tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5473989362787026889..comments2024-03-18T09:58:09.828-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Creationists admit that junk DNA may not be a "myth" after allLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13513504208178001382014-05-14T13:19:39.492-04:002014-05-14T13:19:39.492-04:00Thank your for stating your unsupported opinions o...Thank your for stating your unsupported opinions on matters which you've repeatedly demonstrated you have zero understanding of. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6617126011094475272014-05-14T06:17:26.878-04:002014-05-14T06:17:26.878-04:00Theobald and Talk Origins is hocus pocus nonsense,...Theobald and Talk Origins is hocus pocus nonsense, a site that has a page on how to debate with creationists can hardly be called scientific.....<br /><br />Evolution, materialist style is just another religion!Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10980788823858541692014-05-09T11:54:26.000-04:002014-05-09T11:54:26.000-04:00Pest writes: "We have some very smart guys wh...Pest writes: <i>"We have some very smart guys who believe that life, as we know it, has originated by natural processes, so creating another form of life by intelligent products on natural processes should be a piece of cake... For not particular reason this has not been accomplished by any; and I repeat. Any human designer"</i><br /><br />Creationist logic: we have never observed a living cell being designed by an intelligence, life cannot be designed by an intelligence, therefore life was designed by an intelligence. <br /><br />He'll write that shit 1,000 times but never acknowledge how moronic I the logic is.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51524206369776090062014-05-05T22:25:53.939-04:002014-05-05T22:25:53.939-04:00Quest, Quest, Quest. You are criticizing us for no...Quest, Quest, Quest. You are criticizing us for not being fast enough for you? Nature had a couple billion years. It seems oy fair that you would give us a small fraction of that. A million or two years would be a relative blink of an eye. I know it's not the six days that God took but, after all, he was God. <br /><br />But if the news tomorrow was that a scientist created life from scratch, your response would be that this was proof of ID. After all, it took human intelligence to do it. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16689798928787550272014-05-05T22:19:07.868-04:002014-05-05T22:19:07.868-04:00Quest, if Zlarry has been removing your comments (...Quest, if Zlarry has been removing your comments (which I doubt) it is probably to prevent you from making a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77999980776678047952014-05-05T20:51:15.121-04:002014-05-05T20:51:15.121-04:00Home Work For All The Wise,
I have been thinking...Home Work For All The Wise, <br /><br />I have been thinking about the origins of life and what I would do, if I were NOT TO RECREATE LIFE at which science has failed miserably... but about creating a new form of life.... We have some very smart guys who believe that life, as we know it, has originated by natural processes, so creating another form of life by intelligent products on natural processes should be a piece of cake... For not particular reason this has not been accomplished by any; and I repeat. Any human designer... What is wrong...? What is wrong with intelligence that can't overcome mindless nature...? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92043803967766260922014-05-05T20:38:55.231-04:002014-05-05T20:38:55.231-04:00Johnny Harsh,
"Quest, aside from everything...Johnny Harsh, <br /><br />"Quest, aside from everything else (and I do mean everything), your numbers are wrong. It isn't 2% of the genome that Larry thinks is functional, it's around 10%. The functional 2 or 10% isn't what's 98% similar, it's the average over the whole genome; the functional 2-10% is more like 99.5% similar. Your more important error is in misinterpreting Lynch, but I'll let Joe explain that if he ever cares to. But there's no real point, as you never understand anything and have no interest in understanding anyway."<br /><br />Well boys.... You have a marvelous imagination just like Joe thinks of natural selection as his spandex underwear... Well boys.. the only reason why some of you still talk to me is because you have no evidence for your claims... Not only that , you have no evidence for common ancestry... Like Joe just failed to prove it.... So.. I've decided not to mention the "shark killer" because I don't want to deal with suicidal people like Dino-genes, and the rest of the morons who seem to get it but not quite....