Posted on 02/18/2006 1:21:05 PM PST by DeweyCA
I am not making and attacking any strawmen, nor am I "going on " about more than what you twits bring up. Twits because apparently you bring it up on your side and then want to knock it down as though I did. Saltation events never came from my keyboard.
As for Corn undergoing changes from a "wheat-like" plant, some proof of that would be required. I know you guys like to proffer as factual things you cannot prove in absence of proof and then beg off of proof when called on it; but, that's not going to slide, sorry. Corn is Corn. And when you plant corn, it grows corn. Show us otherwise today and you will have something. You've been trying unsuccessfully to do so and here we are watching the pretense show.
Yes there is denyiability. I can line up things that look different and argue how similar they are. But cars don't copulate and produce new lines of vehicles. Making a case is more than having the appearance of a case.
All corn is corn. You'd like to try and argue that it isn't and that variation of corn makes it something else. I put a stop to it. deal with it.
No, and that's a lie plain and simple. Creationists did not establish the pseudo-scientific lingo that Darwinist/evos use in their explanations. Macro-evolution is an evolutionist construct - not creationinst. You guys have just been so busy trying to blur the lines between micro and macro for so long that you're believing your own lies now apparently. People rejected the leap between the two and because you knew that was the case and wanted to gain ground, you have tried to hack macro away in order to hide the problem of speciation as it was originally proferred. Something new and different arising from something prior. Instead of proving your case (which you can't), you change your story to avoid the requirement of proof.. as though it lets you off the hook. It doesn't. You're losing ground and have largely lost the debate.
The "putative" Cambrian explosion?
Behe has failed to show it is truly irreducibly complex.
Those who believe it is not IC do so because they don't want to, not because there is a reason to.
No, the reason no one should listen to Dembski's math is because it is faulty as has been shown by a number of mathematicians/Computer scientists.
The same thing would apply to Dembski. His opponents attack his claims because they don't want to accept them--not because they have a strong argument.
In light of that, it sounds ridiculous to say that corn will give rise to tomatoes."
Is this not from your keyboard? This would be a saltation event. The way it is presented makes it a strawman.
"As for Corn undergoing changes from a "wheat-like" plant, some proof of that would be required. I know you guys like to proffer as factual things you cannot prove in absence of proof and then beg off of proof when called on it; but, that's not going to slide, sorry. Corn is Corn. And when you plant corn, it grows corn. Show us otherwise today and you will have something. You've been trying unsuccessfully to do so and here we are watching the pretense show.
North American aboriginals bred maize (the corn precursor) from a native Mexican grass called teosinte and exhibits multiple cases of polyploidy.
Corn only grows corn in the short term and only as long as we restrict it from further evolution.
You put a stop to it? Are you saying that you know corn has never been anything other than the corn we put on our plate?
You seem to have missed the following sentence in my post.:
Although scientists started using the terms and some still use them the difference is of degree only, not of type as you would have.
Why would you do that?
Scientists did indeed coin the terms, however creationists have changed the terms to not mean a difference in degree but a difference in type. This difference in type when used by a creationist to attack evolution should be defined as a strawman argument.
"You guys have just been so busy trying to blur the lines between micro and macro for so long that you're believing your own lies now apparently.
When originally coined, and when in use by scientists today the difference between micro (intraspecies evolution) and macro (extra species evolution) is one of degree. Micro taken to extremes results in macro. This is not a change in meaning.
People rejected the leap between the two and because you knew that was the case and wanted to gain ground, you have tried to hack macro away in order to hide the problem of speciation as it was originally proferred.
Many do not use the terms macro and micro not because of some desire to hide anything but because they lead to misunderstandings and say little about speciation.
"Something new and different arising from something prior.
If you are suggesting that something new arises from something else in one generation, that is a saltation event. The ToE does not claim that saltation events occur. Stop reading Hovind and start reading some real scientists.
Instead of proving your case (which you can't), you change your story to avoid the requirement of proof.. as though it lets you off the hook. It doesn't. You're losing ground and have largely lost the debate.
Talking about proof, where is your proof that the ToE is loosing ground in the sciences where it matters?
The Cambrian explosion spans 10s of millions of years, it can be considered an explosion only when compared to other radiation events over geological time spans.
Those who believe it is not IC do so because they don't want to, not because there is a reason to.
Those who have analyzed Behe's science do not believe him because his reasoning is faulty. He repeatedly refuses to examine change in function during the development process. If any of the features of his ICS are the result of a change in function then removal of a feature with the resultant failure of the entire assembly is meaningless. The only way to determine if something is truly IC is to account for those functional changes within the developing assembly and show any gaps those varied function fail to cross. This is not what Behe has done. He simply yanks a subassembly from the structure and then says 'see it doesn't work any longer, therefore it must be IC'.
The same thing would apply to Dembski. His opponents attack his claims because they don't want to accept them--not because they have a strong argument.
In science, which is highly adversarial, scientists go at each others work with a fine toothed blow torch. If the work doesn't hold up it is rejected. This is all that has happened to Dembski, his work failed to pass muster.
Remember, Dembski's work is mostly probability and as such is accessible by anyone with a good working knowledge of math. It is also easy to critique in written form, no unusual lab equipment or field work is necessary. If you don't like the critiques of Dembski's work then do your own analysis of the critiques. If your grasp of statistics is good, I'm sure you could show how the critiques err.
He's saying that he continued lying over and over again until people stopped conversing with someone so shamelessly dishonest. Thus, he put a stop to the discussion, by refusing to be rational.
And the discovery of the fossils of complex creatures sans transitionals presents a problem for TOE.
Those who have analyzed Behe's science do not believe him because his reasoning is faulty. He repeatedly refuses to examine change in function during the development process.
The motive means of a bacteria are a pretty basic function. What prior function do you think should be considered as having involved into it?
If your grasp of statistics is good, I'm sure you could show how the critiques err.
The critiques I've seen don't take issue with his math, but with the philosophy -- i.e. how can you know the probability if there may be unknown forces affecting events. That's not a scientific argument. Skeptics should phrase their doubts as "Well, Dembski's right given what is known but since his conclusions are wrong, there must be forces affecting things yet to be discovered."
What lack of transitionals?
"The motive means of a bacteria are a pretty basic function. What prior function do you think should be considered as having involved into it?
Considering not all bacteria use the flagellum as a means of motion why assume that the components of this rather complex (not basic) structure were not used for separate and different functions in the bacteria's past. BTW don't mistake the bacteria for an unevolved organism, many bacteria have had much time to undergo many changes.
"The critiques I've seen don't take issue with his math, but with the philosophy -- i.e. how can you know the probability if there may be unknown forces affecting events. That's not a scientific argument. Skeptics should phrase their doubts as "Well, Dembski's right given what is known but since his conclusions are wrong, there must be forces affecting things yet to be discovered."
The critiques I've read take him to task for misuse of probability, complexity and information. W. Elsberry and J. Shallit go so far as to correct some of Dembski's probability misuse. For some reason I can no longer find the paper. I'll dig up my hard copy and check the originating link and then send it to you.
shellfish, fish, vertebrates. Some say nearly every phyla made its appearance in the Cambrian. And why do you say it occurred over tens of millions of years?
Considering not all bacteria use the flagellum as a means of motion why assume that the components of this rather complex (not basic) structure were not used for separate and different functions in the bacteria's past.
But that's the point. I'm not the one making the assumption. We have this observable natural phenomenon -- the flagellum -- and some assume it evolved even though they can't explain how it did or why it should, and that such an evolution would violate the classic evolutionary model.
W. Elsberry and J. Shallit go so far as to correct some of Dembski's probability misuse. For some reason I can no longer find the paper.
Here's Shallit's website in case you need the title :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.