…and this is a 
Crazy Ken Ham has learned about the Atheist Convention in Melbourne, and he has written his confused, garbled version of what it's all about. He's also done his typical cowardly routine of complaining about the convention and also, by the way, about me, but refusing to mention any of us by name, let alone linking to us. He can't have his readers actually seeing what the other side has to say, after all; the world must be filtered through the benevolent and opaque lens of the Maximum Leader, you know.
At least it's fascinating to watch a weak mind struggle to grasp something he doesn't understand…mainly because what he accomplishes is to reveal his own ignorance and bias.
Imagine--listening to a meaningless talk at a meaningless conference held on a meaningless planet in a meaningless universe! Now, that would be an uplifting conference!
From their worldview, wouldn't atheists see this meeting as a meaningless waste of time? Of course, they would claim they have some purpose and meaning--but it would be all constructed subjectively according to their own determinations! All because they shake their fist at God--but why?
Yes, it is a meaningless universe; the universe doesn't care about us, doesn't love us, and is mindless and indifferent. That's simple reality. What we human beings do is wrest meaning for ourselves from a pitiless, uncaring background, and I think that's wonderful, grand and glorious — it's the process of finding purpose that is our accomplishment, not the imposition of an inhuman goal by a cosmic tyrant. This meeting will be a small part of everyone's ongoing struggle to learn and grow — so yes, it will be uplifting. It will also be fun and constructive.
Shouldn't it be obvious to Ham that his caricature of atheists is false? After all, we aren't all just gloomily digging our graves, lying down in them, and waiting for death, so it should be clear that we aren't a bunch of despondent nihilists. We're living and active. What could possibly be driving us?
The Scripture tells us they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1). Basically it comes down to the fact that they don't want to have to answer to anyone--they want to set their own rules. They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be (or reject it altogether). They want to do what is "right" in their own eyes! Thus, a Creator who owns them, to whom they owe their existence, and against whom they have rebelled, is anathema to them!
Ah, that must be it. Atheists are just out to murder babies and mate with anything that moves. Or stops moving. Or something.
Again, since most atheists are productive and cooperative citizens of their communities, it should be obvious that we aren't self-indulgent anarchists, either. We do think there have to be rules, a social contract, that helps tie together the diverse people of our culture and permits civilized interactions between us. The difference is that we believe those rules should be developed by humane principles that recognize the equality and interdependence of all people, rather than being rules contrived by priests to perpetuate their power by inventing arbitrary ultimatums from imaginary superbeings.
We don't believe in a creator god, so we reject the notion that we are 'owned' by one, but you can't say that we find such a creator anathema — we don't believe it exists! What's repellent are self-styled prophets and priests (who are real) demanding that we follow their antiquated dogma.
It baffles the mind as to why these atheists even bother to try to aggressively convert people to their meaningless religion--after all, what's the point? The only reason they would even bother is if they are engaged in a spiritual battle. Otherwise they wouldn't care. They know in their hearts there is a God, and they are deliberately suppressing that, as the Scripture so clearly tells us.
Man, we can't win an argument with a person that stupid. We don't believe in gods, plain and simple. Ham says we do. How does he know? Because he has an old book that says we do. That's the problem right there: that rather than actually paying attention to the evidence, talking to people and recognizing what they actually say, the devoted relidjit would rather trust a book written a few thousand years ago that claims to be able to read the minds of 21st century people.
Don't worry. We'll have a fabulous time in Australia. I know that some small part of the conference will be spent laughing at Ken Ham.
Oh, yeah, that part where he talks about me. Of course he doesn't refer to me by name, or mention the blog, or include a link to the article he found objectionable, he just talks about that atheist professor in Minnesota who hates Christians and mocked Kent Hovind. Here's what I wrote about Hovind's recent online writings:
By the way, Kent Hovind is still putting up bizarre dialogs on his CSE blogs. He's been having conversations with God, dead Egyptian priests, and Christian saints, who all reassure him about how clever and smart and good he is, despite being in prison for tax evasion. It's pathetic and sad. There has to be a word for this: it's a kind of mega-sockpuppetry, in which it isn't just random strangers on the internet mysteriously popping up to back him up -- it's God and the saints and heroes of history who are all appearing as voices in his head to validate him.
Now brace yourselves and aim a fire extinguisher at your irony meters, because what Ham wants to argue is that I didn't realize Hovind's conversations with saints and deities was metaphorical.
Basically, Hovind created an imaginary dialogue with Potipherah (Genesis 41:45, 50) to point out that modern America has the same problem the Egyptians had when Joseph oversaw the years of plenty and famine. It's pretty obvious this post is designed to be understood as metaphor. The same is so for the posting with the dialogue between God, Stephen (Christian saint), and Hovind. Any Christian reading Kent Hovind's post would understand what he's doing with these writings. The atheist blogger would also have to say that C.S. Lewis talked with the devil and his fellow demons in order for Lewis to write the Screwtape Letters, if he follows the same logic! Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?
Uh, what? So Ham is accusing me of believing that these phantasms of Hovind's mind literally appeared to him in his jail cell? This is weird. I'm an atheist — I don't believe in gods or long-dead people manifesting in living conversations. Of course I see Hovind as playing a game — he's revealing nothing but his own sad perception of himself as a hero in these imaginary conversations, and that's precisely what is so pathetic about it.
The funniest part of it all, though, is Ken Ham lecturing me on how I ought to recognize that a religious man writing down what he claims are the words of God is so clearly just a metaphor and a literary exercise…when he refuses to recognize the same status of the books of the Bible that he insists are literally and absolutely true and of divine origin.
It's pretty obvious the book of Genesis is designed to be understood as metaphor. It's Ken Ham who demands that it be regarded as the product of a conversation between ancient scribes and his god.
Comments
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 13, 2010 9:58 PM
Cue Twilight Zone theme music...
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
January 13, 2010 9:58 PM
Well Hovind might actually believe that he was talking to demons--or maybe he believes that you're a demon.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 13, 2010 10:00 PM
The stupid that Ham infuses into his writings would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Does he honestly think that we don't recognize Hovind's rants and whines as metaphoric?
Posted by: mrsquiddy
|
January 13, 2010 10:05 PM
So PZ... I know of the best cocktail bar in Melbourne, the bartender there, Moses, can part the Red Sea of our sobriety if you so wish!
I know this post may sound off topic but it isn't, getting drunk is about the only way I can handle living in a world of christians.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
January 13, 2010 10:05 PM
I think Hammy sounds sulky - like you atheists are gonna planning a fun party that he hasn't been invited to.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 13, 2010 10:06 PM
Um, yes. So?
W?
T?
F?
I give up.
Posted by: Legion
|
January 13, 2010 10:09 PM
Seems pretty clear from PZ's post that he doesn't think Hovind is actually talking to god and dead Egyptians. Although, to be fair, considering Hovind believes in supernatural beings, it's not entirely clear whether Hovind realizes these conversations are generated entirely from inside his empty little head.
---------------------------------------------
Legion: Demons You Can Depend On
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
January 13, 2010 10:10 PM
Sure, you were accusing Kent of being a polytheist, out in the open and all.
Ham probably realizes he could be that stupid, so he projects.
I love how horrible he makes it sound being owned by some arbitrary bastard like Yahweh, then condemns anyone who might object to such an idea.\
The slaves don't want to be slaves. That's the ultimate in evil.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 13, 2010 10:10 PM
You could almost be quoting Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Goldman here, you know.
Posted by: Iris
|
January 13, 2010 10:16 PM
Unlike, say, Ken Ham. Is it just an amazing coincidence that his god hates everyone and everything that Ham does? Or do believers really think that without their misogynist, deranged dogma dictating what is "right" they'd personally have no moral compass whatsoever?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 13, 2010 10:16 PM
with a rose?
(Personal Warning to Janine: Do Not Click It!)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 13, 2010 10:21 PM
This has gotten to the level of pathetic. I would really like to see theists taking atheism for what it is instead of constructing a nihilistic strawman to attack. You'd think that they would be more than willing to engage the argument as the argument is put forth, after all it is us who they believe are misled so surely they could spend the effort trying to understand how it is that atheists (not as a collective but individually) could not believe.
At least in my experience, this does not happen. They (generally speaking) don't even seek to understand why it is I'm an atheist and will fall back on what they've been told about atheists by senior religious folk who don't understand it either.
Posted by: Danish
|
January 13, 2010 10:23 PM
No, Ken. We don't shake our fists at something we don't think exists. But we might shake our fist at you. Although it's more likely we will just laugh at you.
Posted by: Pastor Farm
|
January 13, 2010 10:27 PM
It's a common misconception among the faithful--I having been one of them with the same ideas--that atheism is no different than nihilism.
After all, if there is no Heaven to look forward to, what's the point of being good?
Then I realized, why would I be anything else? How would I be anything else? I wouldn't want to hurt anyone (unless she was into that kind of thing, but then again, I'm paranoid).
There again, even after leaving Christianity for Atheism, I'm still an utter failure with women. The endless, heathenish orgies that I was so hoping for when dropping God have yet to materialize.
The only time I've ever been more disappointed was when I became a nurse and my co-workers were all women in their 60s*.
If there's one thing Christianity and Porn have in common is that they're both full of horrible, shameful lies.
*No offense meant to women in their 60's, it's just that I was 20 at the time and even now at 32, I generally like to keep age differences within 5 years.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 13, 2010 10:31 PM
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/ethics/ch1.html
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ZmiZc_Z2iYdD4s9Dn4zTDmwIxV1IUQ--#4ab6e
|
January 13, 2010 10:32 PM
Wait. Did I seriously just read that a Biblical literalist is criticizing someone of not understanding metaphors? And why can't I leave any comments for Ken Ham's article on his site? What a disgrace to existence.
Posted by: Rocky
|
January 13, 2010 10:35 PM
Dear World, I feel as an Australian the need to apologise. So sorry everyone. Not everyone down here is as crazy as crazy Ken Ham or at least they are crazy about more rational things like Australian Rules Football.
Posted by: sbwright
|
January 13, 2010 10:39 PM
America, the only country big enough to hide Ken Ham's idiocy. Say who did we exchange for Ken Ham? Was it Meryl Dorey?
Posted by: hsbio
|
January 13, 2010 10:43 PM
I never have been to Ken's wonderful blog, but went there after reading this post....I wanted to leave a comment - "why do you, Ken, even care what 'they' do at 'their' convention?" - but wouldn't you know it...no chance or way to leave a comment.....seems as though he is a bit scared of what he might get....but I notice he and those of his "ilk" have no problem coming to this blog and leaving their WONDERFUL thoughts.
What a freaking JOKE....but, what should I expect from him and those like him (Pat Robertson) who spew HATE not LOVE.
Posted by: Noel
|
January 13, 2010 10:43 PM
Eloquence.
Posted by: Sgt. Obvious
|
January 13, 2010 10:47 PM
@ sbwright: Hell if I know. You exported Ken Ham AND Comfort, and not only did you not take any nutjobs off our hands, you didn't even give us anyone good for our trouble! As I see it, you owe us at LEAST one of the Chasers. Or a camera.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
January 13, 2010 10:51 PM
It's all so obvious! If somebody writes that God or some dead person spoke to them, it's a metaphor. Except when it's not a metaphor. And we know when it's not a metaphor because that's when it's real. But when it's not real, it's a metaphor. Well, I'm glad we have that cleared up.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 13, 2010 10:52 PM
Why bother? It's like dumping a baby on another's doorstep. Ken Ham is America's problem now ;)Posted by: DaveL
|
January 13, 2010 10:53 PM
The mind boggles at the idea of objective meaning - meaning independent of any mind.
Posted by: hsbio
|
January 13, 2010 10:54 PM
#22
Some of the best logic I have heard in a really long time. Thanks for the clarification...didn't really understand what he was trying to say, but I do now. metaphor vs. reality...the next great religous battle ground for the souls of sinners.
Posted by: cpsmith
|
January 13, 2010 10:55 PM
"Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?"
It's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 13, 2010 10:56 PM
Damn straight.
Wow, humans making a human-invented institution what they want it to be.
Posted by: history punk
|
January 13, 2010 10:58 PM
"They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be..."
[[citation needed]]
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 13, 2010 11:00 PM
Any Christian reading Kent Hovind's post would understand what he's doing with these writings.
It doesn't look to me like Hovind thinks they're metaphorical.
And no, "Any Christian reading Kent Hovind's post" wouldn't necessarily "understand what he's doing with these writings". They aren't freakin mind readers. (What an idiot.)
Posted by: delphi-ote
|
January 13, 2010 11:00 PM
The real WTF in all that is that he's quoting the New King James translation. What the hell kind of fundamentalist is this guy?
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 13, 2010 11:07 PM
It doesn't look to me like Hovind thinks they're metaphorical.
I should probably rephrase that. It doesn't look to me like Hovind would mind one bit if people thought he was actually talking to all those made up pretend people. (Hovind may or may not actually be that far out there in cuckoo land.)
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 13, 2010 11:13 PM
Pastor Farm - Don't worry you'll get there. The endless heathen orgies are held during the OM initiations. Until then you'll just have to take it on faith that bacon wrapped nipples, and men in fishnet stockings abusing the spanking couch exist.
D'oh! I wasn't supposed to tell you that.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 13, 2010 11:16 PM
Mr. Ham just wants us to be closer to what is right in the Bible. God loves you, and that is why he wants you to stone every bad-mouthing child, adulterers, gay, dwarves, fortune tellers, all those girls who love their denims, mixed-fabric wearers, women who wear pearls and golds, pig and shrimp eaters, men who shave their beards, then burn those promiscuous priest daughters, then sacrifice your child to appease him, then slaughter a lamb to cure leprosy, then have rape-victims wed their rapists, then have all men merry as many women as possible but don't let those women ever say anything without your permission, force people to wear hijabs, and then burn Ken Ham himself for being a false prophet! Can't you people see the divine truth in that? He wants you to do as the Bible says so that you can enjoy an eternity with the One True God(s)* in heaven.
*If he knew the origins of Genesis, he should be worshiping multiple Gods.
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 13, 2010 11:19 PM
Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?
It would be kinda blasphemous if Kent Hovind were writing down pretend conversations with God wouldn't it? Writing down conversations with God and saying God says this and God says that? But they were all made up pretend God quotes? (Ken Ham = primo idiot.)
Posted by: Crewvy
|
January 13, 2010 11:20 PM
Sounds like what goes on every sunday all over this planet,and he gets his panties in a twist when atheists what to do it once a year.
BTW,anyone know a good abortion club to join?As an atheist I just love killing babies,perhaps we can lobby for it to be an olympic sport./sarcasm/ for those driveby creotards too thick to figure it out.
Hambo , the baby jeebus weeps at your fucking stupidity.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 13, 2010 11:24 PM
Well, as someone who is going, I know I'll be spending at least some of the time with my fellow godless as we enjoy a drink and laugh our asses off about what an ignorant, dimwitted, fucking clown shoe Ken Ham* is.
That's as much meaning as I need.
*Avoiding blaming any of it on the fact he's from Queensland - since both Bride of Shrek and myself (and perhaps some others) also hail from the 'Sunshine State' (as it's known here).
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 13, 2010 11:24 PM
Please alert me the minute that program goes into effect.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
January 13, 2010 11:26 PM
Sorry, *the* best cocktail bar in Melbourne closed a couple of months ago. :~(
RIP Ginger.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 13, 2010 11:29 PM
Methinks that PZ should have wallpaper with the image of a college professor sitting on a saddled fiberglass dinosaur for when he writes about Ken Ham.
Patricia, bad slut! The only time we talk about the orgy is when there is a new member to induct into the club. I guess I better get you on the spanking couch.
'wicked grin'
You must be punished!
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 13, 2010 11:30 PM
How convenient it is that Hovind's writing down of fictional conversations with God in order to elevate Hovind's status doesn't constitute blasphemy in Ken Ham's eyes. How conveeeeennnieeennnnt. (What a dope.)
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
January 13, 2010 11:32 PM
@Rocky
I'll make you a deal. You don't need to apologize for Ken Ham as long as I don't have to apologize for Fred Phelps (aside from the fact that I've only lived in Kansas for less than three years). We all have our wackos.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 13, 2010 11:32 PM
Gyeong,
No. False prophets are in (Canto XX) Bolgia 4 — their punishment is to have their heads turned backwards on their bodies and to be compelled to walk backwards through all eternity, their eyes blinded with tears.
For mine, Ken Ham really belongs in Bolgia 6, The Hypocrites, weighted down by great leaden robes, walk eternally round and round a narrow track. The robes are brilliantly gilded on the outside and are shaped like a monk's habit, for the hypocrite's outward appearance shines brightly and passes for holiness, but under that show lies the terrible weight of his deceit which the souls must bear through all eternity.
Of course, it's arguable which Bolgia the Ham belongs to; there's a number of choices.
(ref: http://jade.ccccd.edu/Andrade/WorldLitI2332/Dante/dante/DanteCiardi.html)
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 13, 2010 11:34 PM
My bad.
Well hell, for you Mistress of Abuse I'd better dig something exceptional out of the naughty trunk. *smirk*
Posted by: Mena
|
January 13, 2010 11:38 PM
Religious people really don't see contradictions, do they? The same brains that believe that a country could literally (?!?!?!!!) make a pact with the devil *could*, in theory, believe that they are talking to all sort of people that only they can see. What I find interesting is that they act like they are so kind and caring that you really should join their community and you will be at peace with yourself and the world. If you refuse to join or if you join and don't obey, however, the conditional love comes out and all of a sudden you are a mortal enemy. Their god is all about conditional love as well. What a coincidence. No projection there.
To paraphrase, Ken-MYOB.
Posted by: Pastor Farm
|
January 13, 2010 11:40 PM
Patricia, your encouragement is appreciated. And I want you to know that I do have faith. In fact, I'll live every day by a strict but arbitrary moral code (that I'll pick and choose from what's easiest) which I will use to judge the rest of the planet. Because I know that when I die (that's when all the best things happen!), I will have an eternity of all the bacon, nipples, and nude dog-piles a corpse can handle.
The rest, I guess they'll just have to suffer through an eternity of God's love. And that just sounds dirty and painful to me.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 13, 2010 11:42 PM
John, in Revelations aren't false prophets tossed into brimstone?
We need to find a bigger sulfur pit.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 13, 2010 11:56 PM
Pastor Farm - Then choose the sluts code.
"All things in excess, moderation is for monks."
Somebody here can convert that to latin, and you can have it emblazoned on your shining armour.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 13, 2010 11:56 PM
Gyeong, that's the False Prophet (singular) in Rev 19:20. Not sure the Ham qualifies; he's not exactly someone who's "wrought miracles before him".
Like I said, I think he's just a hypocrite.
Posted by: raven
|
January 14, 2010 12:01 AM
Ken Ham is a mass murderer. I wouldn't waste the time counting the number of poor innocent strawpeople he murdered in PZ's post. Won't anyone think of the strawpeople?
He accidently got one thing right, that infinite number of monkeys typing thing.
We don't care about wacko religious kooks. We do care when they try to force their sickness on us and destroy our society. Fundies like Ham are blatant about seeking to destroy the US, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages.
We and many tens of millions oppose his toxic cults. Many of those are other xians. It is a matter of personal and national survival.
Ham is aware that 70% of the kids in the cults leave after age 18. He just isn't bright or sane enough to figure out that the fundies have nothing to offer anyone but a rerun of the Dark Ages.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 12:04 AM
John Morales is correct. Also see Matt 7:15 and Matt 24:11.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 14, 2010 12:09 AM
Patricia,
I don't know latin, but can use the internet.
First approximation:
Omnis nimis, temperantia ob coenobitae.
Posted by: Pastor Farm
|
January 14, 2010 12:09 AM
Thank you, Patricia. My new motto is now Totus redundo. Temperantia pro monachus.
Amen.
Also, for whatever reason, "suck it, Ham," translates to: Combibo is Ham.
Posted by: Cowcakes
|
January 14, 2010 12:09 AM
sbwright #18
Don't get me started on Meryl Dorey and her death dealing and horrendously misnamed Australian Vaccination Network. If there was ever a reason to have post dated abortions she is it.
As for Ken Ham, I've always been amazed how those who profess to be moral and righteous because they have an omnipotent lawmaker are those groups which have the most trouble restraining themselves. Look at the paedophilia rampant in the Roman Catholic Church and the high number of pack rapes in Australia committed by faithful Muslims, and the Muslim clerics who blame the victims for acting like discarded "cat meat" rather pointing the finger at the pious who can't keep their penises in their pants.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 14, 2010 12:10 AM
That brings up a point. I remember from photos of his "museum" that a large amount of young Christians become irreligious or non-practicing. It was in the "modern world is without the bible" exhibit. At the same time, there was another exhibit claiming that Christianity is raising in the number of followers (next to a picture of a Hindu god that is actually older than his 6000-year old universe.) So either he's lying about one thing or another or both, or he honestly believe that you can be the moral majority and the oppressed minority at the same time.
I think the book of Job had something to say about that.
Posted by: raven
|
January 14, 2010 12:12 AM
This is one of the stupidest of the fundie mantras.
Why does Ken Ham hate and shake his fist at Mickey Mouse, Tinkerbell, fairies, Thor, Bob the Rain god, and Zeus?
Using his logic, if you don't believe in undetectable supernatural beings, you must hate and defy them.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 14, 2010 12:16 AM
Pastor Farm, I bow to your evident erudition.
Posted by: Pastor Farm
|
January 14, 2010 12:19 AM
Please don't John, I'm pretty sure I just happened to Google a different English to Latin website.
I have to say your Latin looked much more Latin-y than mine.
Hopefully someone can clear this matter up.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 14, 2010 12:27 AM
Thank you Patricia for directing me to the proper quotes.
Also to clarify one of my comments, Hindu gods can be traced back to animist traditions which predates the supposed creation of the world. (Yahweh, also, has it's roots in pre-Judaic traditions which predates the creation of the universe).
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 12:28 AM
Ha, ha! Thanks John. I should have asked you for my new motto to the Veterans Administration Chaplains Dept. - "Go fuck yourself." Which isn't in my copy of the Complete Idiot's Guide to Learning Latin. (I confess I haven't looked at it for months)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 14, 2010 12:33 AM
omnes in effusio quia temperantia ab monachisthat's the best I can do, but someone whose Latin is less rusty will have to prettify that. it's not very smooth, and just barely grammatically acceptable :-p
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 14, 2010 12:35 AM
oops, forgot to close the i-tag :-p
Posted by: Peter H
|
January 14, 2010 12:35 AM
Interesting that sties such as Ham's do not allow "feedback," discourse, dialogue.
Posted by: Peter H
|
January 14, 2010 12:37 AM
Perhaps that unintentional misspelling wasn't misplaced after all!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 12:48 AM
Let me give credit to the original author of the sluts code, Robert A. Heinlen, in a small illuminated book called The Notebooks of Lazarus Long "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." My copy published in 1973 cost $4.95, that must have been the good old days.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 14, 2010 12:52 AM
Patricia @59, fututio ipsum, as a first approximation.
Posted by: taipanleader
|
January 14, 2010 12:55 AM
Anyone surf over to Ham's blog and notice the links to "Already Gone"? Fills me with some hope that those who are God-soaked as kids come to realise the insanity of it all.
Posted by: cag
|
January 14, 2010 12:58 AM
Salt brine - that will "cure" Ham.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 1:08 AM
John @65 - Really? That doesn't sound naughty at all. Ahh, I was hoping for something like: E Humanus Fornicatus Maximus.
See that's bullshitus Latin.
Posted by: John Morales
|
January 14, 2010 1:31 AM
Sorry, Patricia.
However, Ken Ham is indubitably a coprocephalos. :)
(greek, latin, what's the diff? :))
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 14, 2010 1:34 AM
I really think we have to laugh at these clowns more often, and more publicly.
Ham and the like are way beyond ridiculous.
raven @ 49,
That also applies to their thinking, and their way of acquiring knowledge.Their proposal to do this is essentially that of St Augustine from the 5th century, "don't look at nature, look at what's written in our book".
It's all very sad.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
January 14, 2010 1:39 AM
Oh man, this is gonna be the BEST convention I've ever attended. I'm already gathering props:
1) Glow in the dark life sized octopus for centrepiece of dinner table
2) What Would Dawkins Do? T-Shirt to wear at Pharyngulite drinkies
3)Blow up cow sized dinosaur for getting PZ cowboy shots
4)A 10 inch "perfect fit" banana which is actually a rather discrete ( or indiscrete depending on how you look at it) dildo, again a potential table centrepiece.
5) the 8 copies of Gideons that I have filched from various hotels since I first decided to attend the conference. This is my new hobby. I nicked the first one for Rorschach but anyone else needing toilet paper/scoob rolling paper/litter box liner is welcome to one.
5) and my latest addition- a leather studded bra with peekaboo nipple holes just in case Kenny boy decides to turn up and I can flash my fabulous ta-tas at him.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 14, 2010 1:43 AM
*faints*
Posted by: ElitistB
|
January 14, 2010 1:47 AM
"Thus, a Creator who owns them, to whom they owe their existence, and against whom they have rebelled, is anathema to them!"
THIS. RIGHT. HERE.
Slave mentality. "So and so owns me, thus I have to do whatever they tell me to do and like it." They are so afraid of taking responsibility for their actions that they willingly enslave themselves to an imaginary figure.
This is complete BS and I can't stand how they can be so blind that they can actually utter sentences like this while somehow still feeling righteous.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 14, 2010 2:16 AM
5) and my latest addition- a leather studded bra with peekaboo nipple holes just in case Kenny boy decides to turn up and I can flash my fabulous ta-tas at him.
Bride, for a moment there, I thought you were referring to the long banned troll. It must have been a near death experience.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 14, 2010 3:06 AM
Rorschach wrote:
Well, it's lucky we'll have a doctor to look after y...oh.
BoS - am I still on the list for the table with you guys?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 14, 2010 3:13 AM
Of course you are, you better be, but in the case that you're not, I shall make the BoS wear the leather bra when she shakes Prof Dawkins' hand I swear.
:D
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
January 14, 2010 3:39 AM
Methinks that Ham is trying to deflect a little ridicule from his bruvver in bollocks Hovind...but for the grace of Yahweh there goes I kinda thang!
Hovind, Chick, Ham and Comfort all use the same sort of language and the same two dimensionality in their speel.
They pitch the morality stories and credulousness at a level of a seven year old.
This is either indicative of the average mental age of their marks or they really are pitching the effluent at seven year olds...give 'em the child they will give you the retard kinda deal!
Hovind, as well as et al, is obviously mentally retarded in IQ allotment and is arguably suffering from a form of schizophrenic megalomania!
The inability to admit or understand his crime, or brushing it aside with 'a for jeebus' defence.
Then blaming the government and tax authority for his predicament smacks of classic dissociation.
(Neatly ignoring the reality in which he asked for and got advice from an attorney that told him how to possibly avoid tax and who was himself struck off another's state law register before he landed on Hovind's doorstep...which Hovind probably regarded as a gift from heaven in his insanity.)
Hovind is relegated to playing xian martyr, pretending to talk with figments and characters that might be recognisable to the average victim in his delusional version of reality.
Of course casting himself as a victim is just the egocentric currying of sympathy and support of his dilemma at the hands of an uncaring and godless secular authority, bit like jeebus without the excuse, or indeed the nails.
Although metaphorically speaking he might be getting nailed in other ways!
His defence during his trial was cringe worthy from beginning to end and is still remarkable in the fact that some jerk off lawyer would actually go into a court and argue his clients case based on his clients insane refusal to realise the shit he is in, again classic mental illness.
Ham is probably trying to reconcile rumblings and mutterings in his own flock and at the same time take a poorly aimed pot shot at atheists.
When in doubt attack is the xian maxim!
'Explaining' the Hovind descent into barking dementia the Hambone is also into the damage limitation phase of fundamental pig shit spouting.
Bad bizzyness when one of their own goes into dementia and publicly exposes the fact!
What to do, well for an xian tis easy, bit of cognitive dissonance of course.
The characters in Hovind's discourse are performing in an 'allegorical' cameo!
Funny how when shit is flying a sudden lurch to rationality is an easy step thus neatly indicating that Ham can be a shade or two more rational when required.
Also indicating that Ham knows exactly what he is preaching and realises that there is more cash in lying about an inerrant fact in a fairy story then admitting to a allegorical meaning to his pet hobby.
But when needs must and as a fire blanket 'allegorical' will do nicely, it also indicated that Ham knows what allegorical means, interesting no?
The pop at PZ was to easy a shot to punt.
Of course a certain twist to the rant means that Ham could trumpet a superiority in front of his marks...at least in his own universe... to them danged intelektuals!
A certain misinterpretation is all that is required and depending on his flocks literary ignorance can claim victory while appearing astute!
Switch, bate and roll the dice...the xian way!
Posted by: fiona.wallace.fiction
|
January 14, 2010 3:49 AM
...which reminds me - we really need to have an atheist singles night so we can, erm, 'construct some subjective, personal meaning'.
Hey - perhaps all the singles could wear badges with that on it:
Hello! Can we create some subjective, personal meaning together?
Tassie Devil (who has now been outed by google)
Posted by: jafafahots
|
January 14, 2010 4:17 AM
Ham is totally confused. It's not his silly non-existent god I'm not believing in because of being pissed off at...
It's John Frum I'm refusing to believe in because I'm pissed off at him.
Two years - two fucking years spent building a bamboo air traffic control tower, and I didn't get jack shit for it.
Fuck you, John Frum! I am SO not going to believe in you until it makes you CRY!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 14, 2010 4:18 AM
I'm all for that. I'm sure I'm not the only one...
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
January 14, 2010 5:25 AM
If your going to the convention, and haven't already done so, pop on over to http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2208 and let us know.
I also live in the "sunshine state". We must need the excuse to escape the "god botherer state" more than others need to leave a burning building.
I've made up a name badge with my usual online avatar and name (DanDare). The convention seems to have built up a reputation as some kind of '60s event. Wonder what it will be like?
See you there!
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 14, 2010 5:40 AM
dannystevens, the aussie Pharyngulite horde has planned to be there for months, and will be there in full strength, so no need to advertise around here LOL
Please elaborate ?
That might actually be a good idea so people know who everyone is. The pharyngulites won't need them tho since we will get together on the Friday, socialise and get a little wasted just to warm up..:-)
Posted by: Moggie
|
January 14, 2010 6:19 AM
#15:
Bacon: the foundation of modern science and ethics.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
January 14, 2010 6:27 AM
Humans are greater than gods; others have said as much in past centuries, and yet religion will have us bow down to something that does not exist - worse still religion would have us listen to liars who claim that they speak for this god and know what it wants. A lying president who claimed that this nonexistent being spoke to him was bad enough - fortunately we now have a president who does not appear to be that delusional. (I hope he does less damage, and with any luck some good.)
Where was this benevolent being as humans studied the natural world and learned to manipulate it - to fly, to leave the earth and touch an alien world. No doubt he was raping the children of his adherents in order to teach his adherents a lesson of some sort. Perhaps he was murdering people in droves in one of the wars he inspired, just as we see him demanding murder and mayhem in the old testament. Or perhaps he's just putting words in the mouth of his sock-puppet Ken Ham. Or perhaps Ham is the puppet master?
Posted by: renaissanceblonde
|
January 14, 2010 6:53 AM
Hi - first post here!
I love the blog, PZ, and the neat way you skewer the morons like a narwhal. I'm far from godless myself (Deistic Celtic/Norse pagan) but I would rather live next door to an atheist than a fundie of ANY stripe.
I'd also like to apologise on Queensland's behalf for Ken Ham. He does, however, provide me with some minor amusement.
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us
|
January 14, 2010 6:59 AM
For those who haven't seen Bill Maher interview Ham in Religulous.
Ham [stern, angry face and voice] to Maher: Are you God?
Maher [shakes head, resigned to the stupidity]: No.
Listen to the brief DVD commentary to hear the love Maher and Larry Charles have for Ham.
And while were at it, the Bible's absolute reverence for the Egyptians, one more time:
Posted by: shonny
|
January 14, 2010 7:09 AM
Rampant nuttery seems to best describe the US christoloonies (and a few others elsewhere).
Notice that the latest one spewing godfucking bile is Pat Robertson over the disaster in Haiti.
How low can they get? And how can people become such zombies that they accept the shit?
The more that is exposed the more frightening The God Virus becomes.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
January 14, 2010 7:09 AM
Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM @ 39;
Wait, there's an orgy? Why does nobody ever tell me about the orgies? Its not fair damn it!
You just know that the likes of Ken Ham are going to get the vapours about atheist 'sexual immorality' right about now. The response is easy enough to imagine;
"Orgies! *cluthches pearls* They are talking about orgies like filthy heathens! Won't somebody think of the children!"
Of course what this actually translates to is;
"What! Even the damned atheists get orgies? No fair! I knew I chose the wrong religion. I could be enjoying a nice pagan fertility rite about now, but oh no! I had to pick the weird, prudish god who has 'issues'."
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
January 14, 2010 7:20 AM
Bride of Shrek OM @ 71;
Ken Ham is utterly undeserving of your fabulous ta-tas, though I am sure that plenty of your fellow Pharyngulites would be highly appreciative. ;-)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 14, 2010 7:31 AM
The Dude: Fuckin' Ken Ham... that creep can spew, man.
Walter Sobchak: Yeah, but he's a pervert, Dude.
The Dude: Yeah.
Walter Sobchak: No, he's a sex offender. With a record. He served 6 months in Chino for raping a piglet.
The Dude: Oh!
Walter Sobchak: When he moved to Ohio he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a piglet rapist. [sic]
Donny: What's a... piglet rapist, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut the fuck up, Donny.
Posted by: DebinOz
|
January 14, 2010 8:28 AM
I'm so excited, and can hardly wait for the conference here in the 'spiritual wasteland' of Australia (according to my ex father-in-law). I've ordered some new t-shirts, have the kids organised, and am ready for some wonderful godless knees-up - WOOT.
Posted by: DebinOz
|
January 14, 2010 8:35 AM
Are we going to have a drink at Y and J's to salute Chloe?
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
January 14, 2010 8:39 AM
Slap some Mayo on that Ham and take it out of the toaster oven, it is all done.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 14, 2010 8:41 AM
Rev @ 90,
priceless !
Posted by: RickR
|
January 14, 2010 9:06 AM
John Morales @#42- I've never read Dante, but I did read "Inferno" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. In one scene, one of the damned states "We are in the hands of infinite power and infinite sadism".
It was never clear whether the speaker meant Satan of god. Which, I suppose, was the point.
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
January 14, 2010 9:12 AM
Ken Ham simply cannot wrap his brain around this bizarre idea that "some people do not believe in God." Not only can he not picture the universe without the Magic Skydaddy scrim hanging in his face, but he can't imagine how other people can live without that illusion. There are no atheists in Ham's universe; just people who don't want to worship his God. Through that lens, it's no surprise that the atheist convention looks so bizarre to him.
That, and he's cottoning onto the fact that we heathens really know how to have a good time, and without the hangover of guilt afterwards.
Posted by: Pope Bologna XIII - The Glorious High Sauceror of Pastafarianism and Grand Poobah of His Holy Meatball.
|
January 14, 2010 9:12 AM
[i]"The difference is that we believe those rules should be developed by humane principles that recognize the equality and interdependence of all people, rather than being rules contrived by priests to perpetuate their power by inventing arbitrary ultimatums from imaginary superbeings."[/i]
God couldn't have put it better himself.
Posted by: RickR
|
January 14, 2010 9:18 AM
Sorry, that should be: satan or god.
