tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post4683205847905485050..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: My first encounter with ERV, or lemmmMMMEEEE talk, lulz!Rhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-4459827266921400962009-03-13T06:35:00.000-05:002009-03-13T06:35:00.000-05:00Though this thread is probably stale, I have to sa...Though this thread is probably stale, I have to say "nice dodge" to Windy. She answered my irrelevant scientific trivia (though I had forgotten DNA and RNA were collectively known as nucleic acids - so thanks), and did not address the relevant philosophical issue: <B>Why did the anti-ID guy, an austensible "Defender-of-science" (insert corny hero music) not know what science actually is?</B><BR/><BR/>The answer is simple: <B>He does not care about science. He is an ideologue who thinks the world will be better if people come to the same secular philosophical conclusions that he has, and will use any argument to prosthelatize his viewpoint.</B> If one scientist in world simply says, "ID is not science," that will be good enough for him, and he will be playing playstation rather than reading an the 50 page scientific paper supporting the opinion. This is a relevant point because it connects the tide of "scientific" criticism to ID with blind, irrational, unscientific secular humanism (for one person).<BR/>That is a material point.<BR/>Another material point I raised that is unaddressed is the fact that he tried to fake it. He could not just say "OK, ya got me, I'm not a scientist, I don't even have a science degree, and I divide my spare time between video games and porn."<BR/>Add the points up:<BR/>Person who does wants us to teach secular humanism exclusively + does not know/care about science + does not always tell the truth about what he knows = your typical ID critic.<BR/><BR/>and I am a piece of work even if you don't say it.<BR/>-BBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-35686295980345344862009-03-02T08:23:00.000-06:002009-03-02T08:23:00.000-06:00Aseem,Please see here.Aseem,<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/03/aseems-assumptions.html" REL="nofollow">Please see here</A>.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-2968893596563912009-02-27T18:56:00.000-06:002009-02-27T18:56:00.000-06:00Aseem again. Sorry for the late response. I'll quo...Aseem again. Sorry for the late response. I'll quote you and reply as well, as you have.<BR/><BR/><I>...and you started begging questions out the wazoo.., you had been stymied on numerous arguments you'd made..</I><BR/>My my! Hubris much, Rho? Or are you mistaking yourself for me? As far as I can recall, chronologically, this is what occurred: Rho sees the Wedge document copy in Brett's hands and a flurry of questions follows - What is the big deal with the Wedge document?, How does it prove ID is religiously motivated?, (after Brett points out how the reasons for pushing ID as stated in the document are clearly religious) So what if it is religiously motivated? (Wow! Isn't that exactly what West and Luskin had spent the last 3 hours struggling to refute?), (turns to me and introduces himself, questions continue) say I am a freaky fundie, how will you prove to me that evolution is true (Scott takes over), more questions from Rho finally veer the conversation to a point where Scott explains that scientists always work on the assumption that laws of nature, as observed, do not change with time. Rho - 'Ha ha! Caught you there! See? Assumptions! Evolution refuted!!!!' (I shall address this 'assumption' later in my comment, as you've brought up this point elsewhere in yours.) Who was the one asking question after question, Rho?<BR/><BR/><I>Laws of logic and math, thoughts, concepts, consciousness, numbers, etc are not material at all but are rather metaphys.<BR/>And yes, of course, the God of the Bible created it all.</I><BR/>Logic and mathematics are concepts created by man to ease life up a bit. Like language, mathematics is a way of using numbers to describe things quantitatively. It is a tool. And has so far worked beautifully for us. Consciousness, stimulus etc are functions linked to the brain. If I am not mistaken, consciousness, abstraction, feeling, morality etc. are currently hot research topics in neuroscience and psychology. Why can't we take our eyes off a beautiful painting, and why are we drawn away from the sight of an overfilled trash can? Why does music appeal to us? I concur that a neuroscientist might be able to explain the nature of conscience better than I can.<BR/><BR/><I>the onus is on you to prove naturalism. There's no "default position".