what they presented is nonsense.
Evos always try to pass off small changes as evidence for large changes.
It is a stupid and dishonest tactic.
What you want us to believe is small changes plus eons of time = large changes.
Read the following- warning- it exposes your folly:
Extrapolating from small change:
"If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don't know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don't truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1)."
At 12:24 AM,
Hawks said…
Sigh. No wonder people loose their temper with you.
The mom and dad example was meant to show that CD does not have to account for the differences. The reason you are similar to your mom and dad is because you descended from them. There are reasons why you are different, but you being descended from them is irrelevant to this. Some mutations could perhaps account for some of this. Recombination can perhaps account for of this. Response to the environment can perhaps account for some of this. And you know what, Joe? It does not matter if the three examples above are totally wrong and irrelevant for explaining the differences between ancestors and descendants since CD only has to account for the similarities.
But thaanks for demonstrating your dishonesty. It appears that is all evos can do.
I ask for one thing and they bring up something unrelated and say "see, there you have it" never even realizing what they presented is nonsense.
Evos always try to pass off small changes as evidence for large changes.
It is a stupid and dishonest tactic.
Considering that issue never was whether or not mutation account for the differences but rather that CD accounts for the similaritites, your "point" is moot. It does not matter if these small changes can account for the large changes since CD ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR THE SIMILARITIES. Perhaps a bit neuronal detefloning might be in order so that this idea can stick?
At 8:43 AM,
Joe G said…
The mom and dad example was meant to show that CD does not have to account for the differences.
But the mom and dad example is NOT an example of Common Descent.
It is an example of limited common descent.
Also seeing that I am a human there aren't any differences to account for.
The reason you are similar to your mom and dad is because you descended from them.
The reason I am similar is beacuse I am a human, just as they were.
In order for Common Descent to be real, ie indicative of reality, some change needs to take place. A change that would make the descendants not human.
There are reasons why you are different, but you being descended from them is irrelevant to this.
The only reasons I am different is because I am a mixture of teir genomes. And those differences are only minor and superficial.
It does not matter if the three examples above are totally wrong and irrelevant for explaining the differences between ancestors and descendants since CD only has to account for the similarities.
If Common Descent only has to account for the similarities than there are other explanations just as scientifically valid and therefore should be presented ion a science classroom.
You shouldn't have any objection to that.
Considering that issue never was whether or not mutation account for the differences but rather that CD accounts for the similaritites, your "point" is moot.
Then there isn't anything that separates Common Descent from Common Design, Special Creation or convergence.
IOW if Common Descent ONLY account for the similarities then it has to move over because there are other scientifically explanations for the similarities.
And if you have any objections to that then YOU have problems that require professional help.
At 8:52 AM,
Joe G said…
I know why Common Descent doesn't account for those physiological and anatomical differences- it can't.
IOW Common Descent relies on our ignorance to carry it.
Common Descent- Why Explain the Differences?
And any "science" that relies on ignorance and deception can only last as long as no one looks behind the curtain.
At 8:04 PM,
Hawks said…
Joe, looking at the link proved I can see that you have it all backwards. I.e.:
Mother Nature + Father Time + the blind watchmaker + magical mystery mutations = Common Descent
Mother Nature + Father Time + the blind watchmaker + magical mystery mutations + Common Descent = Biological diversity
would be better. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, try to understand this. CD is only part of the equation - the part that accounts for the similarities. Other things account for the differences. You should not contrast CD to common design but rather CD+mechanisms for creating diversity. Whether or not those mechanisms are correct does not matter to the argument at hand.
At 9:54 AM,
Joe G said…
This is too funny:
Joe, looking at the link proved I can see that you have it all backwards. I.e.:
Mother Nature + Father Time + the blind watchmaker + magical mystery mutations = Common Descent
Mother Nature + Father Time + the blind watchmaker + magical mystery mutations + Common Descent = Biological diversity
Just how is what I said backwards compared to what you posted?
Also Common Descent does not necessarily lead to biological diversity.
Humans giving birth to humans- where the biological diversity?
