the inductive generalization called evolution
All-Seeing-I
proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
population.
The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
Therefore:
The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
from an ape.
Therefore all men evolved from apes.
Nope.
Boikat
*************************************
Logical Fallacy of the Day,
brought to you by ASS-I(diot) in association with BonKo, makers of the
home trepanning kit and the ever popular Vegematic Brain Dicer
************************************
> A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> population.
>
> The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> Therefore:
> The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> from an ape.
>
Damn, you're stupid. Common ancestry of humans ans other modern apes
does not rest on "2 bones form 20 million years ago". It is based on
piles of more recent fossil evidence, detailed morphology and
genetics. You apparently lack the needed perceptive and cognitive
abilities to understand that simple body of evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> Therefore all men evolved from apes
Humans *are* apes, you stupid freak, as has been pointed out to you
several times, and humans share common ancestry with all modern apes,
which also has been pointed out to you several times..
>
> Nope.
Since human evolution and common ancestry with other modern apes does
not rest on "2 bones from 20 million years ago", your argument
represents an example of a "Straw man", which is a logical fallacy,
which means you are presenting a view or opinion not held by
paleontologists or anthropologists, and you are attempting to refute
the false view. Refuting a false viewpoint does not refute the actual
view held by paleontologists, anthropologists or biologists, and so,
you are once again worng, and only ended up making yourself look
stupid
In other words, you created an false view, and attempted to discredit
the false view (and even at that, you simply proclaimed it wrong,
which, in and of itself, does not refute the claim), and think you've
made some point. Your conclusion is wrong, because your claim is
wrong.
Taken it to a simpler level, you are a liar, since the evolution of
modern man and the common ancestry with the other modern apes does not
rest on "2 bones from 20 million years ago", therefore, since your
claim is wrong, so is your conclusion.
Thank you for today's example of a logical fallacy.
Boikat
Bill
So your conclusion is that some men evolved from apes but that others
evolved from something else?
All-Seeing-I
Your brain has finally melted and has begun to leak out of your ass.
Show your work. Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
explanition.
bpuharic
gee. when i was in nursing school we studied anatomy using 1 skeleton.
i guess the moron thinks that neither doctors or nurses can do any
medical work at all because there's no relationship in anatomy from 1
person to the next.
the idiot doesn't seem to realize that skeletons change with
time....evolution. the fact these skeletons were different, and the
fact that human skeletons are NEVER found in strata from 20M years ago
means that somehow THOSE organisms got changed to us.
that's evolution
and creationism has no explanation for this at all. none.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Show your work. Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
>for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
>explanition.
we dont have to show the common ancestor
we have to show change. that's it
and evolution has done that
creationism? still gasping after 2000 years of failure
Free Lunch
Test your own genes and compare them to those of other great apes. The
work has been shown. You refuse to acknowledge it because it does not
fit with the disgraced doctrines you preach.
>Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
>for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
>explanition.
You do understand that "God did it" is not an explanation.
alextangent
The "bone" count is significantly greater than 2; and the period they
cover is not a single point in time.
It's not all bones either. The amount of evidence that points to a
common ancestor is huge.
The ape genome has attribute A'.
The human genome has attribute A'', which is 95%+ like A'
Therefore it is highly likely that all men inherited a genome with
attribute A from an ape-like ancestor.
Much simplified, but the point is; ape is in your blood too, although
you'll probably not welcome the idea.
Steven L.
You're going to get slammed as usual.
But you've actually stumbled on a major issue of the philosophy of
science: the problem of induction.
Philosophers such as David Hume were concerned about science's
dependence on induction: The sun has always risen in the east, but how
do we really know it will do so tomorrow? Next week? 10,000 years from
now? Why should the future resemble the past?
They batted this back and forth until probability theory provided a
mathematical justification for scientific induction: Scientific
experiments on a particular attribute represent a kind of Gallup poll of
the Universe, hopefully with randomized sampling. And given the number
and results of these experiments, we can compute the probability that
this attribute holds for the entire Universe using sampling theory.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
All-seeing-I
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:14:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
IOW you CAN''T show your work so you have to INFER from data.
But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
perceptions that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
yeah. You have shown evolution to be true. NOT
All-seeing-I
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:36:06 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
You have been everything from a nurse, to a scientist to a garbage
man.
IOW you are 500 years old or, you are a nut. I vote the latter
richardal...@googlemail.com
Why do you think that a public demonstration of dogmatic ignorance
does anything other than make you look dogmatically ignorant?
Get a freakin' education.
RF
John Wilkins
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Only if you use a Straight Rule: which asserts that the rules and
conditions do not change in future inductions. Otherwise you are
subject to the Grue Problem, in which predicates, properties and other
inductive foundations may change without warning.
Today's Zen Moment: Species are Grue Predicates... :-)
Caranx latus
>
> But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
> perceptions that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
Are you aware that "could be flawed" and "is flawed" are *not* the
same thing? If you seriously want to challenge evolutionary theory,
you are going to have to speak to the theory itself. Trying to do it
on the basis of "flawed perceptions" only succeeds in opening the door
to nihilism, and you damage yourself as much as you damage anyone
else.
