Thursday, November 15, 2007

Response to Dave

You failed to address most of the substantive arguments

Which are?

Circular reasoning. Why is stasis in the fossil record? Because species don't like change. Why don't they like change? Because we observe stasis in the fossil record, of course.

Dave, Dave, Dave...

"Since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors--like extreme heat, cold, or crowding--years earlier."

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126194000.htm

Bacteria mutate more under stress, so evolution is not always moving at the same rate. We also can observe the fact that huge populations tend to stay the same while small ones are more flexible; that is, they change easier. Look up Dobzansky's fruit fly experiments.

you can't deny I don't have a relatively good grasp of scientific journal materials

Oh yes, I can.

* You thought that vestigial structures weren't vestigial if they still served a minor purpose.

* You thought that living fossils somehow helped your case.

* You had no clue how Punctuated Equilibrium worked (and still don't, I suspect)

* You thought that an Endogenous retrovirus found in different places in primate genomes disproved common descent (it doesn't, it just means the infection happened after the two species split. We know retroviral insertion is random because we have observed it that way).

Do I need to go on?

But scientists have never documented an incident where information was added to the genome of animal and causing it to become another animal via natural selection and mutation.

Define information and I will get back to you.

"'It also suggests that the 'molecular clock' may sometimes, and sporadically, tick blindingly fast.'"

This is rare and not common at all.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/uoia-mss051903.php

Like most creationists, you suffer from a bad case of not-knowing-what-uniformitarianism-is syndrome, or thinking that you know when you really don't. I suggest you watch this video before you comment further. References are in the description.

Finally, let's discuss your accusation of circular reasoning. You have no business trying to accuse me of that, not when you do it yourself. You have to assume the bible is literally true to find the "evidence" that it is. In other words, creationism is self referencing (also known as circular logic). It should be the other way around: The evidence should persuade you to believe the bible.

14 comments:

Dave said...

I gave you the substantive arguments. The few people left reading this can consult the original post for themselves and see how meager your response is in comparison. I'm not responsible for resummarizing my points in bite sizes for you. You hand-picked the points you thought you could adequately provide the illusion of debunking. Bad form.

Your citation from Science Daily only serves to further disprove your claim. Whether fast or slow, according to evolution, the one thing that never changes is change. Your quote doesn't do a thing to disprove what I said.

We also can observe the fact that huge populations tend to stay the same while small ones are more flexible; that is, they change easier.

Again, you show your willingness to make baseless speculation ("Well, here's how it might have happened...") to argue against incredible evolutionary stasis. You don't argue from evidence of any sort. You're arguing from faith.

You thought that vestigial structures weren't vestigial if they still served a minor purpose.

Whereas evolutionists think if they don't see a purpose, there is none.

You thought that living fossils somehow helped your case.

Just because you fail to understand the principles behind why they do support my case doesn't mean the evidence proves your point instead.

You had no clue how Punctuated Equilibrium worked (and still don't, I suspect)

You've never elaborated on what your belief about punc-eq is. You've read about it in a book somewhere, and it sounds like a good go-to magic wand idea since gradualism is collapsing from the inside out.

[Sporadic molecular clock behavior] is rare and not common at all.

You used the link I gave you, but made up your own conclusions which aren't supported by the article. The study suggests nothing about the rate of these rate increases. The scientist states "[Our research] also suggests that the 'molecular clock' may sometimes, and sporadically, tick blindingly fast." That, plus the two other links I gave you, should be enough for a thinking person (?) like yourself to doubt a little of its infallibility.

Finally, let's discuss your accusation of circular reasoning. You have no business trying to accuse me of that, not when you do it yourself. You have to assume the bible is literally true to find the "evidence" that it is. In other words, creationism is self referencing (also known as circular logic). It should be the other way around: The evidence should persuade you to believe the bible.

I might expect that of someone who only ever appeals to the Bible to convince you. But I did not once, not even once appeal to the Bible in making my case. I argued almost exclusively from evidence, as per our agreement. Do me the favor of not applying your experience with other creationists to me.

Now, also according to our agreement, not addressing an argument disqualified one from the debate. If I'm not mistaken, there are still quite a few arguments from my post that you didn't respond to.

doc30 said...

Dave, you've been pwn3d big time.

AIGBusted said...

