tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1248842903635579969..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Breaking News ... New Atheists Aren't Very SophisticatedLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88098564220413471302012-10-15T09:00:12.974-04:002012-10-15T09:00:12.974-04:00Mike Haubrich
Much more what? Other than adaptati...Mike Haubrich<br /><br />Much more what? Other than adaptations there is 0 evidence that evolution could and did change any animal's body plans from one function to another, speculation plenty, just so stories many!Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28396609172003133002012-10-13T13:52:07.168-04:002012-10-13T13:52:07.168-04:00"Has it ever occurred to you that there might..."Has it ever occurred to you that there might be other ways where neither creationism nor Darwinism is the answer? Is it Darwin or bust? If it is you are not arguing from evidence but from your very own feelings."<br /><br />Andre, you don't read this blog very carefully, do you? Darwinism is not evolution, it is a short-hand term for the process of natural selection. Natural selection is but one of the factors in a number of processes involved in evolution. <br /><br />Larry Moran has made it clear that adaptationism is a short-sighted view of evolution. There is so much more and if you wished to understand the Theory of Evolution you would spend more time learning about it than arguing about how darwinism is limited to studying the material world.Mike Haubrich, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220070898785894481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64888122330530533832012-10-12T12:12:21.014-04:002012-10-12T12:12:21.014-04:00Intelligent selection (as in selective breeding) h...Intelligent selection (as in selective breeding) has only really operated for a few thousand years. Fundamental changes in body-plans took tens of millions (dinosaur->bird, or fish->tetrapod), which, if you do the calculations, amount to several million generations of entire populations. <br /><br />Selective breeding has been happening on small populations, usually a few hundred, for very few generations. Heck, if the mean generation time of a wolf is about 4.5 years (a number that popped up on a quick google search), in the 10.000 years since the we started domesticating wolves this amounts to a mere ~2222 generations of change. <br /><br />Contrast this with the 25 million years fish-tetrapod transition implied in the fossil record. How big are natural populations? Usually tens of thousands of individuals. What's the generation time of a large amphibian(to pick something in the middle, I found this paper on Tiger Salamanders: http://www.oriannesociety.org/sites/default/files/Spear_salamander_bottlenecks.pdf), it's 4-5 years again. <b>That's 5.556 million generations</b> of morphological change, with a lot more genetic emerging variation to work on(because of the much larger populations compared to human selective breeding with small packs of dogs/cows/sheep or whatever). <br /><br />Really, your extremely knee-jerk and simple comparison analysis fails to take account of several important factors here. The kinds of changes that took place in nature don't seem to me unreasonable given corrections for time and population size. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5910541998713209652012-10-12T12:05:05.763-04:002012-10-12T12:05:05.763-04:00Andre,
My explanations work all right. As I said,...Andre,<br /><br />My explanations work all right. As I said, they were bound to be incomplete. That was a primer. A taste. But for detailed information you have to go further. Mostly by yourself in places where there's ample explanations rather than ~4000 character blog comments with people who will write the first thing they can, when and if they can. To show you another taste:<br /><br />I did not acknowledge that most mutations were bad or neutral. I said that most are from neutral to semi-neutral (don't forget the semi-neutral). I added that despite we have no databases, you could witness yourself the variability thus produced by looking around you. How will organisms with mutations survive thousands of hundreds of years? Easy: those who carry bad mutations die. Those who carry other mutations reproduce. Guess which mutations thus spread in a population? Any lethal combination dies, any beneficial mutations, and their combinations, spread because, well, they are beneficial. Guess what happens with reproduction? You get lots of organisms carrying the beneficial mutations. Since best mutations survive, and, since there's sexual reproduction, then best mutations combine with each other. Organisms carrying these combinations are more successful at reproducing. What happens with reproduction? And on and on. Of course, variation continues to build up. After all, mutations continue to happen. But please go and check for further resources. Scientific ones. Creationist propaganda only looks for excuses not to understand. Example? Your next points:<br /><br />I see no problem with the Cambrian explosion, brain complexity, stasis of body plans, and homoplasy. None of them invalidate the mechanisms of evolution, nor do they invalidate any of the evidence that evolution has happened and continues to happen. I see no way in which evolution would demand that there should be no species radiations at the opening of several new niches, or that no species should remain anatomically static for any period of time, or that no species should evolve any convergent structures ever.