Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pseudogenes are proof that genomic alterations take place over time, but not the kind of specialized inductive proof of common descent that you need to argue against creationism. It's fully consistent with what creationists refer to as "change in kind".
Notice how Dawkins can't answer the question and uses bafoonery to get around it.
Dawkins found that simply being an expert does not equip one to deal with the trickery of the creationists. (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
If you could grasp the most simple of things (*sigh*). He used to be an atheist professor (that's what the one who put the video up called him, not me). He once believed in evolution and was once an atheist until he was confronted by a creationist. I can see why it would be GD embarrassing for the one believing in evolution. You see Dane, the point you and others here make so well is that no matter how embarrassing a situation you may find yourself in, all you can do is rant and rave about this post or that post against evolution. Rather than focus on the actual video and focus on what turned the tide for this professor who was once a believer in evolution, you just poopoo the whole video. I understand. Really I do.
I have heard "I understand - really I do" before, and so have you. It is a way of using a variety of polemic tricks, evasions and misrepresentations as a pretext for remaining in delusion.
Creationism cannot make a case through the evidence - they have none - so it has to be made though misrepresentation - like the wad of dinosaurs in art photos, crafty editing like the Dawkins clip (1) - and the one with Anthony Flew, trying to make him look like he bought into Christianity. And especially the so very easy impudent denial you post, which is just claiming that you have obviously won the whole when you haven't actually scored any points at all.
(1) that does need some explanation.
Creationists are very clever at putting Loaded questions. Which in fact will stop and make us (and Dawkins) have to think about the implications, and of course will look very good when presented as an 'atheist/Evolutionist Stumped' clip.
Let me give as an analogy 'Can you give an example of a molecular combination that will create a bicycle?' Of course one will have to stop and think and then explain what was left out. And the creationists will crow "I understand wy you can't answer -I really do" having got the Confirmation of their bias. It is trickery - not evidence.
Another example was the 'Could a God be possible in your universe?' question. To just say 'Yes' would give them the game for free. To explain that 'anything is possible, but that proves nothing' is just represented as 'being unable to answer'. It was the same in a clip asking for an example of evolution. It is actually darned hard to think of an example, because evolution is either done in a laboratory (and published in a specialist paper) or is based on the observation of the result in nature. And that is applied to everything from the Cetan sequence to Darwin's finches. After some thought I reckoned the 'Peppered Moth' is the nearest to an example of Evolution before our eyes. But that of course would be dismissed as 'Micro' evolution.
What is demanded is dogs giving birth to cats before our very eyes. And when we explain that this is not what evolution claims - well, that is when I last heard the kneejerk slogan of creationist closed - minded ignorance: "I understand why you can't answer - I really do".
And the same with the 'Atheist Professor' video. Is it for real? We were all born atheist, so of course converts were converted at some time or other. And some atheist professors can be bamboozled into accepting the false claims of Creationism - like poor old Anthony Flew, completely fooled by Behe's discredited I/C. That's if it is gen. It is meaningless, Eusebius. But it gives you just the confirmation of bias and the sniping at atheism/evolution that you like. In fact I think winding us up is more the point than making a proper argument. Though as we saw with the Denialist wordsalad (2) you have no idea what a proper argument should look like, anyway.
The real debating -case here is not being made in posting lots of atheist -stumpers, no matter how you may tell yourself that it is, but by how every other stumper you post - like the megalithic walls in Siberia - shows in neon colours the total lack of concern for verification, understanding or even honesty, characterized by Creationist methods and most spectacularly, old mate, by yours.
(2) Can you make me a "Denialist Worldsalad?" "A..wha...I think we're fresh out of Denialist.."
(3) A final bit of Eusebian craftiness "(that's what the one who put the video up called him, not me)". You put up the video so you endorse the term. Don't try to pretend that it is nothing to do with you.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-13-2015 at 03:58 AM..
Pseudogenes are proof that genomic alterations take place over time, but not the kind of specialized inductive proof of common descent that you need to argue against creationism. It's fully consistent with what creationists refer to as "change in kind".
You clearly have no understanding how Pseud-genes are used to identify common ancestry...you are not even close.
Creationism is not science and Creation Myth believers do a very poor job of interpreting science.
We don't use pseudo-genes to prove that genomic alterations take place over time. We track mutation rates for a specific class of mutations...such as point mutations, insertions or deletions.
Pseudo-genes are used to identify common ancestry and this is done by comparing the polymorphism of pseudo-genes in orthologous loci in other species, any nested hierarchies they fall into can be identified.
Why do Creationists think they own the conversation in science? Creationists only steal cheat and lie about the scientific data that they read...as well as try to twist it to fit their narrow theological views. They don't perform the experiments or collect the data but yet they think they know how to interpret the data and they sound quite foolish in the process. They are only fooling the non-scientist and the uneducated.
Make no mistake Creationism is not science. Creationist don't understand the science and as we have seen over and over in this thread. They either twist the real science or show an utter lack of understanding of the science just as we see in dumbonyc's post.
I fully expect now some "So Evolution approves of cannibalism?" sniping.
Your post in relation to Dumbo of Ny is the much -needed expertise that shows how garbled are these 'genetics disproves Evolution' posts. There is a sort of misunderstanding of what the genetics is supposed to prove and an attempt to shoehorn the results into this Micro -evolution within "kinds" fantasy compartmentalizing that really tracks back to all kinds of creatures made on one day as per Genesis.
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post How do you know it is "half" and not just 1/8? Your evaluation of me and prognosis is about as critical in thinking as your abilities to defend evolution, which, I might add is rather lacking any kind of proficiency even in high school. Rail on. You are making me believe people who do believe in evolution really did come from some knuckle dragging buffoon. I came from Adam and Eve. Maybe that's why I know more than you? Wanna banana?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
A highly scientific argument on your part.
It is amusing that Eusebius thinks that raucous abuse and posting pictures of overweight gorillas is doing anything but dismaying those who would really, Really, like to see a good, persuasive case made for creation.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-13-2015 at 04:13 AM..
You clearly have no understanding how Pseud-genes are used to identify common ancestry...you are not even close.
Creationism is not science and Creation Myth believers do a very poor job of interpreting science.
We don't use pseudo-genes to prove that genomic alterations take place over time. We track mutation rates for a specific class of mutations...such as point mutations, insertions or deletions.
Pseudo-genes are used to identify common ancestry and this is done by comparing the polymorphism of pseudo-genes in orthologous loci in other species, any nested hierarchies they fall into can be identified.
Why do Creationists think they own the conversation in science? Creationists only steal cheat and lie about the scientific data that they read...as well as try to twist it to fit their narrow theological views. They don't perform the experiments or collect the data but yet they think they know how to interpret the data and they sound quite foolish in the process. They are only fooling the non-scientist and the uneducated.
Make no mistake Creationism is not science. Creationist don't understand the science and as we have seen over and over in this thread. They either twist the real science or show an utter lack of understanding of the science just as we see in dumbonyc's post.
These nested hierarchies don't extend beyond phyla, and attempts at phylogenetic abduction at a broader level have raised far more problems than resolved them, for example in necessary rates of HGT. To complicate the matter further, there is burgeoning evidence of non-redundancy in sequences we originally considered true pseudogenes.
These nested hierarchies don't extend beyond phyla, and attempts at phylogenetic abduction at a broader level have raised far more problems than resolved them, for example in necessary rates of HGT. To complicate the matter further, there is burgeoning evidence of non-redundancy in sequences we originally considered true pseudogenes.
I'll leave it to our expert to address this post which requires an expertise I don't pretend to have. religious apologists (they also use philosophy) have learned that you can win an argument by default by cutting and posting something so bewildering that it needs an expert to explain it. But it strikes me that, all this is doing is pointing up some more questions. In time they will be answered, too, but the mere positing of questions coming out of given answers is not a reason to pretend that evolution is debunked, any more than finding a transitional fossil being represented as just needing two more transitionals each side is a valid objection to evolution.
It is merely a way of ignoring yet more evidence for evolution and looking for unanswered Questions as a pretext for maintaining the denial.
I swear, the evidence is only half of the debate - the crafty misrepresentation or "Interpretation" as they like to put it of the evidence is more than half of the debate.
I'll leave it to our expert to address this post which requires an expertise I don't pretend to have. religious apologists (they also use philosophy) have learned that you can win an argument by default by cutting and posting something so bewildering that it needs an expert to explain it. But it strikes me that, all this is doing is pointing up some more questions. In time they will be answered, too, but the mere positing of questions coming out of given answers is not a reason to pretend that evolution is debunked, any more than finding a transitional fossil being represented as just needing two more transitionals each side is a valid objection to evolution.
It is merely a way of ignoring yet more evidence for evolution and looking for unanswered Questions as a pretext for maintaining the denial.
I swear, the evidence is only half of the debate - the crafty misrepresentation or "Interpretation" as they like to put it of the evidence is more than half of the debate.
Sorry Arequipa, but why is it around a half of your posts either barely make sense or go off on a complete tangent to the topic being discussed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
