****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't know that I can answer the WHY. I'm sure when the Madden 2013 programmers start their programming, they don't start over, they take the existing programming from Madden 2012 and than add to it. But I'm not going to go down that route too far, because I didn't design humans.

What is Windows NT? When things start getting complex in a designed world, good designers absolutely start over to eliminate or at the very least hide that complexity. This is exactly where ID fails. The argument that complexity equals design is completely backwards. Simplicity is the result of design, complexity is the result of systems that are evolved.

I hear you, but ID fails for a lot of reasons, most notably that it isn't a scientific theory. Proponents of ID haven't even bothered to pretend that it's a coherent theory masking as science. Usually the argument boils down to "this is too complex to be described by evolution." See any post by MasterofOrion and his various estates.One of his favorite claims is that the "designer" (coyly not referred to as "God") spontaneously introduced information into the genome of living systems. I don't know if it's been described in more mechanistic detail than that, but I think the idea is that the hallmarks of a "God event" exist if you start looking at things like the Cambrian explosion. The trouble with this specific example is that 1) we don't have DNA from 500-600 million years ago, and 2) the fossil record suggests that this period of rapid evolution was over the span of tens of millions of years (suggestive of a marked increase in evolutionary activity over that time, but not an abrupt step change).

Leaving aside the Cambrian period and its lack of direct genetic evidence, a persistent ID claim is that new species arise because they are designed and directly implemented. From what I have read, how this mechanistically occurs is never articulated, but the argument is that it must be this way because evolution as a theory cannot account for what we observe. This would imply that God -- sorry, the designer -- is continually at work fiddling with the DNA of living things to produce new species and traits all the time. One would assume (I'm not up on the most common claims) that these events would be discrete in nature where you'd find abrupt step-changes in the appearance of species and their corresponding genome. That is, one day something wouldn't exist, and the next day it would exist in grand fashion. Of course, this isn't supported by observation. I think it was an easier idea to float into the mainstream in the day when there were fewer very old fossils to point to (where things do look discrete in a sense due to limited samples), but given the wealth of accessible DNA, we have a much better idea of the progression of life on earth, and certainly we don't see spontaneous appearances of vastly new genomes that show up out of the blue. In fact, one of the most compelling aspects of evolution and the underlying genetics is that there are so many genes and other segments of DNA that are highly conserved, even among seemingly disparate species.

All of this is prelude to the statement that a designer (God, Spaghetti Monster, what have you) would likely leave a definitive stamp of their work in the genetic code. It would be unambiguous and consistent with discrete events. Rather, what we find is this slow progression of accumulated genetic changes that are consistent with the mechanisms that comprise evolution. To think that an intelligent designer would hide their work so carefully so as to appear to be due to an entirely different process that omits a guiding hand is preposterous on its face. In fact, that idea starts to sound a lot like the curious young earth creationist argument that God build the earth to look old. You know, to test our faith.

In science, theories are developed that can potentially be falsified. Evolution is such a theory. The general framework of evolution has persisted for roughly 150 years, even in the absence of genetic theory. Once we added our understanding of DNA, the theory of evolution was dramatically strengthened, especially because it could be tested in countless new ways with very specific expectations. The potential for falsification grew orders of magnitude, yet it persists. Yes, our precise understanding of genetic theory has changed with new discoveries, but the theory as a whole is surprisingly similar to Darwin's first description in 1842. It's an astonishing achievement given the limitations of the available knowledge at the time.

I'm still confused by this suggestion that God shows up to fiddle with DNA every so often. It's a little unnerving, actually.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't know that I can answer the WHY. I'm sure when the Madden 2013 programmers start their programming, they don't start over, they take the existing programming from Madden 2012 and than add to it. But I'm not going to go down that route too far, because I didn't design humans.

What is Windows NT? When things start getting complex in a designed world, good designers absolutely start over to eliminate or at the very least hide that complexity. This is exactly where ID fails. The argument that complexity equals design is completely backwards. Simplicity is the result of design, complexity is the result of systems that are evolved.

I hear you, but ID fails for a lot of reasons, most notably that it isn't a scientific theory. Proponents of ID haven't even bothered to pretend that it's a coherent theory masking as science. Usually the argument boils down to "this is too complex to be described by evolution." See any post by MasterofOrion and his various estates.One of his favorite claims is that the "designer" (coyly not referred to as "God") spontaneously introduced information into the genome of living systems. I don't know if it's been described in more mechanistic detail than that, but I think the idea is that the hallmarks of a "God event" exist if you start looking at things like the Cambrian explosion. The trouble with this specific example is that 1) we don't have DNA from 500-600 million years ago, and 2) the fossil record suggests that this period of rapid evolution was over the span of tens of millions of years (suggestive of a marked increase in evolutionary activity over that time, but not an abrupt step change).