<br /><br />To make a better example. I can't tell you how our brains evolved from our unicellular ancestors to ours. Interesting question as it is. However, I can show you where to start looking for answers: Our brains have no single structure that is not found in a more average ape brain. Thus, it is easy to imagine that changes in gene pattern expression might make one or another structure more/less developed, thus producing all kinds of ape brains currently existing. Some differences might require a couple differences in protein sequence, but nothing looks impossible to come out of variations within populations built upon generations of random but harmless drift plus selection. Combining that with the evidence that we share ancestry with the rest of the apes, it becomes nonsensical to deny it out of our brain structure. If we followed this procedure, we might be able to figure out that the ape brain has no structures that many other mammal brains don't have ... following this process, and depending on the evidence that we can find, maybe we will know the whole history. Maybe we won't. That still is no problem to understand and accept, out of the evidence, that we share common ancestry with a lot of other living forms, and that no magic is required at any step.<br /><br />See what I did? I started with manageable information instead of focusing on the extremes. Again. My comment cannot be but a slimmer of the info you would find elsewhere. But maybe this little example can show you some light. Once you learn how evolution works at its fundamentals, you might figure out that most creationist propaganda is but rhetoric that distracts you from understanding.<br /><br />I hope these explanations inspired you to learn better and from reputable resources. I think that these explanations are all I can do without getting into giving you a full course on evolution. As I said, there's lots of resources that you can check out. Up to you.<br /><br />So, I am out of this conversation. Have a great weekend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46196180557270074162012-10-12T11:44:00.557-04:002012-10-12T11:44:00.557-04:00I'm not YEC as you imply, I'm pretty certa...I'm not YEC as you imply, I'm pretty certain the earth is 4 billion years old and universe is 13.7 billion years old. What has given you the impression that I might be because I doubt Darwins mechanism I must be a creationits?<br /><br />Yes what can intelligent selection accomplish? It can accomplish different types of dogs with different sizes and traits, but it has been unable to change the body plans of any dog as far as I know.<br /><br />Tell me you say you have great experience in design, so what are the first fundamental rules that any design requires so that it might function for an intended purpose?<br /><br />RegardsAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74774263408554675732012-10-12T11:40:41.812-04:002012-10-12T11:40:41.812-04:00Thank you Rumraket I'm going to study it tonig...Thank you Rumraket I'm going to study it tonight...Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19370258482662596832012-10-12T09:01:42.498-04:002012-10-12T09:01:42.498-04:00Andre Gross says: "...There is a reason why p...Andre Gross says: "...There is a reason why people still reject the notion that NS & RM did it and unless it is explained and demonstrated..."<br /><br />Yes, and that reason is nothing more than willful ignorance. Occasionally it is because people are unaware of what they do not know or they assume that they know more than they think they do, but it still boils down to ignorance. <br /><br />I design systems and interfaces professionally and have done so for close to 30 years. In fact, my professional involvement with design was one of the first things that started me questioning my YEC background, because it is painfully apparent that the universe, this planet and the life on it, is most definitely not designed.<br /><br />It should be pointed out, if it has not been already, that the age of the universe is around 13.72 billion years (this is from one dating method, there are several others that give similar estimates but are not as precise). The age of this planet is 4.5 (give or take a few hundred million years) billion years.<br /><br />As for what selection can accomplish, besides taking an in-depth look at the fossil record, I suggest that you review domesticated species such as dogs (and their wide variety of breeds), rutabagas, wheat and corn...Bytznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85868972708663253752012-10-12T04:30:31.067-04:002012-10-12T04:30:31.067-04:00Andre Gross, may I suggest you read this paper: ?
