Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:33 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Useful scientific resources to silence fools 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Thread Flintstone


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 880
Thanks: 41
Thanked: 504 times in 383 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Here is a website that insists that ID is scientific:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/wh ... 75281.html

The author states:

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence."

So, first off, according to this guy, ID cannot be applied to all natural phenomena, only some. This is essentially an admission that ID is a pile of crap. Their main argument against standard science is that it is incomplete and has a lot of holes and then turn around and admit their "theory" can only explain "some natural phenomena."

He then goes onto say that this type of phenomenon has parallels in the human sphere in which the cause is intelligence. There is a problem with this as well. It goes backwards. Those who argue for the existence of god always have to load the argument. God's existence is always presupposed in some manner. One common way is the following: "If there is no god, then how did the universe come from nothing?" Anytime you resort to "If there is no god, then..." you're presupposing god's existence and that is invalid. You have to argue from A to B not starting at B and working your back to A to arrive at B. In the above statement, we find more the same of tiresome BS: "we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence" is just another way of saying "If god doesn't exist, then..."

But let's go on.

ID uses a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information

The theory of intelligent design begins with observations of how intelligent agents act when they design things. Human intelligence provides a large empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent agents. This present-day observation-based dataset establishes cause-and-effect relationships between intelligent action and certain types of information. William Dembski observes that "[t]he principle characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice."15 Dembski calls ID "a theory of information" where "information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation."16 A cause-and-effect relationship can be established between mind and information. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, the "creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity."17

The most commonly cited type of "information" that reliably indicates design is "specified complexity." As Dembski writes, "the defining feature of intelligent causes is their ability to create novel information and, in particular, specified complexity."18 Though the terms were not originally coined by an ID proponent, Dembski suggests that design can be detected when one finds a rare or highly unlikely event (making it complex) which conforms to an independently derived pattern (making it specified). ID proponents call this complex and specified information, or "CSI."


Demski was getting at DNA. DNA is too complex to be a chance operation, he argues. Its CSI argues in favor of a designer. As Dawkins points out, this requires a designer that is at least as complex and so we get stuck in an infinite regression of who designed the designer and who designed the designer that designed the designer. Again, this is the same old loaded argument and hence it is invalid and therefore cannot be scientific. It is also woefully arbitrary--Demski sets himself up as the guy who gets to call what in nature is too complex to be a product of natural processes (1 in 10 to the 150th power) and what isn't. Well, who died and made him boss?

IDers have yet to prove anything about what they assert. Asserting over and over again doesn't make it so. This is really the bottom line--prove something. Show us the designer. Don't show us what you say is his handiwork, show us the designer. That is the most fatal flaw of their argument. You can say DNA is millions of times more complex than a watch, both serve a specific function and since one was designed then the other is designed. But how do we know watches are designed? Because there are watchmakers--they are all over the world and you can meet one anytime you want to. So where is the designer of DNA? Suppose no one had ever seen a watchmaker, had never met one, had never seen a watchmaker's shop or factory, never met anyone who supplied parts and materials to watchmakers and yet watches keep turning up. Could we honestly know that watches are intelligently designed? No. But they are used for telling time so they have a purpose! WE gave it that purpose. Without talking to a watchmaker, we can't know what they were made for or how they were made. So the problem with DNA is far worse. Watches at least are made of materials you simply can't find in nature but DNA is not. Without a designer to communicate with, we have no option but conclude that DNA is the product of a natural process and CSI doesn't contribute anything useful to that conclusion.

So there it is, IDers. Stop loading your arguments. Put up or shut up. If there is a designer then introduce him/her/it to us. If you can't then you have no argument to put forth. The rest of the article is really more the same. It's not hard to refute ID articles no matter how scholarly they may appear because they are relying on an invalid argument and therefore the people writing are not scholars. They just like to think they are just as they insist there is a designer for no other reason than because they want there to be a designer.