Leaving aside the Cambrian period and its lack of direct genetic evidence, a persistent ID claim is that new species arise because they are designed and directly implemented. From what I have read, how this mechanistically occurs is never articulated, but the argument is that it must be this way because evolution as a theory cannot account for what we observe. This would imply that God -- sorry, the designer -- is continually at work fiddling with the DNA of living things to produce new species and traits all the time. One would assume (I'm not up on the most common claims) that these events would be discrete in nature where you'd find abrupt step-changes in the appearance of species and their corresponding genome. That is, one day something wouldn't exist, and the next day it would exist in grand fashion. Of course, this isn't supported by observation. I think it was an easier idea to float into the mainstream in the day when there were fewer very old fossils to point to (where things do look discrete in a sense due to limited samples), but given the wealth of accessible DNA, we have a much better idea of the progression of life on earth, and certainly we don't see spontaneous appearances of vastly new genomes that show up out of the blue. In fact, one of the most compelling aspects of evolution and the underlying genetics is that there are so many genes and other segments of DNA that are highly conserved, even among seemingly disparate species.

All of this is prelude to the statement that a designer (God, Spaghetti Monster, what have you) would likely leave a definitive stamp of their work in the genetic code. It would be unambiguous and consistent with discrete events. Rather, what we find is this slow progression of accumulated genetic changes that are consistent with the mechanisms that comprise evolution. To think that an intelligent designer would hide their work so carefully so as to appear to be due to an entirely different process that omits a guiding hand is preposterous on its face. In fact, that idea starts to sound a lot like the curious young earth creationist argument that God build the earth to look old. You know, to test our faith.

In science, theories are developed that can potentially be falsified. Evolution is such a theory. The general framework of evolution has persisted for roughly 150 years, even in the absence of genetic theory. Once we added our understanding of DNA, the theory of evolution was dramatically strengthened, especially because it could be tested in countless new ways with very specific expectations. The potential for falsification grew orders of magnitude, yet it persists. Yes, our precise understanding of genetic theory has changed with new discoveries, but the theory as a whole is surprisingly similar to Darwin's first description in 1842. It's an astonishing achievement given the limitations of the available knowledge at the time.

I'm still confused by this suggestion that God shows up to fiddle with DNA every so often. It's a little unnerving, actually.

Like I said early on, ID is not only bad science (OK, it is not science at all) but it is also bad theology.

 

[bentley]

Bill Nye the science guy

(Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!)

Science rules!

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm a rodeo clown in this discussion, but if I may dismiss MoO and be serious for a moment, I have a question about evolutionary theory.

Is there an end game to evolution? I'm pretty sure I asked this question years ago and Shining Path's response was, in brief, that evolution has no end game and that it just meanders indefinitely, randomly. My intuitive thought still, it seems that there must be an end game, especially as technology races along. At some point will randomness yield to technological will? Might we evolve into "God"?

Hey, who drank my beer?!

 

[sn0mm1s]

I'm a rodeo clown in this discussion, but if I may dismiss MoO and be serious for a moment, I have a question about evolutionary theory. Is there an end game to evolution? I'm pretty sure I asked this question years ago and Shining Path's response was, in brief, that evolution has no end game and that it just meanders indefinitely, randomly. My intuitive thought still, it seems that there must be an end game, especially as technology races along. At some point will randomness yield to technological will? Might we evolve into "God"? Hey, who drank my beer?!

In short, there is no end game. However, with technology, we may see feats deemed impossible done routinely by humans in the future.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I don't know that I can answer the WHY. I'm sure when the Madden 2013 programmers start their programming, they don't start over, they take the existing programming from Madden 2012 and than add to it. But I'm not going to go down that route too far, because I didn't design humans.

What is Windows NT? When things start getting complex in a designed world, good designers absolutely start over to eliminate or at the very least hide that complexity. This is exactly where ID fails. The argument that complexity equals design is completely backwards. Simplicity is the result of design, complexity is the result of systems that are evolved.

I hear you, but ID fails for a lot of reasons, most notably that it isn't a scientific theory. Proponents of ID haven't even bothered to pretend that it's a coherent theory masking as science. Usually the argument boils down to "this is too complex to be described by evolution." See any post by MasterofOrion and his various estates.One of his favorite claims is that the "designer" (coyly not referred to as "God") spontaneously introduced information into the genome of living systems. I don't know if it's been described in more mechanistic detail than that, but I think the idea is that the hallmarks of a "God event" exist if you start looking at things like the Cambrian explosion. The trouble with this specific example is that 1) we don't have DNA from 500-600 million years ago, and 2) the fossil record suggests that this period of rapid evolution was over the span of tens of millions of years (suggestive of a marked increase in evolutionary activity over that time, but not an abrupt step change).

Leaving aside the Cambrian period and its lack of direct genetic evidence, a persistent ID claim is that new species arise because they are designed and directly implemented. From what I have read, how this mechanistically occurs is never articulated, but the argument is that it must be this way because evolution as a theory cannot account for what we observe. This would imply that God -- sorry, the designer -- is continually at work fiddling with the DNA of living things to produce new species and traits all the time. One would assume (I'm not up on the most common claims) that these events would be discrete in nature where you'd find abrupt step-changes in the appearance of species and their corresponding genome. That is, one day something wouldn't exist, and the next day it would exist in grand fashion. Of course, this isn't supported by observation. I think it was an easier idea to float into the mainstream in the day when there were fewer very old fossils to point to (where things do look discrete in a sense due to limited samples), but given the wealth of accessible DNA, we have a much better idea of the progression of life on earth, and certainly we don't see spontaneous appearances of vastly new genomes that show up out of the blue. In fact, one of the most compelling aspects of evolution and the underlying genetics is that there are so many genes and other segments of DNA that are highly conserved, even among seemingly disparate species.