...Andre Gross, may I suggest you read this paper: ?<br /><br />Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine<br />http://www1.osu.cz/~elias/czech/Evoluce_bunky/Finnigan2012.pdf<br /><br />It explains pretty well how "degenerative" or deleterious mutations result in increased complexity and large functional structures. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72972958438825401792012-10-12T00:12:06.764-04:002012-10-12T00:12:06.764-04:00The whole truth
Now I have to say I enjoyed your ...The whole truth<br /><br />Now I have to say I enjoyed your post immensely, does the appearance of design intrigue me? I will tell you that it most certainly does and I am saying this because of what I do. Let’s just be clear I do not design abstracts but functional systems. Components of these systems have a particular function inside the system together with other components they create a whole that has a purpose. This is where I see the parallels between living and non-living systems. <br /><br />I say to you now I will completely embrace NS and RM as the mechanisms that are capable of diversity if it can be demonstrated. Until then I reserve my judgement and I do so based on my experience with what is required for the functioning of any system as a whole. I cannot in my best efforts see how a living system can in anyway be different in its requirements that a non-living system. If anything a living system is even more complex and would need far more rules and processes than a non-living one.<br />There is a reason why people still reject the notion that NS & RM did it and unless it is explained and demonstrated no amount of name calling will make it go away.<br />You might not understand what I’m trying to tell you here but give it a thought; an effect can never be greater than its cause.<br /><br />Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15842455798878779602012-10-11T23:13:55.297-04:002012-10-11T23:13:55.297-04:00Negative Entropy.
Firstly thank you for the explan...Negative Entropy.<br />Firstly thank you for the explanation, I read it a few times to make sure I get the gist of your explanation. It saddens me to say that it does not answer the question in anyway; in fact it just makes it worse. Let me explain.<br />The different populations need all these mutations to cause the variability; they will eventually become fixed in the population over time. You acknowledge that mutations are indeed bad or neutral and it seem good ones are few and far between. This still does not explain how NS and RM can account for the diversity of life. How can it if there are very few good mutations? I don’t understand how neutral mutations can account for body plans so I will read up on that, The real problem however is the bad mutations since the entire population collectively have them and spread them, I fail to see how that population is going to survive after just a few generations never mind a few hundred or hundred thousand. You have to ask with all the deletions happening how did they make it to be here today over so many generations.<br /><br />Secondly the latest findings in the Cambrian explosion on brain complexity and stasis of body plans makes the idea of NS and RM more problematic as they do not even seem to be needed as an explanation due to the diversity of complex creatures appearing suddenly in the fossil record.<br /><br />Lastly how do you explain homoplasy? Convergent evolution is a real problem for NS and RM, not only can they not explain diversity they have to be able to account for diversity a few times over because there is no common descent.<br /><br />Now I would like to say, you are welcome to call me stupid or a liar or a creationist or an IDiot or whatever you feel will work for you but that will still not answer these questions and that is all I am asking for because the truth is there is no answers out there.<br />Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89690946783320769502012-10-11T23:09:53.245-04:002012-10-11T23:09:53.245-04:00andre gross said:
"Have I even been speaking...andre gross said:<br /><br />"Have I even been speaking or pointing to anything supernatural?"<br /><br />You've been pushing intelligent design and you've brought up the origin of life (OOL), which relates to special creation unless you accept a natural OOL. Intelligent design and creation requires an intelligent designer-creator. Are you saying that the intelligent designer-creator you're positing is or could be natural? If so, will you elaborate on the possibilities and/or particulars of the 'natural' designer-creator you envision? <br /><br />I realize that you've said that your mind isn't made up and that you think there could be or is something else besides RM and NS behind biological evolution (there is- drift, etc.), but you also speak as though you're an authority on design and that living things are designed. I also realize that science hasn't found all the answers to all the questions about evolution or the origin of life but that doesn't help you if you're trying to promote a designer. To support a designer you're going to have to produce evidence and an hypothesis for your claims that can be examined and tested. Keep in mind that alleged evidence and many hypotheses have been proposed by scientists and have been examined and tested and either quickly or ultimately discarded, so it isn't as though scientists are given some sort of free pass