tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2294790463472460324..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: IDiots at Evolution News & Views Defend Ann Gauger's VideoLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18592114814186744762012-12-23T07:53:38.184-05:002012-12-23T07:53:38.184-05:00Anyway, I'm not sure why the topic of common d...Anyway, I'm not sure why the topic of common descent even comes up. Intelligent design proponents are supposed to accept common descent. Micheal Behe goes so far as to say that the truth of common descent is so obvious as to be "trivial". It's the <i>creationists</i> who deny common descent. And Intelligent design, as the IDiots keep trying to remind us, is not creationism. Right?<br /><br />Another point: Why does the DI have to trot out Ann Gauger, who has no expertise in the fields, to talk about population genetics or phylogenetics. Is there not a single person who <i>is</i> expert in these fields and accepts ID? That tells you something right there, doesn't it?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84378914792864970452012-12-23T06:23:07.437-05:002012-12-23T06:23:07.437-05:00luther, in what way(s) are humans "set apart ...luther, in what way(s) are humans "set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom"?<br /><br />If humans are members of the animal kingdom (consider what "the rest of" means) how can humans be "set apart"? <br /><br />Who or what "set" humans "apart"?<br /><br />Does "set apart" mean exceptional and superior to you? Does it mean specially created? <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"Hear ye hear ye - I'm not saying evolution is false."<br /><br />Actually, you spew plenty of derogatory remarks (both here and on your website) against evolution and the theory of evolution in general (which does come across very strongly as you asserting that both are false) but then you try to hide from all that by denying that you're saying that evolution is false, and you're also now trying to hide from your in general derogatory remarks by saying "That being said, the only place where I would say evolution is false, is on a very narrow biological construal of evolution, and only with regards humanity."<br /><br />So, luther, rather than just bashing evolution and the ToE, tell me what you think is true about evolution and the ToE, and why you think that "humanity" should get separate "regards". Don't skimp on the details. <br /><br />Will you also elaborate on what the "very narrow biological construal of evolution" is that you think is false, and on what you think a 'wider' construal of evolution should include? <br /><br />Don't forget what you've said about evolution and the ToE here and/or on your website including what you've said about evolution and what you think its connection is to the origin of life and before. If you think that evolution is false "on a very narrow biological construal of evolution, and only with regards humanity" then why do you make a fuss about evolution's connection to the origin of life and before unless you think that humans were around (specially created?) at the origin of life or before, or that humans were specially created later, or that humanity's ancestors came about (were specially created?) differently/separately at the origin of life and have evolved along a separate line than all other life forms? <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60878148797860792892012-12-22T13:22:47.753-05:002012-12-22T13:22:47.753-05:00CJ:
"How do the DI explain the fact that mito...CJ:<br />"How do the DI explain the fact that mitochondrial DNA, which is completely independent from the host DNA, shows the same hierarchical patterns of branching?"<br /><br />Design?nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11272193190174977842012-12-22T12:38:34.912-05:002012-12-22T12:38:34.912-05:00She seems to be insinuating now that while homopla...She seems to be insinuating now that while homoplasy is widely discussed in the scientific literature, it's kept secret from non-specialists. As a non-biologist I can testify that the insinuation is false. Anyone who is not illiterate, has an interest in biology and knows where to look can learn all about homoplasy as well as other fancy Greek-language terms. There are whole monographs devoted specially to homoplasy and its various aspects, such as <a href="http://books.google.pl/books?id=WWGNzeNmRUYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Sanderson and Hufford (1996)</a>. An interested lay person can understand most of the discussion therein. Indeed, Dr. Gauger might personally benefit from having a look at them to refresh her memory.<br />Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60003131910611240182012-12-22T12:00:30.967-05:002012-12-22T12:00:30.967-05:00Ann also seems to completely miss the fact that, b...Ann also seems to completely miss the fact that, by making reference to many of the discussions of homplasy in the real scientific literature (as opposed to the ID Creationist pseudoscientific publications), she is effectively admitting that she lied when she intially claimed that this is a "dark secret" that evolutionary biologists are trying to ignore or hide.