Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvenoy · 12-19-2002, 11:07 AM

Quote:

"please, stop. Just let me die! I don't know anything, honest! please, please stop torturing me."

Never! Scream, you unrepentant, heretical bastard, SCREAM!!

Hmm. I seem to recall reading that gopher wood might have been some kind of mountain cypress, or some such thing. I add, "some such thing,' 'cause no one seems to know for sure exactly what a 'kind' is.

We can speculate all we want, but it has yet to be shown that Noah hacked down a virtual forest of gophers (or hemp, whatever) to construct a single vessel.

doov

Ed · 12-19-2002, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:


Ed, any idea what ‘begat’ means?

Hey Doov, I’ve got a better contender for that Doozy Award

Oolon

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Begat in hebrew can also mean "descendent of".

lpetrich · 12-19-2002, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:

Begat in hebrew can also mean "descendent of".

Very convenient [sarcasm]. There seems to be be a special dialect of Hebrew, which we may call Eddrew, that means whatever happens to be the most expedient for Ed.

pz · 12-20-2002, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Didymus:
If you listen real close, you can hear the thread speaking in a small voice. Quiet, everyone; it has something to say:

..."please, stop. Just let me die! I don't know anything, honest! please, please stop torturing me."

Uh, no...that's not the thread. It's me. Sorry. I'll try to buck up and be a man about it all.

Ed · 12-22-2002, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

Originally posted by Ed:

That site appears to be a glossing over of the major differences especially mentally between Pongidae and Hominidae primarily for ideological purposes.

lp: WHAT ideological purposes?

And why is Pongohominidae (noncommittal name for Pongidae + Hominidae) an illegitimate family?

Because if man is related to animals then morality is subjective and the academic elite can not be held accountable for their behavior. Such a hybridized family does not recognize the profound differences between humans and apes.

lpetrich · 12-23-2002, 07:25 AM

Ed:
Because if man is related to animals then morality is subjective and the academic elite can not be held accountable for their behavior.

Ed, do you honestly believe that people accept evolution because they want to get away with their sins?

Such a hybridized family does not recognize the profound differences between humans and apes.

A common philosophy of classification is cladistics, something that a wildlife biologist ought to have some familiarity with.

And according to cladistics, that is a completely irrelevant objection. Having some dramatic new features does not change the position of a species in the family tree of life, though it may make that tree look very unbalanced.

The anatomical closeness of our species to the African great apes has been recognized for a century and a half; all the molecular evidence collected over the last century has pointed to a similar closeness.

From <a href="http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html" target="_blank">The Bullfrog Affair</a>:

Quote:

In a recent article in _Discover_ magazine, Dr. Russell Doolittle tells how his early research in protein comparisons had sparked his interest in evolution. In a 1982 PBS program ("Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982), he told this story:

Doolittle: "Ever since the time of Darwin the chimpanzee has been regarded as man's nearest living relative. Naturally it was then of interest to biochemists to see what chimpanzee proteins would look like. Now the first protein to be looked at in a chimpanzee, and compared with a human, was the hemoglobin molecule -- hemoglobin one of the blood proteins -- and in fact, there were no differences found in the chimpanzee molecule when 141 amino acids were looked at in the hemoglobin alpha chain. In contrast, if you looked at a rhesus monkey, there were four differences; or if you looked at a rabbit, you found the differences got up into the 20s. If you got up to a chicken you'd find 59 differences; and if you looked at a fish you'd find there were more than a hundred differences. Now this is exactly what you expect from the point of view of evolution."

Narrator: "Three more proteins were analyzed."

Doolittle: "Once again, no differences compared -- chimpanzee compared with human. It was astonishing. In fact a rumor began to sweep around biochemists, that maybe all the differences between chimpanzee and human were really going to turn out to be cultural. Well, in fact, one more protein was quickly looked at -- this was a large one -- 259 amino acids -- and a difference was found. Whew!"

Ed · 12-23-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:


That’s hardly surprising really, is it? Grandparents are closely related to their grandchildren; so are first cousins. But only one is ancestral! What clearer terminology did you have in mind?!

Since offspring of sexual species get half of each parent’s DNA, the chances of a particular (nuclear) gene that I have being in my daughter is precisely 1/2. The chances of my father and my daughter sharing it is therefore 1/4.... and my grandfather and my daughter, 1/8.... and so on.

Now, my maternal grandmother had two children: my mum and my aunt. They both therefore are ‘1/2 related’ (forgive the crap terminology

) to her. So similarly, I and my aunt’s daughter are both ‘1/4 related’ to my mum’s mother. What this means is that we both have a 1 in 4 chance of sharing the same gene. Which means, you’ll notice, that we are also equally related to each other.

Related means sharing a common ancestor. But all modern species are cousins. By virtue of being separate species, no one of them is ancestral to another, they are all the current twiglets on the family tree.

The point, Ed, is that the same techniques that show that cousins are related, when applied to species, show the same sorts of results. And comparing DNA also lets us see -- precisely -- how closely related species are. The trees produced (generally) strongly correlate with those produced by entirely separate methods.

(An interesting case of it being wrong is New World raptors (predatory birds), which were thought to be close to Old World versions. Turns ouot that things like condors are actually closer to marabou storks. Convergent evolution can muddy the waters rather! But the point is, the DNA will always be right, because it is what actually flows down lineages, whereas characteristics can converge on simply what works in a given environment.)

We know that patterns in DNA are copied down generations... with occasional changes. This is why comparing DNA -- and finding similarities -- is direct evidence of relatedness. And crucially, it is not just a case of needing similar DNA to make similar bodies, because the vast majority of DNA doesn’t make bodies, so there’s no reason for it to be similar. Yet it is, in accordance with all the other indicators of relatedness.

