Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown.

Post Reply New Topic

Jesus Christ (last name withheld)? The Jewish people didn't utilize a naming system like the Romans, so if there were to be a last name given it would probably be like statements made by people addressing him during his last three years, such as "son of man" (Ben-Adam), "son of David" (Ben-David), etc. The naming system that most people in Europe and nations colonized by Europeans is derived from the Roman system of naming. Romans had three names, the first often merely a number, the second was the family name, and the third was the name used in reference or when addressing. Jesus was Jewish though, so he wouldn't have had that. His name of reference was his first name. Reference to family was taken by means of genealogical statements.

So what do most christians call him? i'm guessing its jesus christ. knock it off already.

you wont sin if you have a shot, i'm telling you!

I won't sin if I have a shot? Of what, liquor? Drinking alcohol isn't sinful but merely unwise. Same with smoking, doing drugs, playing around with mercury in water balloons. None of this is sinful in and of itself. The long term health effects may be detrimental though and in the short term the impairment of reasoning from drugs or liquor can have long term effects depending upon what you are doing, so in these ways it's just not wise to use them regardless of it being morally neutral.

parakeet, have you ever seen hellboy? the TV series? well it reminds me alot of you. What in the world do you think "god" made you for? to suffer? to exist, until jesus came back? i mean really. what a bunch of crap, you are a smart guy. then, you would know that ALL stories, myths, legends are almost always, copyed from each other.

go back to the source, and you will find your answer. and it has nothing to do with jesus christ

Nope, haven't seen hellboy. What do I think God made me, in particular, for? IDK. If he wants to let me live until Jesus returns I'd have no qualms about that. Maybe in the interim it would also be cool to live to see the day when there are real space stations - not like the shoddy ISS - and the moon and Mars are finally colonized. If enough technological advancement were ever to occur it would be awesome to tour other star systems. If I have a purpose though it is to question those who espouse psittacisms.

most religious people are not "stupid" but are looking for a way out, better than themselves, etc. Parkeet do you know how many times i've prayed? I've been in so much BS you couldnt even imagine, still. no god, no jesus, nobody came to help me. you know why? there is no god! much of america, would have me believe so. I turn on the TV theres god!


I cant explain why exactly we are here. asmuch as i'm shure the dinosuars tried to, but i know one thing. the truth never lies, and rather you say it, will never do you wrong. thats eveything i do know at this point in the game. not some BS, but what i have lived.

it might be different for you

Hey! This has been an awesome topic so far, so stop deviating the subject matter. Bug the keet about his beliefs elsewhere, if you must.

I often refer to ISS as sh*t can Alpha I. Whenever I see the future as envisage by Arthur C. Clarke in 2001 and then see that poor wretched thing in LOW orbit I am brought to the point of tears. I weep for the Republic.

ruveyn

Off-topic theological debates can go make their own thread.

The way you described it, conjunctive=homologous within the evolutionary paradigm, at least as far as molecular genetics can tell us.

And I'm actually not looking directly at percentage of similarities between homologous genes either. I suppose the software programs I'm using do that at one point or another, but that's just one step on the way to the conclusion they give me.

What are the other steps, how valid do you consider them to be, and why do you consider them valid?

There are several other steps. Earlier in the thread I described sequence alignment, which is the first step, and explained why that step is necessary and valid. (It is also a very difficult step, sequence alignment being an NP-hard problem).

After sequence alignment, I feed the aligned sequences in to a program which will produce a phylogenetic tree based on one of several methods: Garli uses Maximum Likelihood while other programs will use the method of Maximum Parsimony. Bayesian Inference is another popular tool, but for computational reasons I am not certain we will be able to do that (it really requires a supercomputer, but I will try to see what I can do). Now, almost every step in this process is an NP-complete or NP-hard problem, which is why multiple methods are often used to mitigate the uncertainty resulting from using methods that cannot, on their own, guarantee the right answer every time.

What I am really looking for is a difference in the quality of results depending on what level of taxonomic organization is being examined. If baraminology is correct, then these phylogenetic methods might work decently at deciphering relationships among related species (within a baramin) but would simple become incoherent at higher levels of organization, as no actual relationships exist. If evolutionary biology is correct, then I should get a similar level of reliability (which will be constrained by known statistical difficulties) whether I look inside a genus, family, order, or class.

Thanks for finding the link Arthur Dent.

no probs, I have a standing bet with FUZZY that no matter what you are shown you will never give up on creationism, so I would like to see this one resolved, then I think I can call the case closed and a charity of my choice gets a donation


edit = missing grammar

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 23 Jul 2011, 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am reminded ... the [ugh, ptui, the word hurts me] baramin thing ,,,

I had a professor. BIG man in his field. Praised for his great logical mind - and unlike Obama's alleged great logical mind it turned out some good work.

But you see, he was one of these All Hail the model guys - and there was this slash and burn unsystematic linguist he hated for complex rerasons - much of it they wetre exactly opposite personalities.

So he worked on the principle - everythijng HE says HAS to be wrong.

Boys and girls, ya cain't DO science that way!

Ahh sometimes I have difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make, could you please elaborate on your above statement.

I was when I clicked "submit" five minutes past my extended bedtime. When I hurry my habdwriting gets REALLY illegible and my syhntax shifts to telegraphic.

"I am reminded ... the [ugh, ptui, the word hurts me] baramin thing ,,,"

The discussion of the horrendously named and to say the least ill-conceived "baramin", with its links to the Creation Science establishment, and the interaction of that with the more reactive mainstreamers like my brother, reminds me of an incident from my past.

"I had a professor. BIG man in his field. Praised for his great logical mind - and unlike Obama's alleged great logical mind it turned out some good work."

I suspect that in actually intelligible

"But you see, he was one of these All Hail the model guys - and there was this slash and burn unsystematic linguist he hated for complex rerasons - much of it they wetre exactly opposite personalities."

My professor was a Socializer of rigorous - in this case meaning rigid mind, not inclined to look beyond the particular "Standard Model" to which he had given his allegiance. Like many in and out of the University, he viewed deviation from HIS theoretical model as heresy, counterargument as blasphemy, Working in the same field was a much less rigorous investigator, making sweeping poorly documented statements - many of which were true. His personal style, his approach to data, and his conclusions were all opposed to those of my professor. Who accordingly feared him, despised him, and hated his guts. The other guy laughlingly dismissed my professor and his theories, which did not improve their relationship.

"So he worked on the principle - everythijng HE says HAS to be wrong."

My professor - unconsciously, I am sure - builtfr into his model and his work the syllogism:

The Clown is an unsystematic Boor
The Clown's theories disagree with mine
I am right < Mine is the correct theoretical basis < if it weren't correct I wouldn't have chosen it
ERGO the Clown is DEAD WRONG as well as offensive
ERGO Everything the Clown says is DEAD WRONG as well as offensive
ERGO If the Clown says the Folk migrated North, it must be truie that they migrated South.

"Boys and girls, ya cain't DO science that way!"

I don't think I need to translate. I will just add that unfortunately too many people in the business do go reactive and polarized, to the despite of good science.

--------------