<br /><br />I can't believe she is so stupid as to say that, because some people talk about both population genetics and phylogenetics, this then makes it acceptable for her to discuss them as if they are one and the same subject. But creationists have surprised me before when I've underestimated their stupidity.<br /><br />I'll also note the hypocrisy of her pleading that the video is only meant to be viewed in the context of the fuller discussion in her book, while accusing Dawkins of hiding the importance of homoplasy when he has, in fact, devoted entire chapters of some of his books to the subject of convergent evolution. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15333243320781112942012-12-22T06:41:52.276-05:002012-12-22T06:41:52.276-05:00I never said only humans were conscious. And I nev...I never said only humans were conscious. And I never said humans were different and set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (which we obviously are) merely because we are conscious. Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51978775970930758412012-12-22T03:17:00.361-05:002012-12-22T03:17:00.361-05:00Luther, there's no good reason to think that o...Luther, there's no good reason to think that only human beings are concious. <br /><br />My mother's dog shows all the signs, the only thing it lacks is the ability to directly tell me. In that way, it's sort of like a child before speaking age. Am I to believe my 1 year old niece is an automaton because she can't say "I'm conscious"?. Of course not. She shows all the signs one would expect of a conscious animal. Curiosity about the world, aversion to painful experiences, joy and happiness etc. all of which I can also clearly see in many other animals, though in varying degrees of clarity.<br />Could it be consciousness itself can exist in degrees, that it's not just either on or off? That you can be conscious about some things, but not others? Being observant, having experiences of certain incoming sensory information, to varying extends depending on the type and situation?<br />Take a blind man for example, significantly more conscious about smell, touch and hearing because he lost the sense of sight. Already here we can acknowledge that you can be conscious of certain input in degrees, it's not just fully on or fully off. <br />And if my dog is also conscious, because it show many of the same signs of being it my niece does, then probably my cat is too, and a parrot, or rat etc. etc. Maybe consciousness is something that gradually evolved, and maybe not just limited to degree of experience?<br />This is not an argument that's supposed to demonstrate that therefore evolution produced it, but it's supposed to stall the claim that somehow humans are different and apart from the rest of the animal kingdom on the basis that we alone are conscious. I simply don't believe that's the case, and I think there are good arguments against the proposition. <br /><br />Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48344715641138760302012-12-21T22:19:24.702-05:002012-12-21T22:19:24.702-05:00It's not an argument from ignorance. Go look u...It's not an argument from ignorance. Go look up what an argument from ignorance is. An argument from ignorance needs the conclusion "and therefore X is false". Eg, nobody knows how evolution can explain conciousness therefore evolution can't explain consciousness (or, more formally, the claim evolution can explain consciousness is false). But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that since we don't know what conciousness is we don't yet know if evolution, as currently construed, can account for it. Thus it's premature to say we know evolution to be true, or even possible as an account of consciousness.<br /><br />As I said, your committing the fallacy of the fallacious fallacy accusation. Go read some stuff about logic and then you won't have to use terms you don't understand.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79413565644412738052012-12-21T22:08:54.307-05:002012-12-21T22:08:54.307-05:00it's not my ignorance about consciousness, it&...<i>it's not my ignorance about consciousness, it's the total absence of even a way of thinking about it</i><br /><br />That's an argument from ignorance. Whether you claim that the ignorance is humanity's ignorance or yours does not make it any different. I we don't know "X," then we can doubt "Y"<br /><br />As per the claim itself. here your Christmas gift (if you celebrate Christmas): there's plenty of ways of thinking, often quite precisely, about it. You just don't know about them. Up to you to investigate though.<br /><br />Happy festivities!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51964723415087111282012-12-21T21:55:37.978-05:002012-12-21T21:55:37.978-05:00Luther,
Since I had not gone before you posted:
...Luther,<br /><br />Since I had not gone before you posted:<br /><br />You are then a simple sophist. Something of a troll. You come and defend creationist arguments, like the cosmological argument. Defend "arguments" against evolution via your incredulity that the natural processes proposed could give rise to consciousness, only to deny later that this was an argument from incredulity. But it is. That you did not say therefore it's false is but a stupid technicality. A way out you left there to "win" any arguments that might be raised against your sophistry. So, I see that you play innocence by being ambiguous. That only comes to confirm what I said. You come with arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and god-of-the-gaps, only to deny them later because you did not say "therefore it's false" or you did not mention "God." Despite you undeniably mentioned hatred to religion and theological implications that neither of us even hinted at. What for those if not to invest yourself of religiosity? What for would you think so highly of a cosmological argument if not because you have this "God" as your preferred explanation? Why, I ask, the hypocrisy?<br /><br />In any event. I doubt that you can defend that evolution is false in regards to humanity. But I will not stay to see. It's simply nonsensical to say that it is true elsewhere, but not for humans. Pure sophistry I bet. And I bet that your arguments will have the same escape clauses that you display on this one. But it won't work. Your fallacies stay for what they are regardless of your denial. Study some logic better. Arguing from a few semi-semantic details won;t make the appeal to incredulity or to ignorance any less so. You don;t believe that natural processes could "account" for this or that. That you fail to say "therefore it's false" and instead you say "therefore I'm skeptical" makes no difference.<br /><br />Again, happy festivities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19446375787683159902012-12-21T21:35:00.620-05:002012-12-21T21:35:00.620-05:00Hear ye hear ye - I'm not saying evolution is ...Hear ye hear ye - I'm not saying evolution is false. I'm saying there is, as yet, insufficient reason to believe it is true. That being said, the only place where I would say evolution is false, is on a very narrow biological construal of evolution, and only with regards humanity.But that's more of a corrective than a claim I would defend on its own merits.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90777757723786286292012-12-21T21:30:30.203-05:002012-12-21T21:30:30.203-05:00And I never said natural phenomena can't give ...And I never said natural phenomena can't give rise to life. I said that you have no idea how it could and until you do your in no position to say what mechanisms are central to life as we know it. <br /><br />Plus, there's no such thing as an "argument from incredulity". Dawkins just made it up. Thus my argument which you call an argument from incredulity is simply the demand that the extraordinary tale you believe in with all your heart needs a bit more behind it before a rational thinker, not in the grip of religious fervour, need subscribe to it. And my argument can hardly be a God of the gaps since God doesn't come into it at all. That is, I'm not saying, nobody knows how X happened therefore God did it. I'm saying nobody knows who X happened therefore at the moment it's reasonable to doubt current speculative accounts of how X happened. And it's not an argument from ignorance for the same reason - it lacks a "is false" conclusion - go study some logic (as I already have). And finally, it's not my ignorance about consciousness, it's the total absence of even a way of thinking about it that causes trouble for evolution because until we have some idea what it is we won't even know what evolution has to explain, let alone whether it can explain it.<br /><br />Anyway, your post pretty much boils down to the fallacy of the fallacious fallacy accusation and is, as such, as empty as your head. Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16255172844976412922012-12-21T21:29:37.314-05:002012-12-21T21:29:37.314-05:00So in fewer words you don't believe in gods an...So in fewer words you don't believe in gods and distrust evolution because you can invoke magic to explain common ancestry, therefore evolution is false?<br /><br />No, you have not answered why not knowing the origin of life would be important for evolution. All you gave was some rant about theological deductions and hatred for religion. That's far from being a logic reason to deny evolution on the basis of the knowledge, or lack thereof, of the origin of life.<br /><br />As I don't expect you to start making sense. I leave you with a happy festivities.<br /><br />Ciao.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72992747336592267212012-12-21T21:20:11.060-05:002012-12-21T21:20:11.060-05:00Yeah, but if gravitational effects were the work o...Yeah, but if gravitational effects were the work of little fairies they would still be gravitation effects - that is, gravitational effects would turn out to be the work of fairies. Maybe you should go do some studying instead of endlessly prattling nonsense. The brute fact is that things fall - and we call that, whatever it is, gravity - a term with no theoretical baggage at all. There is nothing similar in evolution. The closest thing is the fact that organisms exist - and nobody doubts that. But the idea that organisms came about via such and such a process from such and such an common ancestor is still in the realm of wild speculation. Parts of it may be true and may look secure, but other parts, which may be false, may have implications for the parts that look secure. <br /><br />Re your question about why the origin of life is important, I have answered that numerous times. The fact that you don't understand the answer is of no interest to me.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84500174352322552702012-12-21T21:17:05.191-05:002012-12-21T21:17:05.191-05:00Luther,