Will in New Haven
The _overwhelmingly_ best possible explanations revolve around
evolution. Your first post was an attempt to attach a straw man. This
is your regular appeal to "reasonable doubt" theory. This isn't a
criminal trial and the best explanation is what we are going to run
with. That it _does_ meet the "reasonable doubt" standard for everyone
with a decent education in the field is just a bonus.
--
Will in New Haven
Dana Tweedy
> A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> population.
>
> The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> Therefore:
> The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> from an ape.
Bones from 20 million years ago would be long before the split that led to
the separate human/chimp linages. Examining "two bones" might give
paleoentologists some important information regarding primate evolution, but
it's not likely to suggest, all by themselves that humans evolved from apes.
Fortunately, there are much more than just "two bones", and the wealth of
the genetic information, as well as the anatomical, biochemical,
biogeographical, and biostratographical evidence that strongly shows that
humans are a species of ape.
>
> Therefore all men evolved from apes.
Since all humans are descended from the same common ancestor, and that
ancestor was an ape (as are humans today), it's a reasonable conclusion that
all men and women too, evolved from apes.
>
>
> Nope.
Ah, the power of unsupported denial. How persuasive.
DJT
Boikat
Sorry, dullard, you are wrong, again. You should be used to that by
now.
>
> Show your work.
It's in my reply to your stupidity.
> Where is this common ancestor?
*the* common ancestor does not have to be identified, fool. Only a
cretin thisk that is a requirement.
> What evidence is there
> for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
> explanition.-
The evidence was provided in the link, and "other possible
explainations" is nothing but a dodge, since you are attempting to
refute the ToE and human evolution by simply sticking you fingers in
your ears and squinking. If you have some "other explaination" ,
please present it with the *verifiable and testable* evidence.
Grow you, you stupid twit.
Boikat
RAM
Your OP embarrassingly reveals you do not understand scientific
induction strategies. Your dictionary def. is absolutely inadequate
for the more complex strategies employed by science. Your confusion
about induction is a confusion about a general research strategy and
techniques science employs. It shows that you haven't the vagueist
idea how varied scientific inductive strategies are interrelated and
employed.
In short, you again look like the asshole you really are.
This post indicates you are foundationally ignorant of science and
that you continuously spout volumes of non-science stupidities. Your
really need to take the Kruger/Dunning seriously if you ever wish to
be taken seriously.
> Show your work. Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
> for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
> explanition.
This post dramatizes the fact you do not understand what constitutes
scientific evidence, and how science rigorously collects and analyses
evidence.
And evidence is the backbone of all science. This post reveals your
claims about being knowledgeable about science is absolutely
empirically not true.
You don't even understand science at an AP high school level.
The more you post the more you reveal that you are a self inflated
empty rhetoric airbag and how utterly incompetent you are.
Again your posts in this thread are especially telling about the real
extent of your scientific ignorance.
Dana Tweedy
> Show your work.
Have you gotten around to showing your probablity estimates, as to why your
explanation is better than evolution?
>Where is this common ancestor?
It most likely went extinct about 7 million years ago. The closest fossil
yet found is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, but the genetic evidence is much
more compelling.
>What evidence is there
> for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
> explanition.
everything has more than one explanation. The explanation provided by
science, however is testable, and falsifiable. That makes it more likely
to be closest to the correct one. The evidence for the ancestral
connection is in multiple lines. There is the fossils, the genetic
evidence, the anatomical, and physiological similarities, the biochemical
evidence, and the evidence from biogeography, and biostratography.
DJT
All-seeing-I
This changes the fact that they cannot show their work and have to
infer instead... how?
Boikat
DU-FUCKING-H!!! Again, if you hae a better *infered* interpretation
of teh evidence, I'm sure everyone would like to see it. The Cricket
Philharmonic is not evidence, however.
>
> But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
> perceptions
Please, show how.
> that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
Wen a house pet comes up with a better theory, I'll be all ears, 'tard-
boy. BTW, your "perception" aregument is meaningles, and is escapeism
on your part.
>
> yeah. You have shown evolution to be true. NOT-
One thing for damned sure, your have not.
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
>> You do understand that "God did it" is not an explanation.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> IOW you CAN''T show your work so you have to INFER from data.
Infering from the data is how one shows one's work. All of human
experience is inference from the data.
>
> But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
> perceptions that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
Again, you take refuge in nihilism. Humans get around their limitations in
perception by comparing inferences with others, and comparing it with the
information available. It may not be perfect, but it beats your own
method, which is to simply assume what you wish, and ignore any evidence to
the contrary.
>
> yeah. You have shown evolution to be true. NOT
You, on the other hand have not shown evolution to be false. You again,
have just assumed your conclusion, and refuse to consider you might be
incorrect.
DJT
All-seeing-I
Look. My goal has never been to show evolution wrong. I happen to
believe that evolution is a God given necessary part of species
survival. Each and every one of us can show evolution happens for
ourselves with a garden, or a litter of dogs.
But, There IS however, A Reasonable Doubt for evolution from a single
common ancestor.....Anyone with a decent education can see as much. I
suspect even those without an education can figure that much out as
well.