</I><BR/>This is an old argument and has been refuted numerous times in its various forms. I show you the natural world and you ask me to prove it is exclusively natural. I cannot. But because I see no evidence of there being any supernatural element, I conclude it safe to assume a natural world till somebody provides evidence to prove otherwise. You are the one making the positive assertion of there being a conscious,living, metaphysical element to the world beyond the natural world that we perceive and observe. So, the onus of providing evidence for your assertion is your shoulders. If I claim that there is gold in Oklahoma and you disagree, it is not your burden to dig up all of Oklahoma and show me that there is no gold. The burden is mine to dig and show you the presence of gold. Similarly, I can't scour the universe and tell you there is nothing supernatural. You need to demonstrate an instance of a supernatural occurrence (just one will do), one that defies the known laws of physics, chemistry or biology, to provide evidence to back up your claim. Till you do that, naturalism <B>is</B> the default position.<BR/><BR/><I>of course, the God of the Bible created it all.</I><BR/>Again, evidence, please. And claiming that we cannot have evidence because the evidence for something supernatural would not be natural, and hence would be be able to be perceived through natural means, sounds like nothing but a cop-out! You're going to have to do better than that.And please do not use <A HREF="http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/a3/Creationistlogic0.jpg" REL="nofollow">circular logic.</A><BR/><BR/><I>I just thought you left..</I><BR/>You thought wrong. I was standing only a couple of inches behind you, with Brett, Paul and Charles, while you continued your conversation with Scott.<BR/><BR/><I>If you can quote me somewhere or think you remember sthg I said on Friday night that would lead you to believe that I agree 100% with these ID men..</I><BR/>I am sorry. You were so anti-evolution, I thought you were an IDer. I apologize. I see now that I was wrong. You are not an IDer; you are a creationist. Sigh! Atleast you are honest enough to not disguise creationism in a cheap tuxedo and try to sell it as ID.<BR/><BR/><I>No, b/c they're not true.<BR/>By the same token, neither should Darwinism be taught in the science classroom..</I><BR/>Just how is yours any 'truer' than the rest? And if by 'Darwinism' you mean 'biological evolution', it is not a worldview. It is science. A person can be Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Rastafarian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Jain and still be 'Darwinist'.<BR/><BR/><I>b/c it's full of horsecrap.</I><BR/>(I'm still assuming that by 'Darwinism', you mean 'biological evolution')Correct. Years of observed, tested, consistent, scientific, peer reviewed and published data is utterly full of horsecrap.<BR/><BR/><I>no reason to be certain that said processes were in place 200 years ago.</I><BR/>Here is where I address' the assumption' that Scott spoke about I mentioned earlier in this comment. Scientists work on the premise that observed laws of nature remain consistent over time, which is an observation itself. Call it an assumption if you will. But it is working with this very 'assumption' that has led scientists to explore and discover so many things about the world we didn't know, resulting in the scientific and technological advancement we have today. Literally everything you use today, from the clothes we wear, to the field of medicine, everything is a result of working with that assumption. If that were not to be the case, why would be bother studying the world and trying to make sense of it at all? If apples that fell off trees, hit the ground one day, flew into outer space on some other day, and just vanished into thin air, on any other day, all depending on the unpredictable mood of a supernatural deity, why would anybody bother studying gravity? There would be no theory of gravity. And hence no designing or building spacecraft, or calculating the escape velocity etc. If that 'assumption' were not true Rho, we would not be able to apply it.But we have. Without it, there is no end to the number of fantasies you can make up, without having to justify any of them. If the 'assumption' is your argument against evolution, it should also be your argument against gravity, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, Doppler effect etc. But you have no problems accepting those, do you?<BR/><BR/>Nice talking to you too.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>Aseem.Acehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14235175435758020089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-23661124957868129932009-02-25T16:24:00.000-06:002009-02-25T16:24:00.000-06:00YOU have to show evidence that the Designer was re...<I>YOU have to show evidence that the Designer was required<BR/><BR/>I did.</I><BR/><BR/>except you didn't - you showed that if we accept your criteria, your conclusion is at best that a. you can prove humans do lab experiments and b. that you have no idea what natural processes can or can't do, because the mere fact that humans exist invalidates every study they conduct into the matter, in your opinion.