All of this is prelude to the statement that a designer (God, Spaghetti Monster, what have you) would likely leave a definitive stamp of their work in the genetic code. It would be unambiguous and consistent with discrete events. Rather, what we find is this slow progression of accumulated genetic changes that are consistent with the mechanisms that comprise evolution. To think that an intelligent designer would hide their work so carefully so as to appear to be due to an entirely different process that omits a guiding hand is preposterous on its face. In fact, that idea starts to sound a lot like the curious young earth creationist argument that God build the earth to look old. You know, to test our faith.

In science, theories are developed that can potentially be falsified. Evolution is such a theory. The general framework of evolution has persisted for roughly 150 years, even in the absence of genetic theory. Once we added our understanding of DNA, the theory of evolution was dramatically strengthened, especially because it could be tested in countless new ways with very specific expectations. The potential for falsification grew orders of magnitude, yet it persists. Yes, our precise understanding of genetic theory has changed with new discoveries, but the theory as a whole is surprisingly similar to Darwin's first description in 1842. It's an astonishing achievement given the limitations of the available knowledge at the time.

I'm still confused by this suggestion that God shows up to fiddle with DNA every so often. It's a little unnerving, actually.

This post is nothing more than hand waving. We get from point A to point B (wave hands) by evolution did it. For example, when you state that Cambrian is just rapid evolutionary activity, is trivializing and something we hand-wave away. In Cambrian we find that it is anything but trivial, We see:
[*]10 million years in a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms: In this 10 million years almost all the of the advanced phyla appeared including echinoderms, chordates, annelids, brachiopods, mollusks and a many arthropods;

[*]It was a dramatic origin of major new body structures and body planes from simple multicellular soft body forms which mostly have been characterized as cnidarians and sponges. Body plans found in Cambrian, on the other hand have nervous systems, reproductive systems(male and female), brains, skeletal structures, eyes, digestive systems... None of which is trivial.

The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms, requires explanations that go beyond those proposed byevolution and simply should not be hand-waved away.

The hand wavingcontinues when you state (or whomever you obtained this from):

what we find is this slow progression of accumulatedgenetic changes that are consistent with the mechanisms that comprise evolution... what we find is this slow progression of accumulated genetic changes thatare consistent with the mechanisms that comprise evolution.

This is simply not true. We don't see spontaneous appearances of vastly new genomes that show upout of the blue. What the fossil record showsis:

[*]Species remain unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly replaced by a very different forms;

[*]Most major groups of animals appear abruptly, fully formed, in the fossil record with no transition fossils, yet discovered, from their parent group.

Then you state that evolution is theory that can be dis-proven yet has been proven, and can be "tested in countless ways" (handwaving). Then you point to DNA.as being conserved as proof.

The latest discovery of ENCODE and epigenetics shows how specious that argument is. First junk DNA has been an evolutionary icon. Evolutionist have beenusing junk DNA as proof that evolution is true and I.D. is false for years (tested in countless ways). For example evolutionist have stated:

[*]Why would a designer fill our chromosomes with so much redundancy? That would be surprising given the hypothesis of design but would make perfect sense under a Darwinian framework, where such sequences can be understood to be "the remains of nature's experiments which failed".

[*]That life is an entirely blind and unguided natural process which fits with the observation most DNA is without function, and

[*]Why would God copy junk sequences?

Well that test or proof has just been blown to smithereens.

So the idea that , as an example, that 98%genome similarity between humans and chimpanzees implies that all that isneeded is a 2% difference of DNA to account for the 100's of morphological differences between man and chimp. Thisis simple, evolution can do that (hand-waving). But what we see in epigentics (ENCODE) is that this conserved DNA isn'tnearly as important as what we thought. That the difference between species is how the genes are applied, or regulated, using "gene regulatorynetworks" which is found in thejunk DNA. That stretches of non-coding DNA really are functional. This is a fundamental paradigm shift that evolution did not predict or test but rather eschewed. Rather , what we are finding is that life is designed, and that we should and do find engineering purposes wherever we look. While the paradigm of evolutionary naturalism discourages and hinders the search for function, the ID paradigm actively encourages it

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Bruce> Some friendly advice. If you really want people to believe this theory of yours, you'd be much better off just saying 'god did it' and walking away. The more you post, the more ridiculous it looks. You're not helping your cause.

 

[mad sweeney]

Bruce> Some friendly advice. If you really want people to believe this theory of yours, you'd be much better off just saying 'god did it' and walking away. The more you post, the more ridiculous it looks. You're not helping your cause.