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83917617457525487732014-05-05T20:20:48.319-04:002014-05-05T20:20:48.319-04:00Larry has removed most of my comments... Why...? S...Larry has removed most of my comments... Why...? So.. if something doesn't fit... ask Larry....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23528861404112844132014-05-05T18:05:18.327-04:002014-05-05T18:05:18.327-04:00Ahhh. The "human science can't do it so G...Ahhh. The "human science can't do it so God must exist" argument. But wait. Hot off the 2011 press; The K computer from Fujitsu is four times faster and stores ten times the data of a human brain (20 times faster and 1000 times the data that can be stored by yours). But don't fret. You can now argue that the K computer was designed, which is further proof of ID. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72230137647278064842014-05-05T16:35:08.541-04:002014-05-05T16:35:08.541-04:00Hahaha, it is well know that zombies travel in pac...Hahaha, it is well know that zombies travel in packs. It is true here with the evo-zombies. Birds of a feather I suppose.<br /><br /><br />This just in: <b>Human brain microchip is 9,000 times faster than a PC</b><br />from Fox News today: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/05/05/human-brain-microchip-is-000-times-faster-than-pc/?intcmp=obnetwork.<br /><br />Apparently the human brain that has evolved by some unspecified process is 9000 times faster than a pc. It used to be random mutation. Now it is aimless drift, whatever that means because nobody seems to know.<br /><br />That's not all - PC''s use 40,000 times more power than a human brain. Isn't that amazing. And this is supposed to have happened by some designerless process, Hahaha. I just can't stop laughing. I know it's rude. But evolution is so damn ridiculous. Only a zombie could put all their brain power behind it. And just think (if you can). The pc is the height of human scientific accomplishment. We us quantum mechanics, nano technology and aimless natural forces are 40,000 <b>times</b> more efficient.<br /><br />Absolutely incredible.<br /><br />Oh, and there was a previous post about is there knowledge beyond scieence, and all the evo-zombies were stumped. Well the obvious answer is LOVE! Proof again that only evo-zombies dwell here, ugh, ugh..Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300448624871622986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41347496138986969572014-05-05T14:49:16.345-04:002014-05-05T14:49:16.345-04:00SPARC, you're being unfair.
First, we're n...SPARC, you're being unfair.<br />First, we're not blaming only the media, but explicitly acknowledging that the consortium at best didn't do anything to avoid the hype and confusion, and most likely fostered it.<br />We all agree that there's something wrong with the way the ENCODE consortium dealt with the whole issue, and (once more) as we explicitly wrote we did not want to give a wholesale defense of ENCODE. Instead we wanted to show that the whole criticism treated the "notion of function" issue much too lightly, and the quick dismissal of the disagreement shoved some genuine questions under the rug.<br />Second, our "assuming a difference between biology and biomedical research" has nothing outlandish, especially if you think in terms of what they try to explain -- think of Mayr's classical distinction between evolutionary and functional biology. We wrote in the paper why the difference matters: if it's not clear we'll be happy to elaborate, provided you ask genuine questions or provide genuine arguments, instead of just asserting the contrary.Pierre-Luc Germainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05318274695822146995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63953751317803216362014-05-05T11:52:09.083-04:002014-05-05T11:52:09.083-04:00Hi acartia - occasionally I too give in to the tem...Hi acartia - occasionally I too give in to the temptation to respond to Robert, but surely you can gather that for someone who believes we had no immune systems and could change our bodies at will before The Fall (and apparently needs no particular proof other than his "logical" reasoning from a certain book), and thinks God stuck a bunch of dinosaur bones in a 6000-year-old planet, the proposition that crystal growth, Saturnian rings, and hemoglobin formation must all be results of either God's direct intervention or follow rules laid down by him is quite easy to believe.