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
geo
Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:11 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4530
Location: NC
Thanks: 1982
Thanked: 2040 times in 1526 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann 5 wrote:
geo wrote:
J. G. M. "Hans" Thewissen, a leading researcher in the field of whale paleontology and anatomy, who has published dozens of articles and books, might be the world's foremost expert on whale evolution. And you go with Dr. Carl Werner, a Creationist filmmaker who alleges that some of the exhibits in museums aren’t accurate representations of whale ancestors. Even if it's true that a few museum exhibits were augmented, this has no bearing on the strength of of the theory or the basic information laid out in the Smithsonian's web site.


He doesn't just allege Geo, these guys were caught red handed on film and admitted to their 'augmentations' as you delicately put it. It obviously does have a bearing since these "augmentations" were the very ones suggesting these were whale like creatures,when in fact they were land based animals.


Flann, I didn't watch the video because it doesn't have any bearing on the theory of whale evolution, which is detailed in the many articles I have linked. I have seen Creationist videos too many times before. They rely on deceitful tactics and outright lies. Thewissen is an actual scholar and a scientist. Werner is a Creationist hack. Since he cannot participate in the work of science, he is delegated to the role of video propagandist for those who want to keep their heads in the sand. If Thewissen's work was truly fraudulent on any level, we would find some evidence of it in written form somewhere. It would be big news.

Though I can guess the damning evidence in Werner’s video. Thewissen once sketched a Pakicetus fossil, which was believed at the time to share some characteristics with cetaceans and gave it to the Smithsonian. (He also published an article in Nature Magazine). Because they didn’t have a complete skeleton, they had to fill in some of the blanks i.e. they gave it a blowhole. Later they learned that Pakicetus was entirely terrestrial and not the “walking whale” they had imagined. Here’s the thing though. Thewissen published a new article in Nature magazine that corrected the first one. I assume he made new sketches for the museums too.

So, I don't know the particulars, but it certainly seems possible that the museum curators were a little overzealous in constructing their exhibit and, quite possibly, Thewissen was too. Was he caught “red-handed” or simply wrong?

Museums have certain creative license when it comes to making exhibits. You should know this next time you go to Creationist museum in Kentucky and see the exhibit that shows people and dinosaurs living together. And while the Smithsonian updates its exhibits based on new scientific findings, the Creationist museum in Kentucky never has a reason to ever change theirs.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
geo wrote:
Flann, I didn't watch the video because it doesn't have any bearing on the theory of whale evolution, which is detailed in the many articles I have linked. I have seen Creationist videos too many times before. They rely on deceitful tactics and outright lies. Thewissen is an actual scholar and a scientist. Werner is a Creationist hack. Since he cannot participate in the work of science, he is delegated to the role of video propagandist for those who want to keep their heads in the sand. If Thewissen's work was truly fraudulent on any level, we would find some evidence of it in written form somewhere. It would be big news.


Hi Geo. It's obvious that you didn't watch the film clips of Werner's. You do a role reversal, backing the guys clearly trying to rig the evidence,while damning the messenger pointing this out.

Reconstruction from bones and fragments leaves too much to the fertile imaginations of some paleontologists. And glory beckons in finding those elusive fossil 'ancestors'

It could be a single tooth like with the earlier touted mesonychid whale 'ancestor'. The Tooth Fairy filled in all those blanks and poof! a bona fide whale ancestor.

Back at the time of the National Geographic, Archaeoraptor fiasco there were a few in the Museums who called N.G's bluff.

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ ... ures11.g22

http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Nov/msg00263.html

It's quite difficult these days for scientists going against the entrenched dogmas to get a fair hearing for their evidence.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 060809.php



Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:00 am, edited 4 times in total.



Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:50 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4530
Location: NC
Thanks: 1982
Thanked: 2040 times in 1526 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann 5 wrote:

It could be a single tooth like with the earlier touted mesonychid whale 'ancestor'. The Tooth Fairy filled in all those blanks and poof! a bona fide whale ancestor.