[/Rev]
Posted by: baliset
|
January 14, 2010 9:24 AM
It may be useful to understand a bit of background here. When Ken Ham knifed his former friends in Australia, Wieland et al, one of the more curious things that occurred during the split and subsequent acrimony surrounded a difference of opinion in how to handle the "creationists even *we* think are crazy" question. A lot of website material common to both organisations before the split was now hosted separately. Ham's (AiG) site removed a piece critical of Hovind, and the spurned Australian branch (Creation Ministries) kept theirs up. As insane as both sides are, there was at least the suggestion from Wieland that "the brand" could be tainted by not reproving (be it ever so mildly) loons like Hovind with his "Dinos are alive and well in Indonesia"/antisemitic/9-11 conspiricy theorism gush.
This new blog post from Ham is educative, as it is, as far as I know, his first pronouncement on Hovind for some time. And what does Ham do? Defend Hovind.
Ham is crafty, have no doubt. Evil, but crafty. He dare not come out too strongly against egregiously bad creationists like Hovind or Baugh because it DOES NOT MATTER how shonky their "other" beliefs are; their money is still more valuable. Do they *still* pedal discredited Creationist arguments AiG caution against using? No matter. Are they likely to be antisemitic? Hush now. In prison for a *decade* for tax fraud. Dismiss it in a line but don't separate yourself from Hovind supporters by disowning him.
I think Ham's little rant was just a keep-alive tickle to show he still hasn't got the guts to just come out and say "Hovind is a crazy man's crazy. Don't touch him! You'll get the crazy too!"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
January 14, 2010 9:41 AM
Rev #90
Lebowski reference... and on bowling night no less! Sweet serendipity, you rock Rev...
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
January 14, 2010 9:43 AM
#99
"Ham is crafty, have no doubt. Evil, but crafty."
It is probably more about maintaining a flow of cash through the turnstiles of Ham's circus then any 'bruvver in de crap' thang.
If Ham denounces Hovind not only does he create an internecine war of words b'twixt 'n' b'tween Hovind clones and Ham clones...but...
Comprehensively screws the fishing of demented fuckwits that want to believe crap, cos if they war the stupid get caught in between Ham's comic version and Hovind's comic version and being not that bright they might become Buddhists and split the difference.
America is big but having the two of the largest monuments to absurdity bitch fighting is not good bizzyness!
Just politics really..the seedy kind!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnzYFSRFGBVc7i7Ah_p05XVo1r8TIQ4dn8
|
January 14, 2010 9:44 AM
it should be clear that we aren't a bunch of despondent nihilists.
Of course, many nihilists are not despondent.
Well, so I've heard.
DaveH of Lundun.
Posted by: Anri
|
January 14, 2010 9:49 AM
RickR says:
Well, not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
January 14, 2010 9:52 AM
I think Satan has infinite power in Catholicism, but God's infinite power is of a higher cardinality.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
January 14, 2010 9:58 AM
#103
"I don't know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power."
Then why does Yahweh and his brat have such a hard time combating Beelzebub.
Is god supposed to not have infinite power...if so then Satan is holding his own...ergo he has infinite power as well?
Seems god has not the cojones to handle his old pal!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
January 14, 2010 9:58 AM
Which, of course, creates yet another conundrum for christianity.
If god is of infinite power, and satan is not... why would god not simply do away with satan and all of his evil tricks that apparently cause us poor stupid humans to question god's existence?
Just blink satan out of existence... it seems that, for a loving, caring, compassionate god, that would be the thing to do to. Think of all the poor Haitians that would be alive today if god had only done away with satan, right Pat Robertson?
So either god is unable to perish satan, in which case he is not god and why should we care... or he is unwilling to perish satan and allows him to harm, seduce, and otherwise affect unwitting humans, in which case he is sadistic and sociopathic.
Either way, why the fuck would anyone want to be associated with such a being?
Posted by: claire-chan
|
January 14, 2010 10:11 AM
I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham's AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting. Despite all the spam about which you continually complain. I'm really sorry you get so much junk, P.Z..
However, thank you for keeping it open. I like that very much.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
January 14, 2010 10:16 AM
#105
"Is god supposed to not have infinite power"
Better as 'Is not god supposed to have infinite power.'
#106
Reminded me of the classic Epicurus poser...
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?
The blustering and puffing I usually get from committed xians for this is magnificent in its desperation!
Posted by: RickR
|
January 14, 2010 10:26 AM
"Well, not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power."
Perhaps not, but he's certainly King Cheese of The Hot Place.
Posted by: heironymous
|
January 14, 2010 10:33 AM
[blockquote]It's pretty obvious the book of Genesis is designed to be understood as metaphor. [/blockquote]
I don't 100% agree with this. The book of Genesis when it was written was probably meant to be taken literally.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
January 14, 2010 10:42 AM
I know this is supposed to be a red herring, but it has to be the saddest one I've ever seen. What it really says is "I can't imagine finding meaning in anything other than the banal self delusion I indulge". Stating that you need an imaginary parent and a contrived "happily ever after" ending in order for your life to have meaning has to be the ultimate nihilism. If that is really what makes life livable for you, then why even bother?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 14, 2010 10:46 AM
I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham's AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting. Despite all the spam about which you continually complain. I'm really sorry you get so much junk, P.Z..
However, thank you for keeping it open. I like that very much.
There is the difference. Ken Ham's site is where to go to receive the revealed wisdom from holy man. There is no interaction for the readers. Here, while PZ may start the topics but this blog is fueled by the interaction of the readers.
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 14, 2010 10:53 AM
I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham's AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting.
If he interacted with the logical musings his sheeples flocks, they would quickly discover what an idiot he is. (For example, in this case they would wonder why Ham doesn't think it is blasphemous for Kent Hovind to post fake conversations with God onto the internet, and other idiotic theological stuff like that.)
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 14, 2010 11:12 AM
Huuummmm, 386sx, could it be that our tentacle bearded, baby roasting, nihilist overlord is able to stand up to more scrutiny than the devout Ham?
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
January 14, 2010 11:21 AM
That's what always bothered me about the story of Job. According to the Bible, God's all-powerful and all-knowing, and Satan knows this. Yet Satan makes enters into a wager with God? Why would Satan do that? Why would you bet against somebody who's never wrong? And what is God thinking, letting it happen? He lets Satan torture and murder women and children just to prove that Job will stay faithful. Hell of an ego.
Posted by: thou 386sx
|
January 14, 2010 11:26 AM
Huuummmm, 386sx, could it be that our tentacle bearded, baby roasting, nihilist overlord is able to stand up to more scrutiny than the devout Ham?
Yes I believe they would soon find out what an empty headed fool Mr. Ham is. Most of them are probably too steeped in "stupidness" to question Mr. Ham's words, but other people not of his flock would sneak in there and point out the obvious stupidity and emptiness of his words.
Posted by: raven
|
January 14, 2010 11:35 AM
The Jewish version of god isn't really much of a nice deity. That was the point of the Job story.
Xianity has evolved over time. These days satan isn't very powerful while god is all powerful. It used to be that satan was planting all the fossils to hide the existence of god. These days it is god hiding the fossils to hide his own existence.
While god is more powerful these days, he is still a monster.
Posted by: abb3w
|
January 14, 2010 11:39 AM
baliset: When Ken Ham knifed his former friends in Australia, Wieland et al, one of the more curious things that occurred during the split and subsequent acrimony surrounded a difference of opinion in how to handle the "creationists even *we* think are crazy" question.
So, there might be a case made for Ninth Circle....
Anri: I don't know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.
Depends whether you view Satanism as a heretical Christian sect or not.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
January 14, 2010 11:40 AM
Yes, that one bothers me too. All too often I see people use the logic "It seems stupid if I interpret it literally, therefore the authors obviously didn't intend me to believe it." - forgetting that with this particular book, there's plenty of precedent for places were stupid things are meant literally, so it's not as if that rationale can be universally applied as a rule of thumb here.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
January 14, 2010 12:07 PM
#115 KOPD42 And wouldn't an omniscient God know what Job would do (the outcome of the bet)? And what's the payoff to the winner - gold? jewels? a night in Las Vegas at the loser's expense?
Posted by: CRS
|
January 14, 2010 12:18 PM
@ Hypatia's Daughter
Re: Job, you would not believe the mental gymnastics theology uses to jump that hurdle. Every sect (Jewish and Xtian) has their own take on it. A very good Yale Open Course on the Hebrew Babble refers to the story's beauty. Yeah, the killing of a man's family and cattle by YHWH and then to be afflicted by boils, etc. is so edifying. Masochistic in the extreme.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 14, 2010 12:23 PM
Isn't the 'Satan' of the Bible and of original Christian Theology more like God's Beta Tester then some sort of rebel and ultimate evil anyway? I think we're asking the wrong questions in asking why there isn't more of him in the bible for this reason.
Posted by: CRS
|
January 14, 2010 12:30 PM
Yes, Rutee, he seems to be a sort of prosecuting attorney for the heavenly court in the Job story. The theory is that exposure to Zoroastrianism (during the Babylonian exile) led to the idea of Satan as a powerful source of evil. YHWH got to remain the most powerful (and blameless), and Satan has had bad press ever since.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
January 14, 2010 12:31 PM
Nerd @ #1
I'm a bit late in responding but The Hamster's rantings make much more sense if you listen to this at the same time instead.
Posted by: Anri
|
January 14, 2010 12:36 PM
abb3w says:
Ah, good point, I didn't even consider that angle. I don't know much about Satanism as it's actually practiced (if there is anything that ogranized - the few 'Satanists' I have met seem to defy any sort of central dogma.. or for that matter, any sort of sense at all...) So I have no idea how their central worship figure is expressed.
....
My expression of the problem of evil is, of course, nothing new, and my take on it is nothing original with me.
Interestingly enough, I've only ever heard two cogent relpies to it.
A few Christians I have spoken with hold that god, while powerful, is not actually ommnipotent. This seems to conflict with the description of god as 'almighty', but they seem to think that that's just shorthand for 'really, really powerful - no, really powerful!'
The other response I have heard is that in demonstrating the contradiction between god being ommnipotent, perfectly good, and yet still allowing (or doing!) evil, it is claimed that this is the shortage of man's thought and language when applied to god. In other words, we cannot concieve or express god's might or goodness with our limited human facilities.
Of course, the answer for this is also straightforward - aside from the obvious question about god not bothering to make us capable of understanding him - a believer is left with a (twofold) problem:
If words cannot express god's mind, if we can't even try to capture it thusly, then you can't explain it to me using words, and therefore all holy writ is garbage. All of it.
Also, many fairly smart relgious people have happily applied logic and language to the existence and wishes of god - presumably they must all be wrong as well. Baibai, Christian philosophy.
Speaking for myself, it's this twisted snake's nest of logical mess at the heart of Christianity that keeps me from entertaining it even as a faith-only, evidence-free kind of dogma.
In my experience, digging this deeply into what one of the faithful actually believes just elicts an uncomfortable shrug from them.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 14, 2010 12:46 PM
"Yes, Rutee, he seems to be a sort of prosecuting attorney for the heavenly court in the Job story. The theory is that exposure to Zoroastrianism (during the Babylonian exile) led to the idea of Satan as a powerful source of evil. YHWH got to remain the most powerful (and blameless), and Satan has had bad press ever since."
I'm not sure on that, because I've never heard of the Jews giving a damn about him, which they would if it was taken during the Babylonian Exile. I thought Satan went from Prosecuting Attorney to Evil Deity sometime during the Dark Ages, after Satan had already been conflated with several deities of other mythos to try to bring in converts from the area (Like how the Norse myths we know of technically come from after the christianization of the area)
Posted by: CJO
|
January 14, 2010 1:02 PM
Satan is literally "the accuser". He doesn't cause or promote evil, he's the angel tasked with reporting on it. Beelzebub ("Lord of Flies," from Baal, the old Canaanite deity) is the more common name for the evil power in the New Testament.
It's all fairly confused, but the take-home is that in the Hebrew scriptures, Satan is an agent of God, not his opponent. Conflating the idea of the devil with the serpent in Eden, for instance, is entirely a later Christian fabrication. No such implication exists in Genesis.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 14, 2010 1:04 PM
No.
What we do is wrest fun for ourselves from a pitiless, uncaring background!
Now excuse me. I
have a manuscript to reviewwant to review a manuscript I was sent!TREASON!
I never got mine! <trying to lift ridiculously large sword off wall, and failing> Who's in on the conspiracy!!! I should kill them where they stand!
<sob>
If there were a god, the sluts would be ignorant instead of me.
That comes afterwards. First comes Deuteronomy 18:20–22.
Urgh. That's probably just an innocent typo, but it's like saying "for he" when you want to say "for them". You want -is, not -us.
You have another typo in the next paragraph – you wanted id ("it"), not is ("to them").
However, combibo has the ending for the first person singular. You the imperative singular instead, which ends in -e.
Quia! That sounds good! Unfortunately I can't at all remember if it's appropriate. :-)
However, I'd replace omnes by omnia (the neuter form), and ab means "away from" – "for" is good old pro.
That would be the noun, followed by "male-singular-self”. What you want is…
FVTVE·TE·IPSVM
…or ipsam if you're talking to someone female. Or vos ipsos (male plural) or vos ipsas (female plural).
:-o
Aren't these three mutually incompatible options?
"The Bible"? Both of these concepts occur only in parts of the Bible that are younger than the Book of Job.
And the "omnibenevolent" part is younger still. Rather than the mildly henotheistic heavenly court full of divine sons ("God's Beta Tester", LOL! :-D ) found in the Book of Job, the Book of Isaiah declares monotheism in no uncertain terms. So mono- that there's not even room for a devil in it:
Even Islam doesn't go that far.
I think simple confusion is more likely.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 14, 2010 1:09 PM
WTF?
How did I miss out on this during my OM initiation?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 14, 2010 1:10 PM
Oh yeah. Link to Isaiah 45.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
January 14, 2010 1:16 PM
David Marjanović, now that is a good chapter to remember to stump bible-thumpers and an easy one, too: the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything + the Trinity.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 14, 2010 1:19 PM
How did I miss out on this during my OM initiation?
I could have sworn that I sent the invitations to every recipient of the OM for every initiation orgy. I will have to check my records.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 14, 2010 1:25 PM
Well, I guess the secret's out now, but there appears to be some confusion. What she neglected to mention, of course, is that the OM-initiation orgies are (with very few exceptions) women-only events. It's a bonding thing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 14, 2010 1:26 PM
harumph
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 14, 2010 1:29 PM
It's a bonding thing.
And a branding thing.
Oops! Did I say that?
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 14, 2010 1:37 PM
And Janine and Patricia really need to stop talking before the Orgy Committee comes for them. Next thing you know, they'll be describing for all the world in detail what we do with the bac
Posted by: destlund
|
January 14, 2010 1:51 PM
Talk about some well-earned Gumbies! (Just in reference to the post; I haven't read the comments)
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 14, 2010 1:55 PM
Um, kind of not safe for work. This is where we have to be careful about the branding and cooking.
Thinking about it, our orgies and kind of dangerous.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 14, 2010 2:06 PM
I'm not sure if I'm horribly disgusted or extremely turned on.
Posted by: destlund
|
January 14, 2010 2:28 PM
Having read the comments; ta-tas, bacon, Ham, and Isaiah! The only things missing are GOATS ON FIRE!
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
January 14, 2010 2:56 PM
I believe there is no way for sentient, emotion-laden existence to not be "meaningful". A life-containing universe cannot help but have purpose. I get a little frustrated when atheists agree that for the universe to have a meaning, there must be a God behind it, therefore the universe has no ultimate meaning. What the universe lacks is an ultimate Plan, but that's not the same thing as ultimate meaning.
The "purpose" of life is not something we "make for ourselves", because then we would get invent morality, and we don't. (Only God, supposedly, has the power to make up what's right or wrong. Not.) The badness of suffering is part and parcel of what suffering is, and the same for the goodness of freedom and pleasure. In short, my opinion on the subject is "brute facts, brute facts".
The longer atheists talk about meaning as solely something we "make for ourselves", the longer theists will assume us to be relativistic or nihilists, and in a cartoon way, too. I do respect and appreciate nihilism, I just respectfully disagree. I think. Maybe?
No person "makes the meaning" of a butterfly — it is meaningful exactly insofar as it is a butterfly. If this is nonsense, I would say it is less so than the nonsense of a butterfly's meaning coming from an outside force, be it God or PZ. If everything were rational, nothing would exist. :)
Well, I digress in the sense that a butterfly becomes more meaningful the more people are there to appreciate it. But that's not the same as "choosing" whether the butterfly is meaningful. We have no choice in that matter.
Posted by: NotMyGod
|
January 14, 2010 3:14 PM
Ham and sons of Ham (figuratively),
You are *begging* to be made fun of. And you wonder why we don't respect religion? Ay gevalt! You sure do a good job of alienating people who are smart and rational.
Just occurred to me: Shouldn't Ham and the rest *want* atheist to be fruitful, multiply and organize? Wouldn't this help bring on the Rapture, which Xians want? Same reason they support Israel? I support Israel, but for a different set of reasons, I'm afraid.
I didn't read all the comments on this section, but how did it veer into an orgy chat?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 14, 2010 3:20 PM
The part of me that is turned on by the thought of women's nether regions is turned on, while the part of me that immediately reaches for the soap after handling uncooked meat really hopes she's going to hop in the shower right after.
Sex and OCD don't always make the best of partners.
Him, walking into the bedroom to find her naked in bed: "Oh, honey, you look delicious! Are those chocolate-dipped strawberries? Rowr, I am so turned on right now." [Grabs the strawberries and leaves the room]
Her: "Hey, where are you going?"
Him, in the kitchen, putting the food in tupperware and into the fridge: "Oh, you didn't think we were going to eat these in bed, did you? Those sheets are Egyptian cotton. But I am so going to show you how turned on you make me once I've got these put away. So hot! Say, you washed your hands after touching these and before you got in the bed, right? Maybe you should wash 'em again, just to make sure. God, I love you. Hey, how long has this milk been in here?"
Man, sometimes I really hate my life.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
January 14, 2010 3:23 PM
It's a law of pharyngula threads that given a certain amount of time, all conversations will inevitably veer towards either bacon, lesbians or orgies.
Clearly, this needs a name...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 14, 2010 3:32 PM
Or some combination of the above.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
January 14, 2010 4:13 PM
Raven @ 117;
So Yahweh has leveled up to a level 80 Epic evil deity?
Posted by: creating trons
|
January 14, 2010 4:14 PM
"Clearly, this needs a name..."
well instead of having a tasty BLT, we could have a BLO.
your turn...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 14, 2010 4:16 PM
Occasionally we'll talk about scotch whisky or biology.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 14, 2010 4:18 PM
I like those days, I end up learning a lot.Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
January 14, 2010 4:20 PM
Hypatia's Daughter @ 120;
No silly. The payoff is succulent, tasty souls. Lightly fried in a guilt garnish and seasoned with a sprinkling of unecessary suffering for flavour.
Yahweh and Satan are quite the connoisseurs of fine spectral cuisine, you know.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 14, 2010 4:25 PM
I say that god is getting weaker. 6,000 years ago he could poof the entire universe into being in less than a week. A couple of thousand years later he couldn't manage a restart of the Earth but had to settle for a big flood. A couple of thousand years later he died and it took him three days to reincarnate himself. Nowadays he's reduced to showing himself on slices of toast and dog's asses.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 14, 2010 4:33 PM
More than weaker, he's getting senile. Bushfires were raging in Victoria, countless prayers for rain to put it out and what happens? Severe flooding in North Queensland. Missed by 3000km. If that's not senility...Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 14, 2010 4:33 PM
ab also signifies an actor, so in my version it would work like "modesty is what monks do" :-)Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
January 14, 2010 4:35 PM
I would like to claim that my integrity is unimpeachable, and that I cannot be bought.
Unfortunately, this is not true. I would pretty much believe in any god that provided me with an endless supply of bacon, lebians and orgies (not necessarily in that order). Well, just so long as the deity in question was not an evil sociopath like Yahweh.
So far, the FSM in the lead. If any other deity wants to make me an offer, then they know how to contact me.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 14, 2010 4:36 PM
and of course the moment I hot post I realized when I said "modesty", I meant "moderation" :-p
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
January 14, 2010 4:51 PM
'Tis Himself, Om @ 151;
I think you have a point there. I can just see a destitute Yahweh, dressed in a old overcoat stuffed with rags and newspaper, down to his last few coins. Bottle of rot-gut booze in hand, he rails against the cruelty of his lot:-
*Imagine druken, rambling tone*
"I used to be a power to be reckoned with, you know! I was a real player, back in the day. Everyone was scared of me. Even the fancy-pants ancient gods like Zeus didn't dare diss the Y-man. I created everything, all this around us now, in just one week. Actually, it was all done in six days. I put my feet up on the seventh, just to lety everyone know whose the best! *hiccough*
*belch* Someone got on my bad side and blammo! They were gone, just like that. I took out almost all you little humans like that once with a great big flood. Can think why for the life of me now. I was a bit of a rascal back then. Tee Hee! Watching all the humans run about like headless chickens was hilarious! I laughed myself sick! Well, that might have been the hangover actually.
*stagger* Where was I? Oh yes. I used to be the big man, but you know what I do for a living today? Do you? No? Well I'll tell you. I reveal myself to you ungrateful apes on peices on toast and dog's arses! That's right, dog's arses! Its so damned humiliating. Still, I'll get back on my feet, and then you'll be sorry! I'll fix all you lot but good. You see if I don't!
*collapses in a corner, and starts snoring loudly*
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/9sNhu9YQhMTEOf7RqBDZe6iHIV139_JC#829ff
|
January 14, 2010 5:14 PM
Badger3k, not sure what name it will sign me in with.
I agree - Australia, you owe us all a new camera, or else I (and we) will take you off our facebook friends lists. As soon as I put you on, that is.
Irony, thy name is Ham.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 14, 2010 5:35 PM
The commanding language; the crisp, pear-shaped tones--I'd recognise a graduate of Stuyvesant High School anywhere.
Posted by: CJO
|
January 14, 2010 5:54 PM
The whole Kw*k episode was worth it solely for the sheer comedy gold Brownian yet still continues to find there.
Jeebus that shit is funny, Brownian.
Posted by: CJO
|
January 14, 2010 5:58 PM
"crisp, pear-shaped tones."
I still haven't stopped laughing, and people are starting to look at me funny.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 14, 2010 6:24 PM
Yeah, this is the one that gets me - and which I like to point out to Christians whenever I get the opportunity. Why is something powerful enough to create the universe (albeit in six days) suddently reduced to the status of irritable pissant rain god?
And what about those iron chariots? What kind of wuss-god is driven away by iron fucking chariots?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 14, 2010 6:28 PM
a magnetic one?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 14, 2010 6:36 PM
I've never encountered anyone so indignantly baffled by everyone's reaction to him: clearly we were expected to respect his upper class superiority AND his ability to mingle with the common man.
He did everything but call us "townies" and cry that we wouldn't let him sit at our booth at Pop's Chock'lit Shoppe.
Still makes me howl.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 14, 2010 6:39 PM
No Sven: magnets attract iron objects.
Posted by: renaissanceblonde
|
January 14, 2010 7:11 PM
@128
Yeah: Brigid, the Fire of Inspiration, is my Goddess-focus because she represents Creativity. Odin is my God-focus because he represents knowledge and sacrifice.
I'm Deistic because I believe in higher powers, I just think they've got better things or don't give a crap about us. :P
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 14, 2010 7:14 PM
Lots of mythological critters can't handle iron. Celtic elves, unicorns, various færies have an aversion to iron. So it shouldn't be surprising that a mythological god has the same problem with iron.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 14, 2010 7:23 PM
It should if it's the same god who created the bloody stuff in the first place. What, he didn't know he was allergic to it? Did that slip his mind when he included iron ore in his Six Day Recipe for the Universe?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 14, 2010 7:32 PM
HELLO !
Remember, the omnipotent creator of the universe had to rest when he was done.
Enough said.
Posted by: Joffan
|
January 14, 2010 8:10 PM
Gregory:
... it would be a malicious god indeed that supplied me with an "endless supply" of lesbians, especially if they were the only other actors in the orgies. The bacon is scant compensation.
Posted by: Evil Merodach
|
January 14, 2010 8:54 PM
I think Ken has a point. I, for one, am getting very tired at shaking my fist at God all the time. And not just Yaweh but Baal, Ahura-Mazda, Tiamat, Marduk, Zeus, Poseidon, Ixchel, Xbalanque, Yen-Lo-Wang, Osiris, Baldur, Amaterasu, Mithras ...well you get the idea.
I don't know why I have all this rebelliousness in me against things that are nonexistent. I'm worried I'll start up on ghosts, yetis, and chupacabras soon. All this disbelief is so damn time-consuming.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
January 14, 2010 9:21 PM
....*stumbles in*...
Damn, that last OM orgy was a doozy - I just woke up. What'd I miss?
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 9:39 PM
Buuut David...dear, some of us sluts ARE ignorant.
Now Carlie, we're both going to get chastised for mentioning...you know what. Off to the spanking couch with you my lass.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 14, 2010 9:54 PM
Bacinis. Resort '11 preview.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
January 14, 2010 9:56 PM
Carlie
I know the feeling honey, last OM party I went to I innocently put my car keys in a communal bowl that was sitting on the table and *bam* someone tells me I have to sleep with some guy called Smoggy.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 14, 2010 10:02 PM
Well, sure, so, you know, any god who didn't want, like, chariots stuck all over her would try to avoid the area, right? If she was magnetic and saw them coming?
Hey, wait...is this..."Theology"?
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 10:16 PM
Bride of Shrek - Oh bad luck dear, but it could have been worse. I drew the keys to the stock trailor, and there was Floyd Rubbers bloody Southdown ram... those damned horns are murder.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 14, 2010 10:21 PM
pssssssst...you're forgetting the ZFirst and Second Rulez of the orgies...
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 14, 2010 10:38 PM
Well, there was that time that I drew the Truth Machine's keys. It was interesting but damn was it rough. TM did not think my fucking was intellectually honest.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 10:54 PM
TRUTH MACHINE!!!
yeek, reels off to the grog keg... helmet, someone give me a helmet. shriek!
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 14, 2010 11:04 PM
That must be one of the funniest things I've read for a long long time...:-)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 14, 2010 11:13 PM
Ah, fortunately only the day old grog keg. If it was the 7 day old grog keg, she might have undergone spontaneous combustion with that much downed, or with 10 feet of an ignition source...Posted by: SC OM
|
January 14, 2010 11:17 PM
*spews drink across the room*
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 14, 2010 11:20 PM
Gold!
Crap. He's going to come for me now, isn't he?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
January 14, 2010 11:34 PM
Just by mentioning him by name we'll invoke his wrath. Now we're all gonna get our butts kicked.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 11:38 PM
Janine has won her Golden Clusters with that remark.
Oh wait, are Golden Clusters larger than Brass Bosoms?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 14, 2010 11:40 PM
I hear that, at sleepovers held for members of high school debate teams, if you say his name in front of a mirror five times he'll appear and take you to task for your poor argumentative skills and lack of knowledge...
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
January 14, 2010 11:45 PM
Well if I could just get these damned ram horns sorted out I could deal with the Truth Machine. *snort*
But Janine has a love Jones going.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
January 15, 2010 12:22 AM
Well, I finally had time (time won from regular time-to-go-to-sleep) to read parts of this thread. Janine @178 that was fucking priceless ... and surprisingly intellectually honest.
I love you.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
January 15, 2010 12:34 AM
At the OM orgy following my mollydom, we added jello to the usual decadent rituals. This was done in honor of my love for the Jello Corridor in which I live. Rev BDC, this detail is just for you. The jello was green.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 15, 2010 12:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlkJ7JXETr0
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 15, 2010 2:37 AM
Man I could have used that 10 years ago, even today really. It's just not fun unless someone is taking you to task and therefore pushing you to be better.Posted by: antirick
|
January 15, 2010 3:33 AM
All I can say is - Mr PZ you dont have to refute his arguments point by point, dont let him frame the argument.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
January 15, 2010 5:35 AM
Unfortunately, as I'm in the UK, following my OM (won, of course, under another name), I've had to take part in the induction orgies by video-link only. OK, I'm a fairly visual person, but a virtual spanking couch just isn't the same!
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
January 15, 2010 5:59 AM
Lots of mythological critters can't handle iron. Celtic elves, unicorns, various færies have an aversion to iron. So it shouldn't be surprising that a mythological god has the same problem with iron. - 'Tis Himself
The semiotics of iron are fascinating. There's also the Hindu cosmology, which divides time into successive ages of gold, silver, bronze and iron - each worse than the last; I think this has a counterpart in ancient Greek mythology too. My guess is that this disparagement of iron is a bit of upper-class nostalgia: in the bronze age, the most effective weapons - bronze swords and spears - were limited to a small military aristocracy by their expense, in turn due to the limited supplies of tin. One iron-smelting was invented, this class monopoly of effective violence collapsed. The magical properties assigned to iron may reflect the corresponding lower-class glee at having a way to counter upper-class depredations (iron of course also made many non-military activities such as ploughing and tree-felling very much easier).
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
January 15, 2010 7:15 AM
Maybe the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet, but I've read antirick's comment 5 times and STILL can't figure out what he/she is saying.
@Patricia, Janine, SC, et al: thanks for the morning laughs (bacon, lesbians, spanking couches and all).
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 15, 2010 9:39 AM
'nother laff for Janine
And I begin to perceive the faintest wisp of an outline for the plot of Pharyngula The Movie...
or, wait, are we still working on the Opera? Even better.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
January 15, 2010 9:41 AM
Wait, there was a key swap? I wondered where everyone had gone and why I had to clean the place up by myself...
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
January 15, 2010 10:59 AM
Knockgoats @ 194
By my reckoning we're now in the Hindu age of Artificial Polyamides. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it though.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 15, 2010 12:03 PM
That key swap was for sex?!
Um, whoever's Acura this is, I'll leave it parked outside PZ's with the keys in it. The timing belt should probably be tightened. I don't know how that blood got on the front bumper.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 15, 2010 4:12 PM
Brownian?! what did you do to my car?!?!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 15, 2010 5:02 PM
:-o
Mark my words: the FSM had His Noodly Appendage in this.
Interesting. That was withheld from me. I'll have to look it up sometime.
...
No comment. This is my meatspace name I'm using here.
"I'll beat you up bad, but good!"
– Donald Duck
Now that's a strange combination. After all, those with knowledge tend to know how to get away early enough.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 15, 2010 8:18 PM
upon further consideration, it doesn't quite work in the way I wanted it to work. it does signify an actor, but probably more in the "bread comes from bakers" (panis ab panifice) sort of way. which still technically works, but it's not what I wanted to express. I wanted to express general possession, not whether something is given to (pro) or given by (ab) someone; however, my latin grammar is too rusty for that.
*glare*be nice, or i'll force-feed you raw mushrooms; with vinegar.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
January 15, 2010 11:12 PM
"Now that's a strange combination. After all, those with knowledge tend to know how to get away early enough."
...Um, Gandalf? Spock? Granted, they're not worshipped, but...
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 16, 2010 8:04 AM
I meant it in the other direction. I wasn't complaining about that typo; that would be silly.
...as fictional characters, they can behave as illogically as they like and still be called wise or logical, respectively. :-)
Posted by: blf
|
January 17, 2010 9:08 AM
Applies to the gods, albeit some, such as YHWH (יהוה) are best called insane. And certainly fictional.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/FvHHcZs.tZQO1BCeBRTaZJ_sYLGblP0UFh1G04dztQ--#27bb4
|
January 17, 2010 9:13 AM
I cant wait for Myers to do a one on one debate with Kent Hovind once he gets out. We should video it and send a copy of the DVD to every Christian in Australia. I myself will promise to distribute 1000 DVDs for free if Kent Hovind takes the challenge.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/FvHHcZs.tZQO1BCeBRTaZJ_sYLGblP0UFh1G04dztQ--#27bb4
|
January 17, 2010 9:15 AM
I cant wait for Myers to do a one on one debate with Kent Hovind once he gets out. We should video it and send a copy of the DVD to every Christian in Australia. I myself will promise to distribute 1000 DVDs for free if Kent Hovind takes the challenge.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 17, 2010 9:22 AM
The debate should occur in the peer reviewed scientific literature, the only place where science is refuted. By more science. If the deluded Hovind has any real evidence he gets a chance to present it. Failure to use that route means he acknowledges he is nothing but an delusional ignorant evidenceless conman. Oh, he has had years to show us that...
Posted by: Rorschach
|
January 17, 2010 9:24 AM
bold font troll @ 206,207
I don't imagine Dr Myers has any plans to debate convicted criminals, for one.
And I fail to see the relevance of this for "every Christian in Australia".
Posted by: RogerS
|
January 30, 2010 12:07 PM
It appears that the religion chosen to be criticized is the one most feared to be true: Christianity.
SETI smelling the coffee at last?
The uniqueness of the tremendous amount and varieties of ‘remaining’ life on our planet has led to two predominate schools of thought:
Since SETI’s silence has become deafening, it looks like Prof Davies’ legs are getting wobbly on #2. His best recourse is now looking for life only where #1 claims it occurred.
Written in love & concern, RogerS
-
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 30, 2010 12:50 PM
RogerS #210
How did you get this from Myer's comment? Pretty well all religions have creator gods. There's nothing particularly special in this respect about your favorite pet god. Also your comment doesn't follow from PZ's
Pope Benny doesn't like condoms and so lies about them. Your particular buddy Ken Ham thinks everyone should ignore reality and accept a 2500 year old myth. Mullahs have rape victims imprisoned for immorality. Etc., etc., etc.
Nope, nothing there to even hint that Christianity might even be true. We can provide arguments to show it's false, but you don't want to hear those, do you?
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say with your SETI argument. Davies is suggesting that we look for exotic microbes in Antarctica. That's because Martian meteorites (bits of the planet Mars) have been found there.
Out of all the billions of species of life that exist or have ever existed on Earth only one certain and a few possible species are intelligent (the jury is still out on cetacean intelligence). Intelligence seems to be a very low probability attribute for life. But very low probability does not equal zero. So why do you think out of all the trillions of planets orbiting trillions of stars in this immensely vast universe there's only one intelligent species?
Written with pity for your limited world view, 'Tis Himself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 30, 2010 12:57 PM
No, all religions and gods are false. Show conclusive evidence otherwise.Nope, just looking in more places. Welcome to science. Still searching in my spare computer time for ET.Posted by: RogerS
|
January 31, 2010 3:11 AM
The ownership comment definitely fits Christianity:
Today, it looks like the ones who need to come clean are the so called 'Scientists':1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (KJV) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
-RogerSPosted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
January 31, 2010 4:39 AM
Are you familiar with 1 Wowbagger? 'And yea, a scumbag shall come forth and preach the word of Yahweh, who is no god at all but an illusion believed by the foolish.'
My book says your god doesn't exist. Got any means to demonstrate otherwise?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 31, 2010 9:14 AM
<headshake>
RogerS, you have a lot to read about Climategategate (the scandalous quote-mining and otherwise misrepresentation of a few carefully cherry-picked e-mails coupled with arguments from ignorance and lack of understanding plus a specifically American political, ideological agenda).
There were lots and lots of ScienceBlogs posts about this for a month or two. How is it even possible that you noticed none of them?
It also fits lots and lots of others, Islam and Judaism come to mind immediately.
Again, your ignorance is speaking. You have not even read the book Rare Earth (Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, 1997) which argues very convincingly that, while life arises very easily, it is extremely improbable that intelligent life* evolves from it, because that requires a large number of conditions (the right amount of water so that plate tectonics etc. etc. can happen, a large moon to keep the axis from wobbling too much like that of Mars does, the right kind of distance from the center of the galaxy so that heavy elements are available but there are not too many supernovae or other dangerous events close by, and the list continues for hours), the combination of which is exceedingly rare.
Ward & Brownlee conclude that there are probably lots and lots and lots of planets where beings comparable to bacteria live, but almost none where beings comparable to a tree live, and extremely few, perhaps even just one, where beings comparable to a human live.
* As defined by radioastronomers: "capable of building a radio telescope".
BTW, what for would Elohim create such a huge universe when there's life on just one planet? You are the one for whose ideas the lack of SETI success poses problems.
Written in complete lack of knowledge of the vast majority of the relevant facts...
I don't doubt the sincerity of your concern, nor even that of your love. They're just both founded on arguments from ignorance, ignorance which is easily remedied.
Your concern is entirely unfounded, and you are lazy. Too lazy to sit down and learn. Catholics call this "sloth" and "one of the 7 Deadly Sins".
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 31, 2010 9:28 AM
No, the meteorites were found on the ice, not in dry valleys. He's noting that life occurs on Earth in places that would have been thought sterile 100 years ago, places similar to ones that are known to occur on other planets and certain moons. Looks like he agrees with the Rare Earth hypothesis.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 31, 2010 9:54 AM
Written by someone who didn't do the research necessary to understand what happened, and what was there. No "smoking gun" was present in those e-mails. Not to say they weren't quote-mined (a favorite lying tactic of creobots like you) extensively in an attempt to show wrong doing. But, when everything was looked at in total and with the proper perspective, there was nothing there.Still no conclusive physical evidence presented for your imaginary deity. Tsk, tsk. One might think it doesn't exist, and your deity exists only between your ears.
Posted by: Alan B
|
January 31, 2010 9:57 AM
Hi RogerS
Long time no see or hear.
Are you coming back to explain Flood Geology on the everlasting thread? If I remember, you left a few things outstanding.
Best wishes
Alan B
Posted by: RogerS
|
January 31, 2010 3:02 PM
What do you think we were taught in the govt. subsidized school system? The EVO theory is as bankrupt as the subsidizer.
Darwinian evolutionists hide behind a (pulpit) of “science” while spewing nothing but (religion). Etc., etc., etc. Notice how "religion" dominates Pharyngula “scienceblogs”.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 31, 2010 4:56 PM
Roger S, most of us are at this thread. It is a direct continuation of what you and Alan started about a year ago. Only now we just passed 20,000 posts. Join us there.
Sorry, but evolutionary theory is good science. It explains the totality of life on earth without the need for a deity. It is the only scientific theory of biology out there. Your ideas are religious ideas. Religion simply cannot refute the science. That requires more science. Science your side never puts into the scientific literature, because what it does isn't scientific, and they know it.Ah, the old science as religion bullshit. Something you can't prove, but your side make a big deal out of. And it all starts with the fallacious concept that everybody must have a religion. Sorry, some people don't have religions.Science has no gods, no priests, no holy books, no churches, no parishioners, no theology, no tithes. Science is nothing but a methodology for examining evidence, and figuring out how the world works. Science expects to continually improve, so some ideas will change. Just honest evidence looked at in an honest fashion, without the need for your deity.
As I said above, your old threads have continued and can be found at the link above.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
January 31, 2010 5:02 PM
Repetition must be some type of coping mechanism for creationist. They've been saying this since the theory of Evolution was formulated
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 31, 2010 5:13 PM
<smoke coming out of ears and nostrils>
Enough is enough. Have you ever noticed, moron, that there's more than one country on this planet!?!
Did you know that the only halfway rich countries with a noticeable proportion of creationists among the population are the USA and Turkey?
Your links don't work, and your sentence is akin to colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
There's no such thing as Pharyngula “scienceblogs”. Pharyngula is one of dozens of ScienceBlogs. There are many where religion is never mentioned, like this one...
Posted by: RogerS
|
January 31, 2010 6:14 PM
Dear David M,
You are now not far from Creationism and the kingdom of God.
An observation,
Roger,S
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 31, 2010 11:26 PM
Translation: I do not actually know or care what "true" means!
Translation: I do not actually know or care what "love" and "concern" mean either! I will gladly use them when I mean "smugness" and "contempt"!
Translation: I approve of slavery !!
Translation: More smugness and contempt, just for you !!
Translation: I do not actually know or care what "science" means !! And "religion" means whatever I want it to mean, too !! Say, how do you like my latest false equivalence, which I gladly claim to be true equivalence, because I don't know or care what "true" means !?
Translation: I do not actually know or care what "religion", "Pharyngula", or "scienceblogs" mean !!
Translation: Since I have no idea what science is or how it works, I will gladly make moronic and insane assertions based on my profound ignorance and apathy !!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 31, 2010 11:30 PM
Only in your delusions. Solid scientist, who knows how weak and non-existent the evidence for you imaginary deity is. And how non-existent the evidence for creationism is, since it is based on a book of myths.Translation, I have no evidence, so I must bullshit with religious word salad.
Posted by: SC OM
|
January 31, 2010 11:54 PM
OK, I'll admit it. I'm glad RogerS is back because I missed the translations.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 1, 2010 12:24 AM
I suspect that if he stays, he will incur the banhammer for epic godbotting, wanking, and mind-boggling insipidity.
It's not like he's keeping the thread going any longer, or inspiring geoinfodumps.
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 1, 2010 12:24 AM
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
February 1, 2010 12:27 AM
What? Has Owlmirror out witted you?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
February 1, 2010 12:29 AM
What? Has Owlmirror out witted you?
A dead cat could outwit poor Roger.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 1, 2010 12:33 AM
But can a live fuckosaurus outwit RogerS?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
February 1, 2010 12:36 AM
But can a live fuckosaurus outwit RogerS?
0x0=0
they would just spout irrelevant gibberish at each other.
the only thing that would lose would be anyone trying to follow wtf either of them were trying to say.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 1, 2010 12:37 AM
RogerS could outwit RogerS, and frequently does.
(Hence the fractal wrongness.)
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
February 2, 2010 10:14 AM
Dear RogerS,
Once again you demonstrate that you don't understand what you're reading. The Rare Earth hypothesis does not contain a single miracle. There's not the slightest need for anything supernatural in it. It's all so simple! Why drag a ridiculously improbable, completely unnecessary assumption into it?
Why?
Because you want to believe it?
Isn't that the worst imaginable reason for believing anything?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
February 2, 2010 10:19 AM
To follow up on my observation, the list of necessary conditions is long – but the list of planets in the galaxy is longer still. It is therefore not at all surprising that the entire list of conditions applies to at least one planet.
There are 100 billion stars in this galaxy alone, Roger. Many stars have several planets.
"A-million-to-one odds happen eight times a day in New York City."
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 2, 2010 5:41 PM
If he made an effort to understand, he might realize that there is an enormous short-circuit in his epistemology, and then he might lose his faith... and that would be bad™.
At a bare minimum -- more recent estimates have been upwards due to the discovery of a bar in the spiral of the Milky Way. [1],[2]
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 9, 2010 1:07 AM
SCIENCE & EMPTINESS
Eight Notable Predecessors:
Matthew 7:26-27 (KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
-Written with love & concern,
RogerS
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
February 9, 2010 1:17 AM
THE scientist at the centre of the "climategate" email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.
Roger, the reason the man was depressed, was because of fuckwits just like yourself.
do you feel no shame in your continuing attempts to murder people by suicide?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
February 9, 2010 1:19 AM
...and I'll trade you a Ted Haggard or a Gary Aldridge for every Boltzmann or Berger you wish to trot out.
Posted by: blf
|
February 9, 2010 1:33 AM
Liar.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 9, 2010 1:47 AM
RogerS @ 237:
Mm hmm. You write gleefully of suicides, not caring in the least about the context of those deaths; you exhibit no compassion nor do you care at all about the contributions of those people. They gave a great deal more to society than you and your ilk ever have.
You are a prime example of the self-absorbed nastiness which forms the core of too many religious people.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 9, 2010 2:43 AM
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26 (KJV)
Translation: I still do not actually know or care what "love" and "concern" mean and will still gladly use them when I mean "smugness" and "contempt"!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 9, 2010 7:03 AM
No, written with hate and contempt. We know the Xian codewords Roger S. NOTHING you say fools us.Roger S, if you find science evil, do yourself a favor and take science out of your life. You will need to remove all electronics and electrical devices including your computer, TV, radio, and electrical service. Cease using all cars, medicine and medical treatment, purified water, grocery stores, plastics including polyester clothes. Go work on an Amish farm, and never, ever set foot off of it. Or, shut the fuck up.
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 9, 2010 9:17 AM
I lift up a light in gross darkness for those standing on the precipise.
Translation: Unless you comes to the light you are "good as dead".
A work in progress,
RogerS
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 9, 2010 9:28 AM
What light? Your deity doesn't exist, no conclusive physical evidence for one. Unless you have an eternally burning bush to present to science for study. Your babble is a book of fiction/mythology, and you can't prove otherwise with evidence. So all you have is your delusions, which we don't care to share. Take your delusions elsewhere. I suggest a mental health professional.Posted by: David Marjanović
|
February 9, 2010 9:39 AM
Wow, are you disgusting, Roger the Dodger. Are you disgusting.
First you insinuate that it's normal for scientists and inventors (…not remotely the same thing…) to kill themselves by listing a laughable 7 examples. With a slight bit of effort, you could compile a list of tens of thousands of scientists who died peacefully and of a natural death. But I know you won't, because you prefer to keep lying to yourself.
Then you insinuate that the only reason ever to kill oneself is to find oneself complicit in deicide.
The stupid! It burns!
In your next comment, you go on to simply state that your favorite story is "the light". First, my friend, you have to establish that that story is true… then we can discuss whether it's "the light".
Really, I think you're projecting. I think you are depressive and believe everyone else must be at least as depressive as you – simply because you can't imagine what it's like to not be depressive.
BTW, precipice.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
February 9, 2010 9:43 AM
Christians never kill themselves.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
February 9, 2010 9:43 AM
I knew about the 200 billion number, but wasn't sure if I had confused it with something else, and about the bar and the 2 instead of 4 main spiral arms. But the number of 400 billion was news to me! Thanks!
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 9, 2010 12:43 PM
Translation: My ego is gargantuan. And my ego declares that there is a new way to spell "precipice".
Translation: I want you all to be dead unless you worship my gargantuan ego.
Translation: An intellectual suicide in progress.
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 12, 2010 1:53 PM
Parade's over, McQueen e'x'its into eternity.
-RogerS
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 12, 2010 2:01 PM
I guess in creationist statistics sample sizes of n=1 suffices, especially if the claim fits your agenda.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2010 2:04 PM
Roger S, given your recent fixation on suicide, which is utterly and totally irrelevant to any intellectual argument for or against atheism, one might think you have problems and are considering suicide. We certainly aren't.
Oh yes, your deity doesn't exist since you have provide no conclusive physical evidence for one. Your babble is still a book of mythology/fiction since you haven't proven otherwise with hard evidence. And your testament is wortheless since you are a proven lair. Still a delusional fool Roger S, as your fixation with suicide attests to.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 12, 2010 2:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals
I guess all Christian evangelicals are tax cheaters who have gay sex with drug-dealing prostitutes.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 12, 2010 2:26 PM
RogerS,
I noticed you left out this part of the article about Alan Turing:
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 12, 2010 11:18 PM
Sorry, but the number don't look pretty.-RogerS
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 12, 2010 11:21 PM
Quoting the bible is not the equivalent of QED.
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 12, 2010 11:23 PM
Correction: change "number" to "numbers"
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 12, 2010 11:29 PM
So that justifies treating them poorly?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 12, 2010 11:30 PM
RogerS,
Did you ever consider the fact that these people are driven to suicide because they are treated like scum by many of your fellow Christians?
Anyways, given a certain you-know-who you really shouldn't be discussing sexual issues and psychological well-being.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 12, 2010 11:38 PM
Next sentence:
Fail.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 12, 2010 11:42 PM
I remember listening to a podcast recently about this issue. Gays and lesbians who are shunned by their family and community are far more likely to engage in self-harm, while those who receive good family support about who they are don't engage in that form of behaviour.
Seems pretty obvious, humans are social creatures so exile and being ostracised are much more likely to lead to self-destructive behaviour. Which of course conservative fucks can point to as an indicator of the deviant lifestyle to further justify their discrimination of those who are most in need of support.
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 13, 2010 12:19 AM
Kel,
I know both a former transvestite and lesbian who were leading destructive lives. With love and support from a church that believed in deliverance from sin, they left their former lifestyles and now live very normal productive lives in their community. The lesbian married & had a son who became a Purdue grad and is likewise living a fulfilling married life. The transformation was due to long term effort by dedicated Christians and the inward work of Christ.
I believe the fate of their new lives will not align with the poor statistics I previously cited.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 13, 2010 12:31 AM
Feynmaniac and Kel, the harm done to LGBT people is well worth it because a few individuals are convinced to not live such degenerate lives. If they were allowed to life their lives with impunity, they would be destructive.
Kiss the belt of love not given lightly.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 13, 2010 6:00 PM
Translation: I do not know or care what the phrase "selection bias" means!
Translation: I do not know or care what the phrase "social bias" means!
Translation: Why, yes, I do think that my anecdotal confirmation bias is truth.
Translation: Why, yes, I do think I can read God's mind.
Translation: Why, yes, I do think I know everything, just like God!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 13, 2010 6:13 PM
And that justifies being cruel to them, how? Do you think that maybe the church's stance that they are defective may have contributed in the first place?Again, how does any of those statistics justify treating gays or lesbians as inferior or defective? A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, if you're going to believe in original sin then surely you must take stance that homosexuality is no more defective than any other "sin". Why not take Christ's message on "love your neighbour"?
This is why I'm anti-theist. Theism is justifying discrimination and cruelty by invoking magic properties. It's bad enough that discrimination exists without divine justification - but you're mortal and fallible and you're justifying treating people with contempt and cruelty for something that's beyond their control. So much for God being a loving God - all I see preached from believers is a God of intolerance, a God of cruelty, a God of discrimination and extreme persecution.
And you say you're doing the work of Christ? Mr "Love your enemies", Mr "Do good to those who wrong you", Mr "Judge not lest ye be judged", Mr "Turn the other cheek"? Bullshit you are. You've turned God into Satan to justify your own prejudice, then you have the nerve to say you're doing Christ's work... you're doing a grave disservice to the one you call God.
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 24, 2010 11:55 AM
Educational “Brainwashing” Claimed by Prominent Scientist
Educational “Brainwashing” Backlash
"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it."
-Blaise Pascal 1623-1662
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
February 24, 2010 12:00 PM
HAHAHAHAHA
You actually are using Inhofe as an argument against idiocy?
wow that's rich
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHA
RogerS you're funny.
And so what if a couple of scientists believe now?
Can they offer any actual evidence for a "creator"?
Nope.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 24, 2010 12:07 PM
Roger S. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity. Still no evidence your babble is anything other than mythology/fiction. Still delusional if you think your babble has any meaning to us.
The problem you have Roger S, is that you must first prove conclusive physical evidence for the creator. Without that, you have nothing. That makes your whole religion invalid. You cannot presuppose it validly. That is why we laugh at you. You can't even get out of the starting blocks with any logical argument.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
February 24, 2010 12:34 PM
Chandra Wickramasinghe has been a believer in various kinds of nonsense since I don't know when. If he believes that he was brainwashed, he believes that with no evidence at all. Creationists have loved him a long time, so he isn't new, and he probably isn't right.
If there was a creator, science would have found it by now, or rather, never moved away from it. When what we now call science got started, most scientists assumed that there was a creator, but the relentless search for truth has led away from that hypothesis. Science finds truth. There is no creator, and that's the truth.
True, that piddling little confusion was the greatest scientific scandal--science doesn't have scandals very often. The e-mails didn't show a damn bit of wrong-doing--the leakers picked out a few confusing sentences, spun them for maximum confusion, and suckered a lot of gullible idiots.
You, RogerS, are a gullible idiot who has been suckered so bad that you now work for the people who have brainwashed you.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 24, 2010 12:38 PM
Translation: Argument from authority demonstrated by insipid Creationist.
Translation: Illogical argument from ignorance and incredulity advanced by Prominent Scientists.
PS: "The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion." -- Fred Hoyle
Translation: Creationists can't get enough of that false equivalence.
Translation: Hypocritical Creationists hate truth, refuse to know truth, and try to obscure truth, if truth demonstrates that beloved Creationist presuppositions are nothing but established falsehoods.
Posted by: RogerS
|
February 24, 2010 1:50 PM
Deep Life –How Did It Get There?
US average depth of crude oil and natural gas is approximately 1 mile.(Source)
Simple Explanation from Walt Brown (Ph.D. in ME from MIT, B.S. from West Point)
2 Peter 3:3-6 (KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
-RogerS
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 24, 2010 2:04 PM
Still delusional Roger S. Your "authorities" are not speaking from scientific authority. Rather trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with sophistry. For example:
is to be expected from regular science. Why? Radioactivity within the earth causes neutron activation of carbon 13 to carbon 14, so there is a very small, but steady amount of carbon 14 being formed. It is not a scientific proof for creation, but rather for real science and an old, 4.6 billion year old, earth.You deity doesn't exist and your babble is fiction. You have demonstrated no evidence otherwise. And the is the first steps you must do to convince this blog you have anything other than lies and deception. And quoting your ficitonal babble like it means something confirms your delusional status.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
February 24, 2010 2:05 PM
So by failing to understand his work, and demonizing him because you're a lackwit, he is therefore responsible for his depression.What the hell is wrong with some people?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
February 24, 2010 3:07 PM
Water seeps down, you moron.
Please.
Think. Just once. And if you'll never do it again, just think this one time!
14C is produced by particles flying around very fast and hitting carbon or nitrogen. One source is the sun; that's why 14C occurs in the air. Another is radioactivity; that's why coal and oil contains small amounts of 14C if it lies close enough to uranium deposits for long enough, and why it contains the more 14C the closer it lay to deposits of uranium or other radioactive elements; when it lay far enough from any such deposits, it does not contain any measurable amounts of 14C.
All this has been known for decades, Dodger. As usual, you talk about things you don't know anything about, and, what's worse, you believe everyone else (even those scientists who study that stuff for a living!) knows just as little as you.
You should be ashamed of such stupidity.
BTW, 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic – it was written a century after Peter's death by someone who wanted to borrow Peter's authority.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 24, 2010 3:34 PM
Classic sign of a troll, posts his inanity until it gets refuted and then completely changes topic.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 26, 2010 12:19 AM
Translation: After having it pointed out that I hate truth, I will now demonstrate my hatred of truth !!
Translation: I neither know nor care how carbon-14 is formed.
Translation: I neither know nor care about the applicability of carbon dating to anything older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
Translation: See how I confirm my presuppositions with bullshit pseudoscience.
Translation: False "explanation" from Walt Brown.
Translation: I am easily impressed by a Creationist liar bearing degrees, in inapplicable subjects no less.
Translation: Very precise measurements now show that most fossils older than ten half-lives of carbon-14 are indeed older than ten half-lives of carbon-14.
Translation: Therefore, I must lie and assert with no evidence or logic that most fossils older than ten half-lives of carbon-14 have only existed for about ten half-lives of carbon-14.
Translation: Because I presuppose that all water deposited sediments came from a fairly recent, gigantic flud, I must conclude that all former life was buried by a fairly recent, gigantic flud. I ♥ circular reasoning !!
Translation: Please read this bible verse with which I have brainwashed myself with a fairly recent, gigantic flud !!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
February 27, 2010 4:07 PM
Oh yeah, forgot one thing... Roger the Dodger and Walt Brown accept that the Earth is 100,000 years old rather than 6,000? Iiiiiiinteresting.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 27, 2010 4:30 PM
Read that again: less than 100,000 years ago
6,000 < 100,000, so YECs can work with that. And some YECs don't mind one or two orders of magnitude, as long as they can figure out ways to reject the greater orders of magnitude of secular science.
RogerS has been caught many times citing things that contradict [some aspects of strict] YEC dogma, and saying things contradicting his own earlier statements. He doesn't care at all when this is pointed out to him. He will literally cite anything at all, and say anything at all, and ignore all contradictions, because he, like all Creationists, really does not care about what is true and what is false. Only defending his presupposed assumptions and dogma matter to him, even if he can't even articulate his dogma coherently.
Posted by: Alan B
|
February 27, 2010 8:07 PM
Hi RogerS
You refer to Drs Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle.
Unfortunately, you have chosen 2 men, brilliant in their own fields, who think they are thereby qualified to state as fact things they have hardly studied in unrelated fields.
Thus, it was these two who were convinced by the speculation of an Israeli scientist that Archaeopteryx might be a fraud. Without discussing it with genuine experts they went to the Natural History Museum, London and asked to photograph the London Archaeopterix specimen, arguably the second best found so far. They concluded that it was a deliberate fraud. You can find the story by googling Dr. Wick.'s name combined with feathers.
So where did they publish this earth-shattering discovery? In a high impact science journal like Nature? Or Science? A palaeontology journal, perhaps? Since this was an important British-owned fossil, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London? No. The British Journal of Photography! Volume 132, March 8th, March 29th, April 26th 1985."
Anybody who pours over the same set of photographs for hours on end over a period of months is going to see what they wanted to see in the first place. They convinced themselves that they, with no knowledge of Archaeopterix other than some high resolution photos, knew more than the entire scientific staff of the Natural History Museum who have worked on the fossil for years decades.
This is just an example of the arrogance of these two scientists in a field about which they knew little. Other examples could be taken. It is hardly surprising that two excellent scientists in their own field are not going to be over convincing once they go off into other fields.
(Incidentally, the NHM staff produced a detailed, peer reviewed paper published in Science which showed that Hoyle and his team were mistaken.)
Posted by: RogerS
|
March 10, 2010 6:44 AM
Scientists Surprised, Embarrassed, & Disturbed: “Far From Truth”
It is too bad these other “surprised scientists” were not informed by David ahead of time. The Marjanovic “water seeps down” transport mechanism may have transported C14 as well as the lifeforms. I bet Allen B could propose an entirely different mechanism responsible for lifeforms 6.7 km down. The big question is how “far from truth” is it?
BTW, Good to see that Kel & Allen B are still hopping.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
March 10, 2010 6:54 AM
RogerS,
The Wikipedia page on the Kola Borehole has this line:
Emphasis mine. Remind me - is 2.5 billion years more or less than 6,000?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 10, 2010 7:07 AM
RogerS, still not presenting any real evidence. In fact, what you presented confirms evolution and geology. You are batting 1.000 in confirming science. In fact, you keep shooting your in the foot with your inane and illogical attempts to prove science wrong. You can't prove yourself right by proving science wrong. Your creationism is not the default position. You must prove it in its own right. Which you have totally and utterly failed to do.
Why aren't you starting with physical evidence for your imaginary deity? Without a deity, your babble is nothing but a book of myth/fiction. And since it is myth/fiction, the creation myth in it is fiction. You can only convince us by starting with the appropriate material. No god, no babble, ergo you are wrong. That is where things stand at the moment. You need to change that.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 10, 2010 7:38 AM
RogerS,
I fail to see how this supports anything you would like it to support.
Care to explain?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 10, 2010 7:49 AM
Also RogerS I'm having a difficult time finding any information about these supposed fossils outside of your one link and lots of creationism and conspiracy sites with an occasional other site just repeating word for word the same paragraph.
Do you have anything from a legitimate source?
Thanks
Posted by: RogerS
|
March 10, 2010 11:59 AM
Sure.I attribute it to a world wide, mountain covering, "fountains of the deep" breakup, Pacific Ocean Basin displacing, mountain raising, year long catastrophic FLOOD of judgement that Noah's contemporaries failed to predict.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 10, 2010 12:18 PM
Ok, can you now provide actual evidence for this?
You can attribute things to the flud all you want, but you have to actually back up those claims.
Something you have been 100% unable to do on every single one of your visits here.
By the way your above link is not evidence for this.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
March 10, 2010 12:22 PM
It doesn't matter what your wishful thinking attributes it to.
What evidence do you have for any of these assertions?
None, as Josh so amply demonstrated.
You're like Oliver from Upper Class Twit of the Year-You don't know when you're being beaten, and you don't have any sort of sensory apparatus known to man.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 10, 2010 12:25 PM
RogerS, since science explains the evidence better than your religious sophistry, your creationism continues to lack support. That is your problem. You don't have the proper evidence to support your claims. No evidence for a one time world wide flood, a kill off of all Homo sapiens except one family. Absolutely not present in the geological record. You also must contend with civilizations with written records in place before and after the alleged flud. Since you don't, you have nothing of consequence to offer.
Posted by: RogerS
|
March 10, 2010 1:47 PM
David M wrote:
David, please read Brown’s following line again. He is on a YEC time line:
“Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time—less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.” -In The Beginning p.343
You yourself evidently have little confidence in radioactive carbon still active in coal, oil, metane, etc. other than due to “water seeps down” & uranium contamination. When radioactive carbon supports a young earth the ratios are skewed by contamination but when they date “LESS THAN 100,000 yrs” they suddenly become credible and become OVER 6,000 yrs.??? If a global flood is considered, the dispersion of radioactive carbon in sedimentary rock and still contained in fossil fuels at great depths makes sense.
The average depth of crude oil and natural gas is about 1 mile or 1,600m, pretty far from contamination by uranium as low as 240m.True dating accuracy by C14 is highly questionable but it can be useful as a rough indicator only if the effects of a global flood are factored in.
Carbon 14 Accuracy Seriously Questioned
Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol 19, No 4 (1981) pp. 9-29Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 10, 2010 2:01 PM
Rogers, your carbon-14 idiocy is just that. Idiocy. Carbon-14 is only one dating method, and all the others show the Earth to be millions, if not billions of years old. Trying to throw doubt on Carbon-14 dating, where there is none within the scientific community as we are well aware of its limitations, does nothing to prove your own points. It just makes you look like you have no idea of what you are doing. For your idea (it doesn't even reach hypothesis stage) of creationism must be shown independently of attempting (but always failing in) trashing science, starting with conclusive physical evidence for your deity. For some strange reason, you keep failing to do that. Almost like all you have is a presupposition argument. There is tremendous doubt as to the existence of your deity/creator. So, start there.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 10, 2010 3:00 PM
RogerS, here is some homework for you.
Instead of cherry picking random inconsequential articles that you think are poking big holes in everything that we actually know about science, try and put forth some support for your claims.
Present us positive science supporting your "yet to be given one iota of support" view that the earth is 6000 years old, there was a great flud and Noah really did build that really big boat with all the cute fuzzy creatures in pairs on it. Not another article you think upsets the established well supported science we have.
Actual science Rog.
/pats Rog on the head and sends him on his way
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
March 11, 2010 12:48 AM
Translation: God commands me to bear false testimony, and I enjoy quote-mining so as to bear false testimony as God commands me.
Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is nor how it forms.
[Editor's note: Hm. I note that the stylistic trope of adding commenter names to what they said as a sneer is something that I recall Alan Clarke did, and RogerS did not do. Is the banned pedophile sockpuppeting?]
Translation: I can't spell names right even when they are right in front of me, even though the spelling should be very familiar indeed.
Translation: Please read Brown’s line again, because "less than 100,000" must mean "6,000". Because I say so.
Translation: I presuppose a world wide, mountain covering, "fountains of the deep" breakup, Pacific Ocean Basin displacing, mountain raising, year long catastrophic FLOOD, and therefore any hint of water anywhere in the world leads me to conclude that my presuppositions are correct !!
Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is, nor how it forms, nor how it decays. Also, I have forgotten how to spell "methane".
Translation: I presuppose a young earth, and therefore ignore the simple fact that radioactive carbon does not actually support a young earth.
Translation: I can't do the basic math working out that if the half-life of 14C is 5,730±40 years, then ten half-lives of carbon-14 must be greater than 6,000 years. Math is hard !!!
Translation: If a global flood is presupposed, the dispersion of radioactive carbon in sedimentary rock and still contained in fossil fuels at great depths makes no sense at all, but I don't actually care about making sense.
Translation: Other people mine for uranium; but I, like ALL YECs, mine for quotes ! I so enjoy bearing false testimony by quotemine !!
[Editor's note: Is RogerS/Alan Clarke a sociopath on top of everything else?]
[Editor's note: Actual Uranium Geology, as opposed to YEC bullshit about uranium geology:
]
Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is, nor how it forms, nor how it decays, nor how the decay rate is used for dating. Since its results contradict my YEC presuppositions, I question them. Not that I would care about or understand the answers to my questioning.
[Editor's note: I assumed that YEC presuppositions prevented RogerS/Alan Clarke from reading Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, but given the laughable blunders in basic math and logic made above, I suspect that they're both too stupid to understand it, even if they did read it. ]
Translation: I shall demonstrate my invincible ignorance of radiocarbon dating by flat-out lying and asserting with neither logic nor evidence that my presupposition of a "global flood" is true, and that its nonexistent "effects" can be "factored in" to radiocarbon dating.
Translation: Yay! More old papers to quote-mine !!
[Editor's note: Good fucking grief. I just knew that that 1981 date meant that the cited reference would be in here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html ]
Posted by: Rorschach
|
March 11, 2010 12:56 AM
*sniff*
That was just beautiful.
Posted by: Alan B
|
March 11, 2010 7:28 AM
#280 Hi RogerS
Just for clarification, who is "Allen B"?
Is it supposed to be me??
I am the author of the piece just before yours (which, of course, you have ignored - but then little changes, does it?). Just to remind you, I am Alan B. The first part is the same spelling as Alan Clarke (who, I admit, I sometimes refer to as Alan C).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 11, 2010 7:47 AM
I've been thinking about it, and Owlmirror is probably right in thinking that some sockpuppetry is going on. That does not speak well for the creationist community's integrity that they would stoop to such unseemly behavior. Just another reason to see them as nothing but liars and bullshitters.
RogerS, come forward to the eternal thread, and post your stuff there. That thread is an open thread, so you can bring forth your ideas. The thread is the link below PZ's picture on the home page. One might think you are hiding here in the shadows of an old thread because you are ashamed to be seen or heard. More unseemly behavior.
Posted by: Alan B
|
March 11, 2010 12:30 PM
#280 and others
Hi RogerS
Are you aware of the amount of scientific work that has been done on C-14 dating? The paper you chose to quote was from 1981. Considering that papers take a finite time to produce from scratch to being published, that's 30 years ago!!
Even if it were valid (and I don't intend to chase that up) it is so far out of date as to be pre-history!
Just another thought ...
You quoted a source in #280. Going to it and nosing around a little it appears to have been written by David Pratt. Looking at his website shows that he is a student of Theosophy and relies on a date of the Earth of around 2 billion years old, based on Hindu or Budhist writings.
So. You who believe that the Earth (indeed, the Creation) is around 6000 years old are relying, not on science, but the studies of heathen religions. These are only out by a factor of around 2 compared with science whereas you are out by a factor of around 500,000 (taking 4.5 Gy & 9000 y).
Odd N'est pas?
(Apologies to David M if my 50+ year old French is incorrect)
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
March 11, 2010 12:39 PM
I don't need to add anything, Owlmirror and Alan B have said it all. Roger, you have no clue what you're talking about, and that's painfully obvious. Read some of the writings of St Augustine as soon as you find the time.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
March 11, 2010 1:16 PM
Sockpuppetry or not, I think Roger should be banned for the one-two punch of his copy-paste addiction, and his apparent glee in the suicides of scientists and homosexuals (I honestly think he can't separate the two).
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
March 11, 2010 2:47 PM
I reiterate what I wrote @#278, with some modifications:
Alan Clarke/RogerS have been caught many times citing things that contradict some aspects of strict YEC dogma, and saying things contradicting their own earlier statements. They doesn't care at all when this is pointed out to them. They will literally cite anything at all, and say anything at all, and ignore all contradictions, because they, like all Creationists, really do not care about what is true and what is false. Only regurgitating their presupposed assumptions and dogma matter to them, even if neither of them can even articulate their dogma coherently.
----
The only bit of Augustine that matters is the part that basically says "don't say stupid things about the natural world and claim that they are Christian truths when they aren't because they make Christianity look stupid." (On the Literal Translation of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim))
That citation from Augustine was posted for them many times before. Obviously, they don't give a shit about looking stupid or making Christianity look stupid.
Augustine is not otherwise helpful in the matter of science, and the rest is theology, which I doubt they need more of, given their total self-brainwashing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 12, 2010 1:49 PM
I'm picturing RogerS scouring the wingnut websites for any sign that science has ever discovered anything that altered a previously held view even slightly and then trying to jackhammer that into some perceived support of the flud/creation/Noah/crucified bunnies/Celene Dion is good music.
Posted by: Alan B
|
March 13, 2010 4:07 PM
#300
Come on, Rev., enough foolishness ...
Posted by: RogerS
|
September 25, 2011 12:10 AM
Rev.BigDumbChimp #300
You're right, must not be so dumb afterall, esp. for a Chimp.
I was just looking over some of the earth's natural clocks. I would say that the maximum time estimates the "spring" could have been wound to seem to disagree with conclusions others have made about the earth.
The Oldest Living Thing: 4,900 years max
Short Period Comets: 5,000 - 10,000 years
C-14 Dating of Dino Bones: 10,000 - 50,000 years
Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA: 5,000 - 50,000 years
Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones: 5,000 - 50,000 years
165 MYO Ammonite Ligaments?: 5,000 - 50,000 years
Axel Heiberg Island: 5,000 - 10,000 years
Carbon-14 in Atmosphere: 10,000 years max
The Dead Sea: 13,000 years max
Historical Records: 5,000 years max
Mitochondrial Eve: 6,500 years
Population Growth: 10,000 years max
Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources: 10,000 to 50,000 years
Helium and lead in Zircons: 6,000 years
Randy S. Berg
Link
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 25, 2011 1:22 AM
C-14 Dating of Dino Bones: 10,000 - 50,000 years
ROFLMAO
tell me, what's the half-life of C-14 again?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 25, 2011 1:28 AM
Well, I'm glad you agree that YECs are wingnuts.
No, you weren't. You were reading a wingnut site from a wingnut who quote-mines science; deliberately distorting, ignoring, and lying about the conclusions of science.
And -- HAHAHAHAH! -- I see that you quote-mined the quote-miner! You very conveniently left out the lines that referenced anything over a million years!
You remain as despicably intellectually dishonest as you were a year ago, and the year before that.
Pathetic.
The "maximum time" for the age of the Earth remains 4.5 billion years.
All of the evidence and logic for the clocks remains -- despite the fact that you YECs want to ignore it because you're too stupid to understand it, or too dishonest to acknowledge it -- at Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
That's the bristlecone pine that's older than your stupid non-existent global flood, remember?
Dinosaur bones are not dated using 14C because the half-life of 14C being 5,730±40 years means that after ten half-lives, the amount of 14C will be too low to detect.
This was explained to you multiple times, including last year in this very thread, you blithering moron. Do you have brain damage or something, that makes you completely incapable of learning even a single scientific fact?
[skipping some copypasted nonsense]
Why do YECs assume that population growth has no correlation to the availability of food?
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 25, 2011 1:56 AM
Do you have brain damage or something,
I'm in favor of that hypothesis.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 25, 2011 5:22 AM
The oldest living thing isn't that Bristlecone pine (which would have to have survived the global flood anyways). There's a King's Holly in Tasmania that's 43,000 years old. And Bacillus permians spores are 250 million years old.
And why do you think it's necessary to call then Short Period Comets, and not just Comets? Because there are Long Period Comets whose orbits are thousands of times longer.
As C14 in the atmosphere is continuously being made, it's not a clock of any kind at all.
140 000 years. (And your number would make Y-chromosome Adam less than 3000 old, younger than the Pyramids.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2011 6:58 AM
RogerS, still presenting distorted science, and presenting nothing but personal opinion. Your deity is still imaginary, and your babble is still a book of mythology/fiction, and you are still ignorant and proud of your ignorance. That's what comes from believing in phantasms like your deity.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 25, 2011 8:14 AM
Ooh, can I join in?
Aboriginal Australian dispersal into Asia¹: 62,000 to 75,000 years ago.
--
¹ On their way to Australia.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 25, 2011 8:59 AM
Oh look, RogerS has crawled out from under his rock to lie to us again about religious myth trying to masquerade as science.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 25, 2011 9:06 AM
What 'Tis Himself said.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 25, 2011 10:13 AM
"religious myth trying to masquerade as science"
You mean like when RNA nucleotides appeared at the same time, and in molecular-level close proximity to each other, and stumbled into ribose and a phophate, and randomly bonded together for millions of years until one of them was able to replicate without proteins?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2011 10:29 AM
Compare that to your imaginary creator. Absolutely no evidence for that phantasm. Probability chemically based life exists on Earth is 1.0.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 25, 2011 12:25 PM
txpiper babbled:
Don't use big words and phrases that you don't not what they mean. You only make yourself look stupid, especially in front of people who do know what they mean.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 25, 2011 12:30 PM
In my first sentence the word "not" should be "know".
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 25, 2011 12:40 PM
No, txpiper, your personal incredulity and ignorance still don't count as actual arguments. Go away.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 25, 2011 1:30 PM
BTW, this sentence doesn't make sense. RNA nucleotides are already made up of ribose, one to three phosphates, and a nitrogenous base.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 25, 2011 1:56 PM
"RNA nucleotides are already made up of ribose, one to three phosphates, and a nitrogenous base."
Yes, I should have said nucleobase.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 25, 2011 2:47 PM
Actually, you shouldn't have said anything at all.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2011 2:56 PM
I agree with Nightjar. You offer nothing to the discussion, and can't even put forward a cogent and scientific theory of your own. All you can do is disagree with science. That says all the lurkers need to know about you. Skepticism is appropriate, but excessive skepticism is not constructive, and shows to the world you don't understand the underlying science.Why can't you put forth a scientific theory of your own? I will continue call you a liar and bullshitter until you do so. When you finally commit yourself to being falsified by actually presenting a scientific theory, be sure to cite the scientific literature when you do in order to show the world you aren't an ignorant crank. Otherwise, all you do is appear to all like you are an ignorant internet crank.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 25, 2011 4:08 PM
So now texpip demonstrates his utter ignorance of even the basic the laws of chemistry itself, it seems. With every subsequent post, texpip just reveals itself to be ever more ignorant, ever more stupid, and ever more dishonest.
Hint, there's nothing "random" about this at all. The RNA nucleotides form spontaneously based simply on the laws of chemistry, in the right abiotic conditions. And the nucleotides spontaneously start to polymerize into chains, as well. The randomness is only in the order of the nucleotides in the chain, which produces the variation that evolution needs to get going.
And some of the recent abiogenesis research shows that RNA nucleotides don't have to form by the naive route of phosphate + ribose + base, anyways. One interesting hypothesis is that the precursors (which, again, form spontaneously in the right abiotic conditions) are actually [phosphate + 1/2ribose] and [1/2ribose + base]. The ribose actually never exists as an independent entity, and is only constituted in the final reaction step that makes the whole nucleotide. There are probably multiple different chemical routes by which RNA nucleotides can be synthesized.
And the other thing of course, is that it also isn't necessary for RNA to have been the original self-replicating molecule. Another earlier and simpler replicator could have come first, which later evolved the ability to synthesize RNA, followed by an RNA "takeoever", even as DNA and proteins later "took over" from RNA alone.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 25, 2011 4:46 PM
randomly bonded together
actually, it isn't random.
RNA is a weak enzyme; it has a 3-d structure that allows for catalyzing certain reactions.
this is why the RNA world hypothesis works, btw, and why you can't start with DNA as a self-replicator, as DNA does not have any enzymatic function.
...but I'm sure the pipster knew all that already.
*snicker*
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 25, 2011 5:16 PM
Oh, I'm pretty sure he has already been told that somewhere on this blog, probably more than once. But for him to actually know it would require at least some capacity to learn, something our friend texpip seems to be lacking.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 25, 2011 9:36 PM
Nightjar,
"But for him to actually know it would require at least some capacity to learn"
Learn? Learn what? About imaginary earlier and simpler RNA replicators that wouldn't resemble anything that anybody knows about? How do you learn someone's fantasies?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 25, 2011 9:59 PM
Look, txpiper, we're all aware you're a fuck-wit, know-nothing creationist who spouts misremembered propaganda from AIG and other fuck-wit, know-nothing creationist sites. So why don't you take a tall, refreshing glass of shut the fuck up?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2011 10:19 PM
What about your imaginary creator? Doesn't exist. No evidence for it. Ergo, science wins by default. Either put out your theory for falsification by publishing it (submission data for Science and Nature), or shut the fuck up. Liars and bullshitters can't put up, and can't shut up. That is you to a tee...Posted by: txpiper
|
September 25, 2011 10:44 PM
'Tis Himself, OM,
"we're all aware..."
No really, you can do this. It just takes a little less religious commitment and a little more objectivity, and you might have a thought that leads to a really impressive question.
This summarizes what is known and believed about the RNA world idea. But it does not succumb to common, vulgar, punk atheism. In case you lose interest before you get to the conclusion, it reads like this:
"The inevitable conclusion of this survey of nucleotide synthesis is that there is at present no convincing, prebiotic total synthesis of any of the nucleotides. Many individual steps that might have contributed to the formation of nucleotides on the primitive Earth have been demonstrated, but few of the reactions give high yields of products, and those that do tend to produce complex mixtures of products. It should also be realized that any prebiotic synthesis of a nucleotide would yield a racemic product, not the biologically important D-nucleotide. Recent publications, particularly those of Zubay and his coworkers (cited above), suggest that the search for a convincing prebiotic synthesis of the nucleotides is not hopeless. However, the difficulties remain so severe that alternatives to the de novo appearance of RNA on the primitive Earth deserve serious consideration."
This is not an AIG person, or even an ID enthusiast. This is one of your guys. Do you see the difference between desperate, shut-up-and-go-away! you, and someone who is still capable of noticing problems? He even goes on to summarize the several, sappy ideas about origins of organic somponents. May I ask which one you are deliriously convinced by?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 25, 2011 11:32 PM
You can't learn, and you don't even know what you're supposed to learn.
Look, moron, an argument from ignorance remains an argument from ignorance. Since you cannot possibly provide anything even vaguely resembling an argument from knowledge that has any bearing on the origin of life, your denigration of actual hypotheses by actual researchers in the field is stupid and picayune.
Take your religious fanaticism, and shove it up your ass.
Says the moron who fantasizes about an invisible person with magical superpowers.
========
Good grief. You can't even be bothered to find and link to the full text with figures, you lazy stupid intellectually dishonest quote-mining sack of dumbshit?
http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3D03/OrgelRNAWorld.pdf
What the ever-living fuck does the complexity of organic chemistry have to do with atheism, besides providing yet another gap for stupid people like you to stuff your invisible person with magical superpowers?
Since you're too fucking stupid to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel, you cannot possibly have understood most of the paper, or the hypotheses presented.
I'd ask you to stop being an intellectually dishonest asshole, but you're too dumb to understand English, too dishonest to care that you're being dishonest, and fundamentally, you're not capable of not being a dirt-stupid gibbering yahoo.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 26, 2011 12:31 AM
it does not succumb to common, vulgar, punk atheism
punk atheism??
LOL
I rather like that term.
I hereby claim the mantle of:
Vulgar Punk Atheist, or: VPA for shorties.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 26, 2011 12:40 AM
Owlmirror,
"What...does the complexity of organic chemistry have to do with atheism, besides providing yet another gap for stupid people like you to stuff your invisible person with magical superpowers?"
Gosh, you sound really upset. Where is the relaxed, intellectual satisfaction that the fairy-driven theories of origins and evolution provide? I mean, I can understand that you can only look forward to a horrible and terminal fate, while I can anticipate a fantastic destiny. But I just don't see an advantage in your purposeless, fantasy-confused-with-science, I'm-just-chemicals mindset. According to your worldview, you are no more significant than a termite, just a larger eukaryote with typing skills and a limited vocabulary.
So what if all the astronomical odds against the dull stuff you believe end up thwarting the statistitians, and the dreamer biologists win the day over the realistic chemists. Who is keeping score?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 26, 2011 2:23 AM
Gosh, you sound really upset.
why is it that all godbotherers misapprehend annoyance with their stupidity as people being "upset".
he's no more upset at you than I would be at a particularly persistent fly buzzing around my room.
you're just... annoying as fuck.
it's not upsetting so much as it's just tiresome.
get that:
you're a tiresome, irrational, ignorant, bore.
indeed much like a fly buzzing around a room.
eventually, someone will likely decide to get the flyswatter, and toss the carcass into the dungeon.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 26, 2011 7:26 AM
txpiper:
Heh. No, Owlmirror sounds amused.
You, however, clearly are flustered by such a straight-forward question (with a side-order of actual snark) and try to imitate a squid who senses a predator, frantically fleeing under cover of a cloud of ink.
Bah.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 26, 2011 8:08 AM
As it typical TXpiper quotemined the paper. A typical problem that creationists engage in. The paper really expects that the mechanisms for formation of RNA replicators will be found with the right research, and even now, hints are there and being looked into. And Txpiper wonders why we find him a liar and bullshitter.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 26, 2011 12:57 PM
In your own head, O believer in an invisible person with magical superpowers.
With a magical fairy in the sky. Are you wearing a tutu as you type?
Truth is its own reward, Tinkerbell.
Yes, it's true. I'm limited by what is actually real.
According to your worldview, you have an imaginary friend who will whisk you up to a magical imaginary fairyland in the sky when you die. But, oddly enough, your imaginary fairy friend doesn't share any magical fairy powers with you while you are alive, so you're stuck trying to understand reality with same limitations as myself -- except that your intellect is much weaker, far less honest, and far more inconsistent.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
September 26, 2011 4:10 PM
Oh, I don't know, maybe what was said in the comment I quoted when I made that remark?
But, yeah, it's not just that. You do have a lot to learn about pretty much all the subjects you've been commenting on.
Did I or anyone here say otherwise, you dishonest moron?
Here, just for you: I do not know nor do I claim to know exactly how life on Earth started. I do not know nor do I claim to know whether RNA was the first self-replicating molecule to arise or not. I don't have all the answers, nor do I claim to have them. That does not mean I'm going to start believing that an invisible person with magical superpowers did it just so I can pretend to know what I don't know like you do.
Oh, let me guess. This supports your position and is somehow problematic for us because the authors offer "god did it" or "...and then a miracle happened" as one of those alternatives that deserve serious consideration, yes? Because otherwise you're simply quote-mining.
And BTW, it's not like we haven't told you about alternatives to RNA. IIRC, David Marjanović did told you about things like TNA and GNA. It's pretty dishonest of you to now imply we take for granted that RNA was the first self-replicating molecule to appear and won't consider anything else. You should know from previous discussions that that's not true.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, you know. I can be capable of noticing and admitting problems and at the same time want you to shut up and go away. Because, really, there's no point in discussing anything with a dishonest and ignorant moron like yourself.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 26, 2011 6:17 PM
Oh please, another pathetic "atheism is nihilism" argument? Is the texpip even capable of an original idea?
How exactly do you presume to know what WE are looking forward to, at any given moment, texpip? Divine revelation? Telepathy?
Don't presume to speak for us, you arrogant, dishonest smuck.
And here, like clockwork, is the "human insignificance" bollycock. The texpip must be a bot.
Since it is our worldview, and by admission one you do NOT ascribe to and know nothing about, by what do you presume to know what is or isn't significant by it?
Don't presume to speak for us, you arrogant, dishonest smuck.
(Termites, by the way, are EXTREMELY significant, considering what they do, how much they do it, and the longterm implications and effects of what they do. Even if humans are just as significant and no more, that makes humans EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT, too).
Those alternatives are 1) some other spontaneously occurring replicating molecule preceding RNA (ie the RNA world was not the first world), or 2) RNA nucleotides being synthesized by various processes in various places in space (ie not on the primitive earth), where there are more varied types of conditions, more time, and more real estate for the necessary reactions to occur, and being brought to the primitive earth during earth's formation.
And what is NOT an alternative, is a designer.
Which is easier, the spontaneous assembly of basically a handful of simple molecules, formed from primary the first, third, fourth and fifth most plentiful elements in the universe, followed by a process wherein those molecules combine to form simple self-replicating entities, no more than about 200 units in length, or the spontaneous appearance out of nothing of an omnipotent, omniscient designer entity a quadrillion times more complicated than your average human being (and a quintillion times more complicated than texpip)?
If abiogenesis should fail on the grounds of chemical unlikelihood, then design theory is a quadrillion times deader on the same argument.
Every probability argument against abiogenesis or evolution is an even stronger argument against design. Texpip continues to do an excellent job demonstrating how utterly impossible it is for life on earth to have been produced by a designer.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 26, 2011 6:36 PM
(emph added)You know, you've completely given yourself away with this. You completely reject all of evidence-based science, for no other reason than because a reality of chance and necessity and fundamental physical laws interacting to give rise to the complexity of life -- and no magical fairies with fairy powers being involved -- entails that you, personally, do not receive an afterlife of dancing with the fairies forever in fairyland, or riding a magical fairy flying pony through cotton-candy clouds.
You hate evolution by natural selection because you're a narcissist terrified of death.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 26, 2011 6:36 PM
This of course is not really a problem, as anyone with the slightest understanding of chemistry and biology would instantly recognize.
None. We are still awaiting enough evidence to determine the relative likelihoods of the various competing theories. As we gain more evidence, some theories will be eliminated and others will become more likely. Eventually we'll have whittled it away to a handful, if we're really lucky, maybe just one, and we'll have our answer.
But some theories have already been eliminated by the evidence we have already gathered. The idea that the first lifeform was a self-replicating protein, (Darwin believed this one) for example, is toast.
The VERY FIRST theory so eliminated was the theory of direct supernatural design. There may indeed by severe difficulties with de novo appearance of RNA on primordial earth, at the moment. But the difficulties associated with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural designer puttering away on primordial earth are far worse than severe. They are insurmountable, and have been known to be so for several centuries at the least. If you had to choose only between the two, the relative odds on RNA are a quadrillion to one, at least.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 26, 2011 7:52 PM
To comment 320 I can only add:
Indeed, there are plenty of possible precursors for RNA. Ribose has 5 carbon atoms. Threose has 4 carbon atoms, and indeed TNA has been synthesized. It behaves a lot like RNA chemically, and a strand of it can even form a double helix with an RNA strand. Analogues that contain non-sugars with 3 and 2 carbon atoms (ethylene glycol, an extremely simple molecule that occurs in interstellar space, in the latter case) have also been synthesized.
See how ridiculous that is now?
BTW, ethylene glycol is ordinary antifreeze, too.
That paper is from 2004. It is stupid of txpiper to use it as evidence "that there is at present no convincing, prebiotic total synthesis of any of the nucleotides". 2004 hasn't been "present" for a long time.
It describes reality using fewer extra assumptions than all known alternatives.
This... is... an... advantage. In fact, it's the most important advantage any idea could ever have.
Now, will you please answer the question of what organic chemistry has to do with atheism? (Common, vulgar, punk or noble, élite, dignified, whatever you wish, I don't care.)
So... fucking... what?
Does the universe somehow have to be about us?
Seconded.
I think it's well established by now that txpiper has no long-term memory at all. If he stayed away from a computer for longer than a week, he'd forget how to switch it on, and he'd forget how to type.
In short, they're a big part of the carbon cycle. Without them, dead wood would be recycled much more slowly (in places where it's warm enough for termites) than it is. That would change all ecosystems with trees in them (in places where it's warm enough for termites).
...while pretending to be sure of salvation. Where I come from, that'd be considered blasphemy on the grounds that only God knows if you'll go to heaven.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 26, 2011 7:55 PM
Nerd,
"The paper really expects that the mechanisms for formation of RNA replicators will be found with the right research, and even now, hints are there and being looked into."
Well, that is commendable faith on your part, but you missed the point. While I don't share the writer's optimism, I can appreciate his candor in acknowledging the enormity of the problems. Lots of very bright people do, just not here, where trivializaton is a virtue.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 26, 2011 8:45 PM
You had no point, other than your wishful delusional thinking that your imaginary deity is needed for anything other than your mental masturbations.My point was that science will solve the problem some day. Unlike you who will get nowhere, because there is nowhere to go from your delusional thinking. So, show me where life didn't come about. The probality of life without your imaginary creator is 1.0. Prove otherwise, by showing conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary creator. Something the equivalent of an eternally burning bush, or shut the fuck up.
Here's the thing. Eventually you need to prove your idea, and that starts with proving the existence of your imaginary creator. And you can't do that, as there is no evidence for one. It won't be found in the imaginary cracks in the edifice of evolution you keep pretending are there.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 26, 2011 8:55 PM
amphiox,
"This of course is not really a problem, as anyone with the slightest understanding of chemistry and biology would instantly recognize."
No kidding? The last time I recall reading anything about that was when they were swooning over a 2% bias detected on some meteorite.
====
David,
"That paper is from 2004. It is stupid of txpiper to use it as evidence "that there is at present no convincing, prebiotic total synthesis of any of the nucleotides".
But I didn't use it as evidence for that. I was just illustrating that if you asked a thousand biologists how many mutations it would take to produce echolocation, one or two of them might not answer 'none'.
"Where I come from, that'd be considered blasphemy on the grounds that only God knows if you'll go to heaven."
My guess would be Catholic.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 27, 2011 12:03 PM
Huh?
What has echolocation got to do with RNA forming on early Earth???
I honestly don't get in what ballpark your point might be.
Yep, Austria is traditionally Catholic. You're in a Protestantic sola fides denomination?
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 27, 2011 7:08 PM
David,
"What has echolocation got to do with RNA forming on early Earth???"
Nothing. I was trying to make a point about oversimplification, unwarranted confidence and neglecting theoretical obstacles. By the way, I am still amazed at your response to the echolocation question.
"You're in a Protestantic sola fides denomination?"
I'm not really affiliated with a denomination, but yes, sola fides, sola scriptura, and a long string of other tedious descriptives.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 27, 2011 8:26 PM
I was just illustrating that if you asked a thousand biologists how many mutations it would take to produce echolocation, one or two of them might not answer 'none'.
I'm with David.
your point, if there is one, is entirely lost here.
you haven't a clue what "theoretical obstacles" there are to any topic that has been discussed in this thread.
you're a laughable ignoramus, and you should quit while you're behind.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 27, 2011 8:42 PM
Notice how the texpip only skulks on these old zombie threads, and never dares to show his face on more recent, more frequented threads, even when the subject is apropos.
Almost like he's hoping we'll get tired of replying to his inanity and let him have the vicarious thrill of having the last word on a year-old thread.
Rather pitiful, really.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
September 27, 2011 11:34 PM
Holy smokes! You folks are still at it?
Tex:
Why? Because you, with your creationist/essentialist point of view, see echolocation as a singular talent that appeared all at once, by whatever mechanism(s), as a unified feature, rather than as the fine-tuned product of an array of basic capabilities that already existed?
As someone pointed out a couple of threads ago, YOU can echolocate. We all can. Primitively, and not well enough to feed ourselves, but that's hardly the point. See: Psychoacoustics.
Consider, also, that plenty of critters can hear and emit different - more to the point, higher and more directional - frequency ranges than we can. What mutations were "necessary" for that to be true?
(On a side note: Is it significant that "echolocate" is almost an anagram of "chocolate"? I think it must be.)
Posted by: Kseniya
|
September 28, 2011 12:03 AM
Oh my. I did no realize that THIS thread was well over a year old. I must look back, and see when it was resurrected, and by whom.
Ah. Now I have a question to pose to any interested Pharyngulites: Is RogerS the guy who was tag-teaming with that Alan guy a couple of years ago, back when Josh (the geologist) was staking his claim to fame on several YEC-infested threads? The Alan (was that his name?) who married some girl he became enchanted with when she was, like, ten years old? The RogerS tag rings a bell...
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 28, 2011 3:29 AM
txpiper:
Well, I literally sniggered out loud.
If you knew what those terms meant, you'd know they were mutually-exclusive (only X or only Y hardly allows for both X and Y).
So, either you speak truthfully (and hold incoherent belief) or you don't.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 28, 2011 3:31 AM
Kseniya, yup.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
September 28, 2011 4:51 AM
Well, not any more so than any other Protestant. Sola scriptura refers to the scripture being in itself the only authoritative script and not needing (or allowing) an interpretation imposed by (Popish) authority or other middlemen.What's really incoherent is the Protestant holding of both sola fide and sola gratia. Salvation solely by faith and solely by the grace of god. Shit, man, which is it ? If you're sufficiently pure in your faith, god has to play by the rules and let you in ? Or is faith completely pointless because god decides to rain grace down on whomever god decides ? Your Father sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Both, eh ?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 28, 2011 9:46 AM
You recall correctly. That was, in fact, the origin of the eternal thread.
It's entirely possible that at least some, if not all, posts by RogerS were written by Alan Clarke, given certain stylistic tropes. I speculated on remote-access software being used from Alan's computer to RogerS'.
FWIW, I don't think that #302 was by Alan Clarke. But I could, of course be wrong.
I stand by my inference that #280, #285, and #289 were (probably) composed by Alan Clarke, though.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 28, 2011 10:04 AM
Or in other words, you believe in the Big Book of Middle-Eastern Fairy-Tales because you believe in the Big Book of Middle-Eastern Fairy-Tales.
At least heddle acknowledges that he presupposes that God exists, and that the bible is the word of God (although he doesn't seem to want to examine the hidden presuppositions that underlie those presuppositions).
And yet, he doesn't seem to see any need to deny evolution.
Hm.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 28, 2011 1:03 PM
For fuck's sake. Try it yourself. Place yourself right next to a wall, close your eyes, and click loudly and repeatedly. (Actually, even banging your teeth together works, just not as well.) Listen closely. Now, keeping your eyes closed, turn your head away from the wall, make the same noise again, and keep listening. Sounds different.
It's a fact. With training, you can learn to echolocate. You won't reach the insane precision of a bat that can fly into a bush at full speed, get an insect out, and fly back out uninjured, but you can get well enough to walk around without bumping into stuff (or people).
Not everything that fails is an analogy.
I'm sorry, I can't resist posting this link. It's seriously off topic.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Sixteen. And he at least 40 or so.
The funny thing is what scripture says about both sola fides and sola gratia. See link.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 28, 2011 4:18 PM
Oh, right. It was a different girl that he was infatuated with when she was ten, whom he did not later marry. I think when people did the math, he was in his twenties at the time of that earlier infatuation.
He also mentioned being badly beaten by Russian thugs (at a different point in the months-long exchange), and I think he implied the ethnicity of the ten-year-old was also Russian.
I could not help but infer that that beating might well have been the result of relatives of the ten-year-old being outraged enough to want to get him away from their sibling/cousin/whatever, with violence.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 28, 2011 4:32 PM
Alan Clarke...
talk about beating dead horses.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 28, 2011 5:33 PM
With enough practice a regular human being can get scary good at it. I think I recall watching a documentary once showing a blind teenager able to play casual team sports with sighted friends using it (and not looking out of place), and even playing video games (we're talking GTA/Gears of War type complex 3D video games) using a variation of it (he can figure out where the sprites are moving on the screen by listening to the background audio).
All one needs is 1) a brain, 2) ears capable of listening, and 3) some pre-existing capability for spatial calculation to co-opt.
Of course, the texpip has already demonstrated that he lacks at least 1 and 2. So while a regular person could do it, he might not.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 28, 2011 9:09 PM
All the comments about echolocation are nonsense. Toothed whales have biosonar and baleen whales do not. It is a specialized system, not something the baleens can practice and get good at. This is really dumb folks.
====
John Morales,
"If you knew what those terms meant, you'd know they were mutually-exclusive (only X or only Y hardly allows for both X and Y)."
No, one is about method and the other is about source.
====
Hotshoe,
"What's really incoherent is the Protestant holding of both sola fide and sola gratia. Salvation solely by faith and solely by the grace of god....which is it?"
This is a really confused question. The sola is describing two things, a singular policy, and the singular thing that activates it.
"Your Father sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Both, eh?
Yeah, wheat and weeds growing in the same field till the harvest.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 28, 2011 9:18 PM
This is really dumb folks.
this, coming from the person who wants to make distinctions regarding peculiar distinctions of the word "sola".
you're a laugh riot there, pipster.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 28, 2011 9:28 PM
You so sure about that? Ever tried to ask a baleen whale?
The point is that echolocation didn't appear de novo out of nothing. It was built out of pre-existing pre-adaptions of hearing, sound production, and spatial awareness that all mammals shares. There was already a crude form of it, that came into being as a secondary effect of selection for improved hearing, improved sound-making, and improved spatial awareness, upon which natural selection could immediately act.
That's why both toothed whales and bats managed to evolve it. Their last common ancestor, a primitive mammal, had all those pre-adaptions already.
(Actually, you can go further and say all amniotes, given that Cave Swiftlets also have it. However I would argue, in a speculative, just-so-story for fun way, that the mammalian inner ear was a preadaption that made the evolution of echolocation much easier, such that those diapsids that do have the ability, like the Cave Swiftlets, have a much more rudimentary form of it, and most likely, the Ichthyosaurs and other marine reptiles did not.)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 28, 2011 9:41 PM
I will propose a hypothesis, perhaps difficult to test in practice, but not insurmountably so in theory. A hypothesis in 2 parts.
1. Every single animal on this planet that can hear is capable of listening to environmental echoes and obtaining spatial information from them, and every single animal on this planet that can hear uses this ability at least some of the time for survival purposes.
2. Every single animal on this planet that can hear AND make it's own sounds can listen to the echoes of its own sounds and obtain spatial information from them, and uses this ability at least some of the time for survival purposes.
(And every single animal on this planet capable of movement is in theory capable of making it's own sounds, by slapping body parts together, to onto the environment.)
In short, rudimentary echolocation abilities will be found to exist in every single motile animal capable of hearing on this planet. Bats and whales just represent the current pinnacle/fitness peak.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
September 29, 2011 12:53 AM
Hi Tex,
No, not really dumb. Toothed whales are the exception. You speak as if they are the whole ballgame. Your argument (as presented) does not adequately cover the topic. If you just want to talk about toothed whales, well, ok - that's interesting enough for me. But, AFAIK, you have until now only mentioned echolocation without qualifiers.
Anyway, surely you know that when I mention pre-existing abilities, I'm not implying that "practice" would lead to more sophisticated echolocation, I'm suggesting that you-know-what would lead, over many generations, to a refinement of the ability. With that in mind, I'd say the "practice" comment was kinda dumb. Try to live up to your own standards, please.
Furthermore, "biosonar" is a simply a generic synonym for echolocation. Toothed whales don't have a monopoly on it, as you seem to be suggesting. (If that's no what you're suggesting, then why mention it? Not all bats echolocate, either.)
Anyways... Yes, toothed whales do have some unusual adaptations, so one could certainly argue that a mutation or two was necessary in order for (say) the melon to develop.
The question, however, is this: is the melon essential to cetacean biosonar, or is it simply an enhancement? If the former, why is it missing from other creatures that echolocate? If the latter, why do you suppose it is now so prevalent in toothed whales?
Posted by: Kseniya
|
September 29, 2011 12:57 AM
(It might also be worth mentioning that there's a pretty obvious reason why toothed whales might have such an ability, while baleen whales would not...)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 29, 2011 1:42 AM
And, of course, humans are also a big part of the carbon cycle. Our total annual production of CO2, CH4 (and various sulfates and such too) currently puts us well within the range of medium-sized volcanoes.
Human beings are now a mid-range force of nature, and growing.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 29, 2011 8:57 AM
Fortunately, I do not remember that.
Try it, moron.
Try it.
You're like those legendary clergy that steadfastly refused to look through Galileo Galilei's telescope.
As I said, I don't think humans can get as good as a bat that... how did I put it... "can fly into a bush at full speed, get an insect out, and fly back out uninjured" or a toothed whale that can find fish buried in sand. But you can get pretty good...
...so good that natural selection could work on it.
Indeed, ichthyosaurs and (to a lesser extent) mosasaurs had humongous eyes, and so did the early baleen whale Janjucetus (a predator that lacked baleen and retained scary teeth).
It's an enhancement; it allows them to scream in a particular direction. Bats have no such thing, apart from minor improvements to nose shape.
How is "salvation by faith only" and "salvation by mercy only" "a singular policy, and the singular thing that activates it"?
If those on whom God has mercy automatically have faith, and nobody else does, 1) that would make Luther a Calvinist, which he wasn't, and 2) why bother mentioning faith?
BTW, I notice you didn't follow my link about salvation. What's up? Are you afraid of something?
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 29, 2011 8:51 PM
Kseniya,
"Yes, toothed whales do have some unusual adaptations, so one could certainly argue that a mutation or two was necessary in order for (say) the melon to develop."
Well, as understated as this is, I can appreciate the acknowledgement. I still don't understand what all the resistance is all about.
"The question, however, is this: is the melon essential to cetacean biosonar, or is it simply an enhancement? If the former, why is it missing from other creatures that echolocate? If the latter, why do you suppose it is now so prevalent in toothed whales?"
I would guess it has to do with sound travelling faster and further in water than air.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 29, 2011 9:24 PM
is the melon essential to cetacean biosonar, or is it simply an enhancement?
is the cornea in your eye essential to any vision, or is it simply an enhancement?
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 29, 2011 9:30 PM
David,
"How is "salvation by faith only" and "salvation by mercy only" "a singular policy, and the singular thing that activates it"?"
I really don't like doing this here.
Grace is the policy, faith initiates the the policy. Ephesians 2:8 is a good summary.
"If those on whom God has mercy automatically have faith, and nobody else does, 1) that would make Luther a Calvinist, which he wasn't, and 2) why bother mentioning faith?
And Calvin wasn't a hyper-calvinist.
The answer to your question depends on whether you are the Saver or the saved. The perspective is different for the two parties. God does the electing, I do the faithing. In short, faith is evidence of election. For your pleasure, you might take a look at Acts 13:48b, where the concept is presented in reverse.
"BTW, I notice you didn't follow my link about salvation. What's up? Are you afraid of something?"
I perused it. To be honest, I've had so many bitter exchanges with Church of Christ people, Copts, etc. about the distinctions between salvation and reward, that it is a rather tiresome subject. Probably the most rarefied passage on the difference is 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 29, 2011 9:39 PM
Of course you do. You framed your initial "question" on the subject specifically to elicit such resistance.
Intellectual dishonesty all the way down.
If so, a directional focusing apparatus like a melon should be more useful in air, where the speed of sound is slower, than in water. But it is the bats, who must echolocate in air, who don't have it.
Please explain why an intelligent designer failed to provide a melon, or performing a similar function to it, for the bats.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 29, 2011 9:58 PM
"If so, a directional focusing apparatus like a melon should be more useful in air"
But is obviously isn't, or barometric selection pressure would have coughed one up.
Posted by: apokryltaros
|
September 29, 2011 10:20 PM
So, txpiper, how come you can't explain why the Intelligent Designer could not provide a melon for bats?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 29, 2011 10:29 PM
Txpiper, still no evidence presented for your imaginary creator.
Why do all godbots/creobot have two flaws in their thinking.
1) No solid physical evidence for their creator.
2) Thinking they creationism wins if they disprove evolution (which they can't do, as it is science, and must be attacked with more science, not fuckwitted questions like pipersnot is pretending to ask).
Posted by: apokryltaros
|
September 29, 2011 10:37 PM
Since we're on the topic of echolocation and Intelligent Design, why did the Intelligent Designer decide to play favorites? Why did the Intelligent Designer not bother to give oilbirds an ability to echolocate as sophisticated as bats? Oilbirds' echolocation is pretty lousy compared to bats: all they can do is make clicks audible even by humans.
Also, why did the Intelligent Designer not bother to give bats or oilbirds melons like He did with cetaceans?
And speaking of cetaceans, why is it that killer whales don't use echolocation, instead being passive listeners?
Posted by: apokryltaros
|
September 29, 2011 10:40 PM
It's because they've been taught that all other people who don't think like them are stupid and evil.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 29, 2011 10:48 PM
You used this argument before, and we've already showed you why it was wrong.
Unlike an intelligent designer, random mutation and natural selection has no foresight, and therefore will not always produce the best or most useful adaptions, the way any intelligent designer worth the name should.
Have your forgotten?
Or did you hope that we'd forget?
Intellectual dishonesty all the way down.
(I will not even bother to elaborate on how "barometric selection pressure" is nothing but world salad. It's already been established that you do not know to communicate honestly in the english language.)
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 29, 2011 10:51 PM
"So, txpiper, how come you can't explain why the Intelligent Designer could not provide a melon for bats?"
No, I really can't. But I have noticed that whales don't really have very impressive ears.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 29, 2011 11:27 PM
But I have noticed that whales don't really have very impressive ears.
neither do goldfish, and yet they hear just fine.
and snakes use their jaws to hear.
YOU on the other hand, well, there are none so deaf as those who willfully refuse to hear.
as mentioned previously, and for the last time by me, you're clearly made yourself out to be an ignorant, borish, dolt with no intention of actually learning anything.
why not just fuck off?
Posted by: apokryltaros
|
September 29, 2011 11:49 PM
So why do you presume that Evolution can not occur because you don't want to understand it? And yet, whales can hear each other's songs over the course of thousands of miles.Posted by: apokryltaros
|
September 29, 2011 11:50 PM
txpiper can't: he's too busy making a colossal, arrogant idiot out of himself by pretending to know more about science than actual scientists.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 29, 2011 11:56 PM
And that's because your vaunted Design "theory" isn't able to provide you with a means of finding out.
WHY, OH MIGHT MAKER, WHY????
Evolution theory, on the other hand, provides several hypotheses that we can test to try to find out.
Whales have mammalian inner ear bones. These inner ear bones are functionally connected to the jaw bone. (Evolutionary theory provides an excellent explanation for why this is so. Design theory, not so much. (WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY????)) Whales can therefore hear through their jaws and skulls.
And they have very impressive jaws and skulls.
(Humans also can hear through our jaws and skulls. When we listen to ourselves speaking, in order to provide the feedback to control our voices, we are actually listening through our jaws and skulls, not our ears. When doctors test a patient for hearing loss, they have to do two tests, one that tests hearing through the ear, and one that tests hearing through the jaw.)
However, ears are part of the reception apparatus of the echolocation system, while the melon is part of the production aspect, so whatever the comparative merits of ears in whales and bats, it's not relevant to the question of why bats do not have melons.
And if it were possible to design a ear-based system that can perform a similar function to a melon, bats don't have one, despite having very impressive ears across the board.
WHY, OH MIGHT MAKER, WHY?????
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 30, 2011 12:17 AM
Why not?
Are you ashamed of believing the Big Book of Middle-Eastern Fairy Tales, and the ludicrous attempts to reconcile its internal contradictions and inconsistencies?