(Does anyone have any refs for comparative analysis of my favourite genetic junk, sattelite DNA?)

***************

Reminds me of a little brain-teaser I heard yesterday:

Mary’s father has five daughters: Na-Na, Ne-Ne, Ni-Ni, No-No, and...?

(May work better when said rather than written.)

A free trip to Dr Dino’s website for the first correct answer. A trip to AiG to anyone who honestly gets it right first time.

Cheers, Oolon

[Edited cos I've no idea what a 'predaroty' bird is!

]

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

But the problems come when relatedness is irrationally extrapolated to organisms that are totally unrelated, ie like lungfish and humans.

lpetrich · 12-23-2002, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:

But the problems come when relatedness is irrationally extrapolated to organisms that are totally unrelated, ie like lungfish and humans.

Except that that extrapolation is no more irrational than many of the other extrapolations we perform each day.

Ed · 12-24-2002, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

lp: And what's the alternative? That they were created with the appearance of one being descended from another?
Ed: No, that they were created using similar design from a single designer.

lp: However, the variety of life and the abundance of ecosystem conflicts suggests multiple designers -- if any designers had been responsible.

And there is an abundance of features that look suspiciously like the result of descent with modification.

And yet all the variety of organisms share a universal method of blueprinting growth and development, ie DNA. And the features also look like creation with modification by natural selection.

Quote:

lp: Ed, explain human-embryo gill bars and gill pouches. And embryonic blood circulation: heart -> ventral aorta -> aortic arches that parallel the gill bars -> two dorsal aortas that meet toward the rear. This very fishlike arrangement gets rearranged into human form by deleting some of the aortic arches and cutting the dorsal aortas.

Actually they are not "gill" arches and "gill" pouches, they have nothing in common with gills other than for a short period they are in a similar location that fish have their gills.

Quote:

lp: And don't get me started on all the oodles of molecular evidence -- gene divergence that looks like a random walk, pseudogenes, transposons, why we and mice have so many genes in common, ...

None of that proves common descent. And divergence is just assumed there is no empirical evidence of gene divergence.

Quote:

Ed:
A better example may be the sailfish and the swordfish, their skeletons are very similar and yet they are totally unrelated.
lp: Ed, how is that conclusion arrived at?
Ed:
It is a taxonomic fact, talk to your local ichthyologist.

lp: Tell me where to look.

The internet for one.

Quote:

lp: Ed, Ed, Ed, splitting hairs over classification does not prove one thing. "Reptilia" is a paraphyletic group.
Ed:
But it is a contradiction of terms to place a mammal in Reptilia. If that was the case then a freshman biology major could put anything in Reptilia and still get an A+.

lp: HOW is it a contradiction in terms? To me, that's like saying that Ed could not be the son of his supposed father because Ed is distinct from that gentleman.

No, your analogy is too weak. It would be like saying I was the son of a cat. Taxonomic classification becomes meaningless.

Quote:

Ed:
I heard my fellow graduate students and professors in biology talk and I know how they justify their life. It is often thru their work.

lp: Ed, BE SPECIFIC.

I dont remember the specifics.

Quote:

(human, rabbit, chicken early embryos looking very much alike...)
Ed:
The early stages of the construction of different types of houses also look alike especially if their is an indivdual designer.

lp: But why create mammal embryos with a yolk sac and vitelline blood vessels?

And that seems extremely unimaginative -- making their embryos look so similar. Why not extend one's creativity from adult forms to embryos?

Because the designer wants to send the message that he is the same designer of mammals and reptiles and fish.

lpetrich · 12-24-2002, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Ed:
And yet all the variety of organisms share a universal method of blueprinting growth and development, ie DNA. And the features also look like creation with modification by natural selection.

Suggesting descent from a single ancestor. With modifications in different directions.

Quote:

lp: Ed, explain human-embryo gill bars and gill pouches. ...
Ed:
Actually they are not "gill" arches and "gill" pouches, they have nothing in common with gills other than for a short period they are in a similar location that fish have their gills.

They have a suspicious anatomical resemblance, which was noted by pre-Darwinian biologists.

Quote:

lp: And don't get me started on all the oodles of molecular evidence -- gene divergence that looks like a random walk, pseudogenes, transposons, why we and mice have so many genes in common, ...
Ed:
None of that proves common descent. And divergence is just assumed there is no empirical evidence of gene divergence.

Except that such gene divergence is known to happen under laboratory conditions.

And I wonder what Ed would consider proof of common descent -- traveling in a time machine and following the generations back in time?

Quote:

Ed:
A better example may be the sailfish and the swordfish, their skeletons are very similar and yet they are totally unrelated.
lp: Ed, how is that conclusion arrived at?
Ed:
It is a taxonomic fact, talk to your local ichthyologist.

lp: Tell me where to look.
Ed:
The internet for one.

I want at least one of:

* Some URL's that discuss this question

* The Linnaean names of these fish

Unwillingness to supply the former I will interpret as evasion.

Unwillingness to supply the latter I will interpret as evidence that a certain "wildlife biologist" is not a real wildlife biologist.

Quote:

Ed:
I heard my fellow graduate students and professors in biology talk and I know how they justify their life. It is often thru their work.

lp: Ed, BE SPECIFIC.
Ed:
I dont remember the specifics.

Which means that Ed does not have any real evidence. Should I have expected more?

Quote:

LP:
And that seems extremely unimaginative -- making their embryos look so similar. Why not extend one's creativity from adult forms to embryos?
Ed:
Because the designer wants to send the message that he is the same designer of mammals and reptiles and fish.

And how does one figure that out?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.