The Molecules to Man Version of Evolution has to be INFERRED from
data; But the data itself can doubtful. Even the interpretation of the
data can raise some doubts. Which in turn produces a reasonable doubt
that should be enough to acquit in a court of law.
Many of you accept the molecules to man version of evolution because
you want to not because it is a known fact.
The best possible answer that fits what we can see for ourselves and
what we can actually manipulated for ourselves is known as micro
evolution. I call it variation of the same kind of life. Everything
beyond that is not observed, cannot be observed, and is therefore an
inference and a belief of what happened.
But if we go with ancient texts that say life started with a created
"kind" and then filled the earth with variations of the original kind,
and variations of those variations, then evolution makes sense. We can
see that happening in real time with no inferences or wild exotic
stories needed.
heekster
wrote:
So, it would not be unreasonable then, to describe adman's mastery of
logic as gruesome.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you cannot show a common ancestor. The only thing you can do is
make up stories over data that can have faults.
Smooth move exlax
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 26, 11:36 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> > proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> > population.
>
> > The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> > Therefore:
> > The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> > We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> > from an ape.
>
> > Therefore all men evolved from apes.
>
> > Nope.
>
> The "bone" count is significantly greater than 2; and the period they
> cover is not a single point in time.
> It's not all bones either. The amount of evidence that points to a
> common ancestor is huge.
>
> The ape genome has attribute A'.
> The human genome has attribute A'', which is 95%+ like A'
common design and common elements used.
>
> Therefore it is highly likely that all men inherited a genome with
> attribute A from an ape-like ancestor.
>
> Much simplified, but the point is; ape is in your blood too, although
> you'll probably not welcome the idea.
IOW you cannot show your work that does not have more then one
interpretation.
Boikat
And you've always been an asshole.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Nov 26, 10:48 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 9:14 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 6:25 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 5:36 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > *************************************
>
> > > > Logical Fallacy of the Day,
>
> > > > brought to you by ASS-I(diot) in association with BonKo, makers of the
> > > > home trepanning kit and the ever popular Vegematic Brain Dicer
>
> > > > ************************************
>
> > > > > proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> > > > > population.
>
> > > > > The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> > > > > Therefore:
> > > > > The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> > > > > We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> > > > > from an ape.
>
I don't have to show one. Besides, the DNA evidence is sufficient to
establish common ancestry. If you think lack of a *specific* species
derailes the ToE, you are not only ignorant, but grosely ignorant.
That would be like saying you have no family tree if you cannot
produce the grave of your great-great-great-great grandfather.
> The only thing you can do is
> make up stories over data that can have faults.
Please feel free to point out those faults.
>
> Smooth move exlax
You'd have more experiance in that department, since you are nothing
but an ignorant shit-head.
Boikat
John Harshman
> A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> population.
>
> The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> Therefore:
> The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> from an ape.
>
>
>
> Nope.
That's not the evidence. First, most of the evidence has nothing to do
with fossils, as you have been told many times. Second, the fossils are
much more plentiful than you claim. Rather than two bones from 20
million years ago we have hundred of bones from about 4 million to 40
thousand years ago.
Caranx latus
That you think that using inference somehow implies that you can't
"show your work" I think demonstrates that you have no idea what
inference is. That's kind of surprising since you use inference *all
the time*.
In any case, as I said "could be flawed" and "is flawed" are not the
same thing, and complaining about flawed perceptions is *not* the way
to demonstrate that something that "could be flawed" actually "is
flawed".
richardal...@googlemail.com
Bollocks!
> I happen to
> believe that evolution is a God given necessary part of species
> survival. Each and every one of us can show evolution happens for
> ourselves with a garden, or a litter of dogs.
>
> But, There IS however, A Reasonable Doubt for evolution from a single
> common ancestor....
Quite so. There was a paper on the subject in the journal "Nature" a
couple of years ago which suggested that there had been several
abiogenesis events, and that in the very early earth when life was
exploding into empty environments, natural selection was far less
significant in driving the evolution of diversity than symbiosis and
lateral gene transfer. The evolutionary "tree" of single-celled
organisms is riddled with reticulation and gene sharing across widely
different clades.
However, there is no reasonable doubt that all complex, multicellular
organisms are descended from a single ancestral group.
>.Anyone with a decent education can see as much.
How can you know that? It's patently clear that you lack such an
education.
> I
> suspect even those without an education can figure that much out as
> well.
>
> The Molecules to Man Version of Evolution has to be INFERRED from
> data; But the data itself can doubtful. Even the interpretation of the
> data can raise some doubts. Which in turn produces a reasonable doubt
> that should be enough to acquit in a court of law.
Not according to those who have taken the time and made the effort to
educate themselves in the subject.
What do you know that those people (whose education you obviously
resent) don't?
>
> Many of you accept the molecules to man version of evolution because
> you want to not because it is a known fact.
And how on earth can you know that? You don't know me, or what goes on
in my mind. More to the point, you are clearly both ignorant of
evolutionary biology and dogmatically determined to remain ignorant.
