|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,977
Master Elite Member
|
I hope you don't mind me jumping in, Linear, because I've been interested in reading your posts. Just to let you know, Stephen Barrett and his ilk (Quackwatch) are also misinformed peddlars of propaganda. I'm in support of "outing" quacks and swindlers but he attempts to "out" a lot of honest people whose methods are truly helpful. I've had this conversation with hardline skeptics before who had all kinds of choice words for me but I stand by this.
Now back to the show . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 30,867
Master Elite Member
|
The article clearly refers to the concept that creationists base their claims of "no transitionals" on a definition of transitional that differs from the parameters used by paleontologists. Let me ask you a question. Why is a fossil called "transitional" if it provides no evidence of being transitional?You know, most mainstream dentists have an adjective they use for describing toxic amalgam (mercury-based) dental fillings: "safe" Do you believe this title this make them truly safe? Likewise, a fossil that is entitled "transitional" by a certain group of people does not mean it provides evidence for transitional forms. Look, it's just astounding that you would argue this point. This mis-titling of both fossils and amalgam fillings is blatantly deceptive. Ok Then what would the characteristics of an acceptable transitional be? A fossil that provides clear evidence of transitional forms. The talk origins website redefines the term "transitional" and then claims that evidence for transitional forms requires nothing more than a mosaic of features in common from different times. Do you really accept this dogma? Do you truly fail to see the blatant spin going on here? Every paleontologist is trying to misinform the public. Now, you are playing the same game talk origins does. You're redefining terms. Let me ask you this question: Is every dentist trying to misinformation the public about highly-toxic amalgam fillings?No. They are simply exposing themselves to one side of the argument, the one they want to believe (the corrupt ADA). They don't bother to read the opposing evidence because it would be emotionally crushing and legally frightening to think that they have injured so many innocent people. This is simple human denial. It's time we got rid of it and started being honest with each other, and ourselves. The morphology is between two forms and the time location is between two forms. That is evidence of being a transitional. You may not think it is strong evidence, but it is evidence none-the-less. No. It's not evidence. And again, I can't believe I'm having this debate. So, you actually believe that fossils that exhibit a "mosaic of features" (talk origins own phrase) in different layers is evidence of transitional forms? Dog gone lying paleontologists!!! This is a shallow attempt to ridicule the concept of an entire field accepting an idea without thoroughly evaluating it. A little history is in order here: The Tomato Effect Amalgam dental fillings Mercury treatment for Syphilis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SyphilisMercury in vaccines X-rays to judge shoe sizes Yes, these are all examples of an entire fields of study that believed and practiced things that were later discovered not to be true. Your symmetry is impossible claim is pretty hollow without support. Perhaps you could support it better in the thread where you started it. However, I do have a question: How many genes need to change to alter the length of both your legs? Your question has a fatal flaw. Your legs are not copies. They are mirror images. Big, big difference, and hox clearly does not explain symmetry. In fact, symmetry is a blatant, fundamental flaw in the evolution faith. You believe in it. Please explain how symmetry occurred through natural "evolutionary" processes. http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024I feel that I am being intellectually honest because I actually read both sides of the issue. Do you? Absolutely! And I have demonstrated this by posting my rebuttal of some talk origins dogma: http://urlbam.com/ha/M002AShow me one location in the geologic column where no upheavals have occurred (folding/inverting/subduction) where the lower layers are younger than the higher ones. There are many examples of trees protruding through many layers of sediment. Professionals in the field still date these layers as being thousands of years apart. Need I say more. You can learn about these and other flaws in current evolution-faith reasoning in this excellent video: http://urlbam.com/ha/KThey said that you cannot prove that a particular fossil is the direct ancestor of another particular fossil. That's not the same thing as showing that a fossil shows transitional characteristics between two other fossils. So again, do you actually believe that finding a fossil that contains a "mosaic" of similar features in different layers is evidence of a transitional form? Good. So what is necessary to provide strong evidence for the existence of transitional forms? What should a transitional look like? As I said previously... The evolution story claims that mutations caused very small changes that lasted thousands to millions of years. So, considering the average lifespan of an organism, and thus considering the vast number of organisms that would have existed during this time exhibiting this very small change, then why on Earth would we "not expect to find" them? Of course, the actual purpose for claiming that we do "not expect to find" them is because they don't exist; Because the talk origins website does not want the burden of admitting we haven't found any. You keep saying this. Perhaps someday you will show evidence of social control happening because of evolution. Well, I am an optimist! Again, I already have: http://urlbam.com/ha/M0026"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 30,867
Master Elite Member
|
The article clearly refers to the concept that creationists base their claims of "no transitionals" on a definition of transitional that differs from the parameters used by paleontologists. —Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179 "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—Charles Darwin: In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