If you have faith, why do you come here and blather like an IDiot?
Why isn't faith enough for you?
Is it possible you don't actually have faith, and you embrace IDiocy out of terror that you are one of the damned?
Sounds Calvinist to me. Are you sure you're not a Calvinist?
If you don't think you are, on what points do you disagree with Calvin?
Do the actions of God in this story match with how you think God acts? If not, why not?
Or maybe you're embarrassed because you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Fallacious arguments -- like special pleading, and arguments from ignorance and incredulity -- are made of kerosene-soaked dryer lint and jellied petroleum.
No reward for that.
=====
Noticed, how? What review of whale hearing do you have in mind that demonstrates this?
I do hope that you are not so stupid as to be referring to pinnae,
Posted by: apokryltaros
|
September 30, 2011 12:30 AM
Or, it could be that txpiper uses his faith to bolster his own ego, to prove to his fellows that he's oh so much smarter than those evil, stupid, evil materialistic scientists who hate God so much because they're stupid and evil.Posted by: txpiper
|
September 30, 2011 12:34 AM
"However, ears are part of the reception apparatus of the echolocation system"
Yeah. I think you ran right past the answer. Bats have functional, adequate, light-weight ears that seem to serve them well.
But, perhaps some peculiar selection pressure will encourage a variety of marine bats, and billions of able, prowling DNA replication byproducts will be there to make a melon for them, so they can reproduce better in their new environmental niche.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 30, 2011 12:40 AM
But they would be served even better if they ALSO HAD A MELON.
But they don't.
Why didn't the Designer give them one?
Why?
Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. But either way, bats don't have melons today.
What is the reason for that?
Posted by: Kseniya
|
September 30, 2011 12:47 AM
I take this to mean that those impressive bat ears made the melon enhancement unnecessary, and perhaps an unjustifiable energy expense. I'd add that the missing melons might simply be chalked up to this: no variation which may have led to the development of the melon ever occurred in bats.
Tex:
Tsk. You persist in either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what natural selection is and does. Who is claiming that n.s. would (by way of "should") cough up any adaptations at all? It doesn't. It's a virtual filter whose actions are wholly dependent upon the interaction between the variation and the environment into which it has manifested. This is been explained countless times.
(I do understand that the "barometric" part was a joke.)
Look, I get that you just don't buy it, and probably never will. But if you are trying to make a case that there are some things that the evolutionary model CANNOT EXPLAIN, you'd be better served by honest and accurate representations of the things you're trying to criticize.
Tex, David, Ichthyic et al.: My questions about the melon were (mostly) rhetorical, posed with the intention of prompting Tex to think about it in a particular way. I see no reason why the melon should be necessary, so yes, I'd agree that it's an enhancement.
Anyway, point being, if it's merely (!) an enhancement, and not essential to echolocation as a basic skill, then the mutation(s) that led to the development of the melon is also non-essential, so the argument that the ability to echolocation needn't require any mutations still stands.
On a side note, I'd love to hear opinions on the role that may have been played by phenotypic plasticity in all this. I don't know that we can apply that to the melon, but sonar-enhancing adaptations in bats resulting from minor changes in gene expression (slightly larger or otherwise more suitable ears, or superior vocalization frequency range or amplitude, for example) could make the skill more viable in creatures that already possessed the basic attributes to echolocate, which in turn leads to directional selection of that phenotype.
(Once again, the Firefox spell-checker is conspiring with itself to make me think about chocolate.)
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 30, 2011 12:51 AM
"Do the actions of God in this story match with how you think God acts?"
No.
"If not, why not?"
Because it is a story.
Posted by: apokryltaros
|
September 30, 2011 12:57 AM
So, now explain to us why we must take your ignorant and incorrect opinions on science to be holy law.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 30, 2011 1:00 AM
Well, as I've mentioned in passing before, I think it's interesting that the most sophisticated examples of echolocation are both in mammals, which have the three-bone mammalian inner-ear.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 30, 2011 1:02 AM
So which part is a story, and which part is real?
And how does your Design theory help you decide?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 30, 2011 3:37 AM
mmmm juicy melons.
seedless or not?
oh and while we're on the subject of locating things, ever hear about the fish that uses electricity to see?
texpip is unfortunately too dim to understand it, but I'm sure someone here would be interested.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 30, 2011 10:04 AM
I've read the comments here and on the other thread, but I don't have time to reply now. Gotta run.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 30, 2011 1:01 PM
Isn't there more than one? And they evolved the ability separately?
And I think one mammal (the platypus) does it too....
Posted by: Stanton
|
September 30, 2011 3:57 PM
Sharks and the platypus can not generate electricity, they simply have sensory organs that are sensitive to the bio-electric fields generated by living animals.The knifefishes (including the infamous electric eel), the mormyrids (i.e., the elephantfish), the electric catfish and the electric rays or torpedoes all generate electric fields which they use to detect prey and predators, with a few even capable of stunning prey and repulsing predators.
The electric catfish have been used by the Ancient Egyptians to treat headaches, in that a sufferer would go to a vendor, and have a catfish clapped to their forehead.
Likewise, the Ancient Greeks sometimes used a torpedo to help numb the pain of women in labor.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 30, 2011 4:17 PM
Isn't there more than one? And they evolved the ability separately?
several, and yes.
And I think one mammal (the platypus) does it too....
that's more like how a shark uses electrical fields.
:)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 30, 2011 6:52 PM
One of many reasons why it is never wise to mess with Greek women....
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
September 30, 2011 7:43 PM
You really are a piece of work, Tinkerbell.
The Big Book of Middle-Eastern Fairy Tales contains loads of stories. Theologians, apologists, and other believers have been making interpretations of those stories, and drawing corollaries from those interpretations about the Big Sky Fairy described in those stories.
The story I linked to describes a God that acts in the material world, and provides grace and salvation for entry into an eternal blissful heaven after humans in the material world die, and experience a presumably immaterial afterlife.
If you cannot provide a basic compare-and-contrast between the way God acts in that story, and the way that you think that God acts based on your interpretation of the Big Book of Middle-Eastern Fairy Tales, well, I repeat: You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even know what you actually think about your religion.
Posted by: txpiper
|
September 30, 2011 8:51 PM
amphiox,
"I think it's interesting that the most sophisticated examples of echolocation are both in mammals, which have the three-bone mammalian inner-ear."
Yeah, and talk about a developmental novel. It is believed that an astonishing sequence of rare DNA replication events, occurring over millions of years, resulted in a painstaking migration of two reptile jawbones towards the middle ear. While they were in transit, they were significantly reduced in size, and in a display of stunning unguided precision, completely reconfigured to work in perfect coordination with the stapes, which had also been altered, under anticipatory selection pressure, for a new, more sophisticated role, by other coincidental mutations.
While the entire integration process is not well understood, it is nonetheless, definitely believed.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 30, 2011 10:47 PM
It's like watching a Dunning Kruger version of the Energizer Bunny!
it just keeps flailing and flailing and flailing...
Posted by: Kseniya
|
September 30, 2011 11:06 PM
The platypus bill is roughly analogous to an electric guitar pickup. Its prey are (even more roughly) analogous to the strings. Movement of the latter "disturbs" the field generated by the former, and that disturbance becomes information...
I think I just violated the 2nd Law. *smirk*
It's an uncommon talent, and creatures who do it well tend to dominate their niche. If natural selection were indeed the straw phenomenon you keep erecting and toppling, every creature would have it and it would be unremarkable. (Didn't Syndrome say something like that in The Incredibles?)
Oh well. I'm too tired to come up with anything interesting. Happy weekend, everyone.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
September 30, 2011 11:11 PM
(Ack... terrible writing. I was addressing Tex under the quote from Amphiox. It's been a long week (month). Night all.)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 30, 2011 11:30 PM
Not so rare. We've measured the rates.
250 million or so. See fossil record.
Painstaking is a teleological term. Incorrect. For the rest, fossil record.
Gradually and stepwise, over 250 million years. Plenty slow enough for a series of single mutations. Fossil record.
Not that precise. Lots of variants, many dead ends. Fossil record.
Not perfect. No other explanation for your chronic inability to listen.
Not anticipatory. See fossil record. Also, basic logic. The need the hear things precedes any of those jaw bone changes.
Fossil record.
So, let's see. We have a fossil record longer than 250 million years, one of the most complete transitions, with the most example specimens, in the entire fossil record, as it were. The fossils show a gradual, stepwise transition in form, EXACTLY as Evolutionary theory predicts. The fossils shows multiple variants, and extinct dead ends, EXACTLY as Evolutionary theory predicts. We have living examples of genetic, heritable variation in the forms of those three bones, EXACTLY as Evolutionary theory predicts. There is variation in acuity of hearing among living animals, EXACTLY as Evolutionary theory predicts. Hearing is essential for survival, EXACTLY as Evolutionary theory predicts. And we have living examples of animals that still have the multi-boned jaw without the middle ear, who hear with their jaws, EXACTLY as Evolutionary theory predicts.
Yeah, we don't know precisely which mutations occurred or when, to bring about these changes. But Evolutionary theory tells us exactly where and how to look if we want to try and find out.
Now then, texpip. Hows does Design theory fare at explaining all the above? Why did the Designer take 250 million years to fashion the mammalian inner ear. Why didn't he just make it all at once? Why did he give an inferior transitional inner ear to the Pelycosaurs? To the Gorgonopsians? To the Theracephalians? To the cynodonts? Why didn't he give any of it to the archosaurs? The lepidosaurs? The testudines? Why does it not work sometimes, for some individuals? Why are there deaf people? Why is this apparatus so close to the balance organs, so that a single skull injury can knock out both critical senses?
And how would you use Design theory to find out the answers, if you don't know?
WHY, TEXPIP, WHY????????
HOW, TEXPIP, HOW????????
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 30, 2011 11:45 PM
The texpip can continue wasting his time, energy, and precious few neurons constructing fake monuments to tear down (and fail at it!) with weak, fake arguments.
The rest of us will pause on occasion to amuse ourselves laughing at him, or take the opportunity to use his stupidity as an illustrative example for teaching ourselves and others, while we keep busy using the Theory of Evolution to learn new, exciting, and useful things about the living world, and apply what we learn to making this world a better place for everyone.
The texpip can keep his sterile, useless, fruitless, pointless Designer theory if it makes him happy.
Even the texpip will benefit, indirectly, from the fruits of the theory he wastes his minimal stores of intellect erecting fake versions of to fail to tear down.
And we will not begrudge him that, as we will be too busy being excited about the thrilling findings of real science.
That will be the final irony.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 1, 2011 12:47 AM
Gradually and stepwise, over 250 million years. Plenty slow enough for a series of single mutations.
I'd add that it's not needed for individual mutations to "move" bones bit by bit.
changes to how the bones themselves develop can create the variation needed; changes to regulatory genes involved in specific areas of bone growth and development for example.
there in fact need be relatively few genetic mutations involved.
We learned decades ago with Hox gene complexes.
the reason I harp on this is simply because our recent attack chihuahua doesn't understand genetics, or development, or selection, or much of anything, really, so I might as well toss this shit out there as it comes up.
there is just so much he doesn't know about biology, that I can't just write a fucking textbook to fill in all the gaps for him.
but it really does seem pointless, so I'll just end my participation by saying THESE ARE THE AREAS YOU NEED TO TAKE A BASIC COURSE IN IF YOU REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION:
Genetics (molecular and population)
paleontology (physics and geology help here too)
chemistry (at least biochemistry if not general and organic)
developmental biology
ecology
animal behavior
zoology (and/or botany)
pysiology (and/or anatomy of some kind)
yeah, that's right, you really can't just read the AIG fucking website and think you understand evolution.
for that matter, even reading Origins itself hardly qualifies as anything more than understanding how the single method of trait fixation known as natural selection was hypothesized from the observation of bigeography and trait variability.
even reading an excellent textbook on the subject, like Futuyma's, is really insufficient to get a complete understanding of the field. Though I suppose if you were to only read ONE thing, that would be the one I would recommend.
debating evolution with someone like the pipster is much like trying to debate quantum physics with a five year old.
if you get them upset, they just cry, and really they just wanted to pester you for a lolly anyway.
Now, Pip, you've had you're lolly. run along and play on the freeway or something, like a good lad.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 1, 2011 2:30 AM
He doesn't know that we know that he doesn't know that we know that he doesn't know that we know that he doesn't know.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 1, 2011 2:50 AM
amphiox,
"Not so rare. We've measured the rates."
No, I'm sorry but "we've" not measured the rate of 'beneficial' mutations. Somatic mutations do not count. What would count is measured germline mutations that result in unique, functional proteins that are something, do something, or catalyze something, and that is only a reasonable starting point. It gets nothing but less likely from there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 1, 2011 6:53 AM
Sorry fuckwit, the rates of all mutations have been measured. What a liar and bullshitter you are, and that has been repeatedly proven. You add nothing to the discussion, as your pretend knowledge and skepticism merely shows your ignorance, not that of science, to the observers.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 1, 2011 7:35 AM
txpaper admits to not knowing anything about biology or evolution yet still argues with professional biologists. It's like a small child telling the dentist "that's not a cavity and you don't have to drill it."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 1, 2011 7:48 AM
'Tis, txpiper is a liberturd. Abject ignorance and an ego the size of Montana are part of the package. And it shows.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 1, 2011 8:12 AM
The known, measured rates of germline mutations, and the rate at which these mutations rise to fixation is the basis of the molecular clock.
When it comes to the evolution of traits, it's the fixation rate that matters, not whether the initial mutation is beneficial, neutral, or harmful (which cannot be established except in hindsight anyways). Every fixed mutation is a new genetic feature that evolution has added to the genome. Natural selection, of course, being one mechanism through which this fixation occurs.
Evolution theory suggests to us that if we want to find out how a particular trait evolved, you first find out which genes are responsible, and then you do comparative genetics between related species both sharing and not sharing that trait to determine which changes are responsible for producing those traits. Then, if you have enough comparative genomic data, you can do molecular clock analyses to determine the point in time each of the involved mutations became fixed. You can infer that each of those mutations must have been beneficial at the time it became fixed, though you cannot completely discount the possibility that a neutral or even mildly harmful mutation became fixed due to genetic drift. Once you know the time, from your molecular clock data, you can search the fossil record for hints as to the possible phenotypic effects of the mutations, and reconstruct the local environment to get a sense of how those phenotypic changes might have provided a selection advantage, though this is quite hard in practice.
Knowing the sequence of genetic changes that produced the trait you are interested in, you can also do genetic modification experiments on living organisms to find out what those mutations did, though this can be difficult to do in practice if the organism you are interested in is not easy to manipulate.
Thus, using evolution theory, you can design a series of experiments and investigations that will allow you to construct a step by step picture of the major events involved in the evolution of any trait you are interested in. Lack of available or obtainable evidence may limit the amount of detail you can discover, but at the least a broad picture can be determined in most cases, and at best a very detailed picture is possible.
What methodology for investigation does Design theory supply? It's back to climbing that mountain again. Make sure you pack your hiking boots and umbrella, and take a refresher course in your voice training.
Seeing as the texpip produced several molecular clock studies during his citation spamming phase, he should know all this. So his post above is pretty brazen, shameless intellectual dishonesty. Quel surprise.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 1, 2011 8:25 AM
The low likelihood the texpip likes to sputter above, of course, is part of the explanatory power of the theory of evolution. It helps explain the diversity of life on earth. If the likelihood is too high, then every lineage would easily evolve every beneficial trait, and life on earth would be a monotonous array of virtually identical super-organisms. The low likelihood explains why for many very beneficial traits, only a handful of species, out of all the billions of existing species, have them.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 1, 2011 9:53 AM
Has txpiper come up with an explanation on why we all have to bow down to his pompously ignorant and woefully incorrect opinions on Evolutionary Biology, yet?Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
October 1, 2011 1:58 PM
Totally unrelated to the topic at hand, but interestingly I recently came across this: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics.
:P
_ _ _
Has txpiper come up with an explanation on how so many people who do biology for a living can be so wrong about their own field?
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 1, 2011 2:06 PM
BecauseGodThe Intelligent Designer tm told him so?Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 1, 2011 2:20 PM
Definitely organic chemistry and biochemistry. This is the idiot who confidently declared that the reactions catalysed by replication and repair enzymes "are obviously not just chemical reactions".
Dunning and Kruger would be proud.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 1, 2011 2:23 PM
Gah.
Sorry, Ichthyic, I didn't mean to quote you in comic sans.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
October 1, 2011 9:20 PM
Nightjar @413
As I watched this debacle over the last few days an idea occurred to me. In addition to the Molly awards, there should be a monthly Dunning-Kruger champion. I hereby nominate txpiper.
Nerd of Redhead
I think that the combination of "abject ignorance" with a ginormous ego is what causes a person to embrace libertarianism. Since they believe they are an unrecognized and unrewarded genius, they conclude it must be the constraints of government and society that are holding them back. If only these constraints were removed they would achieve their destiny. Of course, their destiny in the society they envisage would probably actually involve being a domestic servant of a robber baron.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 1, 2011 9:43 PM
Sorry, Ichthyic, I didn't mean to quote you in comic sans.
THAT'S IT!
I refuse to post any more in this thread, and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!
:P
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 2, 2011 2:00 AM
"ginormous ego is what causes a person to embrace libertarianism"
I can't really address 'libertarianism' since I'm not one. But for the average conservative, it's about debt. You do understand the our currency is going to collapse, right?
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 2, 2011 2:53 AM
txpiper:
You are eerily reminiscent of Earl Curley.
Care to put a date on this prophesied collapse?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 2, 2011 5:26 AM
Despite what the economic illiterates at Fox News say, that's quite unlikely. That is, unless the economic illiterate Teabaggers keep playing ideological games with the economy.
Typically we cringe when we hear how high the national debt has gotten and curse the drunken sailor-like spending habits of governments.
However, debt is not all bad. Basically when the government borrows money and then spends that money, it passes through many different peoples' hands in different sectors of the economy, thereby stimulating it. There's also the point that debt is a lower percentage of 1st World nations' GDP now than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Also the return on debt, how much we get in assets compared to what we spend, is very high right now, meaning the amount of spending we're doing is good.
People get paranoid because various national debts are held by foreigners. However these people have no reason to simply stop loaning money to deliberately screw other countries, because they're making a lot of money from loaning right now.
The debt defined in a fixed number of dollars instead of a percentage of GDP.* The fixed-dollar-amount debt is a platform for political grandstanding, not a figure that carries much meaningful financial significance. Under Clinton it was the Republicans who played political chicken with the president by placing our nation's creditworthiness at risk. Under Bush it was the Democrats, only they didn't push it hard. The present Congress has Republicans who pretending to be "fiscally responsible."
This particular political game is one I cannot stomach. It doesn’t matter which political party is threatening to force the US into default on Treasury securities. I don't find it funny, cunning, or cute; I find it infuriating. How ironic it is when politicians force the nation to the brink of bankruptcy—to earn the label "fiscally responsible." Alexander Hamilton spins in his grave every time this comes up.
I've watched this political game play for the better part of four decades, and you know what? It's way past time for the headline-seekers, on both sides, to stop playing chicken with our nation's creditworthiness and start spending more time doing things to help fix the economic problems. One major economic problem is AGW, which many in Congress refuse to admit even exists.
*I wonder what percentage of politicians are sufficiently proficient in arithmetic to understand that a way to stay under any given ratio of debt-to-GDP is to grow the denominator faster than the numerator?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 2, 2011 9:09 AM
More lies from the texpip.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, sinner.
Then the average conservative should be voting for Democratic presidential candidates, since Republican presidents are the ones that increase the debt the most.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 2, 2011 10:11 AM
"One major economic problem is AGW, which many in Congress refuse to admit even exists."
I believe ACC is the current nominal preference.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
October 2, 2011 11:13 AM
txpiper:
Not my currency.
John Morales
Your demand is unreasonably specific - I just want to know if this prophesied collapse will be before or after any of the following much prophesied events.
The demise of rock music
The rapture/second coming of Christ
The scientific community abandoning the theory of evolution.
The collapse of capitalism
The demise of the Canadian Football League
The discovery of high quality evidence indicating anthropic CO2 emissions are not causing a significant increase in average global temperature.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 2, 2011 12:37 PM
It's the same phenomenon no matter what it is called.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 2, 2011 2:55 PM
John Morales,
"Care to put a date on this prophesied collapse?"
No, of course not. Nor do I know what events will precipitate it, or whether it will happen gradually or quickly, though I would suspect the latter.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 2, 2011 5:07 PM
No, of course not. Nor do I know what events will precipitate it, or whether it will happen gradually or quickly, though I would suspect the latter.Typical, know nothing, but still pontificate.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 2, 2011 5:14 PM
If you're too afraid of being called out on your bullshit, you should stop bullshitting altogether. Being coy about exact dates does not help with your bullshitting.Posted by: Stanton
|
October 2, 2011 5:17 PM
And txpiper still refuses to explain why we should bow down to his ignorant and incorrect opinions on Evolution, also.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 2, 2011 5:23 PM
Seems like some rather important details to have a bead on before making such bold claims?
I'll make it easier for our AMATEUR NOVICE.
You don't have to answer in specifics. Just describe how one should go about finding out - preferably BEFORE it actually happens so there's some chance of figuring out how to avoid it.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 2, 2011 5:39 PM
Because GOD said so?Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 2, 2011 5:46 PM
Back to the mountaintop with the umbrella, then?
WHEN, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHEN?????
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 2, 2011 6:15 PM
Q: "Oh, great guru of the mountain, I've come to ask you: we were created by an omnipotent deity, or if we evolved from apes?"A: "We were bought on credit, but never paid for, and are being repossessed one by one."
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 2, 2011 8:48 PM
"You don't have to answer in specifics. Just describe how one should go about finding out - preferably BEFORE it actually happens so there's some chance of figuring out how to avoid it."
History is loaded with regional patterns and repeating trends. But at this point in time, the trends are global, extremely volatile and complex. There aren't really any safe havens. Avoidance is not always possible, but preparation is to some degree, by getting out of debt and into something that will run counter to currency devaluation. Physical silver, after a gigantic recent sell-ff, is a steal right now in my view.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 2, 2011 11:21 PM
txpiper, tell us again why we should trust your word on anything when you've also demonstrated yourself stupid and dishonest enough to think that Natural Selection is an actual entity?
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 3, 2011 1:04 AM
Stanton,
"tell us again why we should trust your word on anything"
Well, I'm not saying you should. But if you're talking about the silver market, it closed Friday at 29.97. It is trading at 30.26 right now. You can follow along here for a few weeks and see what happens. It will go down, stay flat, or go up. Time will tell. It always does.
"stupid and dishonest enough to think that Natural Selection is an actual entity"
You're confused. I don't think this at all. I object to the dancing metaphors used to make NS a creative deity, but I recognize that you can't get the desired attributes out of it without expressing it in anthropomorphic terms. For instance, 'selected for' means that it made a choice on the basis of quality.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2011 1:38 AM
pipster is schizophrenic.
classic signs.
seek treatment.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
October 3, 2011 6:47 AM
txpiper (#434):
[Rolls eyes]
There has to be a term for the opposite of the fallacy of equivocation, where instead of playing on multiple meanings of an expression, one obstinately insists on just one meaning, and ignores all the others.
We've had 150 years in which to establish a perfectly clear meaning for "selection" in the context of evolutionary biology, referring to the non-random filtering of traits from generation to generation as a consequence of the organism's interactions with the environment. The process is selective in the sense of having a directional bias towards certain traits and against others.
This is not rocket science - it's a matter of basic linguistic competence. Which apparently is something you lack.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2011 6:58 AM
That's right, instead of listening to arrogant and ignorant fuckwits like you, we should listen to experts in the field, be it economics or biology. Now, again, why should we listen to you on on either subject, with you not being an expert? Maybe you need to get with the program, and shut the fuck up if you aren't the expert.Posted by: John Morales
|
October 3, 2011 8:17 AM
Militant Agnostic, OK, you gave me a start, then I chuckled out loud.
Good one!
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 3, 2011 8:23 AM
As already explain in detail to this AMATEUR NOVICE, it is the anthropopmorphic attributes themselves that are the metaphors.
We have explained in great detail to you exactly how Natural Selection really works, but you continue to deliberately distort or ignore everything we say. You make up your own fake definition of NS to argue against, dishonestly framed in teleological language, even after being informed that teleology is precisely what must be avoided, avoiding discussing any real aspects of NS as it actually works, because you know you have absolutely nothing rational or reasonable to say.
And yet you continue assert exactly this time and time again. How blatantly you lie. Have you no shame?
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 3, 2011 8:28 AM
And which ones are applicable to the current situation, to what degree, and why?
What are the criteria to use to judge which trends are most informative, and which ones are misleading?
And how do these patterns and trends provide support to the initial assertion, that the currency will soon collapse?
And what do these trends say about the likely timeframe?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 3, 2011 8:31 AM
Like a zombie energizer bunny, the CFL will never truly die. It will keep going, and going, and going, in some form another, probably until the heat death of the universe, and possibly beyond.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 3, 2011 9:08 AM
I'm pretty sure that he is committing exactly the fallacy of equivocation -- the multiple meanings of "selection" are the one being used by evolutionary biologists as a technical term, and the one that
Tinkerbelltxpiper insists can be the only possible meaning.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 3, 2011 9:15 AM
If basic linguistic competence means rejecting IDiocy, then
Tinkerbelltxpiper wants nothing to do with basic linguistic competence.Posted by: Iain Walker
|
October 3, 2011 9:43 AM
Owlmirror (#442):
Hmm. It's just that usually the FoE involves actively utilising multiple senses of the term in the same argument and then conflating them. Txpiper simply conflates the sense that other people are (quite consistently) using with his own (equally consistent) preferred meaning. I.e., the FoE involves an inconsistency of usage, while txpiper is being consistent in his usage but massively obtuse.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 3, 2011 3:04 PM
Before I catch up, first things first:
WRONG!
The first amniotes had no middle ear. Inner ear, yes; middle ear, no. (amphiox has confused these terms occasionally.) They were unable to hear airborne high-frequency sounds. The stapes was not at all specialized for hearing; it was a (more or less horizontal) pillar that braced the quadrate (which formed the upper part of the jaw joint), and thus the side wall of the skull, against the braincase.
The earliest diapsids, the ancestors of lepidosaurs* and archosaurs**, formed a solid occiput as a consequence of their enlarged jaw muscles. This gradually freed the stapes from its role. Mutants in which it didn't touch the quadrate didn't die from torn-apart skulls anymore; this made it possible for a tympanum to form from the skin at the end of the stapes which came to be housed by a circular embayment in the quadrate, and for the stapes to become a narrow rod which allowed the perception of sounds with higher frequencies.
The same happened in the earliest turtles. Proganochelys is in fact an intermediate with an intermediately robust stapes.
It also happened in a bunch of lizard-shaped animals like Nycteroleter. They're extinct, so I won't bother explaining them, but the paper which shows that they had middle ears is really nice. Google for it.
(Outside of amniotes, it has happened in frogs and maybe seymouriamorphs and probably dissorophoid temnospondyls.)
In the distant ancestors of mammals, the quadrate was small and the occiput was robust. The quadrate, together with the stapes, was able to shrink further and become loose; this is well documented in several steps in the fossil record. This allowed for the stapes to become a piston*** that entered the inner ear through the oval fenestra (which happens to lie in that very area in all vertebrates that have such things) and left it when the quadrates moved. Of course, the quadrates were part of the jaw joints, so the lower jaws had to move as well. Fortunately, they were able to. Usually, the lower jaw consists of several bones. The dentary, which carries the teeth, had increased stepwise (again: well documented in the fossil record), come closer and closer to the jaw joint (ditto), and taken up a larger and larger part of the attachment surface of the jaw muscles (ditto); as a result, the bones that used to make up the rear half of the lower jaw had been able to shrink and come loose, so they did, stepwise. Well, what can you do with loose bones in your face that are connected to your quadrate, thus to the stapes and thus to the inner ear? You can use them to pick up vibrations, first from the ground, then from the air. The lamina at the corner of the angular (which used to form the lower part of the rear half of the lower jaw) acquired a notch, because bone isn't formed or sustained where it isn't stressed, and then ended up forming part of a ring. The skin which covered that circle (or ellipsoid) gradually came to function as an eardrum, especially when the articular (which formed most of the lower half of the jaw joint) grew a process to the center of the ring which made it even easier to transmit pressure from the incipient tympanum to the quadrate. Chiniquodon from the Middle Triassic of Brazil is such an animal. The stapes, the quadrate and the rear bones of the lower jaw were small, and the stapes was able to work as a piston operated by the quadrate and the lower-jaw bones which were mobile from side to side, but the quadrate and the articular stayed large enough for the jaw joint to function (it has to be able to withstand forces when the jaws do anything other than just opening and closing, for example when bitten prey struggles). This factor limited the frequency range of the animal's hearing.
This problem, which required a somewhat awkward compromise comparable to the human pelvis, fell away in animals with slightly bigger dentaries (in the lower jaw) and squamosals (in the skull) – so big that they touched and a joint formed****. Obviously, this new joint had to have the same axis as the old joint, or the jaws wouldn't have to be able to move; indeed, they lie in the same axis (old joint inside, new joint outside – which means that the eardrum sank into the head) in plenty of Triassic and Jurassic mammals and near-mammals, including such famous names as Morganucodon and Megazostrodon but also the docodonts such as Castorocauda.
In Yanoconodon, the middle ear didn't touch the dentary anymore, but lay well to the inside of it; still, it was connected to the dentary by a long process of the articular (the malleus) which lay alongside much of the dentary. This process, as cartilage (Meckel's cartilage) rather than bone, is also present in newborn marsupials and human fetuses.
The articular, as mentioned, is the malleus. The angular is the ectotympanic (which fuses to the malleus in humans but not in some other mammals). The quadrate is the incus. Malleus and incus still form the old jaw joint, and the stapes still connects the incus to the inner ear.
Summary: no bones from the lower jaw migrated into the middle ear. The middle ear formed in the lower jaw, then a new jaw joint formed on its outside, and then the middle ear, old jaw joint included, lost its connection to the lower jaw because a part of Meckel's cartilage was not sustained in the fetus anymore. The old jaw joint, and the joint between quadrate and stapes, have stayed intact throughout the last 370 million years at least.
* Tuataras, except the extant tuatara has secondarily reduced the middle ear, and lizards incl. snakes, except that snakes and various burrowing lizards have secondarily reduced the middle ear as well.
** Crocodiles on the one side, dinosaurs incl. birds on the other side, and everything in between.
*** In diapsids and frogs, the stapes has instead kept its two heads; the upper one forms a joint with the inner ear, and the lower head enters and leaves the inner ear. The stapes rocks up and down instead of moving like a piston.
**** Joints form automatically between bones that touch and move. Rib fractures that aren't stabilized commonly heal as joints; I myself have seen a monitor lizard skeleton that had several of these.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 3, 2011 4:10 PM
The therocephalians were not headless. :-)
*sigh* You pour out your standard answers more quickly than you can think.
What has been measured is that every one of us has between 100 and 200 germline mutations that our parents both lack. It is not known how many of these are beneficial or detrimental, except that it is known that most are neutral (...or there wouldn't be so many in healthy people!) and that the exact numbers of beneficial and detrimental ones depend on one's environment in the widest sense of that word. (Lactase tolerance is a lifelong waste of protein synthesis unless you actually drink milk/eat unfermented milk products. Skin color all over the world is a compromise between UV creating vitamin D, the same UV destroying folic acid, diet and clothing. Sickle cell anemia... thalassemia... and so on...)
Same thing. The more beneficial it is, the more quickly it will fixate; the more harmful it is, the more quickly it will disappear, all else being equal. Natural selection cannot wait. You can't say "I won't have more children than my neighbor as long as anyone with my neighbor's genotype is still alive".
That's why it's only been done 2 or 3 times. Molecular dating is usually done with neutral mutations – precisely because natural selection doesn't mess with their fixation times.
Yours? Perhaps, if Congress leaves the decision on whether to declare war on China to President Bachmann. Mine? Nope. Not even if Greece defaults, which won't be allowed to happen, because it would cost even more than the alternative.
What we've explained to you so many times is that we understand full well that these are metaphors – shorthands. "This mutation is selected for" is shorthand for "this mutation leads to a greater percentage of fertile survivors among the offspring of those that have that mutation, therefore individuals with that mutation will make up a greater percentage of the next generation than they do of the current one".
Why don't you understand that scientists are lazy? Why don't you understand that scientists write H2O instead of H2O1 simply because they can get away with leaving the 1 unsaid?
WHY, O MIGHTY MAKER, WHY???
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 3, 2011 5:35 PM
I notice that txpiper failed to answer this question. So I'll do it: it's an enhancement, as any nautilus can show you.
That would mean faith causes grace.
However, "by grace are ye saved through faith" sounds more compatible with the other way around. Owlmirror! Do you know Greek? If so, how good is the translation? When I translate the German translation of 1980 into English, I get "out of grace are ye saved by faith".
That means grace causes faith, and explicitly not vice versa – it doesn't even seem to be possible to have faith without having already been chosen, according to those verses.
Yep, Calvinism: those who are elected automatically have faith, so there's no point in mentioning faith as a criterion for salvation.
What do you mean? Have I confused salvation and reward?
That passage seems to say that good works (those which withstand fire) will cause reward, but are independent of salvation; whether salvation is caused by grace, faith or anything else is, however, not mentioned.
In any case the KJV translation of it is really bad. The mentioned German one from 1980 clarifies a lot: verse 15 translates as "If it burns down, he must carry the burden of that loss. He himself, however, will be saved, but as if through fire", and "through" is explicitly physical, "as if he had gone through fire". Once saved, he will be in a different condition than he would be if what he had built had withstood the fire.
Good question. Killer whales are, after all, not just toothed whales in general but dolphins in particular. I suppose they don't want to scare their prey away.
The funny thing about echolocation is that you hear when others scream. It's not like vision where you don't see what others look at.
Remember that the inner ear is filled with water. It only works in water – or with an amplifier, such as a middle ear and an eardrum.
Whales use the lower jaw as eardrum and middle ear. The vibrations are transferred through the jaw joint and to the inner ear which, as usual, lies very close to the jaw joint. The middle ear is present, but hidden in a capsule in the skull, and I don't know what it actually does.
What whales lack is the outer ear. That's obviously because of drag.
Water – inner ear. Normal state for vertebrates.
The lower jaw almost always lies on the ground, so vibrations are transferred from the ground through the lower jaw to the skull and into the inner ear.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2011 7:15 PM
Water – inner ear. Normal state for vertebrates.
actually not what I was referring to.
didn't you know that some fish use their swimbladders like an eardrum?
It was noticed a long time before in goldfish, and since has been an interesting topic in evolutionary biology to try and trace back in which group of fishes it first originated.
I'll leave the googling to you.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 3, 2011 9:18 PM
I can't respond for a day or so, but I did wonder about this in an earlier post from apokryltaros:
"why is it that killer whales don't use echolocation, instead being passive listeners?"
A quick search seems to indicate that they do.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 3, 2011 11:20 PM
I did. Thanks for pointing it out.
You're right of course. I worded my post that way because I wanted to not exclude fixation by genetic drift, and to emphasize that we can only ever determine beneficial/neutral/harmful after the fact - one cannot say that any mutation is going to be beneficial, neutral, or harmful at the moment in occurs in the germline, only after the organism has lived and reproduced.
