Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[catsmate]

Like when he went right back to harping on the "Coral has human genes! HUMAN! And scientists are SHOCKED and don't know WHY!" thing.

I can't say I'm surprised, though. Merely disappointed.

[off-topic] It seems to be a blind spot with believers in general, but the religious in particular, that they find it very difficult to let go of an argument one others (non-believers) have disproved it. Because it satisfied them they keep repeating it.

 

[catsmate]

To be nit-picky, he actually did not. It is Grassé with an accent aigu.
Nitpick; nitpick...

Fadas don't count¹ As I omitted the accent I'm not going to call him on it.

...much snippage......
He does not know much, understand even less, but consider the various attempts at correcting him by people that actually know what they are talking about (Hello Bonokon) as an attempt to obfuscate the point.
He seems to have received his deficient understanding from creationists websites.

That, in itself, is not as much as a deal breaker as his stubborn refusal to listen and learn.
Clearly, there is no going through him at this stage and the whole discussion is doomed to be nothing but an infuriating waste of time...

This is it exactly. He's been shown enough that any reasonable, rational, person should see that (at the very least) there are defects in his arguments and investigate further. That he does not do is, to me, sufficient reason to ignore him.
Thought I must say the responses to him are interesting and informative, my own university biology being some time back.



¹ Obscure Irish educational reference. Just ignore it.......

 

[catsmate]

I know. Being alive is a relative matter....

How so?

I too would like to know.

 

[catsmate]

All preachers are secret doubters.

Indeed such doubts appear to be common
Logical really, as they tend to have more exposure to the nonsensical details of their faith.

 

[A'isha]

Certainly could have been, right?

Not in any meaningful sense of the term "could have been", no. And the paper in question certainly gives no reason whatsoever to think so. It absolutely doesn't give the scientists who authored the paper a reason to think so.

Front-loading is wrong. Or, more accurately, it has as much evidence (and as much chance of being correct) as the theory that each individual genome was hand-crafted in special forges by the dwarves of Norse myth.

It was that way before the paper on Acropora millepora (when we knew, for instance, that the fly Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens shared the same set of genes that govern the development of body segmentation).

And things haven't changed one bit in that regard after the paper on Acropora millepora.

Because the new and surprising revelations contained in that paper, and discussed openly by both the scientists involved and the scientific community at large, have nothing whatsoever to do with front-loading in any way, shape, or form.

Depends on the mechanism for macroevolution. I'd say it torpedos evolutionism but you guys likely say any result is evidence for evolution.

Not any result, no.

Every result in any paper or scientific journalism article you've cited thus far, though? Yes.

 

[Buckaroo]

It's fascinating to me that randman seems to think he's winning this debate.

 

[catsmate]

Neil de Grasse was a astrofysicus, not a biologist.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson



What's your source?

He's referring to the deceased French neo-Lamarckian evolutionary biologist Pierre-Paul Grassé who sort-of said what randman claims but mostly didn't.
Randman appears to be quoting from certain IDiotic materials that deliberately misquote Grasse.

 

[John Jones]

I can't afford to stay here but so long during the week. So brief comment and gotta go.

If NeoDarwinism does not predict a general pattern of evolving complexity, then why couldn't we start out with man at the beginning of evolution and evolve single cell organisms?

Just a guess here, but perhaps a lack of empirical evidence?

 

[Dinwar]

So no change in allele frequency, then no evolution? How about a change in frequency with no outward changes? Is that evolution?

Are you willing to stand by that?

Yes. No change in allele frequency=no evolution. You need to educate yourself on this topic. This is BASIC evolutionary theory. For example, the Hardy/Weinburg Equation illustrates it.

And yes, if there's no outward changes but there is allele frequency change it's evolution. This is actually common, particularly in traits which are selectively neutral. In fact, that's one argument for how irreducibly complex structures arise: you have a double crossover event that duplicates a gene, the duplicate is not expressed but still suffers from mutations, and the random shift gives rise to something that, at the intermediate steps, would kill the organism. The spare gene becomes expressed for some reason, and the organism has a selective advantage. No, I don't know of any instances of this off hand; it's merely an argument demonstrating IC (and ID) to be bunk.

Admiral, it's not just this paper. I consider front loading a viable scientific hypothesis, perhaps theory. I just am not totally convinced.

I've shown my definition. Show yours.

In fact, I've shown it several times, if you care to READ THE REFERENCES I PROVIDED.

 

[catsmate]

You bald-faced Liar.

Lying for god, quelle surprise.
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"

Anyway enough of this I am to bed. Good night.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Deep down Dawkins knows there is a God.....

Deep down you know there is an Allfather, one-eyed Odin. And an invisible pink unicorn. And the Omega Spaghetti. And a planetary tea pot.
And something else I am arrogant enough to assume is self evident because I personally believe it.

*insert smiley face right here*

 

[Halfcentaur]

Really for all we know based on evolution, aliens planted life here.

Does this seem ridiculous to you, outside of improbability and a lack of any evidence at all to suppose otherwise, it's much more logical than a psychological construct like a God, which we know humans invent all the time based on their imagination. Life on other planets almost certainly exists, where as God is a cultural and psychological construct.

 

[randman]

Yawn, not much of substance to respond to.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Deep down Dawkins knows there is a God.....

The thing about this "I know you are and what am I" statement that is evidently only made in jest is that preachers and Christians are supposed to have doubts. Otherwise free will and faith is meaningless. It is faith in the face of doubt which offers the poetic power and meaning it represents.

Claiming someone believes in your God is just as arrogant as a Hindu claiming deep down you believe in Shiva. No, not the generic "all gods are a facet of the one true god", but the specific Shiva, with all that belief in Shiva entails.

Whether you're statement was made in mirth or not, it's something often touted by Christians believing their religion is self evident for some reason, and warrants addressing.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Yawn, not much of substance to respond to.

I would not presume to expect anything more from you. I am amazed you don't have me **or everyone on the board but the one person you claim to have interest in **on ignore.

 

[randman]

Yes. No change in allele frequency=no evolution. You need to educate yourself on this topic. This is BASIC evolutionary theory.

I am aware of the definition and why some don't use this as the definition of evolution.

Are you aware of why they do not?

 

[A'isha]

I am aware of the definition and why some don't use this as the definition of evolution.

Are you aware of why they do not?

Who are these "some" that you have in mind here who don't use that definition, and what do they use instead?

 

[randman]

So you guys don't consider organism changes via epigenetics to be evolution?

What if you discover scientific opinion even among evos disagree with you?

Does that mean you never understood evolutionary theory? After all, evolution is a change in allele frequency, PERIOD.....

 

[randman]

Who are these "some" that you have in mind here who don't use that definition, and what do they use instead?

You REALLY don't know? For real?

 

[Brainache]

So you guys don't consider organism changes via epigenetics to be evolution?

What if you discover scientific opinion even among evos disagree with you?

Does that mean you never understood evolutionary theory? After all, evolution is a change in allele frequency, PERIOD.....

OH NOES!!!! Evolution is all wrong because some guy on the internet found a loophole in someone else's definition. I guess this means we should all just go home and start praying.

So Randman which god should I start praying to? There are so many of them and I wouldn't want to pick the wrong one, that might make him/her angrier than if I just didn't believe in him/her...