<BR/><BR/>Obviously I don't accept your criteria, but were I to do so that's as much as they would allow me to conclude. There's nothing that enables me to then make the jump to 'therefore natural processes are incapable of doing X, Y and Z' or 'therefore a supernatural designer exists and is responsible for X, Y and Z'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-87449480733329782392009-02-25T08:52:00.000-06:002009-02-25T08:52:00.000-06:00Ooowuh! There's a link to Belloc's "Modern Mind" e...Ooowuh! There's a link to Belloc's "Modern Mind" essay on there. That's one of my absolute favorites.Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07406517325044009166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-5874066143424701102009-02-25T08:47:00.000-06:002009-02-25T08:47:00.000-06:00Thanks Stacey.And I recommend you read Henry Gee's...Thanks Stacey.<BR/>And I recommend you read Henry Gee's _In Search of Deep Time_. It is quite good and he's an evolutionary scientist (but not an atheist).Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77175980425898362812009-02-25T08:45:00.000-06:002009-02-25T08:45:00.000-06:00Rhology,I was talking with a friend about this thr...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>I was talking with a friend about this thread and he recommended I pass to you a <A HREF="http://www.inbredscience.co.cc/" REL="nofollow">link</A>. I haven't read through the whole thing, but just a cursory view makes me believe that there is a lot more to this stuff than I ever thought. <BR/><BR/>If others would like to give me "homework" on the Evolutionist side, I welcome reading material. I don't wish to defend the link I posted, since I haven't read it and don't know what it contains. I won't be engaging in arguments on it.Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07406517325044009166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-14302447037493481292009-02-24T13:02:00.000-06:002009-02-24T13:02:00.000-06:00Are you honestly going to tell everyone that you k...<I>Are you honestly going to tell everyone that you knew the difference between amino acids and nucleotide bases, because if you are, I would like to hear you expound on it?</I><BR/><BR/>:D :D I'm a biologist...<BR/><BR/>Nucleotide bases are the building blocks of nucleic acids - DNA and RNA. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.<BR/><BR/><I>Shame on me for rubbing his nose in it, but since you all are trying to do the same, regarding the amino acid thing with me, I do not feel terrible. (though I have been taught not to rub noses)</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't trying to rub your nose in anything, I was asking Rho how he justified the double standard in the post.<BR/><BR/>And relax, you just happened to say something that was unintentionally very funny to very many people. It's not some conspiracy to make you feel bad.<BR/><BR/><I>P.S. - I am a real piece of work.</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't referring to you, actually.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-13179647929784464962009-02-24T11:51:00.000-06:002009-02-24T11:51:00.000-06:00because your designer is a magical being you can n...because your designer is a magical being you can never argue against what he, or the FSM or Russle’s teapot or the IPU or Thor, or Isis can do.<BR/><BR/>By showing it can occur without them you show they are irrelevant. If however it could only occur because of a magical interaction, they you have to accept ID.<BR/><BR/>So how about proving that the FSM isn’t actually the grand designer you are arguing for???<BR/><BR/>Or maybe you could finally answer that burning question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.<BR/><BR/>Demanding proof that non existent things couldn’t exist, that the designer..who by your definition can do anything… could not have designed life is impossible. Proving a designer isn’t required has been done.<BR/><BR/>If the designer isn’t required, and if he can never be known or seen…he doesn’t exist until proof, verifiable proof of his noodley appendage is obtained.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks you've been exactly like every other thiest troll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-76745514228756626762009-02-24T11:41:00.000-06:002009-02-24T11:41:00.000-06:00Justify your extrapolating into what happenED from...Justify your extrapolating into what happenED from what you see now. And then make sure to say why an omnipotent Designer couldn't have done it that way, w/o engaging in hypotheticals about why He would do that.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-55962284583168511512009-02-24T11:35:00.000-06:002009-02-24T11:35:00.000-06:00you are constantly demanding people explain EVERYT...<I>you are constantly demanding people explain EVERYTHING to you.