And interestingly, the Neutral Theory shows that modern Evolutionary Theory has actually overturned/replaced a key part of the original Darwinian theory. It shows that neutral mutations that go to fixation via drift can become part of the sequence of changes that produces new adaptions. Darwin initially hypothesized that every single step had to be a beneficial one, but we now know that this is not necessary. Some of the steps can be neutral, or even mildly harmful, thanks to the effects of genetic drift.
I was thinking of looking at neutral mutations close to/linked to the identified beneficial mutation of interest to date the divergence times in the cladogram. This gives you the ability to estimate approximately when the beneficial mutation you are interested in occurs, in that you can narrow it down to after a certain divergence (where one branch doesn't have the mutation) and before another later divergence (after which all branches have it, other than secondary losses).
My example was of course to illustrate how easy it is to use Evolutionary Theory to produce potential experimental methodologies to solve problems and answer new questions. Even without subspecialty expertise in the field, you can come up with an overall outline of such a method/research program.
It goes without saying that this is something absolutely critical for a good scientific theory, and Design "theory" fails utterly at it.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 3, 2011 11:39 PM
And interesting sidenote (which has been explained to the texpip several times on previous threads, and which the texpip continues to ignore), is that molecular data can in many cases differentiate between mutations that fixate via drift and mutations that fixate via natural selection. It is possible to identify which regions of the genome have undergone "selective sweeps", as well as estimate approximately when. (Among other things, the observed mutation rate is slower in regions experiencing natural selection compared to regions where only neutral changes occur, because natural selection is eliminating some of the harmful mutations so quickly that all evidence that they actually ever occurred is erased).
This of course means that it isn't just hypothesis that beneficial mutations occur, natural selection expands them, and complex adaptions are built step by step by the accumulation of these beneficial mutations. It is an observed fact, writ indelibly into the genomes of every living organism. The texpip and co. can bring up as many examples, real or imagined, that they want of adaptions that they think have not yet been explained, and try to assert that these examples indicate that evolution via natural selection of random mutations is somehow impossible, and all they're doing is demonstrating their own ignorance and wasting their own time. Because we already know how natural selection of random mutations has produced quite a number of adaptions already - we have plenty of evidence that the process works. The "impossibility" assertion has already been disproven thousands of times over. Design "theory" has already been falsified thousands of times over.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 3, 2011 11:43 PM
LoL... Hey, memory regression indicates that in a past life, I was the cast-off, scabrous mistress of a poverty-stricken former man-servant of a minor robber baron. Oh, the glory! Or maybe I was Cleopatra. Whatever.
Piper:
Right you are.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 3, 2011 11:45 PM
Unlike bats, which hunt with echolocation, Orca don't. When they initiate a hunt, they go "radio-silent", and hunt by passive listening.
Or, to be more specific, they do so when hunting prey that are capable of hearing and identifying their sonar signals and other communicative sounds, such as dolphins, whales and other marine mammals. I'm not sure if they employ echolocation when hunting prey that cannot hear or cannot recognize their sounds, such as certain fish, squid, etc.
And being dolphins, they are fully capable of echolocation and presumably will use it for standard navigation.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 3, 2011 11:58 PM
It goes without saying that just as the inner ear only works in water, the middle ear works best in air (not sure if it even would work in water at all), and indeed can be quite a liability in water, as anyone with experience diving can attest to.
So why, on Design Theory, should a whale have a middle ear that it does not need to use for hearing in water?
And why, on Design Theory, if the whale middle ear does retain some function, does the structure of that middle ear look exactly as if was modified from an earlier version that works best in air?
Evolutionary theory explains this easily, of course - whales still have a middle ear because they descended from land living mammals who had middle ears and used those middle ears to hear in air. There has either been insufficient time for mutations and natural selection to eliminate the middle ear structures entirely, or the middle ear has retained sufficient residual function, or been coopted for a new function, such that natural selection has retained it.
Design "theory"? Well, it's back up the mountain with the megaphone....
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 4, 2011 5:26 AM
Oh. Yes. I just didn't know goldfish are in that clade. :-] There are just too many teleosts out there!
QFT.
Never been done.
Bingo.
There is, actually, a way to make a middle ear work in water: to ossify the eardrum. That's what the mosasaurs did.
WHY, O MIGHTY MAKER, WHY?
"Everything is the way it is because it got that way."
– J. B. S. Haldane
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 4, 2011 5:43 AM
There are just too many teleosts out there!
tosh!
there's only 40 thousand or so...
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 7, 2011 8:51 PM
"What has been measured is that every one of us has between 100 and 200 germline mutations that our parents both lack. It is not known how many of these are beneficial or detrimental, except that it is known that most are neutral"
I think it would be a safe bet that if they are not neutral, they are harmful. It's much more likely for something functional to be screwed up than it is for anything to be randomly improved.
I've read that the human genome has indeed accumulated lots of neutral or mildly deleterious mutations, but I've never seen anything that speculated that this trend can or will be reversed.
"However, "by grace are ye saved through faith" sounds more compatible with the other way around. Owlmirror! Do you know Greek? If so, how good is the translation? When I translate the German translation of 1980 into English, I get "out of grace are ye saved by faith"."
There is an additional notation in this verse that the Greek guys say is not clear in the original, where it says "...through faith, and that not of yourselves...". Some people take that to mean that the faith itself is issued. I tend to agree with this idea.
"In Yanoconodon, the middle ear didn't touch the dentary anymore, but lay well to the inside of it; still, it was connected to the dentary by a long process of the articular (the malleus) which lay alongside much of the dentary."
I don't understand why this should be a particularly impressive animal. Wikipedia says it lived 125 million years ago during the Mesozoic in what is now China. This one is supposed to be 70 million years older. I think it just the dating which kept them from declaring it a mammal.
The supposed development of mammal hearing seems to be a rather confused outline. Even Neil Shubin (isn't he a saint or something? I think predictions count as miracles.) says in this amusing article “This paper shows how the mammalian ear didn’t proceed in a linear progression,” he said. “Either it evolved multiple times independently, or it flipped back and forth, but in any event we’re talking about a bush with many buds and twigs.”
All things (except stuff like a hyper-sophisticated cochlea) considered, what would you suppose the odds are for mutations to whittle and position three separate bones into such a precise arrangement? Multiple times?
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 7, 2011 10:20 PM
txpiper:
Therefore, a magical man in the sky obviously poofed it into existence.
(Problem solved!)
What are the odds of any given bridge hand? ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 7, 2011 11:12 PM
Fixed that for you loser. You can't think. That requires looking beyond your imaginary creator and mythical/fictional babble to the real evidence which refutes both. End of story. You prove my point with every lying post. Which is all of them.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 12:27 AM
Only to intellectually bankrupt, dishonest, AMATEUR NOVICES.
Complicated, yes. Confused? No.
Exactly 1.0. Because THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. (Fossil record, you know.)
What are the odds an intelligent designer with supposedly infinite omniscience and omnipotence would create the mammalian ear in a non-linear progression?
What are the odds an intelligent, perfect designer would repeatedly make multiple flawed and imperfect designs, and repeatedly throw them away?
Why would an intelligent, perfect designer flip back and forth as if he couldn't make up his mind?
Why would an intelligent perfect omnipotent designer, with the presumed power to poof a perfect creation into existence instantaneously, bother with a bush with buds and twigs?
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY???
(All the above, by the way, is EXACTLY AS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS, not just for the mammalian ear, but for ALL major adaptions.
So thanks, texpip, for provided the citation that concedes the argument. You may go away now.)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 12:30 AM
Considering that the arrangement is slightly different in every single one of the 4000+ mammal species alive today, and every single one of the tens of thousands of known prehistoric mammal and pre-mammals in the fossil record, it's not that precise an arrangement at all.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 12:41 AM
Yeah, the mutation the changed the regulation of lactase, allowing adults to drink milk, was SO deleterious, and the mutation in the leukocyte receptor that saved the lucky Europeans who had it from the Black Death, and which saves individuals who have it today from HIV, is SO deleterious. The duplication mutation of the salivary amylase gene that let's humans thrive on a high-grain diet and essentially allowed the agricultural revolution, and thus enabled the entirety of human civilization, is SO deleterious.
As that number is obtained from healthy average people, they are mostly neutral, and perhaps a tiny few are mildly harmful, and a tiny few are beneficial.
If any of them were very harmful mutations, the individual carrying them would be obviously diseased, or dead (or spontaneously aborted as an embryo). That 100-200 mutation count doesn't include really harmful mutations. The very harmful mutations are eliminated from the population and we never see them.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 12:49 AM
And that is why evolution takes as long as it does.
If you apply even a tiny big of intelligence to the equation, not even intelligent design, but just intelligent selection, you can get, as in dog breeding, in just a couple hundred years magnitudes of changes which, in the fossil record, take millions of years to occur.
And if even human intelligent selectors, who didn't even have modern genetic modification tools, could produce the degree of difference seen between a Saint Bernard and a Poodle, from a common ancestor, why did the all-powerful, all-knowing, intelligent designer, presumably capable of poofing it all into existence instantenously take the several million years shown in the fossil record to produce just the degree of difference seen between a coyote and a fox?
WHY, OH MIGHT MAKER, WHY?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 12:55 AM
The predictions Neil Shubin made using the Theory of Evolution actually exist, and actually worked.
So, no, they share absolutely nothing at all in common with miracles.
PRIMARY literature, please. Not some sensationalized simplified account from the lay press.
Not that the article wasn't amusing. The most amusing part of it being how pathetically, dishonestly, and completely you managed to misrepresent it.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 1:02 AM
Yeah, the cochlea, so sophisticated, so perfectly coiled just right (never mind the transition in the fossil record we have of it going from straight to coiled....), it must, must, must, must, must be designed!
So what's the deal with presbycusis???
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY????
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 1:05 AM
So why, texpip, did the designer not do this with the whales, or the ichthyosaurs, or the plesiosaurs, or the pliosaurs, or the nothosaurs, or the turtles....
Did he just like the mosasaurs better, or something?
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY????
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 1:20 AM
Shall we continue this game of musical mystery adaption, texpip?
So far, in every case, Evolutionary Theory has provided a plausible sequential explanation consisting of testable hypotheses, and provided an outline of exactly what kind of experimental methods we'd need, and what observations to be on the alert for, in order to go and actually figure out the precise details of how it happened.
In nearly all of them, in fact, the problem is at least half solved using Evolutionary theory already.
And Design theory? It's soaking wet at the bottom of the crevice after the safety line snapped going up the north face. The umbrella is ripped, the raincoat shredded, and the megaphone smashed.
It's, like, several thousand to zero, and counting.
This game was called on the mercy rule long ago.
Yet the texpip still tries to play, alone on the empty mound, ptiching lead balls into the indifferent gale?
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY?
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 8, 2011 2:03 AM
"Evolutionary Theory has provided a plausible sequential explanation consisting of testable hypotheses"
No, you're still at the mercy of mutations. Inadvertent damage events resulting in increased complexity and sophisitication works in your little ideological world, but it has never happened in the one you live in.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 8, 2011 2:22 AM
Mutation means change, not just damage.
(Ignoramus is ignorant)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 2:38 AM
Still with this ridiculous pathetic dishonest deliberate misuse of teleolgical language.
Pathetic.
Exactly! We have already given you the citations demonstrating this several times now, in multiple cases.
This is REALITY. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED HAPPENING.
On what arrogant presumption do you presume to comment on the work I live in?
Pitiful. Simply pitiful.
See prior citations referenced above.
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 8, 2011 3:22 AM
It's a safe bet that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Those that are too screwed up, by and large, do not develop to adulthood, and do not get their genes compared.
And an improved gene is less likely to be noticed, in the short term. And of course, context is important.
Also: a screw-up demands a screwer-up.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 3:30 AM
Which is why evolutionary change takes as long as it does. And some species fail to adapt and go extinct. They were indeed at the "mercy" of mutations. The mutations they needed didn't happen. They died.
Which is exactly what the fossil record shows.
And EXACTLY as Evolutionary theory predicts.
Thanks again, texpip, for conceding the argument.
You may go away now.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 8, 2011 11:50 AM
Best wishes to all on Yom Kippur....
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 8, 2011 12:10 PM
So, this is how you respond to the revelation of your blatantly dishonest stupidity? Through blatantly insincere well-wishing?Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 8, 2011 12:56 PM
The texpip probably thinks (I use the term loosely) that by bringing up a Jewish holiday it's making an ironic point about religious intolerance in our rejection of its Christianity-inspired creation/design idiocy.
When all else fails, play the persecution card.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 8, 2011 3:57 PM
The texpip probably thinks (I use the term loosely) that by bringing up a Jewish holiday it's making an ironic point about religious intolerance in our rejection of its Christianity-inspired creation/design idiocy.
When all else fails, play the persecution card.
Pathetic.
Many creationists have two definitions for "persecution," including:
1) "Not mindlessly agreeing with them"
2) "Not being allowed to inflict physical and mental harm on those who won't mindlessly agree with them."
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 8, 2011 11:50 PM
Not well enough to figure out on my own what Paul was smoking, and whether it is (or would be) legal in the Netherlands.
So, just to make sure I understand: A Jew, born in a Greek-speaking colony that was added to the Roman Empire, has a seizure and allegedly talks to a dead guy, builds a cult around this dead guy in various cities around the Mediterranean, and writes something to one of those cults in ambiguous and poorly-constructed Greek...
...and you take it to mean that the alleged Invisible Sky Fairy magically puts believing in the Invisible Sky Fairy inside of people's heads, so if you start believing in the Invisible Sky Fairy, it's because the Invisible Sky Fairy did it.
And this makes sense to you?
Do you think you'll ever atone for your intellectually dishonest distortions of science; your commitment to making absurdly fallacious arguments and blatantly false and confabulated claims?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 8, 2011 11:58 PM
And, I see, Ephesians may not have even been composed by Paul. So instead of the original Jew (born in a Greek-speaking colony et cetera), you have something written by a member of the cult whose name and provenance no-one can even be certain of, writing in ambiguous and poorly-constructed Greek....
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 9, 2011 1:41 AM
[meta]
Pearls before swine, Owlmirror.
--
(I know, I know... for the lurkers)
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 9, 2011 11:28 AM
"Do you think you'll ever atone for your intellectually dishonest distortions of science; your commitment to making absurdly fallacious arguments and blatantly false and confabulated claims?"
No, for a couple of reasons. First, atonement is absolutely none of my business.
Second, there is no penalty for recognizing what is possible and what is not. Concluding that something like metamorphosis is the result of random DNA replication errors is an acutely abnormal religious belief.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 9, 2011 11:35 AM
Of course txpiper can not atone for his intellectual dishonesty: in order for him to do that, he needs to realize that he's wrong. And txpiper is far too arrogant to assume that he'd ever be wrong.
The scientists and students of Biology here keep telling you that this alleged observation of yours is dead wrong.You demurely claim that we shouldn't take your word, yet, you hypocritically insist that you know better than all of the scientists in the whole wide world.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 9, 2011 11:38 AM
Tell us, txpiper, what labwork or research did you do to conclude that all biologists and everyone in the whole wide world who work with Evolutionary Biology are laboring under "an acutely abnormal religious" delusion?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 9, 2011 11:53 AM
Your imaginary creator isn't possible, until you can show how it was created. Ad infinitum. Intellectually dishonesty if you can't recognize that fact. Only to an intellectually dishonest presuppositionalist, who can't and won't make the case for his imaginary creator existing, and how it was created.Oh, all the genes effected are regulatory genes. They turn on and off all the time. And all the organs have analogs in the moth/butterfly. DUH. You are deliberately obtuse.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 9, 2011 12:07 PM
Astonishing. You actually admit that you prefer being evil and dishonest?
You being a sociopath makes so much sense, given your continuous dishonesty.
Well, yes, but you're obviously lying about what you claim to "recognize".
Good thing that that isn't what evolutionary biology concludes.
Of course, in addition to being a sociopath, you seem to have very abnormal religious beliefs, as well as being fundamentally dishonest.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 12:16 PM
True. But this has absolutely no relation whatsoever to what the texpip has actually been doing here.
Back to this hackneyed, discredited argument. More intellectual bankrupcty.
Why did the Designer create metamorphosis? Why in moths and butterflies, but not in dragonflies? Why in ascidians, but not in cephalochordates?
WHY, OH MIGHT MAKER, WHY?
And this again?
Pitiful.
And here comes the repressed religious bigotry.
Pathetic.
There's no such thing as "abnormal" religious belief. There are only religious beliefs consistent with evidence, and religious beliefs that are not.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 9, 2011 12:17 PM
Like I said, it is only possible for txpiper to atone for being evil and dishonest only if he realizes that being evil and dishonest is unacceptable.And it's highly unlikely that he will reach this epiphany in the foreseeable future, given as how, with his next breath, he accused literally everyone who does not share his same mindset to be laboring under "an acutely abnormal religious belief."
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 12:24 PM
The texpip likes to use the term "abnormal". Back in an earlier libertarian thread, he was calling all sexual inclinations not pure vanilla heteronormative "abnormal".
Behold the texpip.
Dishonest incompetent.
Odious omni-bigot.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 12:28 PM
It was the texpip who brought up the subject of Yom Kippur, totally out of the blue, in the first place.
None of his business?
More lies.
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 12:32 PM
That's so as to distinguish them from his own mindset, which is chronically dishonest!
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 12:41 PM
Evolutionary theory has provided the methodology and theoretical foundation for an entire "new" field of science, Evo-Devo, in which metamorphosis is just one special case of a much broader phenomenon.
Metamorphosizing organism Drosophila melanogaster is perhaps the best understood animal in existence, all thanks to methodology provided by Evolutionary theory.
Scientists guided by Evolutionary theory are already at least three quarters of the way towards understanding metamorphosis completely.
And where is Design theory taking us on this fascinating question? Back up the mountain for another bout of alpine laryngitis.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 12:46 PM
I wonder if the texpip thinks it is making reference to the currently fringe(?) theory that metamorphosis is the result of an ancient endosymbiosis event between two different early metazoans.
Some have described this theory as "anti-Darwinian".
Of course, "Darwinian" here is intended to mean old evolutionary theory before the modern synthesis and evo-devo.
Symbiosis is fully integrated into modern Evolutionary theory. It's basically a particular kind of relatively big mutation (followed by optimization via natural selection).
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 9, 2011 2:52 PM
First of all, it wasn't endosymbiosis, but rather, hybridogenesis, or larval transfer.
Secondly, as far as I know, larval transfer is so fringe a hypothesis that it is already falsified.
Caterpillars did not evolve from onychophorans by hybridogenesis
Thirdly, Tinkerbell's source of information is this video:
Metamorphosis: The Beauty & Design of Butterflies
Which is basically a piece of IDiot propaganda, which can be summarized as follows:
"Butterflies! They are so pretty!"
"Look! Icky caterpillars make a chrysalis and turn into pretty butterflies!"
"Isn't that awesome?"
"Therefore, an Invisible Butterfly Fairy made butterflies by magic! Yay!"
One of the biologists who invoke the Invisible Butterfly Fairy is affiliated with Biologos Institute, and the other with Biola University.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
October 9, 2011 3:34 PM
You are one confused little Texan.How crazy do you have to be, to think that religious belief is a BAD THING and that you've got some kind of point when you imply that WE have religious beliefs ?
Wait a minute. Stop and think before you reply, txpiper. YOU have religious beliefs. So now you're saying that you're just as bad as we are, because we have religious beliefs, and that's BAD. And you have religious beliefs, therefore that's also BAD. Because you know, sauce for the goose and all that. .
What a dumb thing to say about yourself.
Suppose that I tell you I believe in evolution and I'm willing to admit to your claim that I believe in it "religiously" (and acutely, and abnormally, whatever that means, just for the sake of being agreeable to you for now). So what ? How does that score points for you ?
Okay, say for the sake of argument, my "religion" is wrong about its explanation for butterfly metamorphosis, and for the sake of argument, your "religion" is correct about its explanation for it - god poofed them into existence fully formed out of thin air. So what ? You're still WRONG about every other thing you think about objective reality. You're wrong about the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, the order of appearance of species, the [non-existent] global flood, the [non-] importance of Israel, the 500 zombie saints in Jerusalem that did [not] rise out of their graves after the crucifixion, the [lack of] power of prayer to heal amputees, and EVERYTHING else.
Sure, if I thought (acute, abnormal) religion was a bad thing, I might have a twinge of shame to admit I was religious, but I have one-millionth the reason for that twinge of shame as YOU do for YOUR (acute, abnormal) religion which is completely bereft of contact with reality. BAD for YOU.
My "religion" is objectively better than yours. My "religion" is right about millions and millions of things and might be wrong about one little detail. Your "religion" is objectively wrong in reality about millions and millions of things, and might possibly be right about one little detail. Good choice, txpiper!
Good luck with persuading your fellow fundies that religion is a bad thing. Or at least, good luck with persuading yourself to stop and think before insulting someone else for having the same characteristic of abnormal faith that you yourself have a million times worse.
And, really, good luck with becoming a NORMAL christian. You know, the ones who are rational enough to accept the reality of our old universe and the basic outline of biological evolution. That kind of normality would be a huge step forward for you.
Posted by: Nightjar
|
October 9, 2011 6:17 PM
Not something you can do. You're simply too ignorant of biology in general to ever be able to "recognize" anything about it.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 9, 2011 7:06 PM
"Do you think you'll ever atone for your intellectually dishonest distortions of science?
texpip's repsonse:
"I will bury you."
...in red herrings
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 9, 2011 9:30 PM
amphiox,
"he was calling all sexual inclinations not pure vanilla heteronormative "abnormal"."
So you would view interest in children, animals and dead bodies as chocolate, strawberry and perhaps orange sherbert? Which ones do you think should be moved over into the "normal" category?
=========
Hotshoe,
"You're wrong about the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, the order of appearance of species, the [non-existent] global flood, the [non-] importance of Israel, the 500 zombie saints in Jerusalem that did [not] rise out of their graves after the crucifixion, the [lack of] power of prayer to heal amputees, and EVERYTHING else."
Well, I would of course quarrel with you on most of these, but I simply don't have time. On Israel, were I you, I would keep my eyes open.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
October 9, 2011 9:56 PM
amphiox @462
Stuff like this is why I keep returning to this often tiresome troll bash. I had wondered how many ways humans had adapted to a post-paleolithic diet. Now I know another one thanks to the smart people of Pharyngaloid troll patrol.
Plus txpiper's advice to buy silver reminded me that I should call this guy at Hunt Oil Canada (which resulted in a potential client).
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 10:30 PM
Given the known high variability in human sexual inclination, both at present, and across historical record?
All three of them.
Completely normal.
Just as an interest on occasion to commit murder is wholly normal, given what is known about the variability in human inclination towards aggression.
INTEREST is always normal. ACTIONS may or may not be ethical, or legal, or socially acceptable, but ethicality, legality and social acceptability also have nothing to do with normalcy.
Just as your continuing intellectual dishonesty is normal. Despicable and pathetic, but normal.
As is your morally bankrupt, and completely predictable use of the hackneyed pedophilia-equivalence argument. Odious and pitiful, but normal.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 9, 2011 10:34 PM
(Humans are bastards. Sadly, lots of despicable things are wholly normal.)
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 9, 2011 11:14 PM
"Completely normal."
Natural, not but normal. There is a distinct difference.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 10, 2011 12:32 AM
You guys obviously need to settle on a mutually satisfactory definition of "normal" and "natural". Otherwise, it'll just be pong. The confusing thing is that in some shades of meaning, they are nearly synonymous, but in others, they are not even close.
I don't know the context of the libertarian thread referred to by Amphiox, but it seemed rather slippery of you, Tex, to jump right to pedophelia, bestiality and necrophelia as examples of "not pure vanilla heteronormative", ignoring the obviously relevant between-consenting-adults-of-the-same-sex flavor which is a frequent topic of discussion just about everywhere in the civilized world these days.
"Natural, not but normal. There is a distinct difference."
Yes, depending on usage, this is often true. There are many things that are perfectly natural but which do not qualify as "normal" by any standard. Synophthalmia, for example. Or paraphilic dendrophilia.
Just sayin'. ;-)
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 10, 2011 12:35 AM
Then why do you claim that acceptance of Biological Evolution as being "an acutely abnormal religious belief"?Are you claiming that it's some sort of magical hallucination?
Doesn't this claim of yours contradict your other claim that you're not trying to make your own word sound ten-thousand times greater than those of all the scientists who've ever lived?
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 10, 2011 12:38 AM
Please remember that we are dealing with a person who has no qualms about being deliberately dishonest.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 10, 2011 1:09 AM
"Natural, but not normal"
Yes, there is a distinct difference, but given my qualification regarding the known variability in inclination (which I note, in your usual intellectually dishonest fashion, you deliberately ignored) and given the known frequencies both in modern populations and documented history (and remember, lest you decide to be dishonest again over this too, we are talking about, in your own words, INTEREST, and not activity, or even routine), those three SPECIFIC examples you provided are most certainly, beyond reasonable doubt, BOTH natural AND normal.
Now, if you had chosen some much rarer fetish, like, say, vore (pending correction by someone with evidence that it is more common than I think it is) then you just might have had a point concerning the natural vs normal distinction.
But those particular three examples? (And again, we are talking, per your words, INTEREST, and not activity) It is not for nothing that they are the favorite three slippery slope arguments employed by odious dishonest bigots such as you. They are as common as dirt.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 10, 2011 1:22 AM
It's good of course that the texpip admits to even the use of the term "natural". In the referenced libertarian thread, IIRC, it was spewing out a lot of "unnaturals" in it's various rants.
Of course it could just be more of its intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt backtracking. But in the texpip's case dishonest hypocrisy masquerading as progress still counts as progress of sorts.
But of course, the acknowledgment of natural admits to explanation.
So tell us, dear texpip, why was interest in children, animals, and dead bodies designed into human sexual inclinations?
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY???
Posted by: hotshoe
|
October 10, 2011 2:00 AM
I'd be careful how I throw around those distinctions if I were you, txpiper. By your distinction, your particular brand of YEC idolatry is natural, but not normal.Natural, yes, Natural for people to believe their parents (usually well-meaning folks) who brainwash their own children into the same myths they themselves were raised with. Natural for people to believe honey-tongued liars like your pastor who have spent a lifetime honing their lies for money.
Normal, no. By far the vast majority of christians have not fallen into the pit of reality-denial that you have fallen into.
What's normal is for grown persons to give up fairy tales, and fantasies about a god who poofed every single "kind" of creature into existence out of thin air.
What's normal is for grown persons of every religion to accept the manifest reality which we all share. The reality is that the Earth is old, ancient as the rocks tell us in reality. The very computer on which you communicate your fantasies testifies to the truth of the old age of our universe. Computer chips working prove that the physicists' understanding of quantum mechanics is correct. The same quantum mechanical evidence shows that the universe is old, txpiper. Not too old for (some) god, but too old for your simpleminded reading of the begats and your ignorant YECtardery.
I don't know what you get out of being abnormal, txpiper. Really, you don't have to be. You can give it up and join the normal Christians.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
October 10, 2011 2:05 AM
Merde. Preview fail. Italics fail.
Please imagine that I closed italics after the second sentence:
natural, but not normal
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 10, 2011 2:27 AM
Very nice italics!
Gee, is Txpiper really a Young-Earther? I must have missed that episode. It doesn't seem to fit with what I've seen thus far.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 10, 2011 9:08 AM
As noted above, your beliefs are not normal.
And your behavior -- constantly and repeatedly committing logical fallacies, confabulating nonsense and lies, distorting and misrepresenting the science of evolutionary biology and related disciplines -- that's not normal either. Indeed, it is utterly intellectually perverse.
So you're pretty much an abnormal pervert.
======
Tinkerbell is a rather cagey creationist. I suspect he'd be one of those that say "No-one knows the age of the Earth". He doesn't usually comment on geochronology, but I faintly recall a very oblique sneer after mention was made of an OEC.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 10, 2011 7:53 PM
Well, OECs are accommodationalists. ;-)
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
October 10, 2011 9:56 PM
Here is a thought. Maybe god created the earth recently and created all the species at once but made the earth look old, planted the fossils and planted evidence in DNA to make it look like evolution happened. This was done not as a test of faith but as a test of intelligence.
Eternity is an awful long time and god doesn't want to spend it in the company of willfully ignorant, credulous, gullible no-minds but would prefer the company of those intelligent and curious enough to look at the evidence and draw the logical conclusion. If this were the case creationists would have the right answer, but not the one god wants.
txpiper, your willful ignorance and dishonesty could be pissing god off.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 10, 2011 10:48 PM
Indeed, and that now puts us just one or two philosophical hops and skips away from full-blown Last Tuesdayism.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
October 11, 2011 2:19 PM
Kseniya @512
Unless you are using a logarithmic scale, the difference between 6000 years ago and last Tuesday is trivial compared to the age of the universe.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
October 11, 2011 5:35 PM
Yeah, I've often thought that god is playing a game with us like you describe. Nothing could be more boring than an eternity with no one to talk to, no one to appreciate your clever work ... and nothing could be better than to have one of the playthings you created suddenly wake up and say "Oho, god, I see what you did there. Great job on all those fossils. I like how you arranged them, not all stacked in exactly the same spot, so we had to exercise our brains to figure out comparative methods of anatomy - which led to a relative timeline of oldest/simplest to recent/advanced - and we had to discover scientific tests of their age by the product of radionucleotide decay - which also matched what we deduced (independently) from inorganic geological process rates of erosion/deposition - so it made a complete picture. It was such a great game! Tell me, god, did you have any little slipups ? Were there any inconsistencies in your construction that we missed ? Did you ever have to hurry up and install a patch ?"
I'm totally confident that I win Pascal's wager. IF god exists, god will embrace every rational human like you and me who follow the real world evidence.
To open our minds to the physical evidence that life evolved, that our Earth is old and our universe is even older, to study the whole construction and appreciate its consilience, to commit to studying as deeply as possible both the big picture and all the fine details - that's what a moral god would want if it created humans with reasoning ability to begin with.
To indulge in Bibliolatry, to refuse to even consider the evidence for evolution and the validity of physics which dates the Earth and the universe, to ignore the manifest reality - oh dear, I'm afraid how terribly that must anger a just god. IF god created us, it didn't create us to be deliberately ignorant, otherwise, why bother with that whole large-brain thing.
No physical evidence of god ? Then points off for anyone who believes in god merely by faith (because faith can lead to believing in wrong gods, and boy, does that irk god) so even if, by dumb luck, you happen to have faith in the right god, you don't get credit for arriving at the right answer by the wrong method. It's a show-your-work test; if you guess the right answer on your math test but can't show the process of arriving at the answer, too bad, you still fail.
Funny thing is, most math tests you get credit if you show your work and it's valid, even if a small mistake leads to the wrong answer. That's how it will be for us - if it turns out that god really did create our world with its appearance of age and evolution as a test, we'll still get full credit because we can show our work. We can point to centuries of work studying anatomy, the fossils, the DNA sequences, so if our small mistake was in not guessing that god was playing a game with us, then we're okay.
But the YECcers, not so okay. They haven't done any work since they cobbled together those sheets of parchment millennia ago. Failing grade, that.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 11, 2011 7:16 PM
Militant Agnostic:
Hm. Let's check that.
The difference between 6000 years ago and last Tuesday is the ratio of days (at most 7):
7:(6000 × 365.242) = 313064
The difference between the age of the universe and 6000 years is:
6000:13750000000 = 2291667
The ratio of differences is:
313064:2291667 = 7.3
(You call that insignificant?)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 11, 2011 8:06 PM
Well, it's less than one log.....
Posted by: Photoshop for free
|
October 11, 2011 8:14 PM
Thanks for the information. This is a wonderful post!!
Thanks
Photoshop for Free | Photoshop Free | Download Photoshop
Posted by: God
|
October 11, 2011 9:01 PM
There might be a joke or two out there. Maybe a bipedal leporoid in the Precambrian, smooching a deformed humanoid.
Unless, of course, I'm the sort of asshole who prefers worship from those who blindly follow a book of ancient myths.
Or maybe I just want humans to enact an enormous screeching drama for My own entertainment.
How would you know?
My morality is for Me to do exactly what I want to do. Just ask My apologist.
Reasoning is kind of an accidental side-effect of evolving monkeys that talk.
I don't want reasoning. I want rationalizing.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 11, 2011 9:11 PM
amphiox,
So, no need to use a logarithmic scale, then. :)
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 11, 2011 9:19 PM
[OT]
God:
Strata
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 11, 2011 9:23 PM
The difference between 10 to 6000 years ago, and last Tuesday is also trivial compared to the combined age of George Burns and Jack Benny, as well.Posted by: hotshoe
|
October 11, 2011 10:35 PM
Okay, thanks for the heads-up, God.I assure you, I'm very adaptable and I can do rationalizing with the best of your monkeys. I'll get started on it right away.
Oh and before I get busy just let me say, really great job on those fossils, God. Evolution can't hold a candle to your creative work !
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 11, 2011 11:21 PM
Hotshoe,
"I'm totally confident that I win Pascal's wager. IF god exists, god will embrace every rational human like you and me who follow the real world evidence."
Yeah, but that leaves you dependant on the quality of the evidence. At this point, I'm thinking you might be the type that goes to Beijing and comes back with a genuine Rolex, priceless jade, and perhaps even shocking fossil evidence that will provide penetrating new evolutionary insights.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 12, 2011 12:10 AM
hotshoe, rationalising ≠ reasoning.
(It uses 'reasoning', though)
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 12, 2011 12:50 AM
Yes, and?
Ah, here's the thing you haven't thought of. Those individuals with too deleterious mutations have reduced success in reproduction.
It's called natural selection.
Deleterious mutations die out this way. They disappear from the population. They appear (by mutation) more often than beneficial ones, but they also disappear more often. Beneficial mutations are rarer, but when they appear, the individuals that carry them become the ancestors of a disproportionately large part of the next generations, often up to 100 % if there's enough time and the mutation is beneficial enough.
Age has nothing to do with anything. What kept them from declaring Hadrocodium a mammal is the fact that it is neither the last common ancestor of us and the platypus nor any descendant of that ancestor. Under more traditional concepts of Mammalia, Hadrocodium is a mammal.
Yanoconodon is probably a mammal even under the modern definition, just barely more closely related to us and the marsupials than to the monotremes. What makes it so impressive is the fact that its ear region 1) is well enough ossified, well enough preserved, and big enough to be easily studied, and 2) has been studied. Hadrocodium is only known from a tiny, IIRC not adult individual that may not have ossified every cartilage that ossifies in adults, and when it was described, nobody expected the kind of arrangement now known for Yanoconodon, so nobody looked for it in the tiny, tiny, tiny skull.
Do remember that evolution has no foresight. For instance, if Yanoconodon really belongs where I just said it probably belongs, monotremes on the one hand and placentals + marsupials + lots of others on the other hand must have lost the connection between middle ear and lower jaw independently. As it happens, this is corroborated by a few Early Cretaceous animals on the monotreme side of the tree (Ausktribosphenos, Bishops, Teinolophos IIRC) whose lower jaws still provide space and an attachment site for the middle ear.
"Hyper-sophisticated" my ass. It's just longer than usual. Having no space to grow into straight, the cochlea coils up, and I mean that literally, as the way it grows in every mammalian embryo.
In birds, it's not longer than usual. Instead, the hair cells are more densely packed. Birds cannot hear as far into the ultrasound range as some (!) mammals can, but they hear finer pitch distinctions than mammals.
You didn't even read what I wrote, asshole.
The bones never were separate. No positions changed. All that changed was that one connection was lost – at least twice.
Go back and read.
And then learn about development genetics and gene regulation. It's much less complicated, and at the same time much less straightforward, than you seem to think. Want an example from mammal molars and premolars?
