tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3057349720045589580..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The dynamic duo tell us about five problems with evolutionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66779338602985787732017-01-28T11:07:35.312-05:002017-01-28T11:07:35.312-05:00@ Lino Di Ischia,
The first link to Larry's p...@ Lino Di Ischia,<br /><br /><i>The first link to Larry's putative rebuttal of the problem with the Cambrian Explosion proves nothing.</i><br /><br />You need to be a bit more specific here. Exactly what errors were made in the molecular genetic studies demonstrating that the major animal phyla share common ancestry that dates back to well before the Cambrian era? And what evidence is there that, instead, these phyla all independently came into existence suddenly during the Cambrian?<br /><br />You will have to rely on sources other than Meyer's book, since all he does there is complain about things he, as a non-scientist, doesn't understand regarding paleontology, phylogenetics and molecular biology. And for some reason, in writing a book on these subjects, he did not consult with experts in these fields, but instead relied on friends of his in the Discovery Institute who are just as confused as he is. Even so, he never gets around to so much as suggesting a mechanism by which these organisms could have suddenly poofed into existence, which one would think should be an important topic to address in such a book.<br /><br />So I'm hopeful, as always, that an ID creationist will finally be able to provide positive evidence for their claim, as opposed to demonstrations that they do not understand evolutionary theory. I hope you will not be just another who disappoints me, Lino. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88500678215949012972017-01-27T19:41:12.976-05:002017-01-27T19:41:12.976-05:00Lino,
1. There's pre-Cambrian fossils.
2. If...Lino,<br /><br />1. There's pre-Cambrian fossils.<br /><br />2. If you were able to read for understanding, you'd have no problem understanding <b>why</b> the DNA was said not to be a code. In science (as in most of our language), we use a lot of metaphors. Metaphors are supposed to help us understand. Unfortunately, they can also lead us astray if we take them too literally.<br /><br />Anyway, I read what's in that link about information, and I wasn't in the slightest bothered from reading that DNA is not a code. Why? because I understood the explanation, and because I understand how science makes use of metaphors. You were bothered because you did not read any further, let alone for understanding, and because it contradicts your beliefs.<br /><br />You need to learn to read for understanding. Dismissing something because of a sentence you did not care to put in context and read further for understanding doesn't really make you look any better informed, or any more reasonable. Nor does it convince me that Meyer's and Axe's bullshit wasn't rebutted. It just shows that you cannot read. Big deal.<br /><br />If you cannot read for understanding, nothing will help you understand anything. Nothing lutesuite or me or anybody else explains will get through to you.<br /><br />I don't even know if you will understand what I just wrote. I doubt it, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71157757191333726262017-01-27T19:12:55.605-05:002017-01-27T19:12:55.605-05:00lutesuite:
Your links to supposed rebuttals to Me...lutesuite:<br /><br />Your links to supposed rebuttals to Meyer and Axe's "problems" are not very convincing. I looked at two, and had had enough.<br /><br />The first link to Larry's putative rebuttal of the problem with the Cambrian Explosion proves nothing. Darwin expected to find a similar, but more basic, fossil record prior to the Cambrian as is now seen since the Cambrian. Good luck there.<br /><br />As to 'information,' your provided link gets us to someone who doesn't seem to know up from down. He says that DNA is NOT a "code." That's great. So, tell me, what should we call the "genetic code"? Should we call it the "genetic data base"? I'm lost as to what to call it. It's a howler.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54139605128819023832017-01-22T13:15:04.915-05:002017-01-22T13:15:04.915-05:00Shannon or Kolmogorov information is not exhaustiv...Shannon or Kolmogorov information is not exhaustive knowledge of information because many physicists think information is perhaps the fundamental thing in nature<br /><br />http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110650/information-or-matter-or-energy<br /><br />https://www.google.fi/#q=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/04/is-information-fundam%E2%80%A6<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16599918818258909821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83985422144738893942017-01-19T08:03:05.666-05:002017-01-19T08:03:05.666-05:00But the thing I find most interesting, is that you...<i>But the thing I find most interesting, is that you believe that you are no more significant than one of Lenski’s bacterium. That is truly remarkable conclusion.