And I know I've done nothing to confi...Luther,<br /><br /><i>And I know I've done nothing to confirm that I have no idea what I'm talking about because I've confirmed quite clearly that I do know what I'm talking about.</i><br /><br />Yes you have shown not to know what you are talking about. You think that not knowing how life began is a problem for evolution. It obviously is not. Then you claim that not knowing what consciousness is, is a problem for evolution. It is not. All you are doing is adding particular problems that you think to be unsurmountable to be "solved" (note the I quote because I am sure that solving these problems is more of a philosophical bullshit in your mind, than what solving the problem would be in the real world) via natural processes, because you think that natural processes cannot give rise to such "mystical" and "unexplainable" phenomena as consciousness. You take refuge, or your mysticism takes refuge, out of the natural explanations of reality, behind a mere mix of an argument from incredulity, an argument from ignorance, and a god-of-the-gaps, all matched to some mystic ideas about the origin of life and of consciousness.<br /><br />Unless you can explain clearly why your ignorance of what consciousness is means that evolution is in trouble. Unless you can explain well what your solution to the problem might be. Do you have any?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69350460811003251262012-12-21T21:03:45.935-05:002012-12-21T21:03:45.935-05:00Luther,
Don't be ridiculous, your "is ch...Luther,<br /><br />Don't be ridiculous, your "is child's play to come up with scenarios under which almost all common ancestry claims would be false" are identical to coming with scenarios where gravitational events would be the works of invisible little fairies or such shit. It's child play to come up with that. That does not mean that those scenarios are even plausible.<br /><br />It's the same with the brute facts of evolution. You can imagine gods making things appear and undeniable evidence planted by these gods, from any angle. Yet, as you described, they are precisely child's play, and nothing more.<br /><br />Maybe you really have to go study some logic, some science, and some evolution from reputable sources. Reading creationist propaganda won't help you much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91406924182309784852012-12-21T20:56:42.768-05:002012-12-21T20:56:42.768-05:00Luther,
I did not give you any watered down versi...Luther,<br /><br />I did not give you any watered down version. I am more than able to defend evolution's brute facts, as well as the evidence that links most if not all living forms by common ancestry. Still, the brute fact parts are already incompatible with a literal Genesis. If you don't believe in Genesis, then why pretend that origin of life has anything to do with whether evolution is true or not? I suspect you are being dishonest here, but please show me if otherwise. Because so far you were defending a position that made no sense: if we don't know how life started, you seem to say, then evolution is false. If that's not what you meant then what the hell were you pretending to achieve?<br /><br />As for Larry, I can't speak for him, but I doubt that he is only prepared to defend a version of evolution that is "compatible with Genesis." You might be misreading that post to mean something it does not mean (just like you read theology in a comment of mine that had no theology at all, or "universal" when I talked about undeniable common ancestries). Not only that, you seem to therefore ignore every other comment ever posted by Larry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52483508469070136922012-12-21T20:45:32.272-05:002012-12-21T20:45:32.272-05:00General point: I don't believe the Genesis acc...General point: I don't believe the Genesis account, and I don't think the theory of evolution is consistent with the Genesis account. Larry, on the other hand, is only prepared to defend a definition of evolution that is consistent with the Genesis account. (See his 'What is Evolution' page.) My objections are against the stronger version and not the watered down version that is wheeled out when objections are in the air.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60892376691845165132012-12-21T20:40:29.024-05:002012-12-21T20:40:29.024-05:00@Negative entropy
Common ancestry is nothing like...@Negative entropy<br /><br />Common ancestry is nothing like a brute fact in the way gravity is. It is hard, eg, to even come up with a scenario under which gravity would not exist, whereas it is child's play to come up with scenarios under which almost all common ancestry claims would be false.<br /><br />And who's talking about magic? You people seem incapable of dealing with objections without inventing nonsense. My point is simply that the current theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor via mechanisms like those currently included in the ToE is not even close to being established to the extent that we have to accept it. It's not even close - at present we have a metaphysical framework with a few details, when what you need, to make the kinds of claims for the theory that are made, is much, much more than that.<br /><br />And I know I've done nothing to confirm that I have no idea what I'm talking about because I've confirmed quite clearly that I do know what I'm talking about.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42981672821211201752012-12-21T20:36:05.595-05:002012-12-21T20:36:05.595-05:00Piotr,
