Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

Quote:

There is no BIOLOGY Nobel Prize.

Here 'biology' should be read as 'physiology or medicine', and 'Nobel price committe in biology' should be read as 'a box of rocks ... of the right type ... that have no idea what they are talking about'.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

fm's PR is entirely based on looking forward to the cheque arriving.

1 Reply

@spendius,

We are back home and I hqve my D&M by my desk side. What was your item?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

18--Marriage and Malthusian Respectability. No speed reading.

Have you noticed that Gloria van Susteran goes at the same rate of knots for speed reading and for not speed reading?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

There is ballistics expertise that can prove how much damage to the tissue a blow in the nose can cause, and there is also medical science that can tell for sure (with probability above 95%) in the case of this and this damage of the tissue what hemorrhage could be expected ... and how far it may go.

You COULD ask for a scientific expertise of your nose and find out that you, genetically, have a very high susceptibility to nose bleeding, in which case the causality at play would be more complex than shock-->bleeding. It'd be genetic terrain+shock-->bleeding. And there could be other contributive causes such as diet. Or God could have caused your bleeding because such was His wish... Causality is the hardest thing to pin down but in real life you rarely ask for such in depth analysis and accept a much lower threshold of proof.

1 Reply

@spendius,

My mind is not used to such serial correlation. I usually dismiss it, but please go on.
I rarely watch Greta's take on things. Im philosophically adverse to anyone who champions WALMART for asking its low wage employees to donate food to its LOWER waged employees. Greta thinks this is wonderful.

She thinks that people in a bad traffic accident should get up and dust themselves off and not whine about a severed femoral.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

REASONS FOR LISTENING TO GRETA--------REASONS FOR NOT

WE can make a Darwinian chart .

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Here 'biology' should be read as 'physiology or medicine', and 'Nobel price committe

The Nobel Price(sic) committee has always stuck with Nobels wishes that a prize be given in the 5 groups. (He was a total applications dude).

(Helping herald remove foot from mouth) HOLD ON DUDE< ITS REALLY IN THERE.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Or God could have caused your bleeding because such was His wish. Causality is the hardest thing to pin down but in real life you rarely ask for such in depth analysis and accept a much lower threshold of proof.

First God has nothing to do with our ignorance and second the origin of the species is not the case of 'rarely ask for such in depth analysis'.
In the event of the example with the nose bleeding everything is clear in terms of causality.
1. You should prove that the bleeding is caused by mechanical damage of the nearest tissues.
2. You have to prove that the mechanical damage is caused in this and this way ... and that any other causes are excluded.
3. You should prove that hitting in the face can cause exactly such damage of the tissues (neither more nor less, nor very much different).
4. You have to prove that it was exactly this hit (that also has to be established as having happened), and not some other collateral hit ... or falling on the stairs ... or riding in a van full of bars, etc.
The moment of occurrence of the bleeding and the moment of the hit are not the major evidence (although they might be used as supplementary evidence).

So, in the case of the paleo evidences in order to prove causality you may use the following exemplary thread:
1. Direct DNA inheritance
2. Feasibility for the emergence of new species from subjected to extinction species (... with questionable breeding abilities)
3. The mechanics for the occurrence of the new species
4. Verification and validation of the mechanics
5. Evidences for the intra-species transmutation to have actually happened
6. Exclusion of any other possibilities (including ID ... incl. irreducible complexity)
... and hardly after that (and not before) one may talk about carbon dating of fossils (as additional evidence, not as evidence No.1).

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im philosophically adverse to anyone who champions WALMART for asking its low wage employees to donate food to its LOWER waged employees. Greta thinks this is wonderful.

She thinks that people in a bad traffic accident should get up and dust themselves off and not whine about a severed femoral.

You die-hard Christians are all the same. Large tender hearts brimming with compassion and loving understanding.

A couple of Fundie Darwinians and myself used often in the pub moan about the cost of making the roads so user friendly as they are. A few burnt out, rusting wrecks on the side of the road with blackened skeletal arms and legs hanging out of the doors would reduce the burdens motorists lay on the shoulders of the rest of us. That 'ud larn 'em we all thought. Sanitising the scenes only encourages the crazy fuckers.

Chap 18 of D&M justifies the theology I think.

Have you ever been in a clinch with a Gloria type? I have. They think they are being impolite if they don't imitate Rita Hayworth in the scene in the surf with Mr Lancaster. But 5 minutes in the Polynesian position and they soon get speed chattering.