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84530417623910186922014-05-05T10:28:45.406-04:002014-05-05T10:28:45.406-04:00Robert, have you ever seen a crystal grow? It prod...Robert, have you ever seen a crystal grow? It produces very complex forms and is completely natural. The rings of Saturn are very complex, but naturally formed. Haemoglobin is a very complex molecule, but is formed naturally, millions of times every day in every body. Unless, of course, you are arguing that every time a molecule is formed, it is under the direction of a God.William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57493588557103853682014-05-05T04:54:10.494-04:002014-05-05T04:54:10.494-04:00Newbie, no, you don't have to go back to schoo...Newbie, no, you don't have to go back to school. But at 45 - I'd just barely begun to really trying to get answers tosome of the questions about evolution that I had. At 84, I still remember clearly how I wondered about how for instance the giraffe got it's long neck. By and by, I realized the power of the mechanism of natural selection, and what I only "recently" have realized finds it's expression in "differential reproductive success within populations". That, it seemes to me, must be a fact of life no matter what idological bias one is bearing.<br /><br />A mechanism like that explains why and how life has been able not only to survive through the wildly shifting conditions on our planet over millions of years, but also to adapt and thrive in the most improbable environments. <br /><br />I find the evidence overwhelming. The alternatives have a lot to explain – which they understandably never do. <br /><br />No, I don't think it would demand more of you than just taking an interest in getting some of the questions sorted out like I have done. Buy some entertaining, good reads like Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful", Neil Shubin’s "Your Inner Fish", Richard Fortey's "Life, An Unauthorized Biography". “The Riddled Chain” by Jeffrey K. McKee deserves mention as well. I prefer books where the author is present instead of the dry, object oriented kind that might as well be written by a robot, like books written for school use.<br /><br />What got me started on this interest of mine was at 13 reading about fossils, particularly human ones, I have found “The First Chimpanzee” by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas especially interesting. I think you might enjoy reading it. It covers many subject details one doesn’t often find in books on human origins research. <br /><br />Right now I am re-reading “Supercontinent” by Ted Nield. He offers a quote from Thomas Henry Huxley: “<br /><br />Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every conceived notion … or you will learn nothing.”<br /><br />That’s what I’ve done all my life. From the very beginning my approach was to go where the evidence would lead withot any desire for any particular outcome: Were the origins of species a result of natural forces at work, or did religious scriptures have a more credible explanation? <br /><br /><br />Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89008545775511642142014-05-05T03:00:24.020-04:002014-05-05T03:00:24.020-04:00I asked Pest to tell us how he knows Witton is in ...I asked Pest to tell us how he knows Witton is in prison for tax evasion. I asked that many times. Pest never answers any questions relevant to the topics he himself raises. Does he think we're so dumb we'll forget how weaselly he has been, every hour of every day? Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53248303267203462042014-05-05T00:50:25.157-04:002014-05-05T00:50:25.157-04:00Quest, I'm so glad you are restraining yoursel...Quest, I'm so glad you are restraining yourself from asking 100 questions. Because we've been trying, hard, to get you to answer one question.<br /><br />It will be found <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/04/branko-kozulic-responds.html?showComment=1397863168149#c3966312676779001070" rel="nofollow">here</a> in the thread "Branko Kozulic responds". I can keep reminding you that you have not answered that question. Sorry you keep forgetting that you were asked it.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36780342997673641382014-05-05T00:35:13.782-04:002014-05-05T00:35:13.782-04:00Quest, In this case. "complete relaxation if ...Quest, In this case. "complete relaxation if natural selection" means that the mutants occur but they do not have their frequencies reduced by natural selection. So each generation more deletrious mutants pile up.<br /><br />Without this imagined "relaxation", natural selection would bring the population into an equilibrium state where as new mutants occur, old ones would be tossed out by natural selection against them. In that equilibrium the fitness is not endlessly declining.