Only divergence plus ancestral survivors can do that.
CD is only part of the equation - the part that accounts for the similarities.
Common Dexcent is the result. That you can't even understand that demonstrates you are unaware of the position you are trying to defend.
Also similarities can be explained by alternatives to Common Descent.
And nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical diffrences observed.
Ooops wishful thinking/ speculation can but just don't call it science.
Just as my other post said- wobbling stability is what science demonstrates. Only hubris and diatribe can get around that fact.
At 7:13 PM,
Hawks said…
Just how is what I said backwards compared to what you posted?
I'll do it once again. S L O W L Y . What you put in the left of your equation is totally independent of common descent being "true". They don't lead to CD being a conclusion.
Also Common Descent does not necessarily lead to biological diversity.
As I've stated already.
Humans giving birth to humans- where the biological diversity?
They come from factors independent of CD.
Common Dexcent is the result. That you can't even understand that demonstrates you are unaware of the position you are trying to defend.
No. Wake up. Smell the coffee.
Also similarities can be explained by alternatives to Common Descent.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Haven't we been through this to death already?
And nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical diffrences observed.
Nothing? They are obviously different, so something can obviously account for them. Did you actually mean this the way you wrote it? Is this some kind of immaterial science statement?
Ooops wishful thinking/ speculation can but just don't call it science.
I totally agree with this point. Wishful poofing obviously doesn't cut it.
Joe, I'm really trying to make you understand a fairly simple concept, but you're starting to bore me.
At 9:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Mother Nature + Father Time + the blind watchmaker + magical mystery mutations = Common Descent
I'll do it once again. S L O W L Y . What you put in the left of your equation is totally independent of common descent being "true". They don't lead to CD being a conclusion.
Right. I should also add "wishful thinking" to the equation.
Also similarities can be explained by alternatives to Common Descent.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Haven't we been through this to death already?
So you don't have an issue with Common Design and convergence being provided as valid inferences to the data in biology classrooms. Thanks. That's a start.
And nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical diffrences observed.
Nothing? They are obviously different, so something can obviously account for them. Did you actually mean this the way you wrote it? Is this some kind of immaterial science statement?
The fact that you haven't posted anything to refute my claim tells me it is a safe claim to make.
Nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
Give it a go. Try it with humans and the allegedly closely related chimps.
Joe, I'm really trying to make you understand a fairly simple concept, but you're starting to bore me.
And I am trying to tell you that your "concept" is bullshit.
It is lame. Only the very gullible even use it.
That limited common descent is true in no way can be extrapolated into meaning that universal common descent is also true.
What we do know about genetics is that although genes may influence every aspect of development they do NOT determine it.
Here is a simple concept I would like you to understand. It is what the scientific data points to. There isn't any scientific data that gets around it either- the concept is wobbling stability.
And if you understood biology and sexual reproduction, you would understand the concept.
At 12:17 AM,
Hawks said…
Right. I should also add "wishful thinking" to the equation.
If it would make you happier. Behe would put it something like Common descent+magical mystery mutations/intelligent tinkering=biological diversity.
So you don't have an issue with Common Design and convergence being provided as valid inferences to the data in biology classrooms. Thanks. That's a start.
As I've already said: I don't mind scientific alternatives.
Nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
This "argument" is so far up the walls that I don't even know how to comment. Are you implying that there is some sort of mystical magical unknowable force that account for the differences between chimps and humans? Because you are not even talking about how those differences arose. This is plain weird.
And I am trying to tell you that your "concept" is bullshit.
The concept is what it is. CD accounts for the similarities.
That limited common descent is true in no way can be extrapolated into meaning that universal common descent is also true.
Even Behe accepts common descent because of the overwhelming evidence. What is the problem?
What we do know about genetics is that although genes may influence every aspect of development they do NOT determine it.
Here is a simple concept I would like you to understand. It is what the scientific data points to. There isn't any scientific data that gets around it either- the concept is wobbling stability.
And if you understood biology and sexual reproduction, you would understand the concept.