Again, you focus on a few episodes where scientists were wrong so that you can conveniently overlook the overwhelming evidence that clearly shows the land ancestry of whales. There's simply no doubt about this. Again, pick up any high school or college science book. This Wikipedia entry on the evolution of cetaceans alone has 73 sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

But according to you, the entire theory is wrong. All these scientists are wrong. All geologists are wrong about the age of the earth. The National Academy of Sciences, Wikipedia, National Geographic, The Smithsonian, pretty much all accredited Universities, are all wrong. We have all been duped by the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. We should disregard these mainstream, credible sources and listen to . . . Creationists! Because we all know that Creationists are the true experts on science.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
geo wrote:
But according to you, the entire theory is wrong. All these scientists are wrong. All geologists are wrong about the age of the earth. The National Academy of Sciences, Wikipedia, National Geographic, The Smithsonian, pretty much all accredited Universities, are all wrong. We have all been duped by the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. We should disregard these mainstream, credible sources and listen to . . . Creationists! Because we all know that Creationists are the true experts on science.


And yet even among biologists there are a large number skeptical of neo-Darwinism,which has been the prevailing scientific orthodoxy for a long time now. They don't think it works, Geo. They want to "extend it" which is a euphemism. They'll keep some of it.

Science operates on certain philosophical assumptions and thus seeks material causal explanations for everything.

Now shocking as it may be to your ears,suppose that God actually does exist and created the universe and living things originally,how could materialistically oriented science discover this?

There are foundational philosophical premises. You make it all sound so clear cut and yet there is no answer on either the origin of life or the universe forthcoming.
There are any number of questions evolutionary biology never even attempts to answer. For instance what kind of intermediate animal has a biological system between one that gives birth on land and that gives birth in the depths of the ocean?
How do these intermediate systems work, and how do they change,gradually or suddenly? What are the mechanisms for this change and are they adequate?

If the 49mya dated fully aquatic whale jawbone is confirmed,which seems highly likely based on the credentials of the scientists involved,doesn't that make most of those other supposed precursors irrelevant?

Doesn't it also narrow the timeframe so you have to find all the changes between Pakicetus and aquatic whales in that narrower timeframe?

You can ask the same question for the entire range of changes between a deer like animal and a blue whale. What's the scientific flaw in Sternberg's statistically based reasoning that it simply can't be done in the time frame by neo-Darwinian mechanisms?
In fact it's hopelessly inadequate. I don't accept that saying the current scientific majority accepts it is a real argument other than from authority.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:32 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Thread Flintstone


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 880
Thanks: 41
Thanked: 504 times in 383 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent from Darwinism) is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S., best known for its promotion of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. As part of the Discovery Institute"s Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.[1]

The statement was published in advertisements under an introduction which stated that its signatories dispute the assertion that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things, and dispute that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution".[2][3] Further names of signatories have been added at intervals,[4][5] and as of the August 2008 update, it contains 761 names. The list continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[6][7]

The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community.[8][9] Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The "scientific" claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. " ... "according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit."[10] The statement in the document is described as artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[11] The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.[1][12]

In their 2010 book Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins, science and religion scholar Denis Alexander and historian of science Ronald L. Numbers tied the fate of the Dissent to that of the wider intelligent design movement:

After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scienti ... _Darwinism

We should remember that Ronald L. Numbers was a former-creationist whose father of a Seventh Day Adventist preacher and is considered perhaps the foremost scholar on the history of creationism. I read "The Creationists" (a book praised by both evolutionists and anti-evolutionists) in 1992 and found it incredibly enlightening.



Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:54 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Thread Flintstone


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 880
Thanks: 41
Thanked: 504 times in 383 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
If "The Creationists" has never been discussed here, it should be.



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
geo
Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:55 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann wrote:
And yet even among biologists there are a large number skeptical of neo-Darwinism,which has been the prevailing scientific orthodoxy for a long time now.


What is a large number? One out of 500? Check the numbers Flann, it's not large. It's miniscule.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:58 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
DB Roy wrote:
After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.[13]



A lot of what I'm seeing here in recent posts is an attempt to undermine the scientific credibility of scientists some of whom advocate I.D. Scientists like Sternberg and Loennig are highly qualified and do understand their subjects. The dissent from Darwin roll also does have very highly qualified signatories.

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/DarwinAd.pdf

Besides these there are the advocates of the extended synthesis who are evolutionists not specifically I.D. advocates, and they have their own dissatisfaction with neo-Darwinism.