Why should anyone accept the views of an ignoranmus?
>
> The best possible answer that fits what we can see for ourselves and
> what we can actually manipulated for ourselves is known as micro
> evolution. I call it variation of the same kind of life.
Well bully for you. Scientists - you know, the people who have taken
the time and made the effort to *learn* about the subject, and have
made use of that education by research in the subject - call it
"evolution".
> Everything
> beyond that is not observed, cannot be observed, and is therefore an
> inference and a belief of what happened.
We observe and measure the evidence. If you have a better
interpretation for the evidence which can be tested using the tools of
science, feel free to offer it.
>
> But if we go with ancient texts that say life started with a created
> "kind" and then filled the earth with variations of the original kind,
Which "ancient text" say that?
The Sumerian story of creation doesn't say that. It refers to serpents
spawned by Gods, so presumably you think that is the origin of
serpents. The Chinese - another very ancient civilisation - say that
the universe was created when Pan Gu broke a big black egg. They also
say that the human race was created from the lice and fleas that were
on his body when he died. Bearing in mind that these stories were
probably written down before the Bible, presumably they are more
likely to be true by your rather quaint standards of evidence.
According to Greek "historic texts", men were made by the Prometheus,
and animals by Epimetheus. As they probably predate the Bible, perhaps
they are true as well. Of course, there are many other creation
stories, some of them very ancient. How about this one:
"Napioa (Old Man - the creator) sat on a log floating on the first
waters. He sent the fish, the frog, the lizard, and the turtle to get
whatever it was beneath the waters. The only one to return was the
turtle, which carried some mud in his mouth. Napioa rolled the mud
into a ball, which grew to become the earth. After the earth was made,
Napioa made humans, then he made the buffalo, and taught the humans
how to hunt them"
> and variations of those variations, then evolution makes sense. We can
> see that happening in real time with no inferences or wild exotic
> stories needed.
So which of the creation myths (which are evidently *not* "wild exotic
stories" according to you) which I posted on my web site here:
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php are true,
and which (according to you) are lies?
By the way, there's a question you haven't answered yet: Which of the
two different creation stories in the Bible is true, and which is a
lie?
RF
Friar Broccoli
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:54:31 +1100, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <BLSdnbt8M83JP5PWnZ2dnUVZ_qudn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
That's all full.
heekster
No, the problem is that you simply lack the appropriate educational
background and minimal level of intelligence required, in order to be
capable of understanding what the actual situation consists of.
Davej
> [...]
> Therefore all men evolved from apes.
No, you were probably hatched by a chicken. Heck, it isn't written on
the ancient goat skin so it can't be true.
heekster
World class learning disability duly noted.
John Harshman
>
> Show your work. Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
> for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
> explanition.
Here.
Evidence for human relationships to the other apes.
Here is a set of DNA sequences. They come from two mitochondrial genes,
ND4 and ND5. If you put them together, they total 694 nucleotides. But
most of those nucleotides either are identical among all the species
here, or they differ in only one species. Those are uninformative about
relationships, so I have removed them, leaving 76 nucleotides that make
some claim. I'll let you look at them for a while.
[ 10 20 30 40 50]
[ . . . . .]
+ 1 2++ 3 11 +4 3 ++ 52+1 2615+4 14+ 3 3+6+
gibbon ACCGCCCCCA TCCCCTCCCT CAAGTCCTAT CCAATCTACT GTACTTTGCC
orangutan ACCACTCCCA CCCTTCCTCC TAAGACTCAC ACAACTCGCC ACACCTCGTC
human GTCATCATCC TTCTTTTTTT AGGAATTTCC TCTCTCCGTC ACGCTCTACT
chimpanzee ATTACCATTC CTTTTTTCCC CGGATTCTCC CTTCTTCATT ATGTCTCATT
gorilla GTTGTTATTA CCTCCCTTTC AAGAACCCCT TTCACCTATC GCGTCCCACT
[ 60 70 ]
[ . . ]
+++ +++1 + ++ 2 + +++
gibbon CCTACAGCCC AGCCAAACGA CACTAA
orangutan CCTACCGCCT AGCCATTTCA CACTAA
human CCCCTTATTT TCTTGTCCGG TGACCG
chimpanzee TTCCTCATTT TCTTACTCAG TGACCG
gorilla TTCCTTATTC TTTCGCCTAG TGATTA
I've marked with a plus sign all those sites at which gibbon and
orangutan match each other, and the three African apes (including
humans) have a different base but match each other. These sites all
support a relationship among the African apes, exclusive of gibbon and
orangutan. You will note there are quite a lot of them, 24 to be exact.
The sites I have marked with numbers from 1-6 contradict this
relationship. (Sites without numbers don't have anything to say about
this particular question.) We expect a certain amount of this because
sometimes the same mutation will happen twice in different lineages; we
call that homoplasy. However you will note that there are fewer of these
sites, only 22 of them, and more importantly they contradict each other.