He's got a great point. Bruceatay obviously correctly states that any incongruities are easily and falsely waved away by alleged scientist saying 'evolution did it'. It's absurd to think in such an unscientific catch all way, when clearly all the evidence clearly says God did it.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Bruce, I'm pretty certain that scientists working on the ENCODE project wouldn't agree with your conclusions that it supports design. It's always amusing to me when you take a legitimate study and then assert that it supports exactly the opposite of what you suggest. You need to stop representing what geneticists and evolutionary biologists think. You're their worst spokesperson.

There is no richer irony than you suggesting that evolution is "hand waving." Yes, the precise genetic mechanisms that underpin the theory of evolution are "hand waving." It's like part of your brain is switching off here. The very definition of ID is hand waving. God did it. God can do anything. Nothing is inconsistent with God doing stuff because, well, it's God.

For me, the only really interesting aspect of your views is how you think ID is operating. It seems that creationists feel very comfortable attempting to seed doubt by misrepresenting the science, but they are loathe to discuss what they think is actually happening in precise detail. Your assertion is, I think, that God makes changes to the genome of living things to produce new features and entirely new species.. even new phyla! The favorite topic of conversation is the Cambrian explosion where there was a dramatic increase in the appearance of new phyla over a relatively short time period (as "short" as 70-80 million years can be). I mentioned that examination of this period is difficult given that we lack genetic material from these organisms, so it's impossible to study the mechanism of this diversification in any detail. The exact rate of diversification and the true nature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter of debate. Much of the difficulty resides in having limited fossil material to examine, and certainly the lack of genetic evidence from that period doesn't help.

If God (or whatever) is actively manipulating life, it's more interesting to look at recent evidence since we can rigorously examine and test it. I'm curious what evidence there is of a spontaneous appearance of a new species or even trait which we can point to changes in the genome and say "we have no idea how this happened." Such evidence does not exist, yet it's central to the ID argument. These changes appear gradually, just as they did in the Cambrian, and consistent with understood genetic mechanisms.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

You can't even acknowledge that I'm a chemical engineer (skulked away from a $10,000 bet). You flatly denied that PNAS was a "multidisciplinary" journal despite it being plainly posted on their webpage. You claimed your former username was actually not you but some guy that died, and you handled his estate.

And you're admitted plagiarist. So..

 

[MasterofOrion]

Bruce, I'm pretty certain that scientists working on the ENCODE project wouldn't agree with your conclusions that it supports design. It's always amusing to me when you take a legitimate study and then assert that it supports exactly the opposite of what you suggest. You need to stop representing what geneticists and evolutionary biologists think. You're their worst spokesperson.

There is no richer irony than you suggesting that evolution is "hand waving." Yes, the precise genetic mechanisms that underpin the theory of evolution are "hand waving." It's like part of your brain is switching off here. The very definition of ID is hand waving. God did it. God can do anything. Nothing is inconsistent with God doing stuff because, well, it's God.

For me, the only really interesting aspect of your views is how you think ID is operating. It seems that creationists feel very comfortable attempting to seed doubt by misrepresenting the science, but they are loathe to discuss what they think is actually happening in precise detail.

It does not say exactly the opposite of what I am saying . You do that a lot. Make categorical, matter of fact statements that are not true. I linked the articles and videos , That isn't misrepresenting their POV. So if you disagree with what I post, back it up with the literature.

This call to authority crap isn't working.

Your assertion is, I think, that God makes changes to the genome of living things to produce new features and entirely new species.. even new phyla! The favorite topic of conversation is the Cambrian explosion where there was a dramatic increase in the appearance of new phyla over a relatively short time period (as "short" as 70-80 million years can be). I mentioned that examination of this period is difficult given that we lack genetic material from these organisms, so it's impossible to study the mechanism of this diversification in any detail. The exact rate of diversification and the true nature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter of debate. Much of the difficulty resides in having limited fossil material to examine, and certainly the lack of genetic evidence from that period doesn't help.

You backed into the salient issue by accident. The fossil record does notshow transition fossils from Precambrian to Cambrian. Your statement of "The exact rate of diversification and the truenature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter ofdebate. " is just another call to authority. There is no linkage from Ediacaran to Cambrian - none. This article shows we have found many Pre-Cambrian fossils (Ediacaran). What is interesting is they are calling this Ediacaran Explosion Link. The fossil record shows that life explodes on to the scene, it doesn't transition gradually.

If God (or whatever) is actively manipulating life, it's more interesting to look at recent evidence since we can rigorously examine and test it. I'm curious what evidence there is of a spontaneous appearance of a new species or even trait which we can point to changes in the genome and say "we have no idea how this happened." Such evidence does not exist, yet it's central to the ID argument. These changes appear gradually, just as they did in the Cambrian, and consistent with understood genetic mechanisms.

You use the "callto authority' logical fallacy as a rebuttal all the time. The problem is you are usually factuallywrong.

 

[Mario Kart]

Moo, is English your native language?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Bruce, I'm pretty certain that scientists working on the ENCODE project wouldn't agree with your conclusions that it supports design. It's always amusing to me when you take a legitimate study and then assert that it supports exactly the opposite of what you suggest. You need to stop representing what geneticists and evolutionary biologists think. You're their worst spokesperson.