when it comes to substantiating their claims. As time goes on some of the currently accepted evidence or hypotheses (or inferences or theories) may or will be discarded or modified. That's the way science works, and it's a good thing. Science can be slow or stubborn at times but it ultimately has to follow the evidence where it leads. The thing is, there has to be evidence to follow. Bald, allegedly authoritative assertions, and especially those that are based on religious fairy tales or other supernatural woo, produce no evidence to follow. <br /><br />If you or anyone else comes up with something worth considering that pertains to intelligent design, and it isn't just another religiously based, science bashing bald assertion, reputable scientists will likely take a serious look at it. <br /><br /><br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89077580243970888172012-10-11T16:13:26.586-04:002012-10-11T16:13:26.586-04:00Andre,
Your links to the limits of natural select...Andre,<br /><br />Your links to the limits of natural selection are about population genetics models, what they entail, and the limits and behaviour in evolution they would predict, then proposals to what they might mean in reality (models are not reality, but help for understanding reality, you know that, don't you?). It would be quite stupid from you to think that we think that natural selection has no limits. It can't do anything without a population with variable alleles, it can't do anything that is not available in the genetic pool. It can't do miracles, it has to have limits. What's the surprise there? We have never suggested that natural selection was all-powerful. We have always talked about the need for variability, and the time constrains. The many generations necessary to build upon both the variability and the selection process. So, seems like you did not do anything but search for the keywords "natural selection" and "limits," then conclude that because there's articles on that, therefore natural selection explains nothing. That's called a hasty generalization. Even if we forget that you made no effort at understanding the limits of those studies on the limits of natural selection. Which I find clearly dishonest (unless you are just stupid and can't really understand what I am saying, and what the articles were presenting).<br /><br />The links you provided about mutations are examples of deleterious mutations. Most of the mutations that make it to "the news" are deleterious. There's lots of databases of deleterious mutations too. There are no databases dedicated to "mutations that add variability and make no harm," or to "neutral and semineutral mutations." There is not much point, and I would have a very hard time trying to publish an article about having found a mutation that makes some cells a little more round than other cells. Even then, nobody would be too interested. We publish what we care about, namely, mutations associated to sicknesses. How does that mean that most mutations are deleterious? Another hasty generalization out of a complete lack of logical thought. This might be due to authentic ignorance. After all, you might be among those who thinks that we propose that the ancestral ape to both humans and chimps became each by magic in one step or so. This due to complete ignorance. Anyway, do you want to have a clue about neutral and semineutral mutations? Look anywhere around you. You will see that rarely other persons looks exactly like you. Tons of variability, right? Well, the variability shows that there are tons of mutations that have no problematic effects. Under the proper conditions the variability might provide advantages to a few. The key is the proper conditions.<br /><br />From the length of my answers you might catch a glimpse of what Larry said about not being easy to explain all of biology to you. I tried hard. I bet that, even so, my explanations are too short and too simplified. But you have made hasty and unwarranted generalizations. From misunderstanding evolutionary processes, from misunderstanding articles on population genetics, and from concluding from examples that don't represent the whole on mutation effects. I blame ignorance and misinformation. But I don't discard stupidity and/or dishonesty. However, I gave you a proper and lengthy answer. I doubt that you will give it any consideration or proper thought. I doubt that you will learn what kinds of mistakes you are making. We'll see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74057530265959749082012-10-11T15:34:57.978-04:002012-10-11T15:34:57.978-04:00Dear Prof Moran
I have not decided, how can I mak...Dear Prof Moran<br /><br />I have not decided, how can I make an informed desicion on the complete absence of evidence that NS and RM are indeed the mechanisms responsible or even cabable of creating the diversity of life? Worse still are the new papers published on brain complexity and the stasis of body plans from the Cambrian era, the creationists are indeed enjoying the moment because these findings ask very serious questions of NS and RM as the possible mechanisms. Telling people they are stupid does not answer these problems deepening almost daily now.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51798188349713207752012-10-11T14:29:34.931-04:002012-10-11T14:29:34.931-04:00"That's not a very sophisticated (or sens..."That's not a very sophisticated (or sensible) reading of what he said, which kind of proves his point."<br /><br />Maybe not, but there really isn't a charitable way to interpret Swinburne's principles so that it isn't either 1) so utterly obvious a 5 year old would be dumbstruck anyone finds the principles profound, or else 2) a really really weak justification for believing religious claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16959578923104189362012-10-11T14:18:40.207-04:002012-10-11T14:18:40.207-04:00Andre Gross says,