Did you ever hear the joke about the leftie politician who knocked on a door which a lad of 13 opened. He asked the lad if his father was in but then he saw a large picture of Mr Darwin hanging in the hallway so he told the kid not to bother as he knew he could count on the votes in such a residence. The lad looked at him a bit odd like and said his father had put it up to remind him of what he would look like if he didn't stop wanking.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

1. You should prove that the bleeding is caused by mechanical damage of the nearest tissues
2. Feasibility for the emergence of new species from subjected to extinction species (... with questionable breeding abilities)
3. The mechanics for the occurrence of the new species
4. Verification and validation of the mechanics
5. Evidences for the intra-species transmutation to have actually happened
6. Exclusion of any other possibilities (including ID ... incl. irreducible complexity)

1. Chimps share some 95% or more of our DNA. Moreover, when charting the degree of genetic proximity with other species, one gets a 'tree of life', an evolution genealogy that's very close to the paleontologists'.

2 and 3: It varies. Some species evolve without an extinction of a prior species (the whole gene pool of that species co-evolve progressively under various selection pressures). Others species may appear when a species is divided into two or more groups by geography. Their gene pools evolve in divergent or different directions, and soon you have two different species who can't interbreed.

4. Validation by artificial selection, which over very few generations can create all sorts of different shapes and forms of cats and dogs and cows and pigs and rabbits.

5. You mean mutations? Yes , they happen and that can be proven easily.

6. Unfair. Can you really exclude that God made your nose bleed?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Chimps share some 95% or more of our DNA.

This is not enough. Our DNA goes back to one female individual ... and there is no way for this female individual to have originated from all the chimps. Where is the hereditary link ... to chimps.

further wrote:

... one gets a 'tree of life', an evolution genealogy that's very close to the paleontologists.

... very close is nothing unless the proximity metrics is specified and proved to work.

further wrote:

Some species evolve without an extinction of a prior species ...

This is in connection with a comment in this blog that all the species from which we have evolved (whatever this might mean) are extinct and that none of the existing species is our 'kissing' cousin.

further wrote:

Validation by artificial selection, which over very few generations can create all sorts of different shapes and forms of cats and dogs and cows and pigs and rabbits.

Artificial selection is virtually validation of an intelligent design ... everything there is done with preliminary theoretical statement and in controlled environment ... nothing is spontaneous, happening on ad hoc basis in stochastic environment. So this is not validation of evolution driven by stochastic processes (for someone here in the beginning of this blog was claiming that evolution does not imply any intelligence).

further wrote:

... Unfair.

The exclusion of any other possibilities is not 'unfair'. Can you exclude irreducible complexity from our body? Can you explain for example the presence of the inner biological barriers ... and how does 'a punch' in the biological barrier somewhere can ruin the whole system? How does that happen ... and why such a question should be 'unfair' (perhaps you mean invalid as a question)?

further wrote:

... Can you really exclude that God made your nose bleed.

Yes, I can exclude this, but I don't see why we are dealing only with my nose ... having in mind that there are a lot of other thick heads here on the other side of the fence ... with thickness of the head exceeding 6 m of reinforced concrete, inpenetratable for any physical impact ... let alone arguments and communication.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Actually we share ALL of a chimps Chromosomal structure and 97% of their DNA (Weve actually fused 2 of their chromosomes into one in humans so that Chims have 24 pairs and we have 23). The genic areas we don't share are these in which we can see define our "Humanness" and our own unique "Extras" that define us . The chimps are merely a sidetrack of the shared common ancestor from which both chimps and Humans sprung.. YOU KNOW that having this argument is totally off your talking point sheet because IDers (all those that say they are ID "scientists") ALL stipulate to this concept of common descent. MOST OF THEM DO NOT DENY THAT EVOLUTION HAPPENED, neither do most religions, IDers, for the most part preach DESIGN , not OCCURENCE . SO, in effect, you are uniquely a CREATIONIST and not an IDer. Better get
with the right program before more people call it to your attention.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The "shared common ancestor" being your starting point I suppose. What did the SCA share with what went before? Which was inorganic matter.

You have the SCA simply appearing. Which is a Creationist position.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Shared common ancestry is the basis of organic evolution. "Intelligence " behind it is the basis of ID .
The origin of life is a totally separate issue9for which I admit that science has no clue , only hypotheses. Science will not try to make the positions of assertion that Creationism or ID have already done.
ID spends a huuuuge amount of time on "trying to prove" all there is to prove about "Irreducible complexity" yet, on the obverse, they stipulate to shared common ancestry.
They want to occupy all the points in the discussion .
ALL they should be doing in order to make all of us just back off, is to assert that "ITS ALL ABOUT DESIGN PERIOD"

Science has extremely strong evidence to conclude that evolution is primarily adaptation to novel environments and secondarily radiational and lastly populational variability. All the science (and math) support that.
To dumb down science by lazy religious based "default' , is a waste of sciences time, no matter what we may find.
Im sure, however, there are real scientists who are, in the back of their minds, making good arguments for design (like the concept of"Convergence" that I fed to Herald) and are looking for evidence for same. HOWEVER, to date, ID has come up empty lockered despite how much "research" they've claimed to mount.