And here's an article from Scientific American about smart non religious skeptics of Darwinism.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... evolution/ This link is faulty. Google, Scientific american, dubitable Darwin

How do you think we got here D.B.?



Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:06 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann wrote:
A lot of what I'm seeing here in recent posts is an attempt to undermine the scientific credibility of scientists some of whom advocate I.D. Scientists like Sternberg and Loennig are highly qualified and do understand their subjects.


Read the article I posted regarding Loennig regarding peer review. It isn't we who undermine his credibility.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:48 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Interbane wrote:
Flann wrote:
A lot of what I'm seeing here in recent posts is an attempt to undermine the scientific credibility of scientists some of whom advocate I.D. Scientists like Sternberg and Loennig are highly qualified and do understand their subjects.




Read the article I posted regarding Loennig regarding peer review. It isn't we who undermine his credibility.


I read the articles Interbane. It was more of an ad hominem than anything else. Do you dispute the essential and documented fact that induced mutations in crops and plants over 50 years did in fact reveal this recurring pattern of limitations phenotypically and in the mutations themselves?

The article you linked stated that Loennig's article was cited four times, all by Loennig himself. I checked and there were thirteen scholarly citations from his article, with three by Loennig.

Scanlan talks about polyploidy which he doesn't even spell correctly. This is mainly found in plants. It is also found to a much lesser extent in animals and humans.

There are advantages and disadvantages with polyploidy. The higher you go to animals the more it tends towards deformities and lethal outcomes.

What is evident is that editors of scientific journals can have their own particular biases and hobby horse dogmas.

That was the real lesson of the whole dinosaur to birds debacle. We saw the same thing with the global warming' peer review' monopoly, which Bill Nye was so enthusiastically defending.

I'm not saying that peer review is not a valuable process, but it can be distorted towards particular slants of editors of at least some scientific journals at times.


I also checked Loennig's scientific qualifications which I could only find in German unfortunately. Suffice to say that he was a senior scientist at the Max Planck Institute specializing in genetics and plant breeding.

The linked article which he co-authored has 110 scholarly citations for example.
http://forest.mtu.edu/faculty/joshi/pub ... gement.pdf


And here's Sternberg's C.V. http://www.richardsternberg.com/biography.php

The insinuation that they don't really understand their areas of expertise is patently false



Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:03 am, edited 5 times in total.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
youkrst
Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:14 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Quote:
Do you dispute the essential and documented fact that induced mutations in crops and plants over 50 years did in fact reveal this recurring pattern of limitations phenotypically and in the mutations themselves?


There's a reason I mentioned the peer review.

Did Loennig take the mutant offspring, replicate them into a parent body, and irradiate them to see if the variation applied to offspring as well? And if so, did he then take the offspring and repeat the process? Or did he simply study how far a single species could mutate within a single generation?

How close were the species to a node in the phylogenic tree? The diversity of life we see around us is often highly specialized, and unable to mutate "backwards" to previous forms. But if you take an organism near the node, the phenotypes are generic enough for vast variation. For example, a Tiktaalik or Protungulatum donnae.

Were the species he tested already tetraploidal, or were they haploid? Higher levels of polyploidism are known to be incredibly unstable. You can only fold paper so many times.

Polyploid speciation is the fastest type of speciation. We have a large number of examples of polyploidy speciation for that reason. But that doesn't mean we don't have examples of the other types of speciation.

Did you know that many organisms you see all around you are polyploidal? Meaning, polyploid speciation happened at some point back down the trunk of many organisms phylogenic tree. A large number of fish are polyploidal, and polyploidy is nearly ubiquitous in plants.

In what way do you see this type of speciation as invalid, seeing as it was the cause of much of the current diversity around us?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:27 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Interbane wrote:
There's a reason I mentioned the peer review.

Did Loennig take the mutant offspring, replicate them into a parent body, and irradiate them to see if the variation applied to offspring as well? And if so, did he then take the offspring and repeat the process? Or did he simply study how far a single species could mutate within a single generation?

You ask a lot of questions about the whole crop and plants mutation project,Interbane. It's worth remembering that the entire project was predicated on neo- Darwinian premises.

