ENEMY OF THE STATE
Why would a middle class white boy grow up to be an enemy of the State?That's a question I have asked myself for years. It was not always thecase. I grew up like most people, waving the flag and brainlesslyregurgitating the mantra that is the Pledge of Allegiance.
http://mikewasdin.blogspot.com/
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
histhasthai:Evolution posits small, atomic changes, not wholesale random mutations to create, say, an eye in its entirety. These incremental changes are an iterative process, each change builds on the other. By the theory - whether you agree with it or not, it is the theory - each new change can only usefully come from the population of those with the previous trait required for a complex structure. Again using the eye as an example, the mutation that creates a cupping of surface cells only matters if it happens to organisms with light sensitive cells in the place where the cup forms.
Exactly. It is atomic. Each step is miniscule. But herein lies the problem. The pigment cells are no good without the nerves to transmit the information. The nerves transmit nothing until the pigment cells are present. Either, as a single step, is an added expense without a benefit, and thus natural selection would work against it. Similarly, before the three-dimensional information cupped eyespots provide can be useful, a neurological framework to interpret those signals must be in place. These are the cases, along with innumerable others, where at least two steps have to happen at once, because any one is at best neutral. This is contrary to the evolutionary theory you site. Surely, you can see that the evolution of a limb and the evolution for the controls of that limb are two seperate tasks.
histhasthai: JackCuyler:Organisms do not change in responce to their environment; the changes happen regardless. Correct. Once a new trait emerges that confers a reproductive advantage, the population with that trait grows disproportionally to the others. In that sense, the population changes to the new form, either entirely or in some significant proportion. For conversation's sake, it's sometimes useful to take shortcuts. I didn't expect that to be a source of confusion.
JackCuyler:Organisms do not change in responce to their environment; the changes happen regardless.
Correct. Once a new trait emerges that confers a reproductive advantage, the population with that trait grows disproportionally to the others. In that sense, the population changes to the new form, either entirely or in some significant proportion. For conversation's sake, it's sometimes useful to take shortcuts. I didn't expect that to be a source of confusion.
I don't see why you wouldn't. It is a misleading statement. I didn't call you on it, because I'm used to it from you by now, but you have a tendency to phrase things incorrectly enough that they would seem right to the uneducated reader and have maximal support for your position. Note that I don't really think you're being deliberately dishonest, but rather I believe that you hold the positions that you do because you hold just such warped ideas about reality. It is a form of madness that puts you in fellowhip with many that fancy themselves intellectuals.
JCFolsom:The pigment cells are no good without the nerves to transmit the information.
Not necessarily. This kind of change may have occured in organisms without nervous systems. A cell sensitive to light can change it's chemical behavior without necessarily processing the signal through a nervous system. And, as with the flagellum, the benefit a new trait provides does not have to be the same benefit it confers in conjunction with other traits. That's part of the effort of evolutionary biologists, to figure out what the benefits of the atomic change are. Obviously, a change with a negative effect will be selected against, even if it could be beneficial given other traits, and one that is neutral will at least not be selected for, and thus not have the effects on the next iteration that I described..
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
JCFolsom:but you have a tendency to phrase things incorrectly enough that they would seem right to the uneducated reader and have maximal support for your position.
Bull. There's no reason to have to qualify every statement in a discussion among people at least passingly familiar with the theory. Every post would have to be 3000 words long.
The fact is, if you take a bacterial culture, comprised of more than one strain of the same basic bacteria, and add an antibiotic that kills some, but not all of the individuals, the entire culture at some future point will be comprised of the resistant strain, even if that strain was a trivial minority to start with. The culture as a whole has changed in response to its environment. There's nothing misleading about what I said. I assume that Jack called it out because he thought I didn't understand it.
A assume that you jumped in afterward as a way to try and score cheap points.