Dave,

I did not just get my views from a book (by Richard Dawkins, one of the leading evolutionary biologists, by the way). I have read a lot of the material from Stephen Jay Gould's website about Punc Equ:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html

"Whether fast or slow, according to evolution, the one thing that never changes is change."

Wrong again.

From Stephen Jay Gould's testimony at the Arkansas trial:

Q Is Act 590's definition of evolution in respect to uniformitarianism consistent with the scientific literature?

A Certainly not. It may be true that Charles Lyell, a great nineteenth century geologist, had a fairly extreme view of gradualism, but that's been entirely abandoned by geologists today.

Geologists have been quite comfortable with the explanations that some events have been the accumulation of small changes, and others as the result of, at least, local catastrophes.

Q So modern geologists believe in both; is that correct?

A Yes.

End quote.

http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/mva_tt_p_gould.html

You need to learn a lot more about evolution before you try and debate me. You avoided explaining the fossil record, you did not explain ERV's nor embryological similarites. I have answered pretty much every argument you've put forth. I'm not going to argue about the origin of life, as you have no evidence that God created it, and evolution doesn't deal with that to begin with.

"I might expect that of someone who only ever appeals to the Bible to convince you. But I did not once, not even once appeal to the Bible in making my case."

You mentioned the presuppositionalist argument, which appeals to believing in the bible to begin with in order to "prove" it.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ryan,

This is GodGunsGuts from FR. I have challenged you on numerous occasions to backup your claim that ERVs shared between humans and chimps are irrifutable evidence of common descnet. In your debate with DaveLoneRanger, you claim the following:

"I will now present 3 major lines of evidence for evolution...(1). On a rare occasion a virus will insert itself into it’s host’s genome at random(2), and the host’s descendants will inherit this and have the virus in their genome."

Putting aside the issue of random insertion for a moment, could you please document that the ERVs shared between humans and apes are the result of exogenous insertion events. Thank you--GGG

AIGBusted said...

What do you mean document that they are the result of exogenous insertion events? Scientists have experimented with them and gotten HIV to insert itself into the genome, if that's what you mean. Besides, I destroyed your myth that ERV insertion was not random, and then destroyed your myth that ERV's were beneficial. I'm not going to spend an eternity arguing with you brickheads about this. Besides, the 29 Evidences of Macroevolution was written by DOuglas Theobald, a man with a PhD. He lists ERV's as an evidence for common descent. Consult him, why don't ya? Or consult one of the writers of the papers that I listed.

Anonymous said...

It's GGG again.

Why won't you anwswer the question? If your contention that shared ERVs between humans and apes is proof of common descent is true, then it shouldn't be too hard to document the supposed exogenous insertions in question. Or is it, as I suspect, a giant assumption on the part of the Evos you get your information from?

You have been challenged. Your refusal to answer a simple question reminds me of ERV's (read: Ms. Smith's) behavior over at Uncommon Descent. When you can't answer a question, or when you have been caught equivocating, evade follow-up questions at all costs. And when that doesn't work, throw tantrums, wave your arms around alot, make accusations, denigrate your opponent...anything to deflect from the original question. Is that the type of person you are, Ryan?

AIGBusted said...

Here is a paper that documents insertion sites. The three viruses that were studied are recent (ASLV, MLV, and HIV)

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020234&ct=1

Why don't you just do the research yourself? You've provided no evidence that ERV's look for a specific place out of the whole genome.

By the way, you are in no position to criticize evolutionists. One of the head fundies up at FR banned me for posting a thread about the God Delusion!! Come on, you people should at least make an attempt to cover up the fact that you are deluded fascist theocrats.

Anonymous said...

==Ryan said: By the way, you are in no position to criticize evolutionists. One of the head fundies up at FR banned me for posting a thread about the God Delusion!!==

Don't blame me for your banning. I was rather looking forward to debating you re: ERVs as being evidence for common descent.

==Ryan writes: Here is a paper that documents insertion sites. The three viruses that were studied are recent (ASLV, MLV, and HIV)==

I looked through the paper and see nothing that addresses my original question. Please document evidence that demonstrates that the ERVs shared between humans and apes began as exogenous insertion events.

==Ryan writes: Come on, you people should at least make an attempt to cover up the fact that you are deluded fascist theocrats.==

Ryan,

Jesus answered the question of theocracy once and for all when He said...

"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight..."

John 18:36

Anonymous said...