I completely agree that genesis is not com...Piotr,<br /><br />I completely agree that genesis is not compatible with any level of evolutionary facts. But you would be surprised at how much believers are able to find "meanings" that are "compatible" with, for example, the true age of the universe, or even with evolution. Of course, they are free to do as they wish. That does not mean that we have to take them seriously. That's, I think my main point with this guy. He can do with his fantasies as he wishes. that does not mean I will take them seriously, let alone accept them as problems for evolutionary brute facts, or for evolutionary theory.<br /><br />Best my friend. I always learn a hell of a lot from your clean and clear comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80248606735534018892012-12-21T20:28:09.014-05:002012-12-21T20:28:09.014-05:00Luther,
Again putting words into my mouth. I did ...Luther,<br /><br />Again putting words into my mouth. I did not say anything about universal common ancestry being a brute fact. What is a brute fact is that there's a lot of common ancestry among species, such as ours and those of other apes, all the way to primates, and all the way to vertabrates, with no possible objection to it being a brute fact. Further relationships are not brute facts. They seem to be true. Lots of evidence point to it being true. But the facts supporting that idea are not as evident as those supporting our common ancestry with other apes and primates, for example. Though it is curious that the evidence has problems where the theory would predict it to have problems ... anyway, we share ancestry with the other apes.<br /><br />As per your theology. It's up to you if you want to believe that Genesis is compatible with evolution. Whatever you do with your theology does not concern me. It's mere fantasy, so feel free to make it compatible with evolution, and with our common ancestry with the rest of the apes, and with the rest of primates, and so on. I don't care. Why? Because I could not care less how you fantasize about your gods. I insist, trying to mock evolution while bastardizing your fantasies in order to accommodate the undeniable facts is your prerogative. Contradicting yourself in the ways you have done so far is your prerogative. But, again, don't expect me to take your complains against evolution seriously if all you have as alternatives is magic and plasticity about the fantasies you want to mix with the scientific soup.<br /><br />You have done nothing but confirm that you have no idea what you are talking about. Neither in the sciences, nor in the logic, let alone in the theology. All you do is give priority to your fantasies, while calling them theology, at the time you deny yourself the opportunity to show that you can understand anything about science. So be it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18107660370918987152012-12-21T20:22:04.905-05:002012-12-21T20:22:04.905-05:00The feeling is mutual. Have a nice Christmas and a...The feeling is mutual. Have a nice Christmas and a Happy New Year.Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14343697816877266592012-12-21T20:22:00.965-05:002012-12-21T20:22:00.965-05:00@Luther: The Genesis story is inconsistent with th...@Luther: The Genesis story is inconsistent with the evidence. <b>If</b> life as we know it arose as a result of many separate acts of creation, there would be no reason for it to show clear evidence of common descent and previous evolutionary change (unless God is some kind of malicious trickster, but if so, he may just as well have created the whole Universe last Thursday). But even so the mechanism of evolution would operate normally, affecting living populations just as it does in the real world. The <b>theory</b> of evolution is one thing, the <b>fact</b> of evolution as a concrete historical process happening on Earth is another.<br /><br />Your points are easy to miss, since they are practically weightless and hardly visible.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92159498764263790942012-12-21T19:34:29.529-05:002012-12-21T19:34:29.529-05:00@It is a real answer whether you understand why or...@It is a real answer whether you understand why or not (see my second link above). And no, don't stay on my account; I find you quite a tedious individual with a penchant for point missing on a par with the prick Piotr.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85106258708822372282012-12-21T19:30:28.560-05:002012-12-21T19:30:28.560-05:00"If you can get a cell for free, you might as..."If you can get a cell for free, you might as well help yourself to a cat for free. And if you can get a cat for free you might as well help yourself to any other life form for free as well."<br /><br />Maybe that is how you see evolution, not me. You completely missed the point of what I said. Or maybe you're just avoiding making any meaningful and relevant comment for the points raised. Are you going to reply with real answers to the questions I made above or should I stop wasting my time with you?Pedronoreply@blogger.com