There is no richer irony than you suggesting that evolution is "hand waving." Yes, the precise genetic mechanisms that underpin the theory of evolution are "hand waving." It's like part of your brain is switching off here. The very definition of ID is hand waving. God did it. God can do anything. Nothing is inconsistent with God doing stuff because, well, it's God.

For me, the only really interesting aspect of your views is how you think ID is operating. It seems that creationists feel very comfortable attempting to seed doubt by misrepresenting the science, but they are loathe to discuss what they think is actually happening in precise detail.

It does not say exactly the opposite of what I am saying . You do that a lot. Make categorical, matter of fact statements that are not true. I linked the articles and videos , That isn't misrepresenting their POV. So if you disagree with what I post, back it up with the literature.

This call to authority crap isn't working.

Your assertion is, I think, that God makes changes to the genome of living things to produce new features and entirely new species.. even new phyla! The favorite topic of conversation is the Cambrian explosion where there was a dramatic increase in the appearance of new phyla over a relatively short time period (as "short" as 70-80 million years can be). I mentioned that examination of this period is difficult given that we lack genetic material from these organisms, so it's impossible to study the mechanism of this diversification in any detail. The exact rate of diversification and the true nature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter of debate. Much of the difficulty resides in having limited fossil material to examine, and certainly the lack of genetic evidence from that period doesn't help.

You backed into the salient issue by accident. The fossil record does notshow transition fossils from Precambrian to Cambrian. Your statement of "The exact rate of diversification and the truenature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter ofdebate. " is just another call to authority. There is no linkage from Ediacaran to Cambrian - none. This article shows we have found many Pre-Cambrian fossils (Ediacaran). What is interesting is they are calling this Ediacaran Explosion Link. The fossil record shows that life explodes on to the scene, it doesn't transition gradually.

If God (or whatever) is actively manipulating life, it's more interesting to look at recent evidence since we can rigorously examine and test it. I'm curious what evidence there is of a spontaneous appearance of a new species or even trait which we can point to changes in the genome and say "we have no idea how this happened." Such evidence does not exist, yet it's central to the ID argument. These changes appear gradually, just as they did in the Cambrian, and consistent with understood genetic mechanisms.

You use the "callto authority' logical fallacy as a rebuttal all the time. The problem is you are usually factuallywrong.

It's not a logical fallacy. You're plainly wrong about your representation of the science.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

If God (or whatever) is actively manipulating life, it's more interesting to look at recent evidence since we can rigorously examine and test it. I'm curious what evidence there is of a spontaneous appearance of a new species or even trait which we can point to changes in the genome and say "we have no idea how this happened." Such evidence does not exist, yet it's central to the ID argument. These changes appear gradually, just as they did in the Cambrian, and consistent with understood genetic mechanisms.

This is really the only aspect of our conversation that I'm interested in. Discussing fossils is pointless, as is the literature. I'm curious how you think god is manipulating life today.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Bruce, I'm pretty certain that scientists working on the ENCODE project wouldn't agree with your conclusions that it supports design. It's always amusing to me when you take a legitimate study and then assert that it supports exactly the opposite of what you suggest. You need to stop representing what geneticists and evolutionary biologists think. You're their worst spokesperson.

There is no richer irony than you suggesting that evolution is "hand waving." Yes, the precise genetic mechanisms that underpin the theory of evolution are "hand waving." It's like part of your brain is switching off here. The very definition of ID is hand waving. God did it. God can do anything. Nothing is inconsistent with God doing stuff because, well, it's God.

For me, the only really interesting aspect of your views is how you think ID is operating. It seems that creationists feel very comfortable attempting to seed doubt by misrepresenting the science, but they are loathe to discuss what they think is actually happening in precise detail.

It does not say exactly the opposite of what I am saying . You do that a lot. Make categorical, matter of fact statements that are not true. I linked the articles and videos , That isn't misrepresenting their POV. So if you disagree with what I post, back it up with the literature.

This call to authority crap isn't working.

Your assertion is, I think, that God makes changes to the genome of living things to produce new features and entirely new species.. even new phyla! The favorite topic of conversation is the Cambrian explosion where there was a dramatic increase in the appearance of new phyla over a relatively short time period (as "short" as 70-80 million years can be). I mentioned that examination of this period is difficult given that we lack genetic material from these organisms, so it's impossible to study the mechanism of this diversification in any detail. The exact rate of diversification and the true nature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter of debate. Much of the difficulty resides in having limited fossil material to examine, and certainly the lack of genetic evidence from that period doesn't help.

You backed into the salient issue by accident. The fossil record does notshow transition fossils from Precambrian to Cambrian. Your statement of "The exact rate of diversification and the truenature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter ofdebate. " is just another call to authority. There is no linkage from Ediacaran to Cambrian - none. This article shows we have found many Pre-Cambrian fossils (Ediacaran). What is interesting is they are calling this Ediacaran Explosion Link. The fossil record shows that life explodes on to the scene, it doesn't transition gradually.