</i><br /><br />Don't be intentionally thick. As I recall, you're the one who likes to insult people by referring to them with language applicable to childhood deformities, not me, so moral superiority really won't fly.<br /><br />It may once have been possible to be "very bright" and believe the Earth, life, and the rest of the universe were created in a week 6000 years ago, but no one who is very bright believes that now. Not when you can pull the cable from a TV set and know the "snow" you see is the microwave background radiation from the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago; or when you drive a car or get on a bus that runs on gas distilled from petroleum found because geology and stratigraphy work. Or when you can pick up a Geiger counter and hear the clicks of radioactive decay, caused by the weak nuclear force, whose parameters are understood down to decimal places, and from which we get reliable means of dating rocks, fossils and human artifacts to long before 6,000 years ago.<br /><br />Essentially, if God exists, He is telling you in these and innumerable other ways that the universe was created in a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago; the Earth and the rest of the Solar System formed 4.5 billion years ago; and life on Earth speciated by means of evolution. Why are you shutting Him out?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23952699540658825502017-01-18T20:30:32.164-05:002017-01-18T20:30:32.164-05:00judmarc,
“Anyone who believes being a moral, lovi...judmarc,<br /><br />“Anyone who believes being a moral, loving human requires one to think God poofed the Earth and life into existence in a week 6000 years ago is likely not reachable by reasoned argument, or even sheer mathematics.”<br /><br />Well, lots of very bright people did, and do believe things like that. <br /><br />On the other hand, you have to believe that your reasoned arguments are formulated with a brain that is the consequence of incomplete sets of chiral amino acids cruising in on meteorites, or something equally droll. And you must believe that something like fifty million cubic miles of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock accumulated over billions of years, and that dinosaur collagen can last for eighty million years. You also think that a tiny piece of real estate commanding the attention of the political world is just an historical coincidence. <br /><br />But the thing I find most interesting, is that you believe that you are no more significant than one of Lenski’s bacterium. That is truly remarkable conclusion.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56723998273942050452017-01-18T20:30:26.228-05:002017-01-18T20:30:26.228-05:00So Russian, then?So Russian, then?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15227156874442146552017-01-18T20:26:55.664-05:002017-01-18T20:26:55.664-05:00"In which language are these "purposeful..."In which language are these "purposeful instructions" you imagine existing the genomes written?"<br /><br />One that you can't speak, read or translate. <br /><br /><i>"The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics."</i><br />https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231 txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59301711375601136772017-01-18T19:41:26.567-05:002017-01-18T19:41:26.567-05:00In which language are these "purposeful instr...In which language are these "purposeful instructions" you imagine existing the genomes written? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22306270045572682262017-01-18T19:33:14.250-05:002017-01-18T19:33:14.250-05:00lutesuite,
“you always neglect to specify exactly...lutesuite,<br /><br />“you always neglect to specify exactly what definition of "information" is being used.”<br /><br />The definition, as it pertains to biology, is pretty simple. Genetic information is purposeful instructions.<br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12078046730884728162017-01-18T18:08:18.241-05:002017-01-18T18:08:18.241-05:00Anyone who believes being a moral, loving human re...Anyone who believes being a moral, loving human requires one to think God poofed the Earth and life into existence in a week 6000 years ago is likely not reachable by reasoned argument, or even sheer mathematics. There is an incredible amount that has to be ignored in order to focus on such a belief, and all indications are that txpiper is dead set on continuing to ignore it.<br /><br />Why he wishes to come here and say things to us so he can ignore our replies, I'm not quite sure.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33802589366529101932017-01-18T17:56:42.380-05:002017-01-18T17:56:42.380-05:00Tx:
"Nah. Ed has some inadequacy in mind when...Tx:<br />"Nah. Ed has some inadequacy in mind when he mentions the windmill version of evolution. He should be able to explain what that is."<br /><br />Sure, but the non-windmill version has been explained to you many times already, but you seem to have the uncanny knack of ignoring things which don't fit your needs, now does it?<br />Judmarc even now in the post above points you in the right direction, but instead you want to be spoon fed information.<br />If you're really interested in the topic, I think you can find tonnes of information here on this blog. It's all there, you only have to set aside your ... prejudices, and be willing to learn new things.<br />But, you've shown many times already, the inability to *want* to learn. So I seriously doubt you want to learn, but maybe you can surprise me. I really do hope you can surprise me. :-)Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35678822650911072942017-01-18T17:51:16.880-05:002017-01-18T17:51:16.880-05:00Maybe it is so impressive that it can’t be express...<i>Maybe it is so impressive that it can’t be expressed in conversational language.</i><br /><br />It's called "math." You may have heard of it.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49976918835221139432017-01-18T16:31:54.676-05:002017-01-18T16:31:54.676-05:00But then, I guess it could be like you being unabl...<i>But then, I guess it could be like you being unable to repeat your good scientific definition of information.</i><br /><br />Umm, you're quite confused. It's you creationists who keep blathering on about how "information" can only be produced by "intelligence". However, you always neglect to specify exactly what definition of "information" is being used. For the simple reason that, if you ever did provide a specific definition, it would immediately become apparent that the creationist claim is false. Surely you haven't forgotten this fiasco:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.softwarematters.org/mathgrrl.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.softwarematters.org/mathgrrl.html</a>Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72688807052050565192017-01-18T15:49:46.726-05:002017-01-18T15:49:46.726-05:00judmarc,
"Or, Tx, you could read...."
...judmarc,<br /><br />"Or, Tx, you could read...."<br /><br />Nah. Ed has some inadequacy in mind when he mentions the windmill version of evolution. He should be able to explain what that is.<br /><br />But then, I guess it could be like you being unable to repeat your good scientific definition of information. Maybe it is so impressive that it can’t be expressed in conversational language. <br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56728344418991763992017-01-18T12:30:40.243-05:002017-01-18T12:30:40.243-05:00Bill,
To attempt to add to what John is saying, y...<i>Bill,<br /><br />To attempt to add to what John is saying, you're basing your objections on a misunderstanding about how likelihood-based statistical methods work.</i> <br /><br />Or maybe he is working on a highly evolved version of statistical analysis, which is beyond the grasp of us mere mortals. A few posts above I have made what I believe to be a quite credible attempt, if I may say so, to apply Bill's statistical method to a simpler situation, the better to understand how it works. It does lead to some conclusions that, to the unenlightened, might seen counterintuitive. But I can only presume that I have represented Bill's method accurately, since he has not seen fit to correct me.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60567511803193010022017-01-18T12:24:41.251-05:002017-01-18T12:24:41.251-05:00@ Bill Cole:
We have a fundamental disagreement o...@ Bill Cole:<br /><br /><i>We have a fundamental disagreement on what a testable hypothesis is so I think we should table the discussion for now.</i><br /><br />No, that is not the reason for our disagreement. The reason is that I am able to understand the things I read. You aren't. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33741466387090698082017-01-18T12:09:09.695-05:002017-01-18T12:09:09.695-05:00Bill,
To attempt to add to what John is saying, y...Bill,<br /><br />To attempt to add to what John is saying, you're basing your objections on a misunderstanding about how likelihood-based statistical methods work. Calculating the likelihood for a particular model involves (among other things) multiplying together many numbers that are less than 1, which inevitably results in a very, very small number. The absolute value of a likelihood score is essentially irrelevant--only the relative likelihood scores (or typically the negative log of these values) of competing models matters in a likelihood analysis. Dave Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18110718908216269032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32815070746810416232017-01-18T11:55:48.270-05:002017-01-18T11:55:48.270-05:00The probability equation is because the mechanism ...<i>The probability equation is because the mechanism is trial and error. If the probabilities are this small for every scenario that puts the whole argument in question.</i><br /><br />Yes, and because the probabilities are vanishingly small for every bridge hand, that puts the existence of bridge in question. Why not just accept that you have no idea what you're talking about and listen for a change?<br /><br /><i>We have a fundamental disagreement on what a testable hypothesis is so I think we should table the discussion for now.</i><br /><br />But this is purely a result of your determined ignorance. Your disagreement is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the math. And you think you know more than the people who actually know what they're talking about. Arrogance is your main obstacle.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2132846119683991922017-01-18T11:49:42.032-05:002017-01-18T11:49:42.032-05:00LS