</I><BR/><BR/>Not EVERYTHING. Just the things that I think hold water against your position.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>it’s called experimental design, in that you limit the number of variables so that you can determine if there is a statistically valid change caused. Also explore animal husbandry.</I><BR/><BR/>And how exactly are those examples of NATURAL selection? UNGUIDED? <BR/>They're not. They're intelligent design. Next!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Do some research into genetics, you’ll find the reason why for yourself.</I><BR/><BR/>Way to avoid the question.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>YOU have to show evidence that the Designer was required </I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/02/guest-blogger-evidence-for-evolution-is.html" REL="nofollow">I did.</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>the process could not have arisen though natural means which have been shown to make these changes. </I><BR/><BR/>I'm more concerned with whether they DID arise that way. Evidence, please.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>learn some genetics and you will learn how such a complex series of base pairs tends to remain unchanged though descendents.</I><BR/><BR/>You must have forgotten the points of contention between Darwinism and ID.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>This matches up with palaeontological evidence. </I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/06/gee-whiz.html" REL="nofollow">Unargued-for assertion</A>. Argue for it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>This is verified though experimental evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>Not until you answer my first challenge and <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/01/flying-lizards-with-big-beaks-that-eat.html" REL="nofollow">this one</A>. Don't use assumptions as evidence. Prove it.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63442708639028738542009-02-24T11:33:00.000-06:002009-02-24T11:33:00.000-06:00also consider ERVs.. not the blog(er) but her area...also consider ERVs.. not the blog(er) but her area of interest. learn about how we share 40 of 42 ERVs with chimpanzees, and how this does provide really strong evidence for common decent.- but go look it up for yourself don’t expect us to do your homework.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24084418664865687732009-02-24T11:29:00.000-06:002009-02-24T11:29:00.000-06:00Rhology said... Anonymous said:Stop demanding peop...Rhology said... <BR/>Anonymous said:<BR/>Stop demanding people explain everything to you and stop creating petty tasks to prove their competence. <BR/><BR/>You might be confusing me with the BlackBlogger. Please reread that section of the post.<BR/><BR/>3. Please explain how a great deal of "evidence for evolution" is not actually evidence for ID in that many experiments entail intelligent manipulation of events to produce microevolutionary change. A great deal of interaction has gone down in the aaaaaaaaaaants thread, so you might want to refresh yourself there first.<BR/>#108 - "Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool."<BR/>Same problem remains. How do you get from "they share similar genes" to "they are descendants from past organisms"?<BR/><BR/> HOX genes……Since you cited this as one of your 2 strongest lines of evidence for your position, please explain how specifically this supports the idea that there *WAS* a common ancestor many billions of yrs ago and please explain without recourse to argumenta ad incredulum or preconceived ideas of what you think a Designer's characteristics might be, how a Designer could not account for these data?<BR/>Thanks!<BR/>Posted by: Rhology | February 24, 2009 9:51 AM <BR/><BR/>There all your words<BR/><BR/>While Blackblogger is definitely an ass with his butane question, you are constantly demanding people explain EVERYTHING to you.<BR/><BR/>So for 3—it’s called experimental design, in that you limit the number of variables so that you can determine if there is a statistically valid change caused. Also explore animal husbandry. Again look up the answers yourself.<BR/><BR/>#108 – decent with modification, maybe you have heard of it. Do some research into genetics, you’ll find the reason why for yourself.<BR/><BR/>Last one…. You are putting forth the concept that a designer is involved, YOU have to show evidence that the Designer was required and that the process could not have arisen though natural means which have been shown to make these changes. Again learn some genetics and you will learn how such a complex series of base pairs tends to remain unchanged though descendents. When changes occur in a series of base pairs it is possible to estimate the frequency of such changes based on known rates of mutation, thus allowing for an understanding of approximately how long ago you get differentiation between two species lines. This matches up with palaeontological evidence. This is verified though experimental evidence. This is why there is confidence in a purely naturalistic cause for evolution and life.