So? You are objecting to things that are irrelevant. The point is that CD only accounts for the similarities. Nothing else. Your continued strawman is that it should account for other things as well.
At 3:07 PM,
Joe G said…
If it would make you happier. Behe would put it something like Common descent+magical mystery mutations/intelligent tinkering=biological diversity.
No he wouldn't.
So you don't have an issue with Common Design and convergence being provided as valid inferences to the data in biology classrooms. Thanks. That's a start.
As I've already said: I don't mind scientific alternatives.
I'm still trying to figure out how Common Descent is scientific.
I would say that the alternatives I presented are at least as scientific as Common Descent.
Nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
This "argument" is so far up the walls that I don't even know how to comment.
It's only "so far up the walls" because you can't answer it.
Are you implying that there is some sort of mystical magical unknowable force that account for the differences between chimps and humans?
I am saying there isn't anything- any known mechanism- that can account for them.
IOW no one even knows whether or not such a transformation is even possible- to get an ape-like organism to "evolve" into a human.
Because you are not even talking about how those differences arose. This is plain weird.
No one knows how those differences arose. And that is plain weird.
It also pretty much squashes the idea that Common Descent is scientific.
The concept is what it is. CD accounts for the similarities.
LoL!!!
Is this how it does that?:
I am related to my parents via common descent. Our DNA is very similar.
A chimp's DNA is very similar to human DNA therefore chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
Total nonsense. And totally unscientific.
And my point is that Common Descent is bogus because there isn't any scientific data that gets around the aforementioned wobbling stability.
IOW Common Descent can't even account for the similarities.
At 3:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Even Behe accepts common descent because of the overwhelming evidence. What is the problem?
He accepts in on faith. There isn't any evidence that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
At 10:48 PM,
Hawks said…
No he wouldn't.
Not in those words, but in content he would. he accepts common descent. He thinks that mutations can only account for some small changes. A designer is responsible for the other changes. In principle, how is that different from what I wrote?
I'm still trying to figure out how Common Descent is scientific.
Yeah, somethings will probably always be beyond your grasp...
I would say that the alternatives I presented are at least as scientific as Common Descent.
You say a lot of crap.
Nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
...
No one knows how those differences arose. And that is plain weird.
So... are you talking about the differences as they are or how they arose? And who cares? CD doesn't account for those differences!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this how it does that?:
I am related to my parents via common descent. Our DNA is very similar.
A chimp's DNA is very similar to human DNA therefore chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
That is obviously part of the reason why it is accepted. But the idea was there long before DNA was discovered, was it not?
And my point is that Common Descent is bogus because there isn't any scientific data that gets around the aforementioned wobbling stability.
And your point is, as per usual, irrelevant since you are talking about how to create diversity. CD explains the SIMILARITIES!!!!!!
IOW Common Descent can't even account for the similarities.
That was a bit of a non-sequitur, was it not?
He (Behe) accepts in on faith. There isn't any evidence that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
Oddly enough, I agree with your conclusion, but probably for a different reason. Let me point out how you again have showed your complete ignorance for what is being disussed here: it does not matter if single-celled organisms can evolve into multicellular ones. From common ancestors, several occurrences could potentially transform x to y. IT IS JUST THAT CD SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THEM!!!!!!!!!!
Consider the following scenarios, Joe:
There was a singular creation event but organismal designs were reused as appropriate (common design) -> appearance of common descent.
There were several creation events but organismal designs were reused as appropriate (common design reiterated) -> appearance of common descent.
There was a singular creation event but organismal designs just happened to appear reused since there were functional constraints -> appearance of common descent.
There was a singular creation event but the designer(s) has interfered numerous times by making small alterations in vivo -> appearance of common descent.
Do you consider that any of these views are scientific?
At 10:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Not in those words, but in content he would. he accepts common descent. He thinks that mutations can only account for some small changes. A designer is responsible for the other changes. In principle, how is that different from what I wrote?
Only a loser puts words into someone else's mouth and tries to pass it off as if that person actually said it.
Also Behe does not think that mutations only account for small changes.