"
It did. Of that there is no question. I&...LS<br />"<br />It did. Of that there is no question. I'm sorry you're unable or unwilling to understand the paper.<br /><br />If I can show you a paper on ID would you consider that a test?<br /><br />Sure. Do you have any examples?<br /><br />If you wanted to show the world that UCD was a valid theory how would you test it?<br /><br />Here are some of the ways in which it has been tested:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"<br /><br />I disagree these are tests for UCD that validate the hypothesis that all life rose from a common ancestor. <br /><br />One paper shows common biochemistry and infers common descent.<br /><br />The other paper shows probability calculations that when you look at them closely show origin of bacteria so remote that evolution by what ever mechanism the author chose is very unlikely.<br /><br />We have a fundamental disagreement on what a testable hypothesis is so I think we should table the discussion for now.<br />Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59186687133460016382017-01-18T11:13:59.543-05:002017-01-18T11:13:59.543-05:00Or, Tx, you could read the population genetics pap...Or, Tx, you could read the population genetics papers (or texts about them) that have been available for nearly a century and understand the math, and what's going on behind the math. I know it's a big ask, but you're making a big (incorrect) criticism, and this is the most precise way to show you where and how you're wrong.<br /><br />From there you could go on to neutral theory....judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79032336114170158692017-01-18T10:36:55.291-05:002017-01-18T10:36:55.291-05:00Ed, instead of repeating this over and over again,...Ed, instead of repeating this over and over again, why don't you outline the distinctions between the windmill version and the real thing?txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81174040100894090312017-01-18T10:19:30.049-05:002017-01-18T10:19:30.049-05:00Bill, it's amazing to note, every ID creationi...Bill, it's amazing to note, every ID creationist makes the same mistake over and over and over again. They attack their windmill version of evolution (quote Bill: "The probability equation is because the mechanism is <b>trial and error.</b>") but not the real thing. <br /><br />Sad really, the fact this attacking the windmill is repeated over and over again.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92228433323509265722017-01-18T10:17:48.550-05:002017-01-18T10:17:48.550-05:00You really think the paper you cited tested UCD?
...<i>You really think the paper you cited tested UCD?</i><br /><br />It did. Of that there is no question. I'm sorry you're unable or unwilling to understand the paper.<br /><br /><i>If I can show you a paper on ID would you consider that a test?</i><br /><br />Sure. Do you have any examples?<br /><br /><i>If you wanted to show the world that UCD was a valid theory how would you test it?</i><br /><br />Here are some of the ways in which it <i>has</i> been tested:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" rel="nofollow">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a><br /><br /><br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18993330455805162102017-01-18T09:11:08.823-05:002017-01-18T09:11:08.823-05:00You see, John, your problem is you're using th...You see, John, your problem is you're using the old fashioned Atheist Evolutionist Math. You need to use Bill Cole's amazing new Intelligent Design Creationist Jesus Math in order to understand his argument. Allow me to illustrate: <br /><br />Let's imagine a lottery in which a single number between 1 and 1000 is drawn, and this is the winning number. Now, if you buy one ticket (with a single number) your odds of winning are 1 in 1000.<br /><br />With me so far?<br /><br />However, let's say you want to increase your odds somewhat, so you instead buy 999 tickets, each with a different number. Now, you might think you have increased your odds of winning to 99.9%. But you would be wrong, at least according to Bill Cole's Intelligent Design Creationist Jesus Math.<br /><br />You see, if you hold only one number, then there are 1000 possible combinations of the number you hold and the number that is drawn. However, only one of these combinations results in a win for you (i.e. if both numbers match). So your odds of winning are 1/1000.<br /><br />However, if you hold 999 different numbers, there are now 999,000 possible combinations of a number you hold, and the number that is drawn. However, and this is the crucial point, <b>there is still only one winning number,</b> for each drawing. So your odds of wining have now been drastically reduced, to a mere 1/999,000!<br /><br />Numbers don't lie. Right, Bill? <br /><br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.com