Each number stands for a different hypothesis of relationships; for
example, number one is for sites that support a relationship betwen
gibbons and gorillas, and number two is for sites that support a
relationship between orangutans and gorillas (all exclusive of the
rest). One and two can't be true at the same time. So we have to
consider each competing hypothesis separately. If you do that it comes
out this way:
hypothesis sites supporting
African apes (+) 24
gibbon+gorilla (1) 6
orangutan+gorilla (2) 4
gibbon+human (3) 4
gibbon+chimp (4) 3
orangutan+human (5) 2
orangutan+chimp (6) 2
I think we can see that the African ape hypothesis is way out front, and
the others can be attributed to random homoplasy. This result would be
very difficult to explain by chance.
Let's try a statistical test just to be sure. Let's suppose, as our null
hypothesis, that the sequences are randomized with respect to phylogeny
(perhaps because there is no phylogeny) and that apparent support for
African apes is merely a chance fluctuation. And let's try a chi-square
test. Here it is:
These are all the possible hypotheses of relationship, and the observed
number of sites supporting them. Expected values would be equal, or the
sum/7. There are 6 degrees of freedom, and the sum of squares is 57.8.
P, or the probability of this amount of asymmetry in the distribution
arising by chance, is very low. When I tried it in Excel, I got
P=1.25*10^-10, or 0.000000000125. Might as well call that zero, I think.
hypothesis obs. exp.
African apes (+) 24 6.43
gibbon+gorilla (1) 6 6.43
orangutan+gorilla (2) 4 6.43
gibbon+human (3) 4 6.43
gibbon+chimp (4) 3 6.43
orangutan+human (5) 2 6.43
orangutan+chimp (6) 2 6.43
sum 45 45
The difference is significant. Now the question is how you account for
it. I account for it by supposing that the null hypothesis is just plain
wrong, and that there is a phylogeny, and that the phylogeny involves
the African apes, including Homo, being related by a common ancestor
more recent than their common ancestor with orangutans or gibbons. How
about you?
By itself, this is pretty good evidence for the African ape connection.
But if I did this little exercise with any other gene I would get the
same result too. (If you don't believe me I would be glad to do that.)
Why? I say it's because all the genes evolved on the same tree, the true
tree of evolutionary relationships. That's the multiple nested hierarchy
for you.
So what's your alternative explanation for all this? You say...what?
It's because of a necessary similarity between similar organisms? But
out of these 76 sites with informative differences, only 18 involve
differences that change the amino acid composition of the protein; the
rest can have no effect on phenotype. Further, many of those amino acid
changes are to similar amino acids that have no real effect on protein
function. In fact, ND4 and ND5 do exactly the same thing in all
organisms. These nested similarities have nothing to do with function,
so similar design is not a credible explanation.
God did it that way because he felt like it? Fine, but this explains any
possible result. It's not science. We have to ask why god just happened
to feel like doing it in a way that matches the unique expectations of
common descent.
raven1
>Show your work. Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
>for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
>explanition.
There is only one rational, scientific explanation. Your explanation,
an appeal to magic, is neither rational nor scientific. It not only
does not deserve equal consideration, it does not deserve
consideration at all.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 9:31 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:14:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> Test your own genes and compare them to those of other great apes. The
>> work has been shown. You refuse to acknowledge it because it does not
>> fit with the disgraced doctrines you preach.
>>
>> >Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
>> >for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
>> >explanition.
>>
>> You do understand that "God did it" is not an explanation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>IOW you CAN''T show your work so you have to INFER from data.
>
>But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
>perceptions that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
>
>yeah. You have shown evolution to be true. NOT
Oh dear. Once again, we're back to "we don't know everything,
therefore, we know nothing". If we followed your approach to
knowledge, we'd still be living in caves.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> from an ape.
>
> Therefore all men evolved from apes.
You're sticking to your, er, nontraditional beliefs that some men are
descended from apes and some were directly created, perhaps by aliens
432K years ago?
I again point you towards <http://www.davidicke.com/> who holds not
unrelated beliefs. (Though IIUC his beliefs involve evil reptilian
aliens who (through interbreeding) rule the world. I guess you regard
the non-apes as good rather than evil?)
David Fritzinger
<14fddeca-4b4e-4a95...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:07�am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 11:36�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> > > proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> > > population.
> >
> > > The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> > > Therefore:
> > > The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
> >
> > > We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> > > from an ape.
> >
> > > Therefore all men evolved from apes.
> >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > The "bone" count is significantly greater than 2; and the period they
> > cover is not a single point in time.
> > It's not all bones either. The amount of evidence that points to a
> > common ancestor is huge.
> >
> > The ape genome has attribute A'.
> > The human genome has attribute A'', which is 95%+ like A'
>
> common design and common elements used.
Then, explain this fact. The central protein in the complement system
(part of the innate immune system) is complement component C3. It is
found in many multicellular organisms, even going back as far as the
corals. In all advanced vertebrates (from teleosts through mammals), C3
has exactly the same functions. That is, it is able to serve as the
activator of the alternative pathway of complement, serve as the link
between the 3 activation pathways and the terminal phase of complement,
and to tag target cells for phagocytosis. However, the sequence of C3 is
not the same in all animals, and the amount of homology tends to
decrease the further the animals are phylogenetically distinct. For
example, Human C3 is only about 50% identical to chicken or reptile C3.