It was a pretty much global commercial project over decades with vast amounts of money invested in it's success,
You can be sure they explored all known avenues to try to ensure commercial success. It failed dismally.

You write as if Loennig is somehow ignorant of polyploidy when he specialized in genetics and plant breeding. There is research going on into this subject and whether it produces anything worthwhile remains to be seen.

It seems that Scanlan brought up polyploidy to try to rescue a dire outcome for neo-Darwinism. If mutations are so ineffective can polyploidy rescue the situation?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/do ... 90311.html

Interbane wrote:
How close were the species to a node in the phylogenic tree? The diversity of life we see around us is often highly specialized, and unable to mutate "backwards" to previous forms. But if you take an organism near the node, the phenotypes are generic enough for vast variation. For example, a Tiktaalik or Protungulatum donnae.


Tiktaalik is over-hyped but I expect you won't thank a creationist for explaining why.

http://creation.com/gaining-ground-the- ... -tetrapods



Last edited by Flann 5 on Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:50 am, edited 2 times in total.



Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:47 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann wrote:
You ask a lot of questions about the whole crop and plants mutation project,Interbane. It's worth remembering that the entire project was predicated on neo- Darwinian premises.


Sure. So what?

Quote:
It was a pretty much global commercial project over decades with vast amounts of money invested in it's success,
You can be sure they explored all known avenues to try to ensure commercial success. It failed dismally.


I can be sure they explored all known avenues? No, I can't. The only way I could be sure of that is with proper peer review. What I'm sure of is that the paper was written by an ID advocate. His motivation was not purely commercial.

Mutagenesis is successfully used for commercial ends all the time, moreso now with the anti GMO movement. If Loennig failed dismally on the commercial side, why don't the others?

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2817.full

"Exploiting natural or induced genetic diversity is a proven strategy in the improvement of all major food crops, and the use of mutagenesis to create novel variation is particularly valuable in those crops with restricted genetic variability. Historically the use of mutagenesis in breeding has involved forward genetic screens and the selection of individual mutants with improved traits and their incorporation into breeding programmes. Over the past 70 years, more than 2500 varieties derived from mutagenesis programmes have been released, as listed in the IAEA/FAO mutant variety database, including 534 rice lines, 205 wheat lines, and 71 maize lines (http://www-infocris.iaea.org/MVD/). Although this approach has clearly proved very successful, there are limitations imposed by, for example, the difficulty of identifying a small number of individuals with novel phenotypes within a large population, or by the genetic redundancy present in many plant species as a result of gene duplication and polyploidy, such that many mutations have no detectable effect on the plant."

Quote:
You write as if Loennig is somehow ignorant of polyploidy when he specialized in genetics and plant breeding. There is research going on into this subject and whether it produces anything worthwhile remains to be seen.


What I wrote wasn't for Loennig, it was for you. There's no doubt he understands it far better than I. But that doesn't justify the assumption that his experiments took into account the problems with mutating higher level polyploids. Assumptions don't work. Thus peer review.

Quote:
Tiktaalik is over-hyped but I expect you won't thank a creationist for explaining why.


I wasn't using the Tiktaalik as an example of a transitional species, which is what that article argues against. I mentioned the Tiktaalik as an example of a creature near a node in the phylogenic tree. The available variation is huge. Compare this to a periodic cicada, whose phenotypic portfolio(including odd lifecycle behavior) ensure it can go almost nowhere but where it's already at. Or, extinct.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:17 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Thread Flintstone


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 880
Thanks: 41
Thanked: 504 times in 383 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
I found this website amusing:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_ ... ts_02.html

It's an attack on endosymbiosis developed by Lynn Margulis. It's not a bad attack, I suppose, but the author attacks it as though any an all evolutionists believe it when, in fact, few do. The website is "Darwinism Refuted" and I wonder if the author understands that endosymbiosis is not Darwinist or neo-Darwinist, that Margulis was a staunch opponent of neo-Darwinism. The site gives a decent synopsis of Margulis's work:

This hypothesis was put forward by Lynn Margulis in 1970 in her book The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. In this book, Margulis claimed that as a result of their communal and parasitic lives, bacterial cells turned into plant and animal cells. According to this theory, plant cells emerged when a photosynthetic bacterium was swallowed by another bacterial cell. The photosynthetic bacterium evolved inside the parent cell into a chloroplast. Lastly, organelles with highly complex structures such as the nucleus, the Golgi apparatus, the endoplasmic reticulum, and ribosomes evolved, in some way or other. Thus, the plant cell was born.