If God (or whatever) is actively manipulating life, it's more interesting to look at recent evidence since we can rigorously examine and test it. I'm curious what evidence there is of a spontaneous appearance of a new species or even trait which we can point to changes in the genome and say "we have no idea how this happened." Such evidence does not exist, yet it's central to the ID argument. These changes appear gradually, just as they did in the Cambrian, and consistent with understood genetic mechanisms.

You use the "callto authority' logical fallacy as a rebuttal all the time. The problem is you are usually factuallywrong.

It's not a logical fallacy. You're plainly wrong about your representation of the science.

Is post deals with a common form of informal argument, particularly in its use as a fallacy known as the Argument from Authority, also referred to as the Appeal to Virtue.

This particular form of argument attempts to assert the truth of a claim by calling upon supposed — but sometimes misleading or irrelevant, sometimes even false — qualifications, virtues, and certifications of the one making the claim to ‘prove’ the claim true, irrespective of logic and real evidence. This argument in both valid and fallacious usage usually has the following format:

Person A has apparent or claimed qualifications Q. Person A says that X is true. Therefore X is true. Note that the valid form of this argument attaches the qualifier ‘probably’ to the alleged truth of claim X, since in valid informal reasoning the truth of a claim cannot follow necessarily or be known with certainty.

You are person A.

 

[Radio Free Homer]

I think Person A is Jebus.

 

[Mario Kart]

Let's bring this "debate" back to some basics. Let us forget about genetics talk, chemical engineering and anything else that has to do with The Theory of Evolution. When I say lets bring it back to basics, I am talking about bringing it back to what Darwin observed and, possibly, how he developed his theory. Obviously, Darwin did not have the luxury of DNA or its makeup. Darwin simply went on observation and what he previously knew. Darwin may have known about Mendel and what he was doing, not sure if he did, but the times overlap a little bit. Darwin, though, made his observations without much else concrete.

Now, lets look at some simple observations that everyone can make today just like Darwin made at that time. A finch in one place looks a little different than a finch in another place. The finches are separated by nothing more than a water way. There are different food sources however those are not overly dramatic either but they are different. One finch has a different beak but it works with its food source. The other finch has a different beak but it works with its food source. But, they are both finches. So, why the difference?

Fast forward the thought process a little and compare it to humans versus Chimps or Bonobos. Humans closely resemble either with similar hands, feet, head, jaw, teeth, biology and so on. We can see this. No one would argue that we are more similar than, say, humans to a dog or giraffe. With careful observation we can interact with a variety of "apes" and, fast forwarding, we can communicate with them. Surely, there has to be more to the stories of a finch and of a human.

Now, I am not too familiar with scripture, meaning I cannot quote a psalm to you nor can I quote anything from the Koran or other books of scripture. However, what I do know is that in no text do any of them come close to telling its followers that humans resemble or share a common ancestor with any kind of ape. Most, if not all, are pretty clear that humans are unique but more importantly created based on a deity be it God, Allah, Xenu or whoever.

I believe I pretty much broke this stuff down to the most basic forms of what they are. The Theory of Evolution began with observation and was constructed as such. Other organisms were then filled in to "test" the theory to see if it would work in other scenarios. The idea of creation comes from religious scripture, plain and simple.

So, my question to Master of Orion or others is, "is there any part of the above that is disagreeable? Is there anything in the most basic form of The Theory of Evolution that is unfounded or completely incorrect in your views?" Forget everything about genetics and Mendel and other thoughts that can be interjected. Is there anything with the above that is debatable?

 

[matuski]

Bruce, I'm pretty certain that scientists working on the ENCODE project wouldn't agree with your conclusions that it supports design. It's always amusing to me when you take a legitimate study and then assert that it supports exactly the opposite of what you suggest. You need to stop representing what geneticists and evolutionary biologists think. You're their worst spokesperson.

There is no richer irony than you suggesting that evolution is "hand waving." Yes, the precise genetic mechanisms that underpin the theory of evolution are "hand waving." It's like part of your brain is switching off here. The very definition of ID is hand waving. God did it. God can do anything. Nothing is inconsistent with God doing stuff because, well, it's God.

For me, the only really interesting aspect of your views is how you think ID is operating. It seems that creationists feel very comfortable attempting to seed doubt by misrepresenting the science, but they are loathe to discuss what they think is actually happening in precise detail.

It does not say exactly the opposite of what I am saying . You do that a lot. Make categorical, matter of fact statements that are not true. I linked the articles and videos , That isn't misrepresenting their POV. So if you disagree with what I post, back it up with the literature.

This call to authority crap isn't working.

Your assertion is, I think, that God makes changes to the genome of living things to produce new features and entirely new species.. even new phyla! The favorite topic of conversation is the Cambrian explosion where there was a dramatic increase in the appearance of new phyla over a relatively short time period (as "short" as 70-80 million years can be). I mentioned that examination of this period is difficult given that we lack genetic material from these organisms, so it's impossible to study the mechanism of this diversification in any detail. The exact rate of diversification and the true nature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter of debate. Much of the difficulty resides in having limited fossil material to examine, and certainly the lack of genetic evidence from that period doesn't help.

You backed into the salient issue by accident. The fossil record does notshow transition fossils from Precambrian to Cambrian. Your statement of "The exact rate of diversification and the truenature of this being an "explosion" in new phyla is still a matter ofdebate. " is just another call to authority. There is no linkage from Ediacaran to Cambrian - none. This article shows we have found many Pre-Cambrian fossils (Ediacaran). What is interesting is they are calling this Ediacaran Explosion Link. The fossil record shows that life explodes on to the scene, it doesn't transition gradually.

If God (or whatever) is actively manipulating life, it's more interesting to look at recent evidence since we can rigorously examine and test it. I'm curious what evidence there is of a spontaneous appearance of a new species or even trait which we can point to changes in the genome and say "we have no idea how this happened." Such evidence does not exist, yet it's central to the ID argument. These changes appear gradually, just as they did in the Cambrian, and consistent with understood genetic mechanisms.

You use the "callto authority' logical fallacy as a rebuttal all the time. The problem is you are usually factuallywrong.

It's not a logical fallacy. You're plainly wrong about your representation of the science.

Is post deals with a common form of informal argument, particularly in its use as a fallacy known as the Argument from Authority, also referred to as the Appeal to Virtue.

This particular form of argument attempts to assert the truth of a claim by calling upon supposed — but sometimes misleading or irrelevant, sometimes even false — qualifications, virtues, and certifications of the one making the claim to 'prove' the claim true, irrespective of logic and real evidence. This argument in both valid and fallacious usage usually has the following format:

Person A has apparent or claimed qualifications Q. Person A says that X is true. Therefore X is true. Note that the valid form of this argument attaches the qualifier 'probably' to the alleged truth of claim X, since in valid informal reasoning the truth of a claim cannot follow necessarily or be known with certainty.

You are person A.

You really can't even argue logical fallacies without cut and paste? Embarassing.

 

[Woogie Lee]

“Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.” Bertrand Russell.

Enough of this.

You don't need to know anything about reason or science to call other people names or cheer on the bullies as they beat up the ######ed kid.

You don't need to adopt reason and science to be an atheist.

What are you going to do....unplug his internets???

 

[Marvin]

BOOM

 

[Cliff Clavin]

BOOM

I'd love to hear Bruce's take on this.

 

[matuski]

BOOM

Cool.

 

[CBusAlex]

“It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed,” he said. “Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed.”

Sounds like it meets MoO's definition for "specified information". And since the only known source for specified information is intelligence, all this proves is that God personally caused the mutation. Congrats on proving God's existance, Science!

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Predicted response: Lenski is acting as the designer in his experiments. He is also a known atheist who is pushing an atheistic agenda.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Predicted response: Lenski is acting as the designer in his experiments.

On a serious note, citrate-eating bacteria don't create new information; on the contrary, they destroy whatever information was contained in the citrate.Dr. Lenski's experiment therefore presents a major blow to evolutionary theory.

 

[matuski]

Predicted response: Lenski is acting as the designer in his experiments.

On a serious note, citrate-eating bacteria don't create new information; on the contrary, they destroy whatever information was contained in the citrate.Dr. Lenski's experiment therefore presents a major blow to evolutionary theory.

Can you explain this further?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Predicted response: Lenski is acting as the designer in his experiments.

On a serious note, citrate-eating bacteria don't create new information; on the contrary, they destroy whatever information was contained in the citrate.Dr. Lenski's experiment therefore presents a major blow to evolutionary theory.

Can you explain this further?

Yes. He's not being serious.

 

[matuski]

Predicted response: Lenski is acting as the designer in his experiments.

On a serious note, citrate-eating bacteria don't create new information; on the contrary, they destroy whatever information was contained in the citrate.Dr. Lenski's experiment therefore presents a major blow to evolutionary theory.

Can you explain this further?

Yes. He's not being serious.

I've learned a lot from MT over the years. And you as well.

 

[Marvin]

Predicted response: Lenski is acting as the designer in his experiments. He is also a known atheist who is pushing an atheistic agenda.

My response would be "Lenski sounds like a Pollock name. What does he know?"

 

[fatness]

BOOM

“The first citrate-eaters were just barely able to grow on the citrate, but they got much better over time."

Citrate Eaters 3

 

[SacramentoBob]

I don't live under Jewish law. The old Testamemt to me served as a foreshadow of the coming of Christ, not as a book of requirements which must be followed. Jesus fulfilled all the requirement s of the Old Testament.

You do realize that pretty much all the anti-whatever by the Christian crowd is based on Old Testament law? Are you throwing out all of Exodus and Leviticus or just the parts that don't fit your current world view?

Welcome to Christianity, aka Having It Both Ways

The Burger King of religions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When it comes to respect for science, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of degree, not of kind. Each party has people who appreciate science and people who shun it. There are people on the left who are as anti-science as anyone on the right. The lefties who deride belief in DNA are an easy example, but not the only one.