It should also be noted that the gene organization of complement C3
genes in mammals and reptiles are nearly identical, with nearly
identical exon/intron boundaries. Why would a designer do this. It is
easily explained by common descent, but not so easily explained by a
designer. Do you have any reasons why a designer would design such an
important protein to change in sequence, even though the functions are
identical? Can yo come up with any explanation, other than "He/she felt
like doing it that way?
[snip]
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 9:18�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:36:06 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
>> >proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
>> >population.
>>
>> >The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>> >Therefore:
>> >The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>>
>> >We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
>> >from an ape.
>>
>> >Therefore all men evolved from apes.
>>
>> gee. when i was in nursing school we studied anatomy using 1 skeleton.
>> i guess the moron thinks that neither doctors or nurses can do any
>> medical work at all because there's no relationship in anatomy from 1
>> person to the next.
>>
>> the idiot doesn't seem to realize that skeletons change with
>> time....evolution. �the fact these skeletons were different, and the
>> fact that human skeletons are NEVER found in strata from 20M years ago
>> means that somehow THOSE organisms got changed to us.
>>
>> that's evolution
>>
>> and creationism has no explanation for this at all. none.
>
>You have been everything from a nurse, to a scientist to a garbage
>man.
>
Whereas you range between ignorant asshole, and stupid dipshit.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
--Robert Heinlein's character, Lazarus Long
>IOW you are 500 years old or, you are a nut. I vote the latter
You are an idiot. There is an overwhelming consensus on that point.
alextangent
> On Nov 26, 6:07 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 11:36 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> > > proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> > > population.
>
> > > The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> > > Therefore:
> > > The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> > > We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> > > from an ape.
>
> > > Therefore all men evolved from apes.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > The "bone" count is significantly greater than 2; and the period they
> > cover is not a single point in time.
> > It's not all bones either. The amount of evidence that points to a
> > common ancestor is huge.
>
> > The ape genome has attribute A'.
> > The human genome has attribute A'', which is 95%+ like A'
>
> common design and common elements used.
So we were constructed from ape bits? Can you point to the bits that
are not in common?
>
>
>
> > Therefore it is highly likely that all men inherited a genome with
> > attribute A from an ape-like ancestor.
>
> > Much simplified, but the point is; ape is in your blood too, although
> > you'll probably not welcome the idea.
>
> IOW you cannot show your work that does not have more then one
> interpretation.
Neither can you. I could equally claim the FSM, or an infinite variety
of other "solutions". That makes your theory equal to an infinite
number of other factless assertions.
Ye Old One
>A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
>proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
>population.
>
>The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>Therefore:
>The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
Correct, so far.
>
>We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
>from an ape.
Wrong, as usual.
>
>Therefore all men evolved from apes.
Wrong again.
>
>
>Nope.
>
Wrong three times in one post.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
All-seeing-I
> In article
> <14fddeca-4b4e-4a95-8c17-6ddacf525...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why are you confusing the general "engine" with a specific "ford
engine" or "GM engine"?
I see no reason why the concept of an engine (the C3) which serves the
same purpose as a "Ford engine" not be a common design idea. Some
engines propel cars with 300 HP, some propel tractors that may only
need 50% of the horse power. But they are all still engines.
Boikat
As stated several times already, one doesn't have to be specifically
identifies, since there is other supporting evidence.
> The only thing you can do is
> make up stories over data that can have faults.
Please demonstrate the "faults" in the DNA and detailed morphological
studies. And you asinine "our interpretation may be wrong because of
our inability to perceive" bullshit dosen't cut it.
>
> Smooth move exlax
Well, being full of shit, you'd be mor familiar with that than I.
Boikat
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
> perceptions that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
This repeated "house pet" thing is strange. Which animal do you mean?
And which of its perceptions is better than that of humans in a way
relevant to assessing the case for biological evolution?
>
> yeah. You have shown evolution to be true. NOT
--
Mike.
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 26, 5:32 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 6:07 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 11:36 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> > > > proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> > > > population.
>
> > > > The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> > > > Therefore:
> > > > The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> > > > We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> > > > from an ape.
>
> > > > Therefore all men evolved from apes.
>
> > > > Nope.
>
> > > The "bone" count is significantly greater than 2; and the period they
> > > cover is not a single point in time.
> > > It's not all bones either. The amount of evidence that points to a
> > > common ancestor is huge.
>
> > > The ape genome has attribute A'.
> > > The human genome has attribute A'', which is 95%+ like A'
>
> > common design and common elements used.
>
> So we were constructed from ape bits? Can you point to the bits that
> are not in common?
No we are constructed with common elements and assembled with a common
blue print. Slight modifications to the blue print (the DNA) renders a
new and specific kind of life.
Speech. Intelligence. cognative skills, design ability, self
awareness. all superior to the ape. The list that could be made is
long.
>
>
>
> > > Therefore it is highly likely that all men inherited a genome with
> > > attribute A from an ape-like ancestor.
>
> > > Much simplified, but the point is; ape is in your blood too, although
> > > you'll probably not welcome the idea.