So we have someone who does not understand Behe's position putting words into his mouth.
My equation stands because it is Common Descent that is what is being explained. Common Descent, or universal common descent, is a RESULT.
I'm still trying to figure out how Common Descent is scientific.
Yeah, somethings will probably always be beyond your grasp...
It's obviously beyond your grasp also.
We can't objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
We can't objectively test the premise that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
IOW not one of the alleged great transformations (see the PBS series "Evolution") can be objectively tested!
I would say that the alternatives I presented are at least as scientific as Common Descent.
You say a lot of crap.
And you just parrot the party line.
Nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
...
No one knows how those differences arose. And that is plain weird.
So... are you talking about the differences as they are or how they arose? And who cares? CD doesn't account for those differences!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is why Common Descent is not scientific. We don't even know whether or not any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.
The similarities can be accounted for via several options.
Is this how it does that?:
I am related to my parents via common descent. Our DNA is very similar.
A chimp's DNA is very similar to human DNA therefore chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
That is obviously part of the reason why it is accepted. But the idea was there long before DNA was discovered, was it not?
Both morphological and genetic similarities can be accounted for via several options.
And my point is that Common Descent is bogus because there isn't any scientific data that gets around the aforementioned wobbling stability.
And your point is, as per usual, irrelevant since you are talking about how to create diversity. CD explains the SIMILARITIES!!!!!!
You still cannot get around the scientific data which demonstrates wobbling stability is the only "evolution" taking place.
IOW Common Descent can't even account for the similarities.
That was a bit of a non-sequitur, was it not?
It's very relevant. And it follows from what I just posted about wobbling stability.
He (Behe) accepts in on faith. There isn't any evidence that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
Oddly enough, I agree with your conclusion, but probably for a different reason. Let me point out how you again have showed your complete ignorance for what is being disussed here: it does not matter if single-celled organisms can evolve into multicellular ones.
The ignorance is all yours. And yes it matters a great deal whther or not a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
If that is not possible then Common Descent is a moot point as it cannot even get started.
From common ancestors, several occurrences could potentially transform x to y. IT IS JUST THAT CD SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THEM!!!!!!!!!!
Which is why the premise is not scientific.
Consider the following scenarios, Joe:
There was a singular creation event but organismal designs were reused as appropriate (common design) -> appearance of common descent.
The appearance of Common Descent is in the mind of the beholder.
I don't even see an appearance of Common Descent in the scientific data we have today.
There were several creation events but organismal designs were reused as appropriate (common design reiterated) -> appearance of common descent.
Same response.
There was a singular creation event but organismal designs just happened to appear reused since there were functional constraints -> appearance of common descent.
Same
There was a singular creation event but the designer(s) has interfered numerous times by making small alterations in vivo -> appearance of common descent.
And again.
Do you consider that any of these views are scientific?
They all would be. That is until we eliminated the scenarios that don't jibe with reality.
Ya see science only cares about reality and there is only one reality behind our existence.
And that reality could very well be that we (all living organisms) are colonists left here some time in the past by other organisms who had to flee their dying solar system.
And again- the appearance of Common Descent exists only in the minds of people who want Common Descent. It doesn't exist in the fossil record and it doesn't exist in a lab. No one uses the premise of universal common descent in any useful scientific research.
The most abundant fossils are of marine inverts. In that abundancy we see only minor variations taking place. The kind of variations that lead to wobbling stability. We do not see Common Descent in that abundant resource.
Go figure...
At 11:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Physics has a better explanation for the morphological similarities:
Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming
"A single unifying physics theory can essentially describe how animals of every ilk, from flying insects to fish, get around, researchers at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering and Pennsylvania State University have found. The team reports that all animals bear the same stamp of physics in their design."
At 1:08 AM,
Hawks said…
So we have someone who does not understand Behe's position putting words into his mouth.
That would be you then. If you are disputing this, perhaps you should say what Behe DOES say.
My equation stands because it is Common Descent that is what is being explained. Common Descent, or universal common descent, is a RESULT.