C'mon now, MT. There is a widespread anti-evolution contingent among conservatives - 46%(!!!!) of Americans believe in creationism. I've never even heard of the DNA skepticism you linked to.

Exactly. I think over 50% of Republicans, including prominent officeholders, think climate change is a hoax. Maurile's example isn't in the same universe.

It's not like Democrats, including prominent officeholders, are known for getting everything right about climate change. What percentage of Democrats substantially overestimate the number of inches that sea levels are expected to rise in the next century, or the number of degrees centigrade the average global temperature is expected to increase, or the severity of the likely effects on worldwide agriculture?

Democrats don't accept global warming because they are neutral arbiters of objective science. They accept global warming because they hate oil companies but love trees. (That's an oversimplification, but so is the idea that Republicans reject global warming for mirror-image reasons.)

How many people on the left believe that homosexuals make up 10% of the population, or that human races don't exist, or that chakras are anything real?

I'm not saying that the left is as bad as the right. The right is worse, probably because of its greater religious influence. I'm just saying that the left isn't exactly in a position to be casting stones.

Jonah Goldberg lists a few topics where people on the left are more anti-science than people on the right, including:

The heritability of intelligence.

The distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve.

The harmfulness of GMOs.

(Again, I'm not suggesting that there's an equivalence between the left and right.)

 

[joffer]

When it comes to respect for science, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of degree, not of kind. Each party has people who appreciate science and people who shun it. There are people on the left who are as anti-science as anyone on the right. The lefties who deride belief in DNA are an easy example, but not the only one.

C'mon now, MT. There is a widespread anti-evolution contingent among conservatives - 46%(!!!!) of Americans believe in creationism. I've never even heard of the DNA skepticism you linked to.

Exactly. I think over 50% of Republicans, including prominent officeholders, think climate change is a hoax. Maurile's example isn't in the same universe.

It's not like Democrats, including prominent officeholders, are known for getting everything right about climate change. What percentage of Democrats substantially overestimate the number of inches that sea levels are expected to rise in the next century, or the number of degrees centigrade the average global temperature is expected to increase, or the severity of the likely effects on worldwide agriculture?

Democrats don't accept global warming because they are neutral arbiters of objective science. They accept global warming because they hate oil companies but love trees. (That's an oversimplification, but so is the idea that Republicans reject global warming for mirror-image reasons.)

How many people on the left believe that homosexuals make up 10% of the population, or that human races don't exist, or that chakras are anything real?

I'm not saying that the left is as bad as the right. The right is worse, probably because of its greater religious influence. I'm just saying that the left isn't exactly in a position to be casting stones.

Jonah Goldberg lists a few topics where people on the left are more anti-science than people on the right, including:

The heritability of intelligence.

The distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve.

The harmfulness of GMOs.

(Again, I'm not suggesting that there's an equivalence between the left and right.)

are there studies or polling data that he cites? I didn't see any in the link. don't doubt the GMO one, but I'm curious about the other two.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When it comes to respect for science, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of degree, not of kind. Each party has people who appreciate science and people who shun it. There are people on the left who are as anti-science as anyone on the right. The lefties who deride belief in DNA are an easy example, but not the only one.

C'mon now, MT. There is a widespread anti-evolution contingent among conservatives - 46%(!!!!) of Americans believe in creationism. I've never even heard of the DNA skepticism you linked to.

Exactly. I think over 50% of Republicans, including prominent officeholders, think climate change is a hoax. Maurile's example isn't in the same universe.

It's not like Democrats, including prominent officeholders, are known for getting everything right about climate change. What percentage of Democrats substantially overestimate the number of inches that sea levels are expected to rise in the next century, or the number of degrees centigrade the average global temperature is expected to increase, or the severity of the likely effects on worldwide agriculture?

Democrats don't accept global warming because they are neutral arbiters of objective science. They accept global warming because they hate oil companies but love trees. (That's an oversimplification, but so is the idea that Republicans reject global warming for mirror-image reasons.)

How many people on the left believe that homosexuals make up 10% of the population, or that human races don't exist, or that chakras are anything real?

I'm not saying that the left is as bad as the right. The right is worse, probably because of its greater religious influence. I'm just saying that the left isn't exactly in a position to be casting stones.

Jonah Goldberg lists a few topics where people on the left are more anti-science than people on the right, including:

The heritability of intelligence.

The distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve.

The harmfulness of GMOs.

(Again, I'm not suggesting that there's an equivalence between the left and right.)

are there studies or polling data that he cites? I didn't see any in the link. don't doubt the GMO one, but I'm curious about the other two.

I don't think we need studies or polling data. On the second one, for example, consider the hot water that Larry Summers got into at Harvard. The criticism was not coming from the right.

 

[joffer]

According to this article, it's fracking and nuclear power - http://www.psypost.org/2015/02/liberals-conservatives-anti-science-biases-study-finds-31626

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No schtick, the people sitting next to me right now are discussing what it takes to be considered a chemical engineer. "If you just study chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're not a chemical engineer." I will keep you updated...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"There are two types of chemists. Those with OCD, and those who understand reagents."