>
> > IOW you cannot show your work that does not have more then one
> > interpretation.
>
> Neither can you. I could equally claim the FSM, or an infinite variety
> of other "solutions". That makes your theory equal to an infinite
> number of other factless assertions.- Hide quoted text -
But you didn't. Because you can't.
My theory happens to dovetails with the information that has been
handed down to us from our ancestors AND; it matches what we can
actually observe for ourselves in the real world.
Yours? Nothing more then an inference of the data to put it nicely.
To put it bluntly, evolution is an exotic fairy tale for kids that
never grew up.
it really is THAT simple.
---
Intelligent beyond your wildest dreams...
The All Seeing I
David Fritzinger
<5a8c1a51-ece2-4673...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
I see you are ignoring my point. No surprise there. The fact is that if
you compare human C3 to chimp C3, you will find them to be almost
identical. If you compare human to rat C3, you would find more
divergence, just as you see more divergence in their morphologies.
Compare human to reptile C3, and you see still more divergence, just as
you see more divergence in their respective morphologies. Now, why would
a designer do this, unless he/she is trying to make us think they all
came from a common ancestor?
Dave Oldridge
a43687...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
>proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
>population.
>
>The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>Therefore:
>The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
>We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
>from an ape.
>
>Therefore all men evolved from apes.
>
>
>Nope.
You are such an obedient little liar. Too bad your master, the father of
lies, can't (and won't) reward such behaviour with anything really
meaningful.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 26, 10:32 am, Will in New Haven
><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 10:14 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 26, 6:25 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 26, 5:36 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > *************************************
>>
>> > > Logical Fallacy of the Day,
>>
>> > > brought to you by ASS-I(diot) in association with BonKo, makers of the
>> > > home trepanning kit and the ever popular Vegematic Brain Dicer
>>
>> > > ************************************
>>
>> > > > A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
>> > > > proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
>> > > > population.
>>
>> > > > The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>> > > > Therefore:
>> > > > The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>>
>> > > > We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
>> > > > from an ape.
>>
>> > Show your work. Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
>> > for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
>> > explanition.
>>
>> The _overwhelmingly_ best possible explanations revolve around
>> evolution. Your first post was an attempt to attach a straw man. This
>> is your regular appeal to "reasonable doubt" theory. This isn't a
>> criminal trial and the best explanation is what we are going to run
>> with. That it _does_ meet the "reasonable doubt" standard for everyone
>> with a decent education in the field is just a bonus.
>
> Look. My goal has never been to show evolution wrong. I happen to
>believe that evolution is a God given necessary part of species
>survival. Each and every one of us can show evolution happens for
>ourselves with a garden, or a litter of dogs.
>
>But, There IS however, A Reasonable Doubt for evolution from a single
>common ancestor
No there isn't - not even a shadow of a doubt.
>.....Anyone with a decent education can see as much.
When you actually get an education please feel free to come back.
>I
>suspect even those without an education can figure that much out as
>well.
>
>The Molecules to Man Version of Evolution has to be INFERRED from
>data; But the data itself can doubtful. Even the interpretation of the
>data can raise some doubts. Which in turn produces a reasonable doubt
>that should be enough to acquit in a court of law.
But your alternative, goddidit, fails every single test.
>
>Many of you accept the molecules to man version of evolution because
>you want to not because it is a known fact.
>
>The best possible answer that fits what we can see for ourselves and
>what we can actually manipulated for ourselves is known as micro
>evolution. I call it variation of the same kind of life. Everything
>beyond that is not observed, cannot be observed, and is therefore an
>inference and a belief of what happened.
>
>But if we go with ancient texts that say life started with a created
>"kind" and then filled the earth with variations of the original kind,
>and variations of those variations, then evolution makes sense. We can
>see that happening in real time with no inferences or wild exotic
>stories needed.
Goddidit is NOT a valid answer.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 26, 10:48 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Sorry, dullard, you are wrong, again. You should be used to that by
>> now.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Show your work.
>>
>> It's in my reply to your stupidity.
>>
>> > Where is this common ancestor?
>>
>> *the* common ancestor does not have to be identified, fool. Only a
>> cretin thisk that is a requirement.
>>
>> > What evidence is there
>> > for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
>> > explanition.-
>>
>> The evidence was provided in the link, and "other possible
>> explainations" is nothing but a dodge, since you are attempting to
>> refute the ToE and human evolution by simply sticking you fingers in
>> your ears and squinking. If you have some "other explaination" ,
>> please present it with the *verifiable and testable* evidence.
>>
>> Grow you, you stupid twit.
>>
>> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>So you cannot show a common ancestor.
Which one are you looking for?
>The only thing you can do is
>make up stories over data that can have faults.
>
>Smooth move exlax
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Will in New Haven
Would we have _dared_ approach those caves? Would we have survived at
all?
--
Will in New Haven
Burkhard
-
>>> IOW you CAN''T show your work so you have to INFER from data.
>>> But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
>>> perceptions that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
>>> yeah.
>
You mean your deity has some sort of body odour problem, and cats, but
not humans can smell him out? Even for you this is
an...unusual..theological position to take.