Lastly Richard Dawkins changed ...Andre Gross says,<br /><br /><i>Lastly Richard Dawkins changed his stance on DNA in the spur of the moment, until that interview he was on the same boat as Prof Moran about JUNK DNA, Dawkins however jumped ship....</i><br /><br />Richard Dawkins was never a proponent of junk DNA (=non-functional DNA) because it conflicts with Darwinism. Andre Gross is simply repeating the lies told by other creationists.<br /><br />Is Andre Gross also lying or is he just unaware of the truth?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59934115518651475152012-10-11T14:07:53.259-04:002012-10-11T14:07:53.259-04:00Andre Gross asks,
This should be easy for you, If...Andre Gross asks,<br /><br /><i>This should be easy for you, If you can give me evidence that NS and RM has the ability to take a simple organism and change its body plans and functions over time (use as much time as you need) then we can certainly discuss "common ancestory".</i><br /><br />Why would you even ask such a question? Haven't you already decided that professional biologists have no evidence for common ancestry? Haven't you already concluded that the history of life is just a bunch of just-so stories?<br /><br />Explaining all of biology to you would not be easy even if I were convinced that simple ignorance is your only problem.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5906947918346607102012-10-11T13:10:01.698-04:002012-10-11T13:10:01.698-04:00Let me set the scene here;
Here are some papers t...Let me set the scene here;<br /><br />Here are some papers that speak about the limits of natural selection and some that speak about the effects of random mutation. So I need to understand how these two mechanism have the ability to have created the diversity in life, how did these mechanisms make simple to complex?<br /><br />Limits to natural selection<br /><br />http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf<br />http://www.ugr.es/~jmgreyes/gene%20flow%20limit%20nat%20selection.pdf<br />http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2395303?uid=3739368&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101308100527<br /><br />Mutations are usually bad and the cause loss of function<br /><br />http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1001352<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18179883<br />http://cardiovascres.oxfordjournals.org/content/70/3/466.full<br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7342/abs/nature09975.html<br /><br />I am not being stupid or a liar I need to understand how something that has the odds and all probabilities stacked against it somehow overcame mount improbable without invoking a miracle. Because well, here we are!<br /><br />Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23307391127930964392012-10-11T12:58:06.214-04:002012-10-11T12:58:06.214-04:00Andre,
Lastly Richard Dawkins changed his stance ...Andre,<br /><br /><i>Lastly Richard Dawkins changed his stance on DNA in the spur of the moment, until that interview he was on the same boat as Prof Moran about JUNK DNA, Dawkins however jumped ship....</i><br /><br />1. No, he wasn't on the same boat as Moran.<br />2. Dawkins position is about abundance of selfish DNA, not about junk DNA. There's a distinction.<br />3. So ENCODE confirmed Dawkins' stance on the matter (he does/did not expect much junk, but rather functional, if selfish, DNA).<br />4. Scientists disagree about some topics. Some are well established, some are not. Scientists thus should be open to new findings, but take them carefully to see if any point gets some strength and go by the evidence, not by what they previously thought. Thus, if Dawkins had changed his stance so what? What's so wrong about it?<br />5. Do you understand that some issues in science are open questions, others are quite well established, and that there's everything in between? That scientists can be as ignorant as the public about some issues, and very knowledgeable about other issues?<br />6. Do you really find it wrong that we would not hold to everything with dogmatic obedience? Do you rally think that it is wrong to change our stance when evidence is presented? If so, you are truly, authentically, too much of an idiot.<br /><br />(Now let's watch you missing the point)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37351490263316350102012-10-11T12:49:11.330-04:002012-10-11T12:49:11.330-04:00Dear Prof Moran