Oh, it would be confused if "confused" applied to the blind, intentionless, unconscious process called evolution.
Confused Design !!
Thank you. That's a very important point.
This elimination, we apparently cannot repeat often enough for txpiper to understand it, is part of natural selection.
Huh? What's your point?
:-) :-) :-)
Have a look at grasshopper development.
Metamorphosis is by no means irreducibly complex. The caterpillar is an extended pronymph, with the other nymph stages crammed into the chrysalis.
What, if anything, do you mean by "normal"?
Average?
Good?
Within however many standard deviations from average?
Not too evil?
What?
Me, I'm fine with anything that involves informed consent.
I bet this mutation is much older; judging from skulls & teeth, our ancestors have been eating various tubers often for something like 3 million years now.
Treehuggers are on a daaaaaaaaaaaaangerous slippery slope. Legalize treehugging, and soon cats will marry dogs, Fallout Tactics will become a documentary, and society will breeeeeeeeeak dooooooooooown.
The Universe.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 12, 2011 1:17 AM
And the alternative would be to depend on what, exactly?
A putative designer for which there is absolutely no evidence of any kind at all?
How's that for quality?
WHY, OH MIGHT MAKER, WHY??????
Ah, now comes the because some fossils are fake all the fossils must be fake screed.
Pitiful.
By the way, you know that famous fake Chinese fossil, archeoraptor? It was faked by gluing two REAL fossils together. And thanks to further scientific work, we now know what those two fossils were of.
The body is Yanornis, an ancient bird, one of several species thought to be closely related to the common ancestor of all surviving modern birds. In other words, a fossil that provides important evolutionary insights.
And that tail? It is from Microraptor. THAT Microraptor, the famous four-winged Dinosaur. One of the most sensational, amazing fossil finds of all time, providing extremely penetrating new evolutionary insights, into the origins of flight, and the diversity of early Paraves.
So, instead of just one specimen providing important new evolutionary insights, we got TWO specimens, each of which provides important evolutionary insights.
Thanks for conceding the argument, texpip.
And one CAN obtain genuine Rolexes and priceless jades from Beijing, if one knows what one is doing.
Your anti-Asian bigotry is noted.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 12, 2011 1:49 AM
Mil Ag:
Perhaps. I did say "philosophical" jump, not temporal. Last Tuesdayism is an extreme variation of the scenario you suggest, in that even the pasts of all persons living or dead (that is, all who were ostensibly born before Last Tuesday) are a fiction. Somewhat more to the point, both scenarios are unfalsifiable at this time.
DM:
Yes, for a broad definition of "hugging". :-p
Posted by: hotshoe
|
October 12, 2011 2:26 AM
Thanks, amphiox. Something besides txpiper's usual idiocy bothered me about his reply and I couldn't put my finger on it until I read your answer.Damn, that's one priceless Texas package. Bigotry, creationism and libertarianism wrapped up tight in deliberate ignorance like a giant burrito full of steaming cow manure.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 12, 2011 7:37 PM
David,
"It's just longer than usual. Having no space to grow into straight, the cochlea coils up, and I mean that literally, as the way it grows in every mammalian embryo."
Gosh. I bet that's what happened with the nautilus. It was selection pressure having to do with running out of real estate.
After doing some reading, it looks to be designed that way to enhance low frequency. It is however, an extremely sophisticated piece of equipment crammed into a very small package.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
October 12, 2011 8:27 PM
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Can you write even one reply without throwing in a christian lie ?
I'll pray for you that you learn to stop lying for your god, since it neither needs you nor wants you to lie on its behalf, and since doing so endangers your soul being what as lying is specifically against one of your god's recorded 603 commandments. And if not your soul, certainly endangering your human moral fiber - aren't you tired of being MORE IMMORAL than the atheists ?
Try acting a little more like that Jesus you supposed admire so.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
October 12, 2011 8:28 PM
*supposedly*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 12, 2011 9:03 PM
Since you haven't proven your imaginary designer exists, you are still both lying to yourself, and lying to us. But then, what else, is new? You couldn't tell the truth if your eternal life depended upon it. You are that far gone in la-la land.Posted by: John Morales
|
October 12, 2011 9:24 PM
[txpiper thinks it's a creature; I think I'm a being]
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 12, 2011 10:27 PM
LoL. Nah. That's an outward-growing spiral... not the same thing at all. But you knew that. :-b
Designed, yes.
If you have a lot of time on your hands, you might considered browsing this thread.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 12, 2011 11:14 PM
WTF? Fuck you. WTF makes you believe the cochlea is at all comparable to coiled cephalopod shells?
Let me guess: you don't actually believe that, you're just trying to piss me off.
There are other ways to do that, like the paratympanic sinus.
Isn't it just a bag lined with cilia on the inside and nerves on the outside? An internalized piece of the lateral-line organ? (Look that one up.)
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 12, 2011 11:19 PM
Why do you think this crude strawman is an accurate representation of nautilus evolution? Yet, you refuse to explain to us how saying GODDIDIT is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.Posted by: Stanton
|
October 12, 2011 11:27 PM
txpiper does believe that, but he's also being a condescending, insultingly patronizing asshole, too.I've met hordes of creationists who are like that, who not only automatically assume their asinine opinions automatically trump scientific consensus (and reality), but also like to rub this into the faces of other people. Because, after all, people who aren't creationists are not only going to Hell to burn forever and ever and ever, but are also stupider than rocks, too.
It's probably only a matter of time before txpiper is taunting us with how we'll all be sent to Hell as punishment for disagreeing with him.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 13, 2011 1:35 AM
It is just so wonderful when the texpip goes reading in order to try to shoehorn what it reads into the points it is trying to make.
It misses the forest for the trees with such regularity. And does so in such deliciously instructive ways.
Wonderful. It's like the one thing that sets the texpip apart from all those prior creIDiobot trolls banned long ago for banality.
Low frequency hearing is improved when the cochlea is longer.
And this is the result of the basic laws of fluid dynamics.
Coiling automatically occurs when a tube grows longer in a confined space. This is the basic laws of physics at work.
Thus evolutionary theory predicts that cochlear length would be controlled by a handful of genes active during development, which produce pre-existing natural variation in cochlear length.
Selection for low frequency hearing favors longer cochleas. (This is Basic Modern Synthesis Evolutionary theory).
Longer cochleas start hitting embryonic space constraints, imposed by other genes controlling the length and sizes of the jaw and skull bones, which are subject to competing selection pressures. As a result the lengthening cochlea automatically starts to coil up. Initially no specific new mutations controlling the coiling would be needed at all. Further selection pressure for low frequency hearing refines the coil. (This is where Evo-Devo gets into the picture).
And this scenario is precisely consistent with everything we see in the fossil record.
Thank you, texpip, for provided yet another example that illustrates the truth and power of Evolutionary Theory.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 13, 2011 1:58 AM
Let us look at what, indeed, actually happened to the nautilus. (Fossil record, you know).
The earliest nautiloids had perfectly straight shells.
Then over time, the shells gradually coiled up, becoming increasingly coiled.
The most recent fossil nautiloids are most similar to the modern nautilus. The further back in time we go, the less and less like the modern nautilus do nautiloid fossils appear, on average.
A step-wise progression of forms, from the earliest forms most dissimilar to the modern animal, through later forms increasing more and more like the modern animal.
Bush-like radiations of multiple forms with different morphologies, some very different from the modern nautilus, almost all of which went extinct without descendents.
Repeated instances of bush-like radiations at different time points. Each radiation consisting of multiple variants, elaborated in different directions, of a single, older ancestral form. Each radiation ending in all or nearly all the produced forms going extinct.
A very messy, wasteful process, filled with death and extinction, with no sign of any guiding intelligence worthy of the name, at all.
EXACTLY as Evolutionary Theory predicts.
Why did the Designer start with straight shelled Nautiloids, if it knew in its omniscience that only the coiled modern Nautilus would survive?
Why all the transitional forms with less tight coils, if it already knew what the modern Nautilus was going to look like and was capable of producing it from scratch on the spot?
Why so many dead end species, created only to go extinct?
Why even make nautiloids at all, when it should have already known that the most successful modern cephalopods would be the shell-less squid and octopi?
Why give the nautilus a pinhole camera eye, when it already knew how to design lens-camera eyes (in two different designs, no less)?
Why put the modern nautilus with its pinhole camera eye, in the deep ocean where there is little light, when the pinhole camera design works best when there is lots of light, and its biggest weakness is its inability to concentrate photons with a lense when those photons are scarce?
WHY, OH MIGHT MAKER, WHO????
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 13, 2011 2:15 AM
According to his own professed beliefs, it is the texpip who will be going to hell.
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, and all that, you know.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 13, 2011 2:25 AM
We mustn't insult cow manure.
Cow manure is useful. Cow manure is productive.
And during the cold winters on the tree-less, coal-less, oil-less prairies of bygone ages (but not that far bygone), cow manure directly saved lives.
The concentrated odiousness that is the texpip doesn't deserve such a complimentary comparison.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 13, 2011 9:26 PM
For some weird reason, a lot of Christians, especially the Creationists among them, have this weird idea that Jesus wholeheartedly approves of sin if it's done in His name, despite the fact that the Bible states that He said that He really really hates His followers doing that, to the point where He's quoted as saying He'll personally declare them persona non au gratin for doing that.Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 13, 2011 10:54 PM
Apparently, they're confusing Jesus with Prince Machiavelli. (The power of self-serving rationalizion cannot be underestimated!)
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 13, 2011 10:59 PM
Rationalization, even.
LoL... I missed that the first time around. Cheeses!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 13, 2011 11:31 PM
*facepalm* How stupid of me not to have thought of this myself!
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 13, 2011 11:48 PM
"Low frequency hearing is improved when the cochlea is longer....Selection for low frequency hearing favors longer cochleas. (This is Basic Modern Synthesis Evolutionary theory)."
Maybe a little too basic.
"...one more structure of the elephant's ear, the cochlea, may facilitate low frequency hearing. Together with their relatives the Sirenia (the dugongs and manatees), elephants are unique among modern mammals in having reverted to a reptilian-like cochlear structure that may facilitate greater sensitivity to lower frequencies."
http://www.elephantvoices.org/elephant-communication/acoustic-communication.html
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 14, 2011 12:50 AM
And, yet, txpiper, how does elephants and sirenians having a cochlear similar to reptiles demonstrate that GODDIDIT?
How does that demonstrate that you magically know better than all those stupid and evil scientists?
Well?
Why are you always eager to speak as though you magically know more than all of the scientists in the world, yet, are always so hesitant to explain why you magically know more than all of the scientists in the world?
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 14, 2011 12:55 AM
Caramelization, too.Then you're familiar with the "Wedge" Strategy, yes?Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 15, 2011 1:09 AM
Why, yes... yes, I am.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 1:49 AM
That's because elephants rely more on BONE conduction for hearing ultra-low frequencies, just like reptiles do with their jaw BONES, rather than AIR conduction, which the cochlea in other mammals was optimized for.
But then, why would any designer go to the trouble of making a reptilian cochlea in the ancestors of mammals, change it step by painstaking step into a mammalian cochlea, only to CHANGE IT RIGHT BACK in the elephant, again step by painstaking step (fossil record, you know). Why spend ALL THAT TIME optimizing the mammalian cochlea for low frequency hearing, and then throw out all that work in the one family, and go back to the reptilian design and re-optimize thta for low frequency hearing all over again? I mean, even granting that the initial foray into the mammalian design was a mistake that needed replacement, he had the fully formed and functional reptilian design already ready to be swapped in, instantaneously. Why the step by step progression? Has he no long term memory? Does his reptile brain know not what his mammal brain is doing? Was the reptile designer fired for shoddy work after Chixculub to be replaced by a mammal designer who didn't own the patents on the reptile designs?
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY?
The sirenian cochlea, of course, is so, so, so exquisitely designed that it can't hear the frequency of sounds produced by boats. And boat strikes are now the major cause of death among sirenians, and the entire clade teeters on the brink of extinction.
That's very impressive, foresightful, intentional design.
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY?
Both the above, of course, are completely consistent with an undirected process without foresight, such as evolution.
Thank you, texpip, for bringing up YET ANOTHER excellent example of how Evolution is a superior explanatory theory than Design.
It is necessary to keep explanations basic when trying to teach AMATEUR NOVICES.
Higher-level complexities can only be introduced once the basic concepts are grasped.
Something which has not yet happened with this particular student, and shows no signs of ever happening.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 2:02 AM
Incidentally, the elephant cochlea is still spiraled, if not as tightly spiraled as other mammals (and thus "more reptilian" - which is a metaphor, not a statement of literal fact. The elephant's cochlea is no more "more reptilian" than the elephant's relative lack of hair is "more reptilian", or the elephant's sauropod-like columnar limbs are "more reptilian").
http://kushanandlyn.blogspot.com/2011/08/basilar-membrane.html
AND LOOK! It gets its improved low frequency sensitivity partly by BEING LONGER.
However, at the same time, the entire inner ear apparatus in the elephant line ALSO evolved TO BE LARGER.
Larger = less developmental space constraint = less dynamic forcing into a tight spiral shape = opportunity to evolve a less tight spiral.
So thanks again, texpip, for providing an example that perfectly illustrates my original point.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 2:10 AM
It would appear that texpip's Design theory makes the positive prediction that an embryonic bone must be an analogous environment to an open ocean.
And thus the texpip provides yet another excellent example of how Evolution is a superior explanatory theory than Design.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 15, 2011 12:13 PM
I think he was providing Sarcasm...
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 15, 2011 1:58 PM
Gouda.Posted by: txpiper
|
October 15, 2011 2:39 PM
amphiox,
"The sirenian cochlea, of course, is so, so, so exquisitely designed that it can't hear the frequency of sounds produced by boats. And boat strikes are now the major cause of death among sirenians, and the entire clade teeters on the brink of extinction."
Yikes! The whole freakin clade?
Actually, while I can appreciate the sarcasm, I think you might be incorrect about one or two details, at least according to this article.
" "As far as their auditory systems go, indications are that they can hear where boats are coming from," Mann told LiveScience. "A boat's engine is actually a broadband sound that should be easy to locate." "
Besides, the boat strikes seems to be by and large a problem in Florida with manatees.
As for their deficient cochlea:
"Dugongs don't see that well, instead they use acute hearing." link
"Manatees have acute hearing and use acoustic signals as a basis for communication and mutual individual recognition…" link
"Sirenians are obligate herbivores that do not echolocate, [I’m thinking they just haven’t tried…anybody can learn to do it] but have been reported to have good high-frequency hearing, although their hearing sensitivity is clearly lower than that of odontocetes." link
"Acute" seems like an odd word to use to describe poorly developed hearing. It looks like to me that these animals are just well-engineered to be what they are, and live where they live.
But I have a question. Do you think the land animals Sirenians supposedly evolved from had lousy hearing too, or was the uncoiling of their cochleas something that happened after they became marine animals (from hanging around the water's edge)? What was the selection pressure this time? Running out of land grass while acquiring a taste for salty seagrass? I can see that, but it hardly seems like a parsimonious move on their part given all the specialization involved. Wouldn't there have been huge numbers of really tedious DNA replication events?
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 15, 2011 3:13 PM
amphiox,
”That's because elephants rely more on BONE conduction for hearing ultra-low frequencies…”
Well, not really with their bones. It must be a really complex system involving all kinds of subsystems since their bones don’t actually make direct contact with the ground, or their brains. I expect the actual transmission is probably neural, not a bone to bone thing.
video link
It really is a neat system. link
I wonder if we could do this, like with the echolocation deal?
“AND LOOK! It gets its improved low frequency sensitivity partly by BEING LONGER.”
Well yeah, but I was responding to the selection pressure being about too much cochlea, and too little room, when you wrote:
”Longer cochleas start hitting embryonic space constraints, imposed by other genes controlling the length and sizes of the jaw and skull bones, which are subject to competing selection pressures.
I guess it's a good thing those imposing genes had to take a back seat. Which selection pressure would you suppose had more influence? Embryonic headaches, or the need to hear lower frequency? I doubt competing selection pressures were even necessary. Hell, if the embryos were starting to get uncomfortable, I’d think the coiling would be a courteous gimme on the part of natural selection.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 15, 2011 3:36 PM
Kseniya #543
I missed this the first time around.
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) was the son of a Florentine lawyer. He was distantly related to the old marquesses of Tuscany but wasn't a noble. He was a philosopher, historian, government bureaucrat and writer. His most famous work, The Prince (Il Principe), was political philosophy. It's a manual on acquiring and keeping political power.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 15, 2011 4:22 PM
I do too. Where is the conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary creator????? Evolution explains all life. Your creator explains nothing, but your idiocy. Come on, there must be an eternally burning bush somewhere??? Oh, that's right, all you have is lies, bullshit, and delusions.Posted by: Stanton
|
October 15, 2011 4:23 PM
You're so quick to disparage, demean and insult the work of scientists, yet, so coy and demure about explaining to use why GODDIDIT is oh so much better at explaining stuff.Why is that, txpiper?
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 15, 2011 4:28 PM
You always demurely insist that you don't magically know more than all of the scientists in the whole wide world, yet, you always speak as though you do.
Yet, you refuse to explain to us what your qualifications would be, other than your faith in God somehow magically permits you to talk like an arrogant idiot.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 15, 2011 4:32 PM
Still no evidence for your imaginary creator. That evidence won't be found in the areas you keep questioning, but in direct evidence present for "look here" somewhere in space, and you will find it....
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 15, 2011 4:39 PM
Or, better yet, txpiper, please explain to us why is it impossible, illogical and downright stupid to assume that things have been evolving on this planet for 3 to 4point something billion years, while it is totally logical to assume that God magically poofed everything and everyone into existence, using magic, and leaving behind absolutely no evidence, save through a deliberate misreading of the Bible, and through deliberate denial of science.
Can you do that?
Or do you have no time beyond insulting us for not being like you?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:22 PM
" "As far as their auditory systems go, indications are that they can hear where boats are coming from," Mann told LiveScience. "A boat's engine is actually a broadband sound that should be easy to locate." "
Ah, so your Designer did, after all, give his manatees the ability to hear boats.
He just didn't give them the ability to understand that the sound represents danger, or get away after hearing it.
That's rather.... dickish, don't you think? (Oh, wait, you can't think, sorry.)
Does the Designer just get kicks out of watching manatees get squished by boats?
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY?????
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:25 PM
And nowhere in my post did I say ANYTHING about "poorly developed" hearing.
The texpip caught lying again.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:27 PM
From the texpip's link:
Why did the Designer leave the manatees with such vulnerable lungs? If it could go back to the old toolbox and install some reptile-style ears, why not get some fish-style lungs in the process?
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY????
Evolution, of course, explains the presence of the lungs very well.
Thanks for yet ANOTHER example demonstrating the superiority of evolutionary theory, texpip.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:28 PM
Very interesting, and not surprising, since the Sirenian cochlea evolved to be smaller, which is precisely what evolutionary theory would predict for improving high-frequency hearing.
But the texpip seems to have forgotten that we were talking about LOW frequency hearing, rendering all the above moot.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:35 PM
Evolutionary theory would predict that since both sirenians and elephants have the partly uncoiled cochlea, and they two have a common ancestor that lived on land, it would be more parsimonious for the uncoiling to have occurred before the sirenians entered the water. (And since elephants (and reptiles) have decent hearing with uncoiled cochleas, the "lousy" part is just texpip being pitifully dishonest again)
Though it could have occurred while they were at the water's edge.
And to test this hypothesis, evolutionary theory would direct us to look at the cochlea of the Hyrax, the next closest relative, and examine all three group's genomes (it would be necessary to first figure out which genes are involved in cochlear development). We could also look to see what the cochlea is like in the fossils of Pezosiren, the roughly hippo-shaped transitional form.
See how evolutionary theory so readily provides plausible hypotheses to test AND provides a roadmap to guide how one could investigate to figure out the problem?
How does Design theory fare in helping us answer this question?
HOW, OH MIGHTY MAKER, HOW?????
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:38 PM
Seeing as anyone with half a brain can look and see that there is a continuous band of vegetation going from dry land, to near water, to water's edge, to amphibious, to in shallow water, to in deeper water, from freshwater to saltwater, the above question is monumentally stupid.
It boggles the mind that any being possessed of a human brain could possibly be so stupid as to think such a question would make a compelling argument for anything.
Oh wait, that was the texpip, there?
Ah. Mystery solved.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:42 PM
I just love how every "problem" with evolution that txpiper keeps bringing up, both confirms evolution, and leaves no room for his imaginary creator/designer, which appears to have no conclusive evidence for it, as txpiper keeps omitting to show said evidence. Almost like it thinks that if evolution can't explain something, it is right, but it isn't. Direct evidence is required. Where is your burning bush or equivalent txpiper???? I SEE NOTHING....
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:45 PM
Not a back seat, per se. But, thanks to the physical laws controlling embryology, genes can create structures without having to specifically specify those structures. Genes for increasing growth rate can, in the right circumstances result in both increased length, and increased coiling.
I would start by hypothesizing number two. Seeing as any link between embryonic headaches and survival and reproduction is kind of hard to envision, the first one may not be a selection pressure at all. (Also, before a certain stage in development, the embryonic brain isn't even capable of experiencing headaches).
It could easily be both, or neither, or both and other things too.
The beautiful thing about natural selection is that multiple selection pressures will always be acting simultaneously.
I have to take back what I said previously about the most monumental stupidity.
This is EVEN MORE stupid.
(The continued, intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt, deliberately misleading and false attribution of teleological properties to natural selection is once more noted.
Pitiful.)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:48 PM
No. Well-EVOLVED.
(For arbitrary definitions of "well".)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:52 PM
Define "huge".
Define "tedious".
I suppose for one of the texpip's limited, AMATEUR NOVICE-level, capabilities, anything over 3 must be "huge", and anything taking longer to describe than three words (Designer did it!) must be "tedious".
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:54 PM
Yes. The whole clade.
Very foresightful and benevolent for the Designer, no?
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY????
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 6:59 PM
Clause A has no relationship whatsoever to Clause B.
Ah, the texpip, generously demonstrating how NOT to use the word "since".
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 7:02 PM
We do.
Feeling for vibrations coming through the ground is a common trick for tracking the movements of herds of animals, used by hunters and ranchers, as well as soldiers.
Probably every animal that puts any part of its body on the ground for any length of time does some of it, to some degree, some of the time.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 15, 2011 7:05 PM
A false and unnecessary distinction.
Bones are innervated.
It's both.
Of course the texpip already knows this, dishonest git that it is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 15, 2011 7:06 PM
Ah, the texpip, generously demonstrating how NOT to use the word "since".Gee, has txpip been right even once???? I think it would get tired of showing it arrogance, idiocy, and massively wrong egotism to the general public, time and time again, showing what a person who shouldn't be listened to is like....Posted by: txpiper
|
October 15, 2011 11:40 PM
amphiox,
“Very interesting, and not surprising, since the Sirenian cochlea evolved to be smaller, which is precisely what evolutionary theory would predict for improving high-frequency hearing.”
Well, that would be a fine prediction if smaller was actually the issue, but reading some more about it, larger doesn’t equate to lower, and smaller doesn’t with higher.
"It turns out that it is the curvature of the cochlea, not its size, that is highly correlated to the low-frequency hearing limit…”
link
”thanks to the physical laws controlling embryology, genes can create structures without having to specifically specify those structures”
I love stuff like this.
“Define "huge". Define "tedious" “
Well, there are all kinds of differences between the supposed ancestor and any given Sirenian form. To get from one to the other, would require just the right mutation occurring in just the right genes, resulting in just the right slightly advantageous step. Given that mutations are rare events that slip by the fidelity enzymes, and given that the ones that do occur are overwhelmingly either neutral or deleterious, and given that they have to occur in germ cells to be passed on, and given that there are millions of germ line candidates and relatively few offspring, the whole process is a worsening cascade of increasingly odds-against events. You also have to factor in the general sensitivity of random amino acid substitutions in proteins, and the countless numbers of those that would be required in the transition, and factor in the reality that every change would require coincidental control mechanisms (which is a really ugly complication). You’d also have to consider that the ever-so-slight advantages would have to occur by and large in the same lineage. Selection would not remove everything but the newest slightly-advantaged models because mild improvements for one function don’t automatically translate into more offspring. And you can’t assume that the latest improved infant wouldn’t die before reaching maturity from any number of causes.
It sounds like a very tedious, un-parsimonious affair to me.
Oh, I think it does. Actually, they have done some amount of research into this with Indian elephants.
”By studying the distribution and density of these mechanoreceptors, we propose that Pacinian corpuscles are one possible anatomic mechanism used by elephants to detect seismic waves.”link
Being a novice, I had to look up Pacinian corpuscles:
“a microscopic, onionlike body consisting of layers of connective tissue wrapped around a nerve ending, located in the deep layers of skin, tendons, etc., and functioning as a sensory receptor of pressure and vibration”
”Feeling for vibrations coming through the ground is a common trick for tracking the movements of herds of animals, used by hunters and ranchers, as well as soldiers.”
Well, I know lots of hunters, marines, and ranchers. Actually, a good buddy of mine at work has a ranch and was an army ranger. I’ll ask him if that's how he finds his cows.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 16, 2011 1:02 AM
Sadly, the Yangtze River Dolphin was driven to apparent extinction by noise pollution. It effectively blinded them. This relates somewhat to the issues manatees are having, which is not an inability to hear boats, but an inability to make sense of what they hear and to respond in a manner which would improve their chances of avoiding injury or death. They're like squirrels crossing the street.
The problem with evolution in macroscopic critters with low reproductive rates is that it's so damned SLOW; species that experience sudden and profoundly negative changes in environment are going to have a tough time surviving, as the likelihood of some members of the population developing a favorable adaptation before the environment crushes the population is going to be relatively low. And so it went for the river dolphin. Recent history is full of other examples. (Keep in mind that when I say sudden, I mean relatively sudden, which on the geological time scale could mean decades, centuries, or even millennia.)
All this is, of course, just what evolutionary theory predicts.
The Designer could have saved the Yangtze River Dolphin, but chose not to. (I guess The Designer works in mysterious ways, huh?) Design "theory" explains nothing. NOTHING. It's wishful thinking dressed up in a rented lab coat.
Speaking of street-crossing squirrels and their unfortunate tendency to respond to automotive threats by recrossing the street they just crossed, presumably to reach the safety of the side they started from, here is my inexpert opinion on that:
Someday, the average squirrel may be "smart" about crossing streets, but it could take many, many human lifetimes before such a change could become dominant in the squirrel population - if it ever does. There's no guarantee that'll ever happen, because there's no guarantee that a heritable behavioral change will ever occur. Also (in today's world, at least) the selective pressure for a safe-crossing behavior isn't really very high. Roadkill may seem ubiquitous to us humans, but squirrel habitats as a whole aren't exactly saturated with cars... so it seems highly unlikely squirrels will suffer a fate similar to that of the river dolphin.
If I've got anything wrong there, dear readers, please feel free to correct me. And I know you will. :-)
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 16, 2011 1:03 AM
So, txpiper, how come you refuse to explain why evolution is stupid and impossible, beyond the fact that you have no desire to understand it, while also refusing to explain why GODDIDIT is supposed to be more scientific than actual science?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 16, 2011 1:18 AM
And it takes just the right number in just the right slot, repeated several times, for whoever won the MegaMillions Lottery to win the MegaMillions Lottery. Likewise, different mutations in different genes with different slight advantages would lead to different descendants. When this has been explained to Creationist trolls over and over, it takes willful stupidity not to understand it and to think that it's a problem for the ToE.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 16, 2011 1:26 AM
TxPiper's odds-based arguments from incredulity do conveniently overlook the astronomical number of evolutionary lottery losers.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 16, 2011 1:31 AM
So is your personal existence starting from the beginning of life on Earth, even if that was only 6,000 years ago ... think of all the chance events that had to happen just so in order for a person with your particulars to exist at this point in time ... and yet here you are, one blithering idiot trying to win over intelligent, educated people to your ignorant idiocy.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 16, 2011 1:36 AM
What inference can be drawn if he says no?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 16, 2011 2:33 AM
LONGER, oh ye who cannot read. Specifically the length of the basement membrane, combined with the density of the hair cells.
Both of which can be controlled embryologically by genes controlling rate of cell division.
Oh, so now you're admitting that the elephant's cochlea is curved, after all, making your previous assertions of "reptile-ness" a deliberate red herring?
It's nice to see you admit your lies, for once.
Your link, by the way, perfectly illustrates how useful evolutionary theory is in guiding further research. The experiment it describes could not have even been conceived without using the theory of evolution as a basis for hypothesis generation. A hypothesis was tested, found to be incomplete, and our understanding was expanded.
Design theory does none of this.
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY??
It also provides a great example of evolutionary contingency. Altering basement membrane length only provides crude adjustments to frequency sensitivity. But once even a little bit of coiling appeared, natural selection had a new target to work on to provide more fine-tuned control of frequency sensitivity.
So thanks for YET ANOTHER example illustrating the usefulness of evolutionary theory.
You think wrong. Clause A, about complexity, is irrelevant to Clause B, about direct contact between bones and ground.
And your follow-up argument is as irrelevant to this point as everything else you've written.
Speaking of which, direct contact is also irrelevant. Pressure waves transmit through all matter. So unless there's a layer of pure and prefect vacuum, somewhere in the elephant's anatomy, separating its skeleton from its contact with the ground, your Clause B is just word salad.
ONE POSSIBLE mechanism. There are others. Because pressure waves transmit through all matter.
But apparently in your research you ignored the part about how the Pacinian corpuscles are found in all vertebrates and typically function in the sense of touch, were inherited by the elephants from a common ancestor that did not use them for hearing, and were repurposed in the elephants for a new function.
Providing yet another excellent example of evolutionary contingency, and how organs can be coopted by natural selection to new functions.
Bringing up YET ANOTHER excellent illustrative example of how much better Evolution is as an explanatory theory than Design.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 16, 2011 3:02 AM
Sure there are. But we know those changes happened. That is FACT.
Transitional form in the fossil record, you know.
"Just" is not as constrained as you might think. Convergent evolution demonstrates that there are usually several viable pathways to similar forms.
But again, however many steps it took, however constrained those steps are, IT DID HAPPEN. And it happened IN STEPS.
Transitional form in the fossil record, you know.
This is precisely what Evolutionary theory predicts, and precisely what Design theory does NOT predict.
Evolution wins again.
Quantify "rare".
Quantify "overwhelmingly".
Quantify "relatively few".
Odds-against relative to what?
The odds of an even more complicated creator designing the whole thing are always several orders of magnitude worse.
Evolution wins again over Design. (It will ALWAYS win the odds argument. If you had half a brain, you would stop using it.
Quantify "sensitivity".
And who says the changes always require changes in proteins?
No they don't. The control mechanisms can be tweaked after, or even before.
No they don't. Sexual recombination can bring mutations initially occurring in different lineages together.
And the problem disappears completely once a mutation reaches fixation. Which for most of the step-wise changes in most adaptions, is the majority of the cases.
Lineages also grow exponentially.
If they don't then by definition they are not improvements.
Improvement is a relative term. We humans create many arbitrary measures for improvement. Biology has only one - reproductive success.
If so, then by definition, it was not improved.
Some contingency is always involved. That's why the process takes millions of years, rather than a few thousand.
Still haven't defined "tedious".
Parsimony is also a relative term.
Un-parsimonious relative to what?
At every one of the steps you bring up, injecting a Designer into the picture increases the required complexity by at least several orders of magnitude, and drops the likelihood by an equal degree.
Evolution beats Design again. And, and the grounds of these types of "unlikely" arguments, it always will.
All the above of course has been explained to you many, many, many times on many, many, many prior threads.
And you have the gall to spew all that discredited nonsense here again, essentially wasting our time recycling already answered arguments, some practically verbatim.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Bankrupt intellectual dishonesty all the way down.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 16, 2011 3:04 AM
And it goes without saying (except where the texpip is concerned, it's already been said, and needs to be said again, again, and again, and again, and again, and again) that someone wins the lottery almost every time.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 16, 2011 3:16 AM
Even if it were, what's the likelihood that humans will continue to drive cars, with the same kinds of characteristics (sound, speed, shape, etc), that a squirrel could learn to recognize and react to properly, or build roads with the same sort of properties that a squirrel could learn recognize in order to cross safely, (ie, sustain the selection pressure) for the entirety of the length of time that would actually needed for such evolutionary change to occur.
A Designer on the other hand, should be able to snap its fingers and make it so, instantly.
But that's not what we see.
By which we must conclude that the Designer hates squirrels.
But then, it made so many of them.
By which we must conclude that the Designer gets kicks out of small, harmless, cute, furry critters getting squashed under several tons of metal and rubber.
By which we must conclude that the Designer is a sadistic bastard.
By which we must, finally, conclude, that the true reason and purpose of human existence (which the texpip seems to think is so important to have), per Design theory, is to rise up against this evil psychopath of a Designer, and overthrow it.
WHY, OH MIGHTY MAKER, WHY????
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 16, 2011 7:59 AM
Poor txpiper, still no evidence for his imaginary designer, so he keeps flailing around like a deluded fool. Where is said designer pip, so we can look for it, and talk to it? And how do you tell the difference between a designer and your delusions??? So far, all evidence of designer is explained by your delusions. Science has it covered, except in your delusional mind.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 16, 2011 9:20 AM
"Tedious" is a completely subjective personal evaluation.
You're basically saying that even if all of the data regarding evolutionary transitions that you keep whining about were known, and were provided to you as you claim to want, you, personally, would find it boring.
Highlighting, once again, the simple fact that you don't care about truth.
Really, what kind of bullshit are you trying to pull with calling evolution "tedious"? "This is (what I personally find) boring, and (I personally think that) a Magical Invisible Fairy doing it would be more exciting, therefore, a Magical Invisible Fairy did it."
I wonder if PZ will move to help you avoid the tedium of learning about biology by banning your insipid trolling self the hell out of here.
Also, you have no idea of what "parsimony" means.
No unnecessary entities are posited in evolution. No Ear Fairies, or Bone Fairies, or Nerve Fairies. I realize that you would find such things more interesting, but Invisible Magical Fairies are exactly that which would be UN-necessary to explain evolution, and therefore would be UN-parsimonious.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 16, 2011 9:40 AM
Also:
Tedium demands a Te Deum.
Parsimony demands a parismonificatorizer.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 16, 2011 10:19 AM
(Rube Goldberg was working on a parismonification engine for years, but he never finished it.)
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 16, 2011 10:25 AM
I thought parsimony demands a persimmon.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 16, 2011 10:40 AM
Teach the controversy!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 16, 2011 11:29 AM
You guys aren't seeing the Big Picture*trade;. It isn't that jaw bones evolve into ear bones, it's the Jaw Bone Fairy evolves into an Ear Bone Fairy. Thus is design combined with evolution. It's a new paradigm.
I shall expect to hear from the Nobel people any day now.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 16, 2011 12:17 PM
Parsimony requires parsnips. With parsley.
Hmmph!
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
October 16, 2011 12:49 PM
txpiper
txpiper doesn't even understand real world design. Often there is more than one solution to a problem and a suboptimal one will become common first and persist because the best solution isn't sufficiently better to replace the established design. txpiper seems to think that evolution is contingent on achieving the best possible outcome every time.