The biggest problem with this equation is that it is inappropriate to use an equation in the first place. But your problem is that you don't understand that the conclusion of CD does not depend on father time, and mother Earth and whatever you wrote.
It's obviously beyond your grasp also.
Is not.
We can't objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
We can't objectively test the premise that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
It can be scientifically tested. And it has been. If by objective test you mean an actual experiment to evolve chimps and humans from a common ancestor, then it would, indeed, be very difficult. But then, science doesn't have to do that, does it...?
And you just parrot the party line.
Well, you sure parrot parts of the ID party line. Except in the instances where you don't understand what ID says...
Nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
OK, so we are different and it is impossible that we are different. Way to go, Joe.
Both morphological and genetic similarities can be accounted for via several options.
Yes, which is why I supplied a few hypothetical examples where CD was mixed with intelligent interference. Those scenarions are all compatible with ID. Some include CD. The end result is the same in all scenarios. ID gives you no reason to choose one over the other. If you agree that those scenarios aren't scientific, then I'm fine with that.
If that is not possible then Common Descent is a moot point as it cannot even get started.
Sure it can. CD + intelligent intervention -> biological diversity. Which is pretty much my point. CD + something else -> what we see.
And that reality could very well be that we (all living organisms) are colonists left here some time in the past by other organisms who had to flee their dying solar system.
Or any of the 4 scenarios I supplied as well.
No one uses the premise of universal common descent in any useful scientific research.
I found this statement interesting, mainly for the reason that it is totally irrelevant.
Physics has a better explanation for the morphological similarities:
Way to go Joe. A rival hypothesis to CD. But it hardly explains similarities in DNA sequences, does it?
At 10:43 AM,
Joe G said…
So we have someone who does not understand Behe's position putting words into his mouth.
That would be you then. If you are disputing this, perhaps you should say what Behe DOES say.
Why? It isn't relevant.
My equation stands because it is Common Descent that is what is being explained. Common Descent, or universal common descent, is a RESULT.
The biggest problem with this equation is that it is inappropriate to use an equation in the first place. But your problem is that you don't understand that the conclusion of CD does not depend on father time, and mother Earth and whatever you wrote.
Mother Nature + Father Time + the blind watchmaker + magical mystery mutations = Common Descent
Universal common descent absolutely depends on father time. That is almost all you have- throw time at it.
Mother nature's role is obvious.
The blind watchmaker's role was given by Dawkins.
The magical mystery mutations are required to get artound the observed "wobbling stability" which you seem happy enough to ignore.
And seeing that Common Descent (universal common descent) is the premise that all of life;s diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, it is obvious that Common Descent = biological diversity.
We can't objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
We can't objectively test the premise that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
It can be scientifically tested. And it has been.
You believe anything don't you?
It hasn't been scientifically tested. It hasn't because it can't be.
If by objective test you mean an actual experiment to evolve chimps and humans from a common ancestor, then it would, indeed, be very difficult. But then, science doesn't have to do that, does it...?
Well then those same level "scientific tests" that show Common Descent can also be used to show convergence or Common Design.
Therefore all those premises must be taught as well.
But actually if the same datat can be used for differing scenarios they should all be scrapped. Then we just teach the data along with the possible options as to how that data arose.
Nothing can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
OK, so we are different and it is impossible that we are different.
You are a moron.
Yes, we are different (than chimps). No it is not impossible that a diffeerence exists.
It does appear impossible for any scientist to account for those differences.
Both morphological and genetic similarities can be accounted for via several options.
Yes, which is why I supplied a few hypothetical examples where CD was mixed with intelligent interference. Those scenarions are all compatible with ID. Some include CD. The end result is the same in all scenarios. ID gives you no reason to choose one over the other. If you agree that those scenarios aren't scientific, then I'm fine with that.
I said they are scientific. Each of your scenarios is at least as scientific as the currently accepted paradigm.
Just as my scenario is just as scientific as the currently accepted paradigm.
If that is not possible then Common Descent is a moot point as it cannot even get started.