JCFolsom: Again, your refusal to actually address the arguments of ID as if it were a real school of thought
Again, your refusal to actually address the arguments of ID as if it were a real school of thought
Because it isn't! There is no "school of thought" there - that's why it's no science. It makes no predictions, explains nothing, has no concrete ideas; it's just saying "god did it", even while refusing to acknowledge any particulars of what is meant by "god". It's a complete nullity.
JCFolsom: Paul:idea that actually provides for any kind of testable hypothesis (few and far between) has quickly been roundly debunked (although creationists still seem to hold them up as some kind of evidence that they're right...e.g., you're still suggesting people read Behe on the bacterial flagellum even after he's been proven utterly wrong...) Where was that proven? Refer me to the paper. Because in every case I've seen, it isn't a refutation, it's just like your other "arguments"; sophisticated and overlong ways of saying, "nuh-uh, is so, it coulda been a, um, thing to sit on for the bacteria before".
Paul:idea that actually provides for any kind of testable hypothesis (few and far between) has quickly been roundly debunked (although creationists still seem to hold them up as some kind of evidence that they're right...e.g., you're still suggesting people read Behe on the bacterial flagellum even after he's been proven utterly wrong...)
Where was that proven? Refer me to the paper. Because in every case I've seen, it isn't a refutation, it's just like your other "arguments"; sophisticated and overlong ways of saying, "nuh-uh, is so, it coulda been a, um, thing to sit on for the bacteria before".
So...what do you mean by "proven"? The only proof you'll accept is to actually see the evolutionary chain in action? Behe is wrong because pieces that don't make up a working flagellum are found in nature (e.g., in bubonic plague), which proves that it's not irreducible. That's all that's needed to show the plausibility of evolutionary formation rather than design - i.e., to prove Behe wrong.
See http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm
JCFolsom: Your derision and hostility towards these ideas is an argument against your credulity.
Your derision and hostility towards these ideas is an argument against your credulity.
Derision, yes; hostility, no. (So derision and "hostility" towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an argument against non-FSM religions?)
histhasthai:The fact is, if you take a bacterial culture, comprised of more than one strain of the same basic bacteria, and add an antibiotic that kills some, but not all of the individuals, the entire culture at some future point will be comprised of the resistant strain, even if that strain was a trivial minority to start with. The culture as a whole has changed in response to its environment.
Indeed, and a bacterial colony is an excellent example of what natural selection can do. In unusual circumstances, things that would normally constitute an organism being a harmful mutant, as in almost all cases antibiotic-resistant bacterial are, can be momentarily advantageous. Nonetheless, this is never because of the creation of a resistance factor, but because the organism actually severed one of its metabolic or other pathways, through which the antibiotic would normally do its work. The resistant bacteria are always at a disadvantage to their unmutated brethren in bacteria in antibiotic-free environments.
This is not the sort of "evolution" needed for Darwinism to explain life as we see it. These are destructive, not constructive mutations. They build nothing, but like the town burning a bridge to stop raiders, break something down as a desperation move to save themselves, but lose something useful in the process.
We have only ever observed mutation and natural selection break things down or produce minor variations in existing structures. We've never seen the creation of a new structure. Darwinists try to get around this by calling for very long periods of time, but this has never been demonstrated, even in the fossil record, which shows a tendency towards new organisms appearing suddenly and staying basically static for long periods of time.
Paul:Because it isn't! There is no "school of thought" there - that's why it's no science. It makes no predictions, explains nothing, has no concrete ideas; it's just saying "god did it", even while refusing to acknowledge any particulars of what is meant by "god". It's a complete nullity.
As I recall, ID proponents predicted that the "Junk DNA" Darwinists used to make their absurdities sound more probable (look at all this extra stuff for nature to work with, all these discarded mistakes) would actually be found to have a function. Lo and behold, it does. As do the appendix, the tonsils, the tailbone; gosh, doesn't seem like there are too many vestigial biological structures after all. I say "God did it"; ID neither identifies the designer nor gives any particulars, other than that the designer was intelligent. As the watchmaker example shows, you can conclude that a watch has a designer without knowing who that designer is.
Paul:So...what do you mean by "proven"? The only proof you'll accept is to actually see the evolutionary chain in action? Behe is wrong because pieces that don't make up a working flagellum are found in nature (e.g., in bubonic plague), which proves that it's not irreducible. That's all that's needed to show the plausibility of evolutionary formation rather than design - i.e., to prove Behe wrong. See http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm
Oh, yes, how could I fail to be impressed by this (all quotes from the essay [which is to say, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper]) "tentative sketch"? We shall see, if, indeed, a plausible and "fully detailed evolutionary explanation for eubacterial flagella is not so distant". I have rather my doubts. This admittedly shaky just-so story is the best you can come up with as "proof" that Behe is wrong? A couple of similar structures with different functions, many missing components and no control system? Pathetic.
JCFolsom:As I recall, ID proponents predicted that the "Junk DNA" Darwinists used to make their absurdities sound more probable (look at all this extra stuff for nature to work with, all these discarded mistakes) would actually be found to have a function. Lo and behold, it does.
Evolution actually happens, but a wrist watch does not evolve from a grandfather clock.
I say "God did it"; ID neither identifies the designer nor gives any particulars,
Argument over. If you cannot identify it, you cannot verify it, but somehow you manage to make this extrapolation based on unobservable and non-verifiable evidence.
other than that the designer was intelligent.
Drivel, unless you can identify the designer.
IDigSluts_ky:Drivel, unless you can identify the designer.
Given that you're the expert on drivel, I'll have to take your word for it.
I guess if you can't find the maker's mark on a watch, it probably evolved. Right?
JCFolsom:Given that you're the expert on drivel, I'll have to take your word for it.
You have to take my word, unless you prove god. As I initially said, the burden of proof is on you. Do you understand?
A wrist watch does not evolve from a grandfather clock. DNA is not the maker's mark.
IDigSluts_ky: A wrist watch does not evolve from a grandfather clock. DNA is not the maker's mark.
Y'know, I have to apologize to you. I thought you were just being obstinate, but you really don't get it, do you? You probably don't have the capacity to. I am not going to respond to your posts anymore; you're like Darwin's parrot, endlessly repeating a few tired phrases of which you have no true comprehension. Have a nice life.
JCFolsom:Y'know, I have to apologize to you. I thought you were just being obstinate, but you really don't get it, do you?
Apology accepted, but this still does not prove your god.
You probably don't have the capacity to.
I don't have the capacity to fully understand or explain the universe. Neither do you, but somehow your god does.
I am not going to respond to your posts anymore; you're like Darwin's parrot, endlessly repeating a few tired phrases of which you have no true comprehension. Have a nice life.
I wish you the best in your quest for god.
Paul: "ID" is not science.
banned:Wrong.
ID is NOT science and is laughable.
1. A hypothesis is made after observations.
2. Science does not begin with an unkown variable (god).
IDigSluts_ky: Paul: "ID" is not science. banned:Wrong. ID is NOT science and is laughable. 1. A hypothesis is made after observations. 2. Science does not begin with an unkown variable (god).
1. A beginning would be an observation. I am here, therefore I begin somewhere. Regardless if your hypothesis is abiogenesis or not, you would inherently start with that observation.
2. I cannot see how one could say that science doesn't have unknown or uncontrollable variables.
You are however correct in saying that ID is not science, as it is a scientific hypothesis/theory. I'm not saying that it's legitimacy cannot be subject to debate, but your arguments against it are inherently wrong.
Thargok:1. A beginning would be an observation. I am here, therefore I begin somewhere. Regardless if your hypothesis is abiogenesis or not, you would inherently start with that observation.
We do not know if existence has a beginning or always existed.
Of course science has uncontrolled variables, but it is not "god".
I'm not saying that it's legitimacy cannot be subject to debate, but your arguments against it are inherently wrong
I am sick and tired of "god did it" arguments. Define your god! You obviously believe in an imaginary creature, but where is the evidence to support your imagination?