<BR/><BR/>No I am not confusing you for blackblogger... hes questions are just more asinineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-58044047388400534992009-02-24T10:44:00.000-06:002009-02-24T10:44:00.000-06:00That's really all I ask of the scientific communit...<I>That's really all I ask of the scientific community - that they stay on their toes. So many have gotten completely comfortable with this all encompassing, solves all our problems theory of Evolution that they have lost any creative or critical thoughts on the subject.</I><BR/><BR/>"So many" in the scientific community? I'd be fascinated to see the examples that you're thinking of, if you can provide us with quotes or links. Thanks in advance.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-34767750345757699142009-02-24T10:14:00.000-06:002009-02-24T10:14:00.000-06:00Rhology,Hehe... I know what you mean :oP That's wh...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>Hehe... I know what you mean :oP That's why the Catholics persist at BA.Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07406517325044009166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-64394694200911371582009-02-24T10:11:00.000-06:002009-02-24T10:11:00.000-06:00Stacey,Ah, but the lurkers!Stacey,<BR/><BR/>Ah, but the lurkers!Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-13757770452186915302009-02-24T09:33:00.000-06:002009-02-24T09:33:00.000-06:00Thank you all for correcting my erroneous assertio...Thank you all for correcting my erroneous assertion with the 2nd law. Again, though, I was not intending to argue against evolution. I consider it irrelevant to living my life and faith. God created the world however He did it, and I just have to deal with the fact that we are here. I don't want to spend my time arguing something that I'm not sure about myself. I was intending to defend the faith in view of evolution, but that's apparently not the discussion I jumped into. That said, as a private citizen, regardless of my knowledge base, you can't deny me the privilege to think what I will about Evolution and care little about investigating it. I will refrain from making further assertions on the issue, given my lack of knowledge. But I will never refrain from defending the Faith in light of science, because they do not contradict each other. <BR/><BR/>And thank you, Funkenstein, for responding coherently. It's somewhat refreshing to hear someone discussing evolution as a working scientific theory rather than a perfectly sorted out in every way theory.<BR/><BR/><I>there are definitely still loads of questions to be asked and to attempt to solve, and there are certainly some things about it we'll never be able to know... There are also still debates over which mechanisms dominate in which situations eg drift vs selection, that kind of thing... and there will inevitably a lot of studies that will be disproven with further research... I've never understood why so many people expect scientific theories to provide them with answers they expect or want to hear</I><BR/><BR/>*sigh* Such a to do over such a little thing. Thanks again. I have a big problem with people treating evolution as a more perfect theory than something like the working theory of the structure of stars. There are some crackpots out there that still think the sun has an iron core, though they probably push the issue to keep everyone on their toes. That's really all I ask of the scientific community - that they stay on their toes. So many have gotten completely comfortable with this all encompassing, solves all our problems theory of Evolution that they have lost any creative or critical thoughts on the subject. <BR/><BR/>Rhology, <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why you interact with a group like that from ERV's blog that bears so much ill-will toward theists or anyone who says evolution may not be true. But as for me, I think I'm not cut out for hostile discussion. I much prefer having raging debates with you over justification and what the Catholic Church does or does not teach ;)Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07406517325044009166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-12449561574776981152009-02-24T08:54:00.000-06:002009-02-24T08:54:00.000-06:00Anonymous said:Stop demanding people explain every...Anonymous said:<BR/><I>Stop demanding people explain everything to you and stop creating petty tasks to prove their competence. </I><BR/><BR/>You might be confusing me with the BlackBlogger. Please reread that section of the post.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-76840898777315269002009-02-24T04:49:00.000-06:002009-02-24T04:49:00.000-06:00Funkenstein, do you admit problems with evolution ...