Sure it can. CD + intelligent intervention -> biological diversity. Which is pretty much my point. CD + something else -> what we see.
How can it get started if single-celled oprganisms can only "evolve" into single-celled organisms? Please explain.
No one uses the premise of universal common descent in any useful scientific research.
I found this statement interesting, mainly for the reason that it is totally irrelevant.
My statement is relevant because it shows the premise of Common Descent is totally useless.
Physics has a better explanation for the morphological similarities:
Way to go Joe. A rival hypothesis to CD.
You mean another rival to Common Descent. I have already posted two other such rivals.
But it hardly explains similarities in DNA sequences, does it?
Why doesn't it?
At 10:49 AM,
Joe G said…
We can't objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
We can't objectively test the premise that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms.
It can be scientifically tested. And it has been.
Can you tell me what those alleged scientific tests were?
That way we can see if A) the tests really exist and B) that they were scientific.
objectively test the premise that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms
I bet the "test" is that we observe populations of single-celled organisms and we also observe populations of metazoans. Seeing that we "know" that life on Earth started with single-celled organisms we also "know" that metazoans "evolved" from them.
That is the test for ucd ladies and gentlemen. And you wonder why I am no longer beholden to that position...
At 6:56 PM,
Hawks said…
Why? It isn't relevant.
Nice, make a claim and refuse to back it up.
Universal common descent absolutely depends on father time. That is almost all you have- throw time at it.
Mother nature's role is obvious.
The blind watchmaker's role was given by Dawkins.
The magical mystery mutations are required to get artound the observed "wobbling stability" which you seem happy enough to ignore.
Why do you think I supply you with pure hypotheticals where "non-materialistic" mechanisms account for the biological divergence from common ancestors? Whether or not some evolutionary process or "poof" created diversity, CD would only account for the similarities.
It does appear impossible for any scientist to account for those differences.
Tsk, tsk. You wrote that NOTHING could account for the differences. I've tried to make you clarify this weird position previously, but you just kept repeating it. Nice switch.
I said they are scientific.
So, in all of a sudden, CD is scientific?
How can it get started if single-celled oprganisms can only "evolve" into single-celled organisms? Please explain.
That is totally irrelevant. Who cares. For the sake of this discussion, call it poof if you will. I.e. CD+poof->biological diversity.
My statement is relevant because it shows the premise of Common Descent is totally useless.
It doesn't matter if something is "useless", therefore your statement is irrelevant.
But it hardly explains similarities in DNA sequences, does it?
Why doesn't it?
Eeeer, why would it?
Can you tell me what those alleged scientific tests were?
We've seen a few examples already. Offspring are morphologically similar to their ancestors. An obvious prediction that comes from this is that the given the discovery of (some of the) the genetic material, we would expect that genetic material would also be similar between ancestors/offspring. And it seems to be (barring some exceptions which can be accounted for by other mechanisms).
I bet the "test" is that we observe populations of single-celled organisms and we also observe populations of metazoans. Seeing that we "know" that life on Earth started with single-celled organisms we also "know" that metazoans "evolved" from them.
That is hardly a test, Joe.
That is the test for ucd ladies and gentlemen. And you wonder why I am no longer beholden to that position...
Well, if you build your conclusions based on straw-men, I would say that your position rests of shaky grounds.
I've called you a moron several times and I feel that I need to apologize. Calling you a moron is an insult to real morons. You are totally inept at understanding very simple logic and arguments. Joe, I'm really bored of you. Consider this my last post on your blog.
At 10:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Why? It isn't relevant.
Nice, make a claim and refuse to back it up.
YOU made the original claim. And YOU refused to back it up.
Universal common descent absolutely depends on father time. That is almost all you have- throw time at it.
Mother nature's role is obvious.
The blind watchmaker's role was given by Dawkins.
The magical mystery mutations are required to get artound the observed "wobbling stability" which you seem happy enough to ignore.
Why do you think I supply you with pure hypotheticals where "non-materialistic" mechanisms account for the biological divergence from common ancestors?
I don't know why you do what you do.
Whether or not some evolutionary process or "poof" created diversity, CD would only account for the similarities.
And convergence, Common Design and physics can also account for the similarities.
So we go to the scientific data and that demonstrates wobbling stability. Therefore we should reject Common Descent on the grounds it isn't supported by the scientific data.
It does appear impossible for any scientist to account for those differences.
Tsk, tsk. You wrote that NOTHING could account for the differences.
To this day NOTHING has accounted for the differences.
And seeing that science isn't done via promissory notes my claim stands unopposed.
I've tried to make you clarify this weird position previously, but you just kept repeating it.
My position is very clear to everyone who doesn't have their head up their ass.
How can it get started if single-celled oprganisms can only "evolve" into single-celled organisms? Please explain.
That is totally irrelevant. Who cares. For the sake of this discussion, call it poof if you will. I.e. CD+poof->biological diversity.
It's very relevant and everyone should care. That is everyone interested in the reality behind our existence.
Now those only interested in pushing unscientific dogma wouldn't care and would say it is irrelevant.
My statement is relevant because it shows the premise of Common Descent is totally useless.
It doesn't matter if something is "useless", therefore your statement is irrelevant.
Of course it matters whthere or not something is useful or useless.
Can you tell me what those alleged scientific tests were?
We've seen a few examples already. Offspring are morphologically similar to their ancestors.
That explains limited common descent, not universal common descent.
An obvious prediction that comes from this is that the given the discovery of (some of the) the genetic material, we would expect that genetic material would also be similar between ancestors/offspring.
That works OK in a limited setting. There is no reason to believe what we can do on a limited basis can be extrapolated into the grand scheme of things.
I bet the "test" is that we observe populations of single-celled organisms and we also observe populations of metazoans. Seeing that we "know" that life on Earth started with single-celled organisms we also "know" that metazoans "evolved" from them.
That is hardly a test, Joe.
I know that but it is all you really have.
That is the test for ucd ladies and gentlemen. And you wonder why I am no longer beholden to that position...
Well, if you build your conclusions based on straw-men, I would say that your position rests of shaky grounds.
I built my position on decades of research. I made my switch from being an evolutionist during my university days while I was studying to become either a zoologist or marine biologist.
The scientific data supports my switch. And the fact that no one can account for the differences between allegedly closely related populations has confirmed I made the right choice.
Thank you for demonstrating the total idiocracy of the theory of evolution and Common Descent.
At 12:36 PM,
Unknown said…
Can you negate this scientifically?
I used it to determine whether two genes of interest are linked (on the same chromosome). We follow a pedigree (where we know who is the ancestor of whom) and we follow the mutations of the two genes in the pedigree. If both the phenotypes are present we know they are linked. However very rarely, we have a recombination event with the other allele, and this causes the mutations to “separate”. However this separation (a negation) is not important. The only important thing is that the children ALSO show the same separation, in which case the genes are STILL linked. Whether they are actually linked can be confirmed by sequencing the genes.
In other words I am looking at “groups within groups” also known as nested hierarchy.
Nested hierarchy is simply an observation. There is no implication involved in determining nested hierarchy; either it exists or it does not.
Thus nested hierarchy can be used successfully by Bayesian inference. I know. Because I used it. You can try it too, its really simple.
Now the interesting thing is evolution ALSO uses nested hierarchy as evidence. This is a PREDICTION by evolution.
For example the mutations on the LTR sequences of ERVs show a nested hierarchy. You never even addressed this evidence I provided.
The nested hierarchy present can be used by Bayesian inference to prove evolution because evolution predicts it. Nested hierarchy only occurs when ancestry is involved.
“Secondly to my mind, there is no good reason not to understand why any kind of designer would not decide to use different codes to perform the same function in different species”
Sure you see similarity in design but you do not see nested hierarchy in them. We see nested hierarchy in related languages, related families (microevolution) and related species.
Thus using nested hierarchy in Bayesian to support evolution is not a stretch when it can be successfully used to prove linked genes.
Post a Comment
<< Home