This should be easy for you, If y...Dear Prof Moran<br /><br />This should be easy for you, If you can give me evidence that NS and RM has the ability to take a simple organism and change its body plans and functions over time (use as much time as you need) then we can certainly discuss "common ancestory". From what I've seen neither the fusion event nor supposed Junk DNA can be called evidence for it anymore. <br />Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69954924752790550792012-10-11T12:40:14.340-04:002012-10-11T12:40:14.340-04:00What's funny Andre, is that you missed every p...What's funny Andre, is that you missed every point I made and answered to things I did not say. Want some respect? Give some respect. If I make a point, and you ignore it and send a red-herring, I take that as much as an insult as you take my calling you an idiot. So, what about you look at our exchanges, start with the one where you mention a big Dawkins quote to me about junk-DNA, check what I said carefully, then see if your answer acknowledges what I said at all. To help you a bit:<br /><br />In my answer to your Dawkins quote I made a point in very long terms, then summarized the point in a shorted paragraph by the end. After you answered again as if you did not read what I said, I told you that you did not read carefully and repeated the point:<br /><br />1. What was that point?<br />2. How does your answer relate to the point?<br /><br />Here you did that yet again. You think that I am discussing whether pseudogenes are functional or not. Are you sure that's my point in this conversation?<br /><br />Also, I missed a smallish but huge detail in this conversation, but, since you can't read very well, I rather not add to your confusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77293642156708332042012-10-11T12:31:36.643-04:002012-10-11T12:31:36.643-04:00See what happens Andre? You get a sincere question...See what happens Andre? You get a sincere question, you give an answer that is not an answer (failed to read the question, or failed at reading it for what it means, rather than for what you thought it meant), then you talk about "certainty" as if you knew better than any expert. Yet, before you said to me that your experience in design gives you absolute authority to claim that "the material world looks designed," yet, you dismiss the expertise of too many scientists as "just-so-stories" but I bet you have never looked at any of the evidence. yet you feel like you can tell why we have accepted evolution, while your information comes from creationist bullshit, rather than from scientists themselves.<br /><br />Isn't that a bit contradictory? Think about it. You might learn why I quickly started calling you stupid. Instead of reacting to the insult, what about you read for comprehension first?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62509237922076712402012-10-11T12:10:25.844-04:002012-10-11T12:10:25.844-04:00Andre Gross writes,
Why are they convinced? I thi...Andre Gross writes,<br /><br /><i>Why are they convinced? I think you know very well why, it is no small matter indeed and it is certainly not based on the evidence.</i><br /><br />You are either stupid or a liar. It's hard to decide which. Maybe both.<br /><br />There is overwhelming evidence in support of the idea that humans and chimps share a common ancestor—just to give one example. So much evidence that it's considered a well-established scientific fact. It's definitely not a "just-so story." You probably don't even know what that term means.<br /><br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43677968759396137842012-10-11T11:41:59.330-04:002012-10-11T11:41:59.330-04:00Yes Allan
And this is where it falls flat, since ...Yes Allan<br /><br />And this is where it falls flat, since NS has limited capability and RM is usually bad coupled with the loss of information no amount of time can make them do anything to go from simple to complex no matter how much time you allocate, if anything simple would just that well simple. When the things you claim is the cause of something and those causes have limits coupled with the fact that they are more bad than good you have a problem. Time certainly does not fix things either.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42441842827204729682012-10-11T11:30:18.846-04:002012-10-11T11:30:18.846-04:00@Andre, You pick your own position of course. Most...@Andre, You pick your own position of course. Most people take the view that, if we observe x% of change/divergence in time t - while we can look, given our lifetimes etc - then we are justified in inferring that the z% of change/divergence in time T is made up of lots of increments of x. It is hardly the wildest speculation in the history of mankind.<br /><br />No, we can't observe the timespan covering higher taxonomic levels, rather inconveniently for debating denialists. Even new species is a bit borderline, given the time it takes vs the time we can observe. I'd guess that you see taxonomic entities as discrete. But they tend to be viewed evolutionarily as continuous, but with a temporal consistency that looks like essentialism to the casual observer (ie most of us, during our limited lifetimes). Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47653713985488109642012-10-11T11:12:19.271-04:002012-10-11T11:12:19.271-04:00Dear Prof Moran.
Why are they convinced? I think ...Dear Prof Moran.<br /><br />Why are they convinced? I think you know very well why, it is no small matter indeed and it is certainly not based on the evidence. It is one thing to observe NS and show with evidence that it can do x or y. It is a totally different dynamic when you create a just so story that it can also do z because it might and did do x and y, even though z has never been observed! Tell me Pro has it been observed or is it in its totality still just pure speculation?Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.com