I had never seen the freerepublic site before (thankfully). Looks like a waste of time, as it appears to be full of uneducated, ignorant creotards (yes, I know the adjectives are redundant; there are no educated or intelligent creationists (honest ones anyway).

Now, on to the point. ERVs (or endogenous retroviruses) provide slam dunk, undeniable evidence for common descent. There simply is no other explanation for the hundreds of thousands of orthogolous ERVs shared by humans and chimps than common ancestry.

If any of the creotards wish to debate this FACT they can join many of the sites where this topic has been discussed.
Here's one example at a Christian site where a creotard was absolutely pwned and exposed as a dishonest fool: Do chimps and humans share a common ancestor?

There are many other examples at iidb.org where the big sharks feed: Real scientists that love to shed the misconceptions of creationists and educate the creotards on what the state of the knowledge on evolution really is. We've covered ERVs many times. See these topics for just some examples.
Most Creationists though, are too weak or terrified to venture there. They know their arguments against the collective education and intelligence at iidb.org stand no chance. Though any of the tards responding in this thread are welcome to try. We always can use more chum. The sharks are always hungry.

Anonymous said...

Sharks? That's a laugh. If you guys are so hungry, why does Ryan routinely delete my challenges re: ERVs? Sharks? LOL. More like guppies--GGG

Anonymous said...

Name one topic that was deleted?
There has never been a creotard that has ever won a written debate on any aspect of evolution at either the Christian site I linked or at iidb.org. These are the facts, though I know you home schooled, trailer park retards have difficulty comprehending science issues.

If your posts were deleted, it was probably because they were either blatant trolling or unsourced copy and paste jobs from the lying creationist sites.

Here's a challenge creotard: Name the thread or post that was deleted. Come to either site and debate the issue of ERVs. If you prefer the safety of the Christian fo.rums site then post your challenge there.

I say again, ERVS are the smoking gun, slam dunk, indisputable evidence for human and chimp common ancestry. There simply is NO OTHER conclusion from the data. All your ignorant babbling will not change that fact. Put up or STFU tard.

I don't expect to see you at a site like iidb.org because you want to hide at unknown sites like FR where there are no scientists, just uneducated creotards that wish to remain clueless and ignorant. You can impress those fools.

Anonymous said...

A creotard (GGG) wrote:
"Sharks? That's a laugh. If you guys are so hungry, why does Ryan routinely delete my challenges re: ERVs?"

From reading one of your previous posts, it has now become clear that the Ryan you were referring to was the blog poster here. However, my first post specifically referred to the forums at iidb.org. I have not been to this site before and thought you were referring to some mod at iidb. I found this blog from a post at PZ Myers site. I do not know if Ryan posts at iidb.org or if he is a practicing (publishing) scientist. At iidb.org, there are many of us scientists that participate in the discussions there.

I should have realized that a creationist would try obfuscation by complaining about Ryan's actions here and ignoring the fact that I specifically mentioned iidb.org (and the Christian fo.rums). Now with the creotard's attempted misdirection and nebulation cleared up, perhaps the "chum" will come to iidb.org and feed us sharks. I'm sure his idiocy and misconceptions regarding ERVs will be entertaining, but not at all challenging.

AIGBusted said...

Hi Anonymous Evolution Supporter,

It is true that I deleted some of GGG's posts, but not because his arguments were good, because he was harassing. I had already dispelled a couple of his myths, namely that ERV's were useful, and I again provided evidence that ERV insertion was random, yet he ignored.

Anonymous said...

GGG wrote: "You have been challenged. Your refusal to answer a simple question reminds me of ERV's (read: Ms. Smith's) behavior over at Uncommon Descent."

LOL -- Sheesh tard, you do realize Abbie was banned from that site (i.e., Uncommonly Dense), don't you? How could she answer? They wouldn't let her, dumbass.

The record is clear, she was banned because she absolutely demonlished that IDiot Behe's claims about HIV. UD was so completely embarrassed, they were left with nothing to say but make sexist remarks to and about her. The whole thing was quite embarrassing for them, though given their well documented behavior of deleting threads where they are made to look stupid and foolish (a frequent occurrence) I wouldn't be surprised that record is now gone or edited.

BTW, since you brought it up, you do know Behe has admitted he was wrong. Abbie's point was completely correct. If you didn't know Behe did that, then I'm not surprised. I expected UD to keep Behe's admission from the sheep.