<br />Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88564933277818830912014-05-04T20:54:03.963-04:002014-05-04T20:54:03.963-04:00Cubist, I am new to the Sandwalk but it didn't...Cubist, I am new to the Sandwalk but it didn't take me more than two days to figure out that Quest was a knuckledragging moron. <br /><br />Now, if Quest could present a cogent argument for anything, I would be willing to change my opinion. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21624966602674005632014-05-04T20:47:03.246-04:002014-05-04T20:47:03.246-04:00Quest, aside from everything else (and I do mean e...Quest, aside from everything else (and I do mean everything), your numbers are wrong. It isn't 2% of the genome that Larry thinks is functional, it's around 10%. The functional 2 or 10% isn't what's 98% similar, it's the average over the whole genome; the functional 2-10% is more like 99.5% similar.<br /><br />Your more important error is in misinterpreting Lynch, but I'll let Joe explain that if he ever cares to. But there's no real point, as you never understand anything and have no interest in understanding anyway.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77473320964206529042014-05-04T20:46:41.856-04:002014-05-04T20:46:41.856-04:00sez acartia tonsa: Cubist, unfortunately the only ...sez acartia tonsa: <i>Cubist, unfortunately the only evidence that Quest (a misnomer if I ever saw one) would accept is evidence that was contained in a book starting with "in the beginning..."</i><br />I suspect you're right. But as long as Quest insists on reviving his hoary old where's-the-evidence schtick, it will be useful to continue reminding him that he hasn't displayed any indication of what <i>he</i> thinks 'evidence' should be. Which, in turn, will go a long way towards demonstrating to readers whether Quest's objections are based on comprehension of the relevant issues and data, or, instead, whether Quest is just mindlessly shouting "Nuh-uh!" like a tape recorder.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18151738479649791962014-05-04T20:09:53.570-04:002014-05-04T20:09:53.570-04:00Cubist, unfortunately the only evidence that Quest...Cubist, unfortunately the only evidence that Quest (a misnomer if I ever saw one) would accept is evidence that was contained in a book starting with "in the beginning..."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7151127358691824442014-05-04T20:01:24.397-04:002014-05-04T20:01:24.397-04:00sez quest: Joe,
I totally forgot about the evide...sez quest: <i>Joe, <br /><br />I totally forgot about the evidence for the common ape-like ancestors that humans and chimps diverged from... Please remind me where the thread was... if you don't mind..?</i><br />What do you think such evidence would be, Quest? What sort of data do you think would support the proposition that both humans and chimps are descended from an ancestor that the two groups (humans and chimps) share in common? Some people think that there are some detailed similarities between the genetics of the two groups which count as evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor; do you agree that <i>detailed similarities between the genetics of humans and chimps</i> would constitute evidence to support the proposition that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? If you don't agree with that, what sort of data <i>would</i>, in your view, constitute evidence to support the proposition that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52995128780684951372014-05-04T17:18:17.322-04:002014-05-04T17:18:17.322-04:00It's really a shame "Louise G" and &...It's really a shame "Louise G" and "Pauline" are no longer at Sandwalk. If they teamed up with Quest, between the three of them they might manage to have two functioning neurons to rub together.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26308737585964912822014-05-04T17:16:02.984-04:002014-05-04T17:16:02.984-04:00Quest, your ignorance amazes me. The idea that our...Quest, your ignorance amazes me. The idea that our common ancestor with the chimp is extinct is simply the wrong way to look at it. By definition, something that is extinct has no descendants. But there are no shortage of humans and chimps, so there has been no extinction here, just change. <br /><br />The Dodo is extinct. The great Auk is extinct. The dinosaur is extinct (except for the mall offshoot that led to birds).<br /><br />For any organism alive today, there has been no extinction in their lines. <br /><br />If you are going to try to argue a subject, at least obtain theist basic understanding if it. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42030523079224023802014-05-04T17:05:08.676-04:002014-05-04T17:05:08.676-04:00Joe,
Tell us what Lynch means by.."..comple...Joe, <br /><br />Tell us what Lynch means by.."..complete relaxation of natural selection.." and in what context he said it... ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com