Panda thumbs its nose at Gould
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
02 Jul 2010, 12:25 am
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Ah, alright that makes sense. Would it be possible for people to stop throwing insults at me though? I'm sick of that as it is far worse than obnoxious.
I've tried to be civil lately. I have also offered a potential opportunity to quantitatively refute evolution. I'm mildly surprised that you don't seem very keen on the idea.
I think that looking for a "wall" in the genome is a bit oddly specific. Thank you for being more civil, btw. I'm going to be staying awake tonight and I'm already tired, so if I try to discuss it now I wont be doing much more than writing randomness while drowsy. However, I am more awake currently and if I don't reply then he'll either think I'm trying to avoid him or outright accuse me, so I might as well say something to avoid all that annoyance while I'm still as awake as I am now. The notion of a wall seems to have a few presuppositions which are not stated very clear or completely. Perhaps it assumes that each kind of the original created kinds has its own unique biochemistry, but why? If considering that they were meant to eat the same basic food sources initial, which perhaps exceptions of insectivory or otherwise eating creatures which have eaten from plants or acknowledging God's omniscience that circumstances would change and the creatures would need to be able to adjust to a new diet, then the food sources and the biochemical processes of all life would need to be highly similar, this perhaps taking up most of genetic similarities. But as for a cut-off point, how do you define it in computational genetics where it is impossible for two creatures to hybridize? Or is that not so much of something which is considered because most of genetics seems to be set up to notice patterns according to predetermined parameters? What would such a "wall" look like, since if you don't know what you are looking for then you can't find it. Do you know what you'd be looking for Orwell?
02 Jul 2010, 10:48 am
I don't think very many evolutionary scientists consider Gould's work a credible source at this point. The oddest issue being that he repeated the same misinformation in the 1996 or 7 version of The Mismeasure of Man that he had stated in the original information. And this in spite of some sometimes very harsh criticism.
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell
02 Jul 2010, 7:08 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that looking for a "wall" in the genome is a bit oddly specific. Thank you for being more civil, btw. I'm going to be staying awake tonight and I'm already tired, so if I try to discuss it now I wont be doing much more than writing randomness while drowsy. However, I am more awake currently and if I don't reply then he'll either think I'm trying to avoid him or outright accuse me, so I might as well say something to avoid all that annoyance while I'm still as awake as I am now. The notion of a wall seems to have a few presuppositions which are not stated very clear or completely. Perhaps it assumes that each kind of the original created kinds has its own unique biochemistry, but why? If considering that they were meant to eat the same basic food sources initial, which perhaps exceptions of insectivory or otherwise eating creatures which have eaten from plants or acknowledging God's omniscience that circumstances would change and the creatures would need to be able to adjust to a new diet, then the food sources and the biochemical processes of all life would need to be highly similar, this perhaps taking up most of genetic similarities. But as for a cut-off point, how do you define it in computational genetics where it is impossible for two creatures to hybridize? Or is that not so much of something which is considered because most of genetics seems to be set up to notice patterns according to predetermined parameters? What would such a "wall" look like, since if you don't know what you are looking for then you can't find it. Do you know what you'd be looking for Orwell?
Well, 'keet, technically isn't it the job of the creationist to say what creationism and baraminology should predict differently than evolutionary phylogenetics? It seems to me that if creationism *doesn't* have this, then it is outright unfalsifiable. That being said, Orwell could likely find something even if he didn't know exactly what to look for, partially because a major issue is going to be a matter of variation, particularly variation from an evolutionary model.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
02 Jul 2010, 10:11 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that looking for a "wall" in the genome is a bit oddly specific. Thank you for being more civil, btw. I'm going to be staying awake tonight and I'm already tired, so if I try to discuss it now I wont be doing much more than writing randomness while drowsy. However, I am more awake currently and if I don't reply then he'll either think I'm trying to avoid him or outright accuse me, so I might as well say something to avoid all that annoyance while I'm still as awake as I am now. The notion of a wall seems to have a few presuppositions which are not stated very clear or completely. Perhaps it assumes that each kind of the original created kinds has its own unique biochemistry, but why? If considering that they were meant to eat the same basic food sources initial, which perhaps exceptions of insectivory or otherwise eating creatures which have eaten from plants or acknowledging God's omniscience that circumstances would change and the creatures would need to be able to adjust to a new diet, then the food sources and the biochemical processes of all life would need to be highly similar, this perhaps taking up most of genetic similarities. But as for a cut-off point, how do you define it in computational genetics where it is impossible for two creatures to hybridize? Or is that not so much of something which is considered because most of genetics seems to be set up to notice patterns according to predetermined parameters? What would such a "wall" look like, since if you don't know what you are looking for then you can't find it. Do you know what you'd be looking for Orwell?
Well, 'keet, technically isn't it the job of the creationist to say what creationism and baraminology should predict differently than evolutionary phylogenetics? It seems to me that if creationism *doesn't* have this, then it is outright unfalsifiable. That being said, Orwell could likely find something even if he didn't know exactly what to look for, partially because a major issue is going to be a matter of variation, particularly variation from an evolutionary model.
Well, there are creationist models that make quantitative predictions, and one of the most successful ones, in terms of fulfilling prediction's, has been a model of planetary magnetic fields. The interpretation of Scripture that Humphrey’s model of planetary magnetic fields is based on seems rather eisegetical to me, but it predicted the strength of Jupiter's magnetic field before Voyager went by it, as well as Ganymede's and Mercury's have also been additional verification, and as far as I know there hasn't been a falsification of it yet even though falsification is still possible due to the quantitative nature of physics calculations.
02 Jul 2010, 10:55 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that looking for a "wall" in the genome is a bit oddly specific. Thank you for being more civil, btw. I'm going to be staying awake tonight and I'm already tired, so if I try to discuss it now I wont be doing much more than writing randomness while drowsy. However, I am more awake currently and if I don't reply then he'll either think I'm trying to avoid him or outright accuse me, so I might as well say something to avoid all that annoyance while I'm still as awake as I am now. The notion of a wall seems to have a few presuppositions which are not stated very clear or completely. Perhaps it assumes that each kind of the original created kinds has its own unique biochemistry, but why? If considering that they were meant to eat the same basic food sources initial, which perhaps exceptions of insectivory or otherwise eating creatures which have eaten from plants or acknowledging God's omniscience that circumstances would change and the creatures would need to be able to adjust to a new diet, then the food sources and the biochemical processes of all life would need to be highly similar, this perhaps taking up most of genetic similarities. But as for a cut-off point, how do you define it in computational genetics where it is impossible for two creatures to hybridize? Or is that not so much of something which is considered because most of genetics seems to be set up to notice patterns according to predetermined parameters? What would such a "wall" look like, since if you don't know what you are looking for then you can't find it. Do you know what you'd be looking for Orwell?
Well, 'keet, technically isn't it the job of the creationist to say what creationism and baraminology should predict differently than evolutionary phylogenetics? It seems to me that if creationism *doesn't* have this, then it is outright unfalsifiable. That being said, Orwell could likely find something even if he didn't know exactly what to look for, partially because a major issue is going to be a matter of variation, particularly variation from an evolutionary model.
Well, there are creationist models that make quantitative predictions, and one of the most successful ones, in terms of fulfilling prediction's, has been a model of planetary magnetic fields. The interpretation of Scripture that Humphrey’s model of planetary magnetic fields is based on seems rather eisegetical to me, but it predicted the strength of Jupiter's magnetic field before Voyager went by it, as well as Ganymede's and Mercury's have also been additional verification, and as far as I know there hasn't been a falsification of it yet even though falsification is still possible due to the quantitative nature of physics calculations.
Ok, but the issue is that if you think it is an eisegesis, then it kind of disagrees with the entire idea of Young Earth Creationism, that is that the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge, so, I am not sure about the value provided there. Wouldn't a correct eisegesis kind of bring doubt upon a method that bases itself on the notion of correct exegesis as a means of scientific truth?
Even further, if the matter is falsification, then how are you going to keep on opening your mouth each time with more creationist garbage, and then when pressed, change the issue like a ninny??? Certainly you'd be complaining a lot if someone else did that. Certainly you would start invoking how "things should be falsified and falsifiable, etc", so.... what are you trying to get at here?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
02 Jul 2010, 11:09 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that looking for a "wall" in the genome is a bit oddly specific. Thank you for being more civil, btw. I'm going to be staying awake tonight and I'm already tired, so if I try to discuss it now I wont be doing much more than writing randomness while drowsy. However, I am more awake currently and if I don't reply then he'll either think I'm trying to avoid him or outright accuse me, so I might as well say something to avoid all that annoyance while I'm still as awake as I am now. The notion of a wall seems to have a few presuppositions which are not stated very clear or completely. Perhaps it assumes that each kind of the original created kinds has its own unique biochemistry, but why? If considering that they were meant to eat the same basic food sources initial, which perhaps exceptions of insectivory or otherwise eating creatures which have eaten from plants or acknowledging God's omniscience that circumstances would change and the creatures would need to be able to adjust to a new diet, then the food sources and the biochemical processes of all life would need to be highly similar, this perhaps taking up most of genetic similarities. But as for a cut-off point, how do you define it in computational genetics where it is impossible for two creatures to hybridize? Or is that not so much of something which is considered because most of genetics seems to be set up to notice patterns according to predetermined parameters? What would such a "wall" look like, since if you don't know what you are looking for then you can't find it. Do you know what you'd be looking for Orwell?
Well, 'keet, technically isn't it the job of the creationist to say what creationism and baraminology should predict differently than evolutionary phylogenetics? It seems to me that if creationism *doesn't* have this, then it is outright unfalsifiable. That being said, Orwell could likely find something even if he didn't know exactly what to look for, partially because a major issue is going to be a matter of variation, particularly variation from an evolutionary model.
Well, there are creationist models that make quantitative predictions, and one of the most successful ones, in terms of fulfilling prediction's, has been a model of planetary magnetic fields. The interpretation of Scripture that Humphrey’s model of planetary magnetic fields is based on seems rather eisegetical to me, but it predicted the strength of Jupiter's magnetic field before Voyager went by it, as well as Ganymede's and Mercury's have also been additional verification, and as far as I know there hasn't been a falsification of it yet even though falsification is still possible due to the quantitative nature of physics calculations.
Ok, but the issue is that if you think it is an eisegesis, then it kind of disagrees with the entire idea of Young Earth Creationism, that is that the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge, so, I am not sure about the value provided there. Wouldn't a correct eisegesis kind of bring doubt upon a method that bases itself on the notion of correct exegesis as a means of scientific truth?
Even further, if the matter is falsification, then how are you going to keep on opening your mouth each time with more creationist garbage, and then when pressed, change the issue like a ninny??? Certainly you'd be complaining a lot if someone else did that. Certainly you would start invoking how "things should be falsified and falsifiable, etc", so.... what are you trying to get at here?
Humphrey's interpretation isn't in opposition to the interpretation of the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, but rather it seems like he got more out of the text than is there, or perhaps didn't explain it very well. His theory has to do with the alignment of water molecules, which doesn't seem as though it was something indicated by the text, but IDK. It may just be based upon the addition of a theological assumption in addition to the text, but it's not something directly from Scripture as such as it is Scripture plus additional axiom.
As for the threads, if people would like to discuss the op, then fine, but usually (in practically all threads) the subject is changed by at most the second page.
02 Jul 2010, 11:38 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that looking for a "wall" in the genome is a bit oddly specific.
Well, any testable scientific prediction has to be fairly specific to be considered valid.
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
But as for a cut-off point, how do you define it in computational genetics where it is impossible for two creatures to hybridize? Or is that not so much of something which is considered because most of genetics seems to be set up to notice patterns according to predetermined parameters? What would such a "wall" look like, since if you don't know what you are looking for then you can't find it. Do you know what you'd be looking for Orwell?
Computational genetics cannot (at this stage, at least) determine if two species can hybridize; however, as far as I understand baraminology the criterion of successful hybridization does not define the outer limit of a holobaramin. I'm not entirely certain what such a "wall" would look like, but AG is correct in that the advocate of baraminology should ideally speak for their own theory. My intuition would be that if baraminology is correct, then phylogenetic analysis should just break down above the level of a kind; that is, the genetic homology observed that tells me emus and cassowaries are related should not tell me that emus and chickens are related.
See the new thread for further discussion; I do want your input before I begin.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