As we have seen, this thesis of the evolutionists is nothing but a work of fantasy.


The author gives several rebuttals to endosymbiosis. The first two are:

1- If chloroplasts, in particular, were once independent cells, then there could only have been one outcome if one were swallowed by a larger cell: namely, it would have been digested by the parent cell and used as food. This must be so, because even if we assume that the parent cell in question took such a cell into itself from the outside by mistake, instead of intentionally ingesting it as food, nevertheless, the digestive enzymes in the parent cell would have destroyed it. Of course, some evolutionists have gotten around this obstacle by saying, "The digestive enzymes had disappeared." But this is a clear contradiction, because if the cell's digestive enzymes had disappeared, then the cell would have died from lack of nutrition.

2- Again, let us assume that all the impossible happened and that the cell which is claimed to have been the ancestor of the chloroplast was swallowed by the parent cell. In this case we are faced with another problem: The blueprints of all the organelles inside the cell are encoded in the DNA. If the parent cell were going to use other cells it swallowed as organelles, then it would be necessary for all of the information about them to be already present and encoded in its DNA. The DNA of the swallowed cells would have to possess information belonging to the parent cell. Not only is such a situation impossible, the two complements of DNA belonging to the parent cell and the swallowed cell would also have to become compatible with each other afterwards, which is also clearly impossible.


#1 is a defense of "survival of the fittest" which is the very hallmark of Darwinist thinking. # 2 at least implies a n agreement with the basic tenets of Darwinism:

(1) Individuals within populations are variable.
(2) Variation is heritable.
(3) Organisms differ in their ability to survive and reproduce.
(4) Survival & reproduction are non-random.

We can shorten those 4 tenets into a single statement that evolution is essentially a variation in gene frequency.

In other words, cells can't suck traits from another cell but rather must already have those traits. How does it get those traits? It inherited them and the author admits as much by saying "it would be necessary for all of the information about them to be already present and encoded in its DNA". Now I am not interested in whether this refutation is right, only that the author resorted to Darwinism to refute it. Strange for an anti-Darwin website to rely on Darwinism but the truth is, Darwinism is so basic that to reject it causes tremendous amounts of logical and philosophical acrobatics to get around it. But what they really end up doing is disguising the Darwinism.

An analogy is that using Darwinism to explain how lifeforms adapt is like using the concept of friction to explain fire. If you deny that friction is necessary, you either have to disguise how the friction takes place or come up with absurd explanations relying on largely ad hoc arguments while the friction argument is universal. You might say that a a house fire was not caused by friction. You would be wrong. Suppose it was a lit cigarette, how was it lit? By a match or a lighter which require friction. What if he lit it using his gas stove? Same thing. I have one so I just blow on the jets and they flame up. The collision of air molecules with the gas is enough to ignite it (causes the energy stored in the chemical bonds to be released) and that's friction. Suppose it was an electrical fire. Still friction. The insulation breaks down with age and the electrons moving through the conductor creates heat (friction) and which leaks through the breaks in the insulation which causes the fire. What if the furnace caused the fire? Same thing. The pilot light was lit with a match or lighter or, in modern furnaces, the pilot is now piezoelectric which is creating electricity through pressure (which creates friction). What about acid and chlorine together and they ignite? That's friction! The two chemicals were MIXED and that mixing creates friction. Well, Darwinism is as fundamental to understanding life as friction is to fire. Remove it and you either have to sneak it back in or you have to rely on magic--and good luck with that.

The author's own statement is a refutation of ID because, as Dawkins said, in order for God to create DNA, he had to be as complex as the DNA and if this complexity cannot be the result of a natural process then God's complexity was designed but that designer also had to have a designer, etc etc etc.



Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:36 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank