A Dog is Still a Dog and Kevin McCarthy is Still a Moron
-
Dogs- big dogs, mediun dogs, little dogs and dogs that shouldn't be called dogs (the "toy" varieties). Hey I agree someone could easily mistake the variety of dogs for differnt species due to some apparent mating issues. But in reality a toy variety male may catch a Great Dane female in heat, sleeping and successfully have at her. So never say never.
However dogs do show a great deal of phenotypic plasticity, all of which has been brought about by artificial selection. And that would also translate over to mating. We can take eggs from different types of females and successfully mate them with sperm from differing males. IOW science does NOT stop because of physical barriers to a mating issue.
That said, say humans die out and some other intelligent species takes over and starts investigating. If they came across dog fossils they would most assuredly classify the differnt varieties as different species. That just reflects on the classification system. Ignorance allows us to do just about anything wrt classification.
The point? For some reason Kevin thinks that if we call the dog varieties different species, and given the phenotypic plasticity of dogs which has developed over a very short period of time (accepting a 4.5 byo earth*), then that is evidence for macroevolution. Yet macroevolution calls for new body plans requiring new body parts and we do not observe that with dogs. And blind and undirected processes, ie natural selection, drift and neutral mutations, had nothing to do with the dog varieties. That means only dishonest pricks or ignorant poseurs would use them as an example to further evolutionism.
* a 4.5x billion year old Earth relies on the untestable assumption that no crystals survived the accretion process AND that all crystals used for dating the age of the earth were made here, on/ in the earth.
Dogs- big dogs, mediun dogs, little dogs and dogs that shouldn't be called dogs (the "toy" varieties). Hey I agree someone could easily mistake the variety of dogs for differnt species due to some apparent mating issues. But in reality a toy variety male may catch a Great Dane female in heat, sleeping and successfully have at her. So never say never.
However dogs do show a great deal of phenotypic plasticity, all of which has been brought about by artificial selection. And that would also translate over to mating. We can take eggs from different types of females and successfully mate them with sperm from differing males. IOW science does NOT stop because of physical barriers to a mating issue.
That said, say humans die out and some other intelligent species takes over and starts investigating. If they came across dog fossils they would most assuredly classify the differnt varieties as different species. That just reflects on the classification system. Ignorance allows us to do just about anything wrt classification.
The point? For some reason Kevin thinks that if we call the dog varieties different species, and given the phenotypic plasticity of dogs which has developed over a very short period of time (accepting a 4.5 byo earth*), then that is evidence for macroevolution. Yet macroevolution calls for new body plans requiring new body parts and we do not observe that with dogs. And blind and undirected processes, ie natural selection, drift and neutral mutations, had nothing to do with the dog varieties. That means only dishonest pricks or ignorant poseurs would use them as an example to further evolutionism.
* a 4.5x billion year old Earth relies on the untestable assumption that no crystals survived the accretion process AND that all crystals used for dating the age of the earth were made here, on/ in the earth.
posted by Joe G @ 4:07 PM
19 Comments:
At 4:50 PM,
Unknown said…
"The point? For some reason Kevin thinks that is we call the dog varieties different species, and given the phenotypic plasticity of dogs which has developed over a very short period of time (accepting a 4.5 byo earth*), then that is evidence for macroevolution. Yet macroevolution calls for new body plans requiring new body parts and we do not observe that with dogs. And blind and undirected processes, ie natural selection, drift and neutral mutations, had nothing to do with the dog varieties. That means only dishonest pricks or ignorant poseurs would use them as an example to further evolutionism."
But surely the point is that there is enough variation introduced by mutations in the last 2000 years to create all the different varieties we observe today.
The experiment hasn't been done (yet) but what if an experiment was conducted over a few thousand years to selectively breed dogs for their ability to thrive in the water? What if such an experiment were run for a few million years? Are you still very sure that new body plans would not be created?
"a 4.5x billion year old Earth relies on the untestable assumption that no crystals survived the accretion process AND that all crystals used for dating the age of the earth were made here, on/ in the earth."
What evidence do you have that contradicts those parsimonious assumptions?
You always bring up such objections but being a merchant of doubt proves nothing.
At 5:01 PM,
Joe G said…
2000 years? Kevin says 30,000.
And again hiding behind father time is not science. How long have crocs and gators been in the water and have not changed?
What evidence do you have that contradicts those parsimonious assumptions?
What makes you say those assumptions are parsimonious?
Why isn't parsimonious to stay the accretion process did not bring the earth to a temperature hot enough to melt all crystals that were in the accretion material?
And I am being a skeptic- which is always warranted given untestable claims.
At 2:47 AM,
Unknown said…
"2000 years? Kevin says 30,000."
Either number is a very short period of time evolutionarily speaking.
"And again hiding behind father time is not science. How long have crocs and gators been in the water and have not changed?"
They are very well adapted to their environment so the environmental selection pressures keep them as they are generally.
"What makes you say those assumptions are parsimonious?"
Fewest assumptions.
"Why isn't parsimonious to stay the accretion process did not bring the earth to a temperature hot enough to melt all crystals that were in the accretion material?"
Evidence?
"And I am being a skeptic- which is always warranted given untestable claims."
Being a skeptic is fine. Being a merchant of doubt with no evidence to contradict the current paradigm is just being a kook.
At 7:00 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Jerad you have no idea how many assumptions are made wrt there age of the earth. You are an ignorant ass. And the current paradigm doesn't have any evidence. That is the point.
At 7:54 AM,
Unknown said…
"LoL! Jerad you have no idea how many assumptions are made wrt there age of the earth. You are an ignorant ass. And the current paradigm doesn't have any evidence. That is the point."
The one basic assumption is that processes and forces we see in operation now are assumed to have been in effect way back when. And at the same rate. In other words, the laws of the universe don't change. Uniformitarianism.
Dating techniques are based on decay of elements found in nature, etc that we can observe in the present and measure their rate of change.
At 8:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, There isn't anything today that sez the earth was so hot that no crystals survived. Your call to uniformitarianism is bogus.
And decay rates are fine. I am not saying otherwise. But unstable isotopes can start decaying when they are formed and they are not formed on earth. They were decaying for millions or billions of years before the earth formed.
It's as if you are just an ignorant fool who can't think beyond its own ass.
Uranium was formed either by supernovae or via the collision of two neutron stars. So it is decaying/ can decay well before it comes to earth.
At 8:11 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW we infer design because of cause and effect relationships, ie uniformitarianism.
Nice job.
At 9:57 AM,
Unknown said…
"Jerad, There isn't anything today that sez the earth was so hot that no crystals survived. Your call to uniformitarianism is bogus."
What crystals are you talking about? I don't know the specifics but I rather doubt the scientists who developed the techniques would have just made something up.
"And decay rates are fine. I am not saying otherwise. But unstable isotopes can start decaying when they are formed and they are not formed on earth. They were decaying for millions or billions of years before the earth formed."
Are you saying you think some of the elements and isotopes that some of the dating techniques are based on could have been formed pre-earth which would then throw off the techniques? Don't you think the developers would have accounted for that?
"It's as if you are just an ignorant fool who can't think beyond its own ass."
I know enough mathematics and physics to follow the explanations of how the techniques were developed, how they cross-reference each other (forgot about that didn't you: you can match up dates from different techniques for more recent events).
"Uranium was formed either by supernovae or via the collision of two neutron stars. So it is decaying/ can decay well before it comes to earth."
So, hundreds of scientists have developed techniques where they have reliable estimates of how much of some isotopes or radioactive elements were present at certain times and Joe thinks they're all wrong. Wonderful.
You do realise that some of the dating techniques measure ratios of elements and that nullifies your point?
"BTW we infer design because of cause and effect relationships, ie uniformitarianism."
And what's your cause? Can't have an effect without one. If there isn't one then there probably isn't any design is there? Right? I'd be looking for a designer if I were you since this design detection schtick isn't getting you very far.
At 10:37 AM,
Joe G said…
What crystals are you talking about? I don't know the specifics but I rather doubt the scientists who developed the techniques would have just made something up.
Oops my apologies but if you are that ignorant then it is best you just leave it alone.
Are you saying you think some of the elements and isotopes that some of the dating techniques are based on could have been formed pre-earth which would then throw off the techniques? Don't you think the developers would have accounted for that?
LoL! They "account" for it by assuming a proto-earth that was so hot none of the isotope-bearing crystals survived. They were all melted. Then when the earth was cooling the isotopes became trapped in newly formed cystals and the time started ticking then.
You do realise that some of the dating techniques measure ratios of elements and that nullifies your point?
How does it nullify my point?
Does uranium form on earth? If the uranium on earth was trapped in a crystal matrix when it cooled enough and formed a meteor, comet or asteroid, the ratios will be right. The crystal would have an old age even though the earth was much younger- that is if it didn't melt on the proto-earth.
THAT is the requirement Jerad. If the proto-earth wasn't hot enough to reset the time, ie melt all the cystals, the dating techniques are all wrong.
BTW someone tested known lava flows and got many different dates, some millions of years.
And the cause is design based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Only scientifically illiterate assholes think that we have to know exactly who the designer was before we can infer design.
Heck we have observed natural selection and we know form observation and experience tat it is NOT capable of producing biological design.
You lose
At 11:10 AM,
Unknown said…
"LoL! They "account" for it by assuming a proto-earth that was so hot none of the isotope-bearing crystals survived. They were all melted. Then when the earth was cooling the isotopes became trapped in newly formed cystals and the time started ticking then."
Uh huh. Calculations have been done to determine the relative amounts of Uranium and its isotopes present at the time the Earth was formed. And lots of work has been done to determine how it got to where it is now formed.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/The-Cosmic-Origins-of-Uranium/
And that's just one kind of radiometric dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
" 'You do realise that some of the dating techniques measure ratios of elements and that nullifies your point?'
How does it nullify my point? "
We can figure out what the ratio was when the earth was formed.
"THAT is the requirement Jerad. If the proto-earth wasn't hot enough to reset the time, ie melt all the cystals, the dating techniques are all wrong."
Read the link I gave you. All of it.
"And the cause is design based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Only scientifically illiterate assholes think that we have to know exactly who the designer was before we can infer design."
You still have to have an agent. Which you don't have.
"Heck we have observed natural selection and we know form observation and experience tat it is NOT capable of producing biological design."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The fossils and the genomes and the morphologies and the bio-geographic distributions say otherwise.
At 12:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Calculations have been done to determine the relative amounts of Uranium and its isotopes present at the time the Earth was formed.
Assuming a molton earth in which all accretion material was liquified.
We can figure out what the ratio was when the earth was formed.
Only when the crystals were formed.
You still have to have an agent. Which you don't have.
We don't need to know the agent. The design says at least one was present.
Talk about playground- "You don't have a designer- you don't have a designer"
You are a pussy who doesn't understand anything.
The fossils and the genomes and the morphologies and the bio-geographic distributions say otherwise.
Those don't say anything about any mechanism, dumbass.
At 12:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Cosmic origins- yeah baby I hit that one.
How the earth was formed directly impacts its age. And no one can say how it was formed- millions of improbable cosmic collisions ain't science.
At 1:02 PM,
Unknown said…
" 'Calculations have been done to determine the relative amounts of Uranium and its isotopes present at the time the Earth was formed. '
Assuming a molton earth in which all accretion material was liquified."
You didn't read the link which explained the work done about how uranium was distributed on the earth.
" 'We can figure out what the ratio was when the earth was formed.'
Only when the crystals were formed."
You didn't bother to read the linked article.
"We don't need to know the agent. The design says at least one was present."
If there was no agent around then your argument is special pleading, trying to 'magic' an agent out of nothing. You can't prove the negative: that purely natural processes can't 'do it'. And you can't 'magic' a designer into existence. Do some science instead of just reading a couple of books that support your opinion.
"Talk about playground- "You don't have a designer- you don't have a designer"
You are a pussy who doesn't understand anything."
No designer, no design. Simple. When the design inference is disputed, as it is, you'd better find a designer.
" 'The fossils and the genomes and the morphologies and the bio-geographic distributions say otherwise.'
Those don't say anything about any mechanism, dumbass."
They do when you haven't got a designer who could have 'done it'. Which you don't.
You can be an armchair quaterback, claiming this and that, but until you do some work and prove your case you're just a fart in a wind tunnel. And design has not been proven in DNA. Nor has IC been established. Nor has Dr Dembski's design detection filter been shown to be useful or even used.
But you'll just keep sitting there claiming you've won when you're not even in the game.
At 1:10 PM,
Joe G said…
You didn't read the link which explained the work done about how uranium was distributed on the earth.
Yes I did. It is all speculation based on the assumption.
If there was no agent around then your argument is special pleading, trying to 'magic' an agent out of nothing.
No asshole- design detection comes FIRST. We do NOT look for a designer BEFORE we determine design is present. And knowing the designer doesn't add anything anyway.
You can't prove the negative: that purely natural processes can't 'do it'.
No fuckface, YOU cannot demonstrate that blind processes CAN do it. That is why we have moved on to other explanations.
No designer, no design. Simple.
Yes, YOU are simple
When the design inference is disputed, as it is, you'd better find a designer.
Not required. We still have the methodology. And you have all the power yet you can't do anything. Don't blame me for your failures.
IC has been established. Your ignorance means nothing.
If evolutionism had something then ID would fade away. Evolutionism has nothin and ID is growing stronger.
At 1:12 PM,
Joe G said…
How science works:
1- Determine design exists
2- Look for a designer
How Jerad thinks:
1- Look for a designer
2- If you can't find one then it isn't designed
Jerad is anti-science
At 4:15 PM,
Unknown said…
" 'You didn't read the link which explained the work done about how uranium was distributed on the earth.'
Yes I did. It is all speculation based on the assumption."
Then you didn't understand it.
"No asshole- design detection comes FIRST. We do NOT look for a designer BEFORE we determine design is present. And knowing the designer doesn't add anything anyway."
But, if there was no designer then there can be no design and that indicates a flaw in your reasoning. You can't avoid it: you have to have a designer.
" 'You can't prove the negative: that purely natural processes can't 'do it'. '
No fuckface, YOU cannot demonstrate that blind processes CAN do it. That is why we have moved on to other explanations."
Assuming existing, measured and observed processes are responsible is more parsimonious than magicking a designer out of nothing.
" 'When the design inference is disputed, as it is, you'd better find a designer.'
Not required. We still have the methodology. And you have all the power yet you can't do anything. Don't blame me for your failures."
Except your methodology is disputed. And your results are unaccepted. You haven't proven design. And you've got no designer. That you're willing to own up to.
"IC has been established. Your ignorance means nothing.
Dream on.
"If evolutionism had something then ID would fade away. Evolutionism has nothin and ID is growing stronger."
Because Stephen Meyer says so?
"How science works:
1- Determine design exists
2- Look for a designer
How Jerad thinks:
1- Look for a designer
2- If you can't find one then it isn't designed
Jerad is anti-science"
All I'm saying is: you can't have design without a designer. No matter what your arguments are, if there's no designer then there can be no design.
AND you're arguing from a narrow base of observation: human design. From that base you can only reasonably identify other human designs.
At 5:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Then you didn't understand it.
I understood it.
"No asshole- design detection comes FIRST. We do NOT look for a designer BEFORE we determine design is present. And knowing the designer doesn't add anything anyway."
But, if there was no designer then there can be no design and that indicates a flaw in your reasoning.
The design says there was a designer and the scientific methodology says there is design.
Assuming existing, measured and observed processes are responsible
LoL! EVIDENCE- You need evidence that said processes are capable and you don't have any, asshole.
Except your methodology is disputed.
By who and for what reason? The methodology is proven.
All I'm saying is: you can't have design without a designer.
And the design says there was at least one.
AND you're arguing from a narrow base of observation: human design.
Even if true, which it isn't, it is still more than you have.
IC has been established and is even in peer-review. There are evos trying to show that materialistic processes can account for it.
And it is also a fact that if necessity and chance can explain something then we don't/ cannot infer design- because SCIENCE says so. moron.
If science has already determined design is present, it means necessity and chance have already been eliminated. So we can't go back just because a little imp like Jerad cannot see the designer.
At 8:57 PM,
Brent said…
No "crocs and gators" found in the fossil record are extant species. This is true of all long-lived life types from bees to dragonflies to horseshoe crabs to sharks and onwards.
Neutral genetic drift results in no species being able to remain unchanged over vast time periods.
At 7:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Poor cowardly crybaby Jerad. His position has nothing- no models, no predictions, no math and no use. And he is so scientifically illiterate, willfully so, for not understanding Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation which say if necessity and chance can explain X then we do not infer X was designed. That means that if Jerad’s position had some support, besides all of the lying evos, ID would be a non-starter. Heck it’s even in ID’s premises that necessity and chance are not sufficient.
He is so pathetic and desperate that he has to magic natural selection into a designer mimic
Post a Comment
<< Home