Boikat
> On Nov 26, 10:32 am, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> > > for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
> > > explanition.
>
> > evolution. Your first post was an attempt to attach a straw man. This
> > is your regular appeal to "reasonable doubt" theory. This isn't a
> > criminal trial and the best explanation is what we are going to run
> > with. That it _does_ meet the "reasonable doubt" standard for everyone
> > with a decent education in the field is just a bonus.
>
> Look. My goal has never been to show evolution wrong.
Bullshit. Especially since you're always claiming it doesn't happen.
> I happen to
> believe that evolution is a God given necessary part of species
> survival.
Fine. That's your right, and is your opinion.
> Each and every one of us can show evolution happens for
> ourselves with a garden, or a litter of dogs.
Yet you claim to refute evolution on a daily basis (using faulty
logic, which means you fail every day).
>
> But, There IS however, A Reasonable Doubt for evolution from a single
> common ancestor....
Not in the minds of anyone that understands biology.
>.Anyone with a decent education can see as much.
Anyone with a cecent education would say you're full of crap, too.
> I
> suspect even those without an education can figure that much out as
> well.
Those without an education lack the knowledge needed to make an
informed assessment of the ToE.
>
> The Molecules to Man Version of Evolution has to be INFERRED from
> data;
Yes.
But the data itself can doubtful.
No, data is *fact*, *Interpretation" is what can be doubted, to a
reasonable degree. Hence, peer review, in part.
> Even the interpretation of the
> data can raise some doubts.
Yes, hence peer review.
> Which in turn produces a reasonable doubt
> that should be enough to acquit in a court of law.
Define "reasonable doubt", and science is not the court of law.
>
> Many of you accept the molecules to man version of evolution because
> you want to not because it is a known fact.
Shoddy phrasing aside, "molecules to man" is what the evidence
suggests.
>
> The best possible answer that fits what we can see for ourselves and
> what we can actually manipulated for ourselves is known as micro
> evolution.
Yes, and thousands of years of micro-evolution can add up to a huge
change. Some call that huge change "Macro-evolution, but it's all
simply "evolution".
.
> I call it variation of the same kind of life.
What you want to call it is irrelevant.
> Everything
> beyond that is not observed, cannot be observed, and is therefore an
> inference and a belief of what happened.
Inference is a valid means of drawing a conclusion from the evidence.
>
> But if we go with ancient texts that say life started with a created
> "kind" and then filled the earth with variations of the original kind,
> and variations of those variations, then evolution makes sense. We can
> see that happening in real time with no inferences or wild exotic
> stories needed
Or gods, or super advanced aliens, either. It seems natural processes
are all that's really required.
So, what was your point, again?
Boikat
alextangent
> On Nov 26, 2:03 pm,alextangent<b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 5:32 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 11:36 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> > > > > proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> > > > > population.
>
> > > > > The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> > > > > Therefore:
> > > > > The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> > > > > We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> > > > > from an ape.
>
> > > > > Therefore all men evolved from apes.
>
> > > > > Nope.
>
> > > > The "bone" count is significantly greater than 2; and the period they
> > > > cover is not a single point in time.
> > > > It's not all bones either. The amount of evidence that points to a
> > > > common ancestor is huge.
>
> > > > The ape genome has attribute A'.
> > > > The human genome has attribute A'', which is 95%+ like A'
>
> > > common design and common elements used.
>
> > So we were constructed from ape bits? Can you point to the bits that
> > are not in common?
>
> No we are constructed with common elements and assembled with a common
> blue print. Slight modifications to the blue print (the DNA) renders a
> new and specific kind of life.
Is the blueprint static, or is it subject to change?
>
> Speech. Intelligence. cognative skills, design ability, self
> awareness. all superior to the ape. The list that could be made is
> long.
Spelling too I see.
>
>
>
> > > > Therefore it is highly likely that all men inherited a genome with
> > > > attribute A from an ape-like ancestor.
>
> > > > Much simplified, but the point is; ape is in your blood too, although
> > > > you'll probably not welcome the idea.
>
> > > IOW you cannot show your work that does not have more then one
> > > interpretation.
>
> > Neither can you. I could equally claim the FSM, or an infinite variety
> > of other "solutions". That makes your theory equal to an infinite
> > number of other factless assertions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> But you didn't. Because you can't.
>
T.O. is full of answers for you. I could cut and paste them into one
helluva missive, but how would that help?
> My theory happens to dovetails with the information that has been
> handed down to us from our ancestors AND; it matches what we can
> actually observe for ourselves in the real world.
My theory dovetails with the analysis that has been handed down to us
from scientists over the generations AND; it matches what we can
actually observe for ourselves in the real world AND; it makes
testable hypotheses AND; it doesn't require the untestable
supernatural AND; it's subject to change & refinement should the
evidence require it AND; it doesn't contain contradictory statements
AND; it doesn't require belief, just an inquiring mind.
How do your ancient texts explain? They disagree with the evidence,
and disagree with themselves. They're inconsistent, incomplete and
largely incoherent. Or do you ignore that?
>
> Yours? Nothing more then an inference of the