Also, I think txpiper misunderstands that these mutations must also occur at exactly the right time. When in fact they can occur "ahead of time" if they are not particularly deleterious at the time when they occur. Also, these mutations can occur repeatedly, but they only persist once they become advantageous. For example the bacteria that has evolved the ability to eat nylon (at the expense of metabolic efficiency) may have had that mutation occur before nylon was available and then died of starvation. The mutation only became conserved once nylon was available.
txpiper is is creating false contingencies.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 16, 2011 1:04 PM
Parssssssimony demandsssss Parsssssseltongue.
Ssss.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 16, 2011 1:15 PM
Like how txpiper snidely proposed that the nautilus evolved a coiled shell due to lack of real estate?Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 16, 2011 4:56 PM
Sss.
Coilssss demand a coiler....
I wouldn't bet on him knowing anything at all.
This is the one who insisted that polar bears could not possibly have evolved from brown bears in the time frame claimed via random mutations and natural selection. No, clearly a Bear Fairy of some sort must have used some ursine pixie dust.
Polar bears demand a bear polarizer.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 17, 2011 12:13 AM
"it takes just the right number in just the right slot...this has been explained to Creationist trolls over and over"
No, this is not an explanation that deals the statistical problems I listed. It is just a diversion. Lotteries and algorithms are more manageable than reality.
=======
"txpiper seems to think that evolution is contingent on achieving the best possible outcome every time."
No, txpiper is a designer by profession and realizes that nothing successful happens accidentally.
"in fact they can occur "ahead of time" if they are not particularly deleterious at the time when they occur"
Oh, by all means. Saving up miracles for a rainy day. That makes fabulous sense.
"the bacteria that has evolved the ability to eat nylon (at the expense of metabolic efficiency) may have had that mutation occur before nylon was available"
I'm sure this is what happened. DuPont anticipating selection pressure.
The really cool part, is that your paradigm depends on miracle plays like this happening in exponential numbers.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 17, 2011 12:39 AM
Funny that you replaced an important part of that with an ellipsis, you asshole troll. And only an ignorant git would think that doesn't deal with the "problems" you listed, which aren't problems for the exact reason I gave and has been reiterated by others here as well as in all the debates with stupid fucks like you over the years on this and other science blogs.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 17, 2011 12:50 AM
txpiper is a cretin and a liar. Numerous successful designs have been the results of accidents, even in the human arena. And even if they hadn't, that would be irrelevant: just because one class of designs is always the result of intent does not imply that all classes of designs are the result of intent. And that's the fallacy that the argument from design is based on: To say "every design we have seen is the result of a mind, therefore living systems were the result of the mind" is to beg the question, to assume the conclusion ... if living systems aren't the result of a mind, then it simply isn't true that every design we have seen is the result of a mind. This is freshman logic, but beyond the capability of intellectually dishonest gits like txpiper.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 17, 2011 1:04 AM
Yes, it does, to someone who isn't so stupid and dishonest as to call mutations "miracles".
The stupidity that produces such an idiotic interpretation is hard to fathom by someone who doesn't share it.
There is no such thing as "exponential numbers", moron; perhaps you mean "astronomical". In any case, it doesn't require non-deleterious mutations to occur any more often than they do.
Each instance of your mockery just further demonstrates how stupid and intellectually dishonest you are.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 17, 2011 1:27 AM
Here is a post on successful accidental design, with commenters supporting the idea. Nice is "Creativity is making mistakes, Design is choosing which ones to keep", which could be translated to refer to mutation and selection.
Here is a list of 20 accidental discoveries, from Post-its to X-Rays.
I strongly suspect that txpiper is as incompetent a designer as he is a thinker.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 17, 2011 1:34 AM
Well that explains a lot.
Never heard of "happy accidents", eh?
Natural processes create ordered structures without any mind or intent behind them. This has been discussed before.
Your snide ignorance and reliance on ridiculous straw-man arguments is even starting to annoy me. I say "ignorance" because the nature of the straw-men betrays, at best, a lack of comprehension. Sorry.
And what are those problems? I mean, exactly? Everything you've said over these past several weeks can be summarized thus: "I don't buy it." You need to present more than incredulity, no matter how detailed your otherwise vague protestations may be.
I realize that "vague" may seem unfair, given the amount of time you've put into researching some of your comments, but my point is this: It's time for you to start producing numbers. "Yeah, right" is not an argument.
So shit or get off the pot, man. As others have already made abundantly clear to you, if you can demonstrate that this "paradigm" is mathematically untenable and cannot explain the diversity of life on earth, you win the Nobel Prize and your name goes down in the history books.
Stop wasting time here. Get Busy. If you're right, and you can prove it, you win. We all win, because the store of human knowledge will have increased. Go now. Do it.
If things go well, you may even be able to present an alternate theory, one which offers coherent and evidentially supported explanations for the Mediocre Design, Stupid Design, Malevolent Design, and Negligent Genocide so often perpetrated by the alleged Designer over the past couple of billion years.
I'm not saying that completion these tasks is impossible. I'm saying it's necessary.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 17, 2011 2:06 AM
From PZ's post:
Applies well to txpiper.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 2:24 AM
This dishonest argument again, eh?
Pitiful.
As has already been explained before, multiple times, in detail, there is nothing accidental about natural selection.
Exponentially growing numbers.
Which is precisely why it works.
Injecting a Designer into it requires an even bigger miracle.
Evolution beats Design, again.
Yes it does.
Natural selection acts on pre-existing variation. The most common form of evolutionary adaption is the re-purposing and recombination of old functions into new functions. The majority of the necessary mutations already exist within the population, and often have been there for a very long time.
But this has already been explained you many times.
It's nice to see you finally admit it. Progress!
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 2:28 AM
And putting a Designer into any of them only makes the statistical problems millions of times worse.
Evolution is ALWAYS statistically more probable than Design.
ALWAYS.
Evolution beats Design, again.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 2:32 AM
If they did, that would make them far more competent than you.
They are, after all, professionals, rather than AMATEUR NOVICES.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 2:36 AM
It would appear that the texpip does not look up at the sky at night.
Since if it did so, it would realize that "astronomical" numbers are, nevertheless, real.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 2:38 AM
Also, QUANTIFY these "statisical problems".
Real numbers, please.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 2:56 AM
This is in fact a virtual certainty.
Bacteria are so numerous, and their generation times so short, that for many of them, it only takes a couple of years or so for every single nucleotide in their entire genome to have experienced at least one mutational event, somewhere within the world-wide population.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 17, 2011 10:36 AM
I noticed that txpiper still refuses to explain why saying GODDIDIT is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.
I also noticed that txpiper still hasn't justified why we should assume that he magically knows better about Evolution and science than all of the scientists in the whole wide world, too.
I wonder why he's dragging his feet about that. I mean, why would txpiper turn down such a glorious opportunity to justify his boasting? I mean, he already snidely dismisses current scientific consensus as being the work of morons and blind idiots, after all.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 17, 2011 11:00 AM
Spandrels (of San Marco).
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 17, 2011 11:06 AM
Also, you're basically accusing every lottery winner ever of cheating.
And, by implication, you're accusing the Invisible Magical Fairy of repeated deliberate mass murder.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 17, 2011 12:32 PM
No liar, you are an admitted chemical engineer, not a designer. Your only science in your processes is what the chemists tell you it is. You just make their chemistry work on a large scale. That is all you do. You design nothing totally from scratch, much less using your own chemcial process, without imput from a myriad of sources, and history of this is how we do this on a larger scale.If you want to challenge the present scientific paradigm of the theory of evolution, you must do so with more science. And you have presented absolultely no compelling science in your vain attempt to prove you aren't an idiotic crank. And your citations usually backfire, as they prove evolution to be correct. Either you are an expert, or you are a fuckwitted crank. You aren't an expert. Guess what that leaves for you...
You still haven't provided one iota of evidence for your imaginary designer/creator/deity. That's because there is no evidence for it. Think about that.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 2:11 PM
And by further implication, this means that the proper life's purpose of every moral human being, per Design theory, is to work to ensure that the bastard stands trial of its crimes some day.
So the texpip is caught in yet another lie?
I'm shocked, I tellsy'all. Shocked, I say! Shocked!
(Vapors and flutterings[urinating dog. urinating dog. urinating dog.])
Posted by: Watchman
|
October 17, 2011 6:06 PM
Man. Yet another Christian engineer coming down on the side of Creationism and Design. Will wonders never cease?
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 17, 2011 6:49 PM
You're not a biostatistician, and you have no idea how to even think about the matter, let alone list them.
All you've done is list you're own ignorance and incredulity.
Your fallacious arguments are just a diversion from you wanting to live forever in magical fairyland after you die.
Because lotteries and algorithms aren't real?
Do you even care how little sense you're making?
Only if you accept that miracles are "real". We don't; you do.
You're still being pathetically stupid, as usual.
Nonsense. There are no miracles.
Fundamentally, it's all just chemistry.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 17, 2011 9:12 PM
Kseniya,
"You need to present more than incredulity, no matter how detailed your otherwise vague protestations may be."
Well first, the things I listed are hardly vague. They are clear, statistical obstacles. None of them are hard to understand.
That said, the statistical cases to dismiss each of my objections should be profuse after many decades of enthusiastic research. If they are there, I'd be happy to read them. If they are not, they should be. Nobody should have to resort to analogies when they are living in the middle of the real biological spectacle.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 17, 2011 9:53 PM
Still no scientific evidence linked to by txpiper, still no evidence for his imaginary deity/creatory/desginer. Nothing but lies and bullshit. What else is new...
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 17, 2011 10:05 PM
Except that, all you've ever done is present your own incredulity in a very sarcastic, insulting manner, and then imply you magically know more than all of the scientists in the whole wide world. We've already provided them, repeatedly. You've refused to do so, thus, making your claim a bald-faced lie. When analogies are used and interpreted appropriately, they provide enormous help in allowing people to understand otherwise complex and confusing phenomena.In your case, analogies are not helpful because you deliberately misunderstand them, and then proceed to insult scientists by implying they are drooling idiots because you have no intention of understanding science, or even explaining why "GODDIDIT" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 17, 2011 10:10 PM
Statistics require numbers.
Your numbers please.
You have already been provided with profuse numbers of examples on multiple prior threads, you pitiful liar.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 17, 2011 10:15 PM
txpiper, for at least the third time, statistical analysis on why RM/NS works. A tankard of grog says he doesn't even read it, much less understand it...
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 17, 2011 10:28 PM
In other words, he is lying out of his ass when he claimed to be "happy to read (research)"As usual.
Posted by: tresmal
|
October 17, 2011 10:31 PM
Without numbers? No they're not. Until you take numbers from the appropriate data and plug them into the appropriate equations (show your work!) you've got nothing but hand waving incredulity. Actually statistics isn't very effective at dismissing arguments that are nothing more than a nasty stew of straw men, non sequiturs, appeals to incredulity, semantic games and math-free quantitative claims. Anyway, back to lurking.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 17, 2011 11:39 PM
Of course they were vague:
"Blah blah blah worsening cascade of increasingly odds-against events blah blah blah tedious and un-parsimonious blah."
You couldn't have been more vague if you'd used a vaguerizer.
You don't know anything at all about biostatistics or clarity, let alone any putative "obstacles". Using the phrase "odds-against" is not an argument from statistics unless you can actually show the work.
You being unaware of your own incompetence is showing again.
You wouldn't even look at them, let alone understand them, you pathetic liar. The entire field of biostatistics exists, and you haven't shown any awareness of its existence, let alone awareness of the research, even though I pointed it out to you in 2006.
http://www.math.cornell.edu/~durrett/Gbook/Gbook.html
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 17, 2011 11:48 PM
No Nerd, I've read it before. I particularly liked this paragraph.
"Because half of the population always survives each selection round in the evolutionary simulation presented here, the population cannot die out and there is no lethal level of incompetence. While this may not be representative of all biological systems, since extinction and threshold effects do occur, it is representative of the situation in which a functional species can survive without a particular genetic control system but which would do better to gain control ab initio. Indeed, any new function must have this property until the species comes to depend on it, at which point it can become essential if the earlier means of survival is lost by atrophy or no longer available. I call such a situation a ‘Roman arch’ because once such a structure has been constructed on top of scaffolding, the scaffold may be removed, and will disappear from biological systems when it is no longer needed. Roman arches are common in biology, and they are a natural consequence of evolutionary processes."
I have to agree with the idea that having the control system from the beginning would be better.
The 'common in biology Roman arch' is a cheap way of announcing that the evidence isn't there.
I really don't give a fat rat's about another "artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution". But how about this....you show me a thoughtful, reasoned evaluation of each and every of the points I noted above, and I'll submit to you some of my reasons for believing in a Creator. Not sappy shit like amphiox's Village People post. I mean serious, patient analysis. You don't have to cite any sources. Just show me that you are convinced by real evidence. And don't tell me it is there, tell me what it is, in your own words.
Showtime.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 17, 2011 11:54 PM
It could be that txpiper simply doesn't care to be aware of the existence of biostatistics.Posted by: Stanton
|
October 18, 2011 12:03 AM
Actually, you don't give a fat rat's ass about science, and you've never ever given any reason for believing in a Creator over science, other than your own personal intellectual slothfulness.Besides, since when did "real evidence" ever convince you? You've never given us any evidence to support your own claims, nor have you ever bothered to look at any of the evidence we've shown you to support ours. It's hypocritical of you to mention "real evidence," but, then again, when did you ever give a fat rat's ass about being an obvious hypocrite?
(or giving a fat rat's ass about being a liar, either)
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 18, 2011 12:05 AM
In fact, txpiper, what makes you think we can trust you now, of all times, to look at any of the evidence we've shown you?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 18, 2011 12:06 AM
No it's not, you odious liar. That evidence was GIVEN TO YOU ALREADY.
You've just been deliberately ignoring it.
He's already done that, you pitiful dishonest git. We've ALL already done that. Many threads ago. Multiple times.
You've just been deliberately ignoring it.
That's your problem, you arrogant, incompetent AMATEUR NOVICE. Not ours. Nor the theory of evolution's.
He's already done that, you morally bankrupt liar. Multiple times. On multiple previous threads. As have the rest of us.
You've just deliberately ignored it.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 18, 2011 12:08 AM
txpiper is being deliberately dishonest?Again?
Be still my beating heart.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 18, 2011 1:12 AM
And failed to understand it.
Despite the fact that evolution can and does work without one.
Oh, it's there. You're just too stupid to actually look for it.
You whine about the math not working, and when the math is shown to work, you whine that there isn't enough data, so you don't care about the math anymore. When more data is offered, you whine that it's "tedious".
What the hell is wrong with you?
You have no idea of what a thoughtful and reasoned evaluation would be, because all you have are stupid arguments from ignorance and incredulity.
You believe in a Creator because you think that arguments from ignorance and incredulity and special pleading are somehow not fallacies when you make them.
And because you want to live in happy fairyland forever with the Invisible Magical Fairy (despite the fact that the Invisible Magical Fairy is a repeated deliberate mass murderer by your own arguments).
How much more serious and patient analysis do stupid arguments from ignorance and incredulity need, other than pointing out that they are indeed stupid arguments from ignorance and incredulity?
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 20, 2011 12:02 AM
"You believe in a Creator because you think that arguments from ignorance and incredulity and special pleading are somehow not fallacies when you make them."
No, I believe in the strength of my arguments. My questions are reasonable, and they beg for reasonable answers. Whining about ignorance, incredulity and special pleading are just tactics that you have been taught to use to avoid actually confronting painful problems. They are not going away.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 20, 2011 12:09 AM
txpiper:
D-K.
(TSTKTS)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 12:33 AM
We already know that you're and idiot and a liar. Your arguments are, by quite objective measures, not merely weak, but utterly useless, since they are based on every fallacy in the book and have been repeatedly refuted with no challenge to the refutation other than to repeat the bogus argument. You're as effective here as someone who goes to a math blog and claims that there are painful problems with mathematical theory because Cantor was all wrong and there are as many reals as rationals. (There are such morons ... your counterparts.)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 12:42 AM
Bully for you, moron. You claim there are "painful problems" ... the burden is on you to convince us and the entire scientific community.
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 20, 2011 12:52 AM
Are there definitive studies showing that the "painful problems" supposedly confronting the heritable-variations/natural-selection model aren't actually problems?
Piper hasn't actually demonstrated any of these alleged problems, though I will allow that his questions are reasonable. It is reasonable to wonder at the amazing diversity of life on Earth. It is reasonable to ask, "How could this have possibly happened?"
Many people have asked, and many people have spent their careers attempting to answer those questions.
It is therefore less reasonable to use mere incredulity as evidence that said diversity can not be explained by the widely accepted and heavily supported mutation/selection model.
Consensus alone isn't proof, but it's an indication that the theory is robust. One would think that if those answers did indeed rest on statistically impossible event sequences, that someone would have figured that out by now, and be enshrined in science history next Einstein, Newton, Curie, Salk et al. Why has this not occurred?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 12:54 AM
Says the self confessed AMATEUR NOVICE.
Reasonable answers have already been given to you, over and over and over and over again.
You've just deliberately ignored them all, you pathetic liar.
Half of them were never real problems to begin with. The rest are well on their way to being solved.
But you already know this, as we have already told you, over and over and over and over and over again.
You've just deliberately chosen to ignore it, you pitiful liar.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 20, 2011 12:56 AM
[meta]
Kseniya, they'd be perhaps be reasonable questions, were it not that the Piper has wanked them forth on multiple other threads previously and they have already been addressed.
(Like the Shill, its relies on a reset button)
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 20, 2011 12:57 AM
What is your argument?All your argument is is that Evolution is wrong because you don't want to understand it. But, in scientific discussions, this is so pitiful that it is considered a hallmark of stupidity, not an argument.
Why is whining and lying that "GODDIDIT" is supposed to be such a strong argument? You refuse to explain this.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 12:57 AM
Consensus alone isn't proof
Science, and empirical inquiry in general, isn't based on proof, it's based on inference from evidence. Consensus among scientists that P is is a scientific finding is extremely strong evidence for P, because of what it takes for such a consensus to occur.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 12:58 AM
Oh, it's tried. The citations it cherry-picked and misrepresented all universally demonstrated the exact opposite, of course.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 20, 2011 1:02 AM
Txpiper's questions are not reasonable: they're born of his deliberate refusal to educate himself, in that, he's asking these questions in order to (falsely) demonstrate that Evolution, or science, is totally incapable of answering them, while deliberately ignoring the fact that his questions already been answered long, long ago.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 1:03 AM
Now, IF the texpip were actually questioning in an intellectually honest fashion, then the burden of proof really is on us (ie on the theory of evolution to demonstrate its validity).
However, the texpip is not being intellectually honest. Most of his "painful problems" are fake problems he dreamed up by deliberately distorting what the theory of evolution actually says. Most of the rest have already been answered by the scientific community, several times over. And the tiny few that remain are all in the process of being answered - by employing methodologies guided by the theory of evolution.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 1:05 AM
Here's his first question in this thread:
That was not reasonable. Next:
That was not reasonable. And it goes on like that.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 1:08 AM
Extremely painful problems, indeed, for Design Theory.
For Evolutionary Theory, though, they are not painful at all. Some are challenging (most are not), but none are painful.
Evolution beats Design, as always.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 1:13 AM
The texpip caught lying again.
Hypothesis once more confirmed.
Not even a deliberate "refusal" to educate himself, but a deliberate choice to use the fruits of that education to distort, misrepresent, and lie.
Truly pathetic.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 1:17 AM
Well, at least here it's not completely wrong.
A Vietnamese noodle soup was probably not directly involved in abiogenesis. At least not here on earth....
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 1:26 AM
The burden of proof is on the party who makes an assertion. The assertion at hand here is that there are "painful problems" with the ToE ... the burden of proof is on the party who made that assertion. The only burden on us is for the assertions we actually make. For instance, if we assert that something is predicted by the ToE, then we have a burden to show that it is. Or if we assert that some prediction of the ToE has been borne out, then we have a burden to show that it was. Or if we assert that the ToE is the best explanation available for the diversity of life, then we have a burden to show that ... and we have, repeatedly. If someone asks how the ToE could possibly explain such and such and we don't want to leave the question unanswered, we only have a burden to show that it could possibly explain such and such, which is a very weak requirement. A much stronger requirement, the sort that people like txpiper invariably fail to meet, is to show that it is impossible for the ToE to explain such and such.
Getting the burden of proof right is important to showing what is wrong with the arguments of the science deniers.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 1:57 AM
This is true.
But IF the texpip were honestly questioning, then it wouldn't be making assertions. It would be asking questions. It would be asking "Is this a problem for evolutionary theory?".
Then, in answering we would be the ones making the assertion that "No, it is not a problem, and here's why," and the burden of proof would be on us. The why does not need to be a full explanation, as you say, only a plausible hypothesis - but, the burden of proof is still on us to demonstrate that it is plausible.
This is how we started answering the texpip, back when it first appeared, many threads ago, and we provided it with plenty of evidence.
It only took a few posts for the intellectually bankrupt dishonesty to reveal itself, of course.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 2:52 AM
Oh, gee, duh, I didn't know that. I was unconscious and my fingers just slipped and italized "assertion" in response to your statement about "questioning".
That's not what I said. What I said was that all we need assert is that it's not impossible. As for plausibility, the existence of an entire body of scientific theory suffices. The burden is on the critic to show some hole in the theory ... preferably published, with full supporting evidence, in a peer-reviewed journal.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 20, 2011 5:11 PM
I wrote:
Fixed that for me.
txpiper:
Right, you think that fallacies are not fallacies when you make them. That's what I wrote.
Your questions are bullshit, and they beg to be called bullshit.
Thanks for reminding me that you have even more fallacies that you use. Fixed above.
Recognizing bullshit is its own reward.
You wouldn't know about actual "painful problems", because you have no idea what you are talking about.
No-one is preventing you from leaving.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 20, 2011 5:31 PM
As noted by others, he does not have reasonable questions, because he isn't actually interested in reason.
He does not wonder at the amazing diversity of life, as demonstrated by how tedious he finds the details of actual biology.
He uses the amazing diversity of life on Earth as the basis for his logical fallacies in support of an Invisible Magical Fairy.
Yes, but he isn't asking. He's basically saying that he cannot believe that it happened without an Invisible Magical Fairy, therefore, an Invisible Magical Fairy must exist to have made it happen.
I'm sure he thinks he's very clever.
Posted by: txpiper
|
October 20, 2011 10:20 PM
"A Vietnamese noodle soup was probably not directly involved in abiogenesis. At least not here on earth...."
No, probably not. And there are some who seem to think that that adenine and cytosoine were probably not in the soup either.
Similarly, the things I listed above make the mutations scenario highly improbable, if not impossible.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 20, 2011 10:35 PM
No, they don't.Why should we assume that evolution is totally, stupidly impossible, while GODDIDIT is the sole, logical option simply because you're too arrogant and too lazy to bother learning basic biology?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 20, 2011 10:56 PM
If you had real evidence, and it was accurate, try publishing your scientific fuckwittery here or here, or you are wrong and need to shut the fuck up about it. Put up the manuscript, or shut the fuck up. But then, we all know you have no honor, honesty and integrity. Nothing but ignorant skepticism, that would never allow for the possibility that evolution happened. Nothing but presupposition for your imaginary deity/creator/IDiot. And you still haven't presented one iota of evidence for such a creature.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 11:09 PM
Out of ALL the posts and ALL the points it could have chosen to address, it chooses to comment on a throw-away joke not even directed at it.
Telling.
And pathetic.
No they do not. Those few that are not irrelevant, deliberately distorted LIES, have already been answered, many, many, many, many, many times.
But you have deliberately ignored all that.
Pitiful.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 11:12 PM
And the way to demonstrate something is not impossible is to produce a testable hypothesis.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 20, 2011 11:16 PM
Which is one of the ultimate reasons why Creationism and Intelligent DesignTheoryfail.The other reasons being lack of evidence, its adherents and followers having absolutely no desire what so ever to do any science, and its adherents and followers' dogmatic dishonesty.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 20, 2011 11:21 PM
QUANTIFY "improbable", or withdraw the assertion.
Further research will determine if this is true or not. (Further research will determine if it is even proper to think of it as a soup at all).
The result, either way, is IRRELEVANT to the validity of evolutionary theory.
It is also IRRELEVANT to the validity of abiogenesis theory. It will only affect the fine details.
And the answer, when it is found, will be found via research guided by and organized by the theories of evolution and abiogenesis (probably more contribution from the theories of abiogenesis).
Design theory will play no part, as it is, as it always has been, useless.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 20, 2011 11:42 PM
txpiper would sooner rip out his own tongue, wipe a toilet bowl, then swallow it whole before he'd do that.No creationist has ever explained why or even how invalidating Abiogenesis magically simultaneously invalidates Evolutionary Biology, even though we have numerous recorded observed instances of evolution occurring.Beyond hooting about "cuz I said God and the Bible said so," or that "evolution is evil because JESUS."
Creationists always quible and bicker about the fine details. It's like they've misread the saying about "the straw that broke the camel's back," and come away thinking that one can kill camels by poking them with straws.Of course, research and science have always been hated anathema to Intelligent DesignTheoryproponents.Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 20, 2011 11:56 PM
What is even less probable is that nobody has ever thought of this before, Tex. Why wasn't the lid blown off this evolution thing decades ago? Surely someone with the knowledge and the tools to prove what you are asserting would have already done so. No? Are we going in circles yet? Dembski tried to build a mathematical case for design - and failed. ID has since become little more than a public relations effort.
As for "wonder", I suppose I'm projecting my own on to TxPiper over there, and am a little too easily taken in by ostensibly sincere requests for clear explanations. Tex, why do all these other commenters insist that your questions have already been answered?
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 21, 2011 12:11 AM
Because he thinks we're stupid, evil imbeciles who hateGodthe Intelligent Designer so much that they have been willingly deceived by Satan?Posted by: txpiper
|
October 21, 2011 8:11 PM
Kseniya,
"What is even less probable is that nobody has ever thought of this before"
Of course. The things I am interested in are by and large, old news. Just unwelcome inquiries.
"Why wasn't the lid blown off this evolution thing decades ago? Surely someone with the knowledge and the tools to prove what you are asserting would have already done so."
There have been people who have appraised some of the probability issues. I didn't realize that the link above to this paper didn't work. But it is, I think, a rare and rational assessment.
Having to do with mutations, I haven't found much in the way of analysis, which is somewhat telling in and of itself. I have read of, but not read, about a group of mathematicians and biologists, who looked into the probabilities link back in 1967. I have read that their conclusions were not at all optimistic. The article is still not open access as far as I know.
"Dembski tried to build a mathematical case for design - and failed. ID has since become little more than a public relations effort."
I would disagree with you, on both counts.
"why do all these other commenters insist that your questions have already been answered?"
Ideological preference. If it were about science, they would be asking them (and enjoying the insults for having done so).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 21, 2011 8:21 PM
Kseniya, txpiper plays the usual creobot game of circling what little evidence they think they have. Everything he has said to date has been refute. He tries to play the hyperskeptic, but his imaginary deity/creator/designer keeps getting in his way. He hasn't said anything new for a month or so now. He is repeating what has previously been refuted. All he has is his imaginary deity...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 21, 2011 9:22 PM
The problem with the creationists' "probability" question is the creationists claim that something like blood clotting or color vision has to arise ab initio. They're right, the chances for endothermy arising in one generation are a bazillion to one. What creationists like txpiper are refusing to consider is millions of generations in billions of years means that mutations and natural selection have lots of time and lots of chances.
Of course you'd disagree. You're a creationist. If you agreed with the reality of Dembski's failures then you'd have to admit that creationism is a crock of shit. And your religious masters have told you that god loves the taste of shit so you have to eat it up.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 21, 2011 9:46 PM
Notice how the texpip continues to linger on this zombie thread, deliberately and completely ignoring more recent threads, including very recent threads, that specifically discuss some of the so-called "problems" it harps about.
Intellectual dishonesty AND intellectual cowardice.
Pitiful.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 21, 2011 9:54 PM
So what happened to Dembski's mathematical case for Intelligent Design? How come Dembski never speaks of it?If Intelligent Design is more than a(n anti science) public relations effort, then how come none of its proponents bother to do any science for Intelligent Design in the first place?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
What few of these so-called "problems" that were actually legitimate were already asked and answered by real scientists, most of long ago.
But the texpip already knows all this, as it has been told, and provided with the citations, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.
Even now it's citing things over 40 years old (without even reading it - which is typical), ignoring all the more recent work since then.
The rest are not real "problems" at all, just imaginary hurdles it invented in its own imagination, by deliberately distorting what the real science of evolution actually says.
Pathetic.
(Oh, and ALL of them are EVEN BIGGER problems for design theory, anyways.
There is NO statistical/odds/probability/likelihood problem for the theory of evolution that is not a EVEN BIGGER (by several orders of magnitude at the least) statistical/odds/probability/likelihood problem for design theory of any kind.)
Posted by: Kseniya
|
October 21, 2011 9:59 PM
Yes, I understand. When I have more time, I'll devote more time to this issue, and to your links. (Most of my free time winds up being hours when I should already be in bed, but that's another story.) For now, here's something.
There are several reasons why I trust MCCC more than I trust WAD, but the essential reason is that Dembski began all this by assuming his conclusion and has since gone through whatever gyrations he felt were necessary to prove it.
Didn't we have this conversation a couple of months ago? I posted the Wedge Strategy document? Was that convo with you? Years ago, the DI declared that it intended to inject God back into, well, everything, and Design Theory was going to be the syringe.
To their credit, the architects of ID did at first intend to build a robust scientific model to serve as a foundation for their other efforts, but I have seen no evidence that they have accomplished anything of the sort. What I have seen is a great deal of bitter culture-warring waged with what can be summarized as "dishonest argumentation." If you have evidence to the contrary, lay it on me.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 24, 2011 1:51 AM
Uh-huh. And of course, Robert Shapiro just threw up his hands and concluded his papers with: "Oh, no! Adenine and cytosine cannot possibly have resulted from any naturally occurring chemical reaction, and therefore, there must be an Invisible Magical Fairy that synthesized adenine and cytosine from magical pixie dust ... !!"
Oh, wait! He didn't.
Robert Shapiro was not a creationist, you moron.
So... a prebiotic chemical-theory based scenario that takes into account Shapiro's chemical-theory based objections must also be a rational assessment, right?
• Hydrothermal Stability of Adenine Under Controlled Fugacities of N2, CO2 and H2
• Thermodynamic Potential for the Abiotic Synthesis of Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Uracil, Ribose, and Deoxyribose in Hydrothermal Systems
• How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life
• Serpentinite and the dawn of life
Oh, bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about, so nothing you "listed above" has any actual relevance to how biology in the real world actually works.
They are unwelcome because they are not science, and not rational. They are moronic logical fallacies.
Because you didn't read up on biostatistics, of course. It's telling, in that it tells that you have no idea what you're talking about, no real interest in learning, and no real interest in honestly dealing with anyone or anything.
Ah. And so evolutionary biologists after 1967 should have simply thrown up their hands and proclaimed "Oh, no! Teh math says that evolution cannot possibly have resulted from any naturally occurring physical process like mutations and natural selection, and therefore, there must be an Invisible Magical Fairy that did it using magical pixie dust ... !!", eh?
Yes, but that's because you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to either math or chemistry.
You have an ideological preference to ignore answers and repeat logical fallacies, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm glad you enjoy being insulted, you pathetically dishonest and ignorant specimen of craniorectal inversion.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 24, 2011 10:09 AM
This is actually where txpiper is trying to use reverse-psychology to imply that only Intelligent Design proponents really know about science, that scientists are really stupid idiots who don't know anything about science, and that we really need to grovel before txpiper because he's so smart.And therefore God and Jesus, too.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 24, 2011 1:37 PM
...What, if anything, is your point here? Have you somehow not noticed that the two quotes agree with each other exactly? Elephants and sea cows don't need to listen to pipsqueaks like their shrew-sized ancestors 65 million years ago did, but they do need to hear low sounds – elephants famously communicate over very long distances by infrasound (sounds so low we can't hear them, though in some cases we can feel them in other organs than our ears).
Dude... they don't need to. Similarly, humans don't need to (except it's an advantage when they're blind, which isn't all that common).
*blink*
Nerves don't conduct sound. Sure the soft tissue in the joints and the taut muscles between the shoulder girdle and the ribcage are involved, but nerves aren't. Nerves conduct electrical impulses, in this case from the inner ear to the brain.
And yet again you try to do math without a single number.
Have you no shame?
At last, have you no shame at all?
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
Successful things happen accidentally all the time. Penicillin? Teflon? Coca Cola?
Do you actually know anything?
Oh. I completely forgot. :-) Hi, liar! *wave*
Why am I not surprised.
What? A few weeks ago I even gave you an example of a literal scaffold: primary jaw joint alone → double jaw joint → secondary jaw joint alone functioning as a jaw joint (with the primary jaw joint intact, but functioning only as a transmitter in the middle ear and isolated from the jaws).
Your brain needs a memory upgrade and a processor upgrade. Bigtime.
How about this... you quantify each and every of the points you noted above, so that we can talk about them.
Handwaving is not science.
Complaining that reality is tedious is just... pointless.
*burp* Your questions don't even mean anything, because there are no numbers in them.
Either stop being lazy, or become too lazy to dump your logorrhea on us.
HCN is stupidly common, it occurs even in interstellar space. A half-life of 80 years is plenty enough for a lot of chemistry... and I agree that it probably shouldn't be thought of as a soup. Stuff sticking to clay or pyrite or whatever is more likely as far as I can tell.
You know, some of us are affiliated with a university. I am; I could just download the 140-page paper for free. I don't have time to read it in the next few weeks, but if you give me a good reason why I should read it, I'll at least skim it...
...be aware, though, that any such reason would have to explain why I should read something from 1967.
Like most or all creationists, you seem to imagine that scientists are capable of just ignoring a paper for decades, acting as if it hadn't been published at all. But, man, that one was published in Science. Science is the second-most cited journal of all. Papers that appear in Science are hardly ever ignored for 44 seconds; it's completely impossible for a Science paper to be ignored for 44 years.
I'm trying to say whatever the paper found has either long been included in today's version of the Modern Synthesis or has turned out to be irrelevant or wrong. This I conclude from the simple fact that the Modern Synthesis is still up and running. Ignoring a Science paper is simply not possible.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 24, 2011 1:42 PM
Oh, and, txpiper, eat this.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 24, 2011 3:27 PM
The thread in David@677 is the one I was referring to when I challenged the craven liar to show its face on a more recent and more relevant thread.
It's particularly telling because the source material for that thread had already been cited for it, in another one of the older threads it previously polluted. Back then it babbled something nonsensical about decreasing affinity not counting as beneficial, and then ignored all other replies about it.
And, unsurprisingly, the pathetic coward STILL hadn't uttered a pip there, and instead chose to infest a joke thread about religion.
Where it has already demonstrated that it knows as little about its own religion as it knowe about biology, and is just as honest about it.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 24, 2011 4:20 PM
Actually...
It looks to me like a book review published in Science, of a collection of papers published by the Wistar Institute.
Ah, Google found a PDF of it.
It's one page, and not exactly glowing praise for the work. Hee hee.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
October 24, 2011 6:07 PM
txpiper is wrong. Here's just an example that's quite relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
Yeah. Some quotes:
Remember, the book was published in 1967 (about a symposium from 1966).
So, txpiper's example is 1960's computer models, based on ideas from 1920's and 30's, which was even then recognized to have left out many important factors?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 24, 2011 7:47 PM
It recalls to mind the old apocryphal story about how the laws of aerodynamics meant that it was impossible for bumblebees to fly.
The only difference is that I do not recall anyone seriously proposing that this meant that bumblebees must therefore have been carried aloft by invisible fairies.