ICR is pretty good about reminding us of the flaws in evostories. I liked this article. Many origin of life researchers have for decades argued that the early earth must have had a “reducing” atmosphere, meaning that it had very little oxygen. This argument has no direct evidence to support it other than the knowledge that oxygen destroys the delicate molecules that comprise cells today. If the first living cells evolved, they would have needed an atmosphere with little or no oxygen. But new research supports the idea that the earth’s surface was always oxygenated, as would be expected if biblical history is true. And it concludes by mentioning: No rocks have yet been discovered—not even deep down—that have an oxygen-free composition. The earth’s crust apparently was always under an oxygenated atmosphere, which can only be maintained by living things. Perhaps life was specially placed on earth at its very beginning—like these rocks indicate and Genesis teaches. I know this is a trivial detail to the true believer, but for those who are not determined to keep their eyes tightly shut  , it may mean something.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
Participants in evofaith will regret reading The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth Others may appreciate the information and the perspective from which it comes. This paper was submitted on behalf of Leslie Orgel, after his death on 27 October 2007, by Gerald Joyce, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, United States of America. I recommend taking a look directly at what he wrote, and there's been some good commentary as well. The best, IMO, is found here. A veteran origin-of-life researcher died last October: Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Orgel had co-authored Origins of Life on the Earth (1973) with Stanley Miller, the man whose spark-discharge experiment launched the modern origin-of-life craze in the 1950s (05/02/2003). Orgel worked in the field for decades and was familiar with all the different approaches.
Apparently Orgel was working on an essay when he died. Gerald Joyce [Scripps Institute], who wrote a eulogy to Orgel in Nature last November (11/29/2007) submitted Orgel’s manuscript to PLoS Biology. It was published posthumously this week on January 22. Origin-of-life [OOL] researchers will not find much encouragement in Orgel’s last scientific will and testament. It bears careful reading, however, coming from someone who spent a lifetime working on and thinking about chemical evolution. I would also suggest http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/leslie_orgel_metabolic_origin.htmlhttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/leslie_orgel_metabolic_origin_1.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/evolution/replicator_vs_metabolism.htmlAlso, competent readers of the English language who read Orgel's piece may be surprised to find out he meant the opposite of what he actually said. Funny how openly one's intelligence is insulted by the propagandists. Funny, but not really surprising...
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
A basic property of life is its capacity to experience Darwinian evolution. When a piece of writing starts off like that, there's little doubt as to the loyalty of the author. Here's the link: Lack of evolvability in self-sustai...bolism-first path to the origin of life In sharp contrast with template-dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations). Now they should've seen that coming. Just look at living cells. They keep discovering new error-checking and error-correcting gizmos and gadgets all the time. Think that stuff is just "optional equipment"? Think again. (Or rather I should say "Start actually thinking in the first place.") Those who would keep faith in spontaneous generation alive need you to overlook tons of in-your-face science. This is yet another catch-22 they're unwilling to take into account. Without the proper equipment to ensure fidelity, there won't be fidelity. This is common sense, and derives from observation and experience. Therefore, we can expect the faithful to close their eyes yet again.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
Out of ideas? Put a little spin on creation science and publish away! The new study appears in the journal BioEssays and summarizes solid reasons “why that old and familiar view won’t work at all.”3 Interestingly, many of those same arguments have been presented by creation scientists for decades, but were met at the time with disdain and scorn from the scientific community. Nothing new - nothing not already known, of course. Nick Lane, lead author of the study refuting the “soup” theory, said in a press release that it suffers from “bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings.”3 Bioenergetics deals with energy management that is vital to living cells. This involves production of ATP, the molecule that fuels cells.5 The researchers’ summary shows that not only are scientists still waiting to discover a way to generate ATP in a primordial soup mixture, but that they have also discovered that there are no soup recipes left to try. In the authors’ words, soup “has no capacity for energy coupling” because ATP production requires protons to be densely packed and separated out.6 What actually happens in a soup is the exact opposite?protons rapidly disperse. The late, preeminent creation scientist A. E. Wilder-Smith made this thermodynamic deal-breaker clear back in 1970: Thus, long time spans would not only give more time for the “lucky” synthetic reaction to evolve, they would also give more time for the “unlucky” (and often more probable) decomposition reaction to occur, away from life, back to non-life!7 So, why is it that soup-denying scientific observations?which creation advocates have been pointing to for so long, like the instability of RNA in soup, and the destructive power of ultraviolet light and oxygen?are now permitted a voice in an evolutionary journal? It is because Lane and his colleagues were able to suggest another purely naturalistic possibility. Instead of primordial soup, they presented “the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent.” You really should check out my man A. E. if you haven't already. Not only a great scientist, he was also a wonderful teacher, easily understood, witty, and full of profound insights.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. And some would have us believe this stuff is "modern science" 
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