SO, in my mind, the real waste of money (tomangle one of spendis aphoristic claims)is ID, since, if they are hoping that science will NEVERdiscover the key to creation, why are they spending so much of the DI's money searching for an obscure Creator?
Science has a work plan , governed by rules of Chemistry, Does ID have ANY master plan based on anything other than mere disbelief in naturalism?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I assume that the "master plan" is any method to avoid our being ruled by chemistry/physics that is congenial to the American experiment.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Thanks for the laugh, Herald.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Science has extremely strong evidence to conclude that evolution is primarily adaptation to novel environments

Can you give an example of some individual ... or animals ... or whatever that has adapted to critical radiation levels, for example ... in the recent decades?

further wrote:

To dumb down science by lazy religious based "default', is a waste of sciences time

Gradually you start talking like a 'district governor'. Nobody is 'dumbing' science. Math logic inference and validation techniques of computer science are also science ... well, perhaps not exactly 'of the right type', but you cannot neglect them and to deal only with cherry picked arguments.

further wrote:

... waste of time ... no matter what we may find.

This is the most interesting part of the claim. So, you explicitly confess that you have specialized in cherry picking and that you are not interested in anything else ... especially in the truth, whatever it might be.
BTW one cannot claim that one science is more valid that some other science.

1 Reply

Herald wrote:

Can you give an example of some individual ... or animals ... or whatever that has adapted to critical radiation levels, for example ... in the recent decades?

Sure. I have many other examples, if need be..

Quote:

Martin Hajduch and colleagues note that plants have an unexpected ability to adapt to an environment contaminated with radiation following the April 26, 1986 accident at the Chernobyl. Their previous research, for example, showed that soybean plants in the area have adapted to the contaminated soil with certain changes in their proteome. A proteome is the full complement of proteins produced by the genes in a plant or animal. But the broader range of biochemical changes in plants that allow them to thrive in this harsh environment remained unclear.
The scientists grew flax seeds in radiation-contaminated soil in the Chernobyl region and compared their growth to those of seeds grown in non-radioactive soil. Radiation exposure had relatively little effect on the protein levels in the plants, with only about five percent of the proteins altered, they note. Among them were certain proteins involved in cell signaling, or chemical communication, which might help the plants shrug-off radioactivity, the scientists suggest.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Can you give an example of some individual ... or animals ... or whatever that has adapted to critical radiation levels, for example ... in the recent decades?

As Timur noted in plants we have data. For animals we have the concept of LD50, which is a specific dosage of poison or radiation or whatever toxin that will demonstrate a lethal dose to HALF of the target species population. That can mean that the
radio-resistance and potential adaptation to radiation can be MATHEMATICALLY computed (I have no idea what the LD50's actually

are but they can be looked up in any Tox text] .

Brookhaven Labs in Long Island NY have the national contract to monitor the radiation and biological effects of H bomb testing at Bikini an several other sites( before we quit).
They publish reports periodically and these show the effects of biological adaptations to rad levels. Same thing for the NEvada Test Site in Mercury Nevada. Among sites like 3 mile ISland, Chernobyl, Japan , an several A bomb (Manhattan sites in the US) are enough data to satisfy the curious mind on radioresistance and radioadaptation.

____________________________________________________

NOW the next seriatim quotes are very interesting to me also

Here you quoted me :

Quote:

well, perhaps not exactly 'of the right type', but you cannot neglect them and to deal only with cherry picked arguments.

It appears to me that IM NOT THE ONE DOING ANY CHERRY PICKING SIR, you are.
You asked me about "math" and I answered that math DOESNT CREATE solutions about anything without data and all the data can be computed and modeled and projected to show that evolution is valid and a real fact of the world.

Adaptation to new environments was demonstrated in geologic history at least 5 times and , many say that we are in a 6th extinction event.

THEN, you quoted totally out of context the following:

... A WASTE OF TIME NO MATTER WHAT WE MAY FIND... By not including the 3 dots afore nd aft, You sir are guilty of a cowardly stunt which is what we call "quotemining" NOWHERE did I duck or "cherry pick" anything you said old fraud, Because what I actually said was the following

Quote:

To dumb down science by lazy religious based "default' , is a waste of sciences time, no matter what we may find.
Im sure, however, there are real scientists who are, in the back of In fact I ACTUALLY GAVE YOU some real argument to make in your "scientific" assertion for Intelligence. I gave you a topic which you can look up and find REAL EVIDENCE. Does it prove intelligence ? We can argue but its some real science.
If you cant (OR WONT TRY)to understand what I say don't try to miscast what I said. Its a cheap fraudulent trick . Ive noticed that you try to use lying and quote mining a lot. STop it or Ill keep calling others attention to what a prevaricator you really are

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know