<I>Funkenstein, do you admit problems with evolution from a purely scientific viewpoint?</I><BR/><BR/>Depends what you mean by problems - there are definitely still loads of questions to be asked and to attempt to solve, and there are certainly some things about it we'll never be able to know, I would never deny that. There are also still debates over which mechanisms dominate in which situations eg drift vs selection, that kind of thing. Certain applications of the theory are considered a bit dubious (eg as Paul C points out, evolutionary psychology is a good example), and there will inevitably a lot of studies that will be disproven with further research. However, you could say the exact same thing about any aspect of science that you can think of, the ToE just gets a lot of press due to the challenge it poses to certain religious beliefs - I've never understood why so many people expect scientific theories to provide them with answers they expect or want to hear (it's the same scenario with global warming denialists, the vaccines-cause-autism brigade, HIV denialists ect etc).<BR/><BR/>But in terms of what evidence there is, the general idea that life arose from one or very few ancestral populations is about as close to a fact as you are ever likely to get in the sciences - in principle there are observations that it definitely could not accommodate, whether they are discovered in the future or if past researchers had found them, but thus far noone has found anything that would put a serious dent in the theory.<BR/><BR/>Alternative ideas that have been offered up (such as creationism, Lamarckian progression or the ideas of Senapathy or Schwabe, for example) simply don't describe the data that exists, or are so vague in the nature of their claims that there's no hypotheses that can be generated from them. <BR/><BR/><I>As a physicist, I object to it based on the second law of thermodynamics.</I> <BR/><BR/>That's one of the oldest objections in the book :-D<BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html - this explains why it is not a barrier to evolution<BR/><BR/>I think even a biblical literalist creationist group such as Answers in Genesis admit that it's a faulty argument and shouldn't be used. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>My knowledge of biology is rather pathetic, but I can remember a course in college in which an evolutionary biologist spoke. I asked him a question about exactly how such useful mutations can occur and survive and he could not answer.</I> <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you mean by this - when a mutation arises, it will generally be neutral/near neutral (ie have no obvious effect/minimal +ve or -ve effect on the organism's ability to survive and reproduce). Some mutations can be negative (there are a lot of disorders that are due to point mutations that you probably know of), and will reduce the organism's ability to survive and reproduce, meaning that the more negative the effects of a given mutation the less likely it is eventually become fixed in a population. On the other hand any mutation that has a +ve selective effect will on average have a better chance of being preserved in a population.<BR/><BR/><BR/>This effect varies a lot with population size though - in small populations drift (effects due to random chance in simple terms) has very significant effects, and advantageous mutations are more likely to be lost due to what is referred to as 'sampling error', while neutral or even slightly deleterious mutations become very likely to become fixed - it's kind of analgous to flipping coins: if you only flip 6 coins you might easily get 5 heads even though the probability expectation is 3 heads and 3 tails as each coin flip is 50-50 heads/tails. If you flipped 10,000 coins it would be far closer to an even split. This is similar to the effect of mutations in large or small populations with each successive round of reproduction.<BR/><BR/>Is this the sort of thing you meant, or did you have something else in mind?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63217742155317985982009-02-24T00:11:00.000-06:002009-02-24T00:11:00.000-06:00Windy,Are you honestly going to tell everyone that...Windy,<BR/><BR/>Are you honestly going to tell everyone that you knew the difference between amino acids and nucleotide bases, because if you are, I would like to hear you expound on it?<BR/> Yes, I am allowed to mispeak. I freely admit that I made a mistake. I have not studied organic chem in detail since the 11th grade. I was fortunate enough to test out of all college chem needed for my degree. Shame on me, but my, or Abby's, not knowing some orgo is not really the material point, which you seemed to have forgotten.<BR/><BR/>BTW I had to ask the crony who did not know the scientific method 5 + times, I could tell he did not know and realized he should have. Then seeing he was looking like a moron for saying something was "not science" when he did not know the scientific method, he hazarded an obvious guess, spacing each element out with a lot of babble. I know he was faking it. You can ask him yourself if he knew the method. I am sure he will be at least as honest with you than he was with me. Shame on me for rubbing his nose in it, but since you all are trying to do the same, regarding the amino acid thing with me, I do not feel terrible. (though I have been taught not to rub noses)<BR/>The difference between me and the crony is that I did not try to pretend like I knew after I realized I had forgotten the correct nomenclature (for G-A-T-C-(U)). That is the problem you people have. You can't be honest about the weak points in your own arguments, or even in yourselves. That is what is known as intellectual integrity. I don't know you, so I will not assume you don't have any, but you should consider that most people (not all but most) know when you have an agenda that takes priority over being straight with them. No one sitting on the fence wondering if there is in fact a god/God is going to be convinced one way or another because someone forgot a few irrelevant facts, but they will certainly not listen to someone who they can tell is faking it. If I were you, I would do some soul searching and ask myself how much I would have cared if someone who shared my views had mistated a fact. I think that will help you.<BR/><BR/>-BlackBlogger<BR/><BR/>P.S. - I am a real piece of work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-59685526849236266912009-02-23T21:17:00.000-06:002009-02-23T21:17:00.000-06:00Too many misconceptions in Stacey's post about Daw...Too many misconceptions in Stacey's post about Dawkins, evolutionary biology, et cetera, to deal all in one go.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you really compare a change in state from liquid to solid to random beneficial mutations occurring over millions of years leading to the type of complex organisms we see here on Earth? Like an eye? Really?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I wanted to know whether you felt all natural decreases in entropy were against the 2LoT.<BR/><BR/><I>Look, guys, I do not want to start an all out debate about evolutionary biology. I'm not exactly sure how this thread devolved into such a thing.</I><BR/><BR/>Could it have been that someone wanted to do cross-field critique and ask a bunch of questions about evolutionary biology? I guess you didn't like the answers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-10815447014297782332009-02-23T20:43:00.000-06:002009-02-23T20:43:00.000-06:00Paul,But the problem I stated is a common sense pr...Paul,<BR/><BR/>But the problem I stated is a common sense problem when applying the physical concept of thermodynamics to the biological system, because the potential energy of an organism cannot be described by thermodynamics in any meaningful way. If you just think about the heat they create and the food that they burn as their potential, then it is rather scant. But anyone who witnesses life, especially human life, knows that the potential for work is immeasurable since we can act and set things into motion. <BR/><BR/>windy,<BR/><BR/>I'll clarify for you. When speaking of Darwinians like Dawkins, I was talking about those who overstep the bounds of science and declare that God does not exist based on evolutionary biology. Dawkins even then goes on to say that all the evils in the world are the fault of "religion". Is this not mishandling science? For some reason, because of the mentioning of ERV and staunch atheism combined with evolutionary debates, I thought this is the school of thought we were dealing with here. I do believe I'm qualified to comment on the bounds of science and the scientific method. I was not intending to debate anyone on thermodynamics or attack biologists other than to say they're rather confident in something that cannot be tested as a normal scientific theory should be. (Before you get all upset, can you agree that you cannot perform an experiment to prove that the origin of species is through evolutionary biology?). I find it strange that people defend evolution so fiercely, as if their lives depended on it.<BR/><BR/>Do you really compare a change in state from liquid to solid to random beneficial mutations occurring over millions of years leading to the type of complex organisms we see here on Earth? Like an eye? Really? I guess there's a lot more to it than temperature and kinetic energy. Windy, I'm surprised you can so easily brush aside something like the increase of organization in a system, and not just the organization described by physics, but the biological increase in organization. Assuming evolution is true, the organic complexity that has built up is illogical. That the sun inputs energy into the system is a given, but that the energy is used to produce mutations that in turn create complex organisms is just not natural. <BR/><BR/>NAL,<BR/><BR/><I>Presumably the entropy of the Earth’s biosphere is indeed decreasing by a tiny amount due to evolution, and the entropy of the cosmic microwave background is increasing by an even greater amount to compensate for that decrease. But the decrease in entropy required for evolution is so small compared to the entropy throughput that would occur even if the Earth were a dead planet, or if life on Earth were not evolving, that no measurement would ever detect it.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, that's kind of funny. The entropy of the cosmic microwave background is increasing to compensate for it? I'd be interested to know how he thought that life on Earth could affect the entropy of the cosmic microwave background. Also, he is taking the term entropy in the physical sense of the word rather than applying the concept to the biological system. <BR/><BR/>Look, guys, I <I>do not</I> want to start an all out debate about evolutionary biology. I'm not exactly sure how this thread devolved into such a thing. I will bow out. Consider this a win if you will, or consider it that I'd rather chill out this evening with my husband than debate where I'm not wanted.Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07406517325044009166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-57462658622274506652009-02-23T20:17:00.000-06:002009-02-23T20:17:00.000-06:00That's not to say I consider the entropy argument ...That's not to say I consider the entropy argument any good, sorry. I used to use it but came to understand its fatal flaw, which I think has been pointed out here. It's no biggie; there are plenty of excellent arguments out there, but sometimes getting better can hurt a little.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77984293117784875902009-02-23T20:06:00.000-06:002009-02-23T20:06:00.000-06:00More regarding the 2nd law of Thermodynamics:Entro...More regarding the 2nd law of Thermodynamics:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/10/entropy-and-evolution.html" REL="nofollow">Entropy and Evolution</A><BR/><BR/><I>Presumably the entropy of the Earth’s biosphere is indeed decreasing by a tiny amount due to evolution, and the entropy of the cosmic microwave background is increasing by an even greater amount to compensate for that decrease. But the decrease in entropy required for evolution is so small compared to the entropy throughput that would occur even if the Earth were a dead planet, or if life on Earth were not evolving, that no measurement would ever detect it.</I>NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77170471491170898382009-02-23T20:01:00.000-06:002009-02-23T20:01:00.000-06:00I am rather impressed with how ERV is patient and ...I am rather impressed with how ERV is patient and willing to allow annoying concern trolls and the rest to comment one her blog. Having wasted an hour reading the comments of her last few posts, as well as reviewing this blog, don’t think you are actually open to learning. <BR/><BR/>Yes Abbie/Erv can get rude and snarky. And how she reacted to little attack mouse was petty , but the whole thing, and by the whole thing I mean her on going attempts at rational discussion, humorous discussion, and pointing out how IDiots lie and refuse to learn, she eventually gets frustrated. The exact same way when my 3 year old asks for the 15th time in a row why she has to go to bed….eventually you just get tired of the same question being asked without the questioner listening to the answer. In my daughters defense she is 3. Casie, Behe, and the rest, don’t have that excuse.<BR/><BR/>And Rhology….neither do you. Stop demanding people explain everything to you and stop creating petty tasks to prove their competence. You want to know if Abby knows her stuff… maybe you should look to see if she has been published. You could read some of her posts on her research. You could do a little work yourself rather then demanding everything be handed to you so you can dismiss it..<BR/><BR/>If you want an honest debate come prepared with a strong understanding of your opponents position and arguments. <BR/>And please provide more in support of your position, then one book. The bible is no more valid then Aesop’s Fables. Actually that is not fair, for the bible actually gives numerous methods of testing if a God exists, such as starting wood soaked in water on fire at the request of his devout followers. Try the experiment. It’s nicely set out in your precious bible. And if your god fails to perform…then like the other god who failed to do so…it proves he does not exist. Go ahead.. be a scientist, follow the well documented methodology from the bible for testing for the existence of a god. And if after multiple attempts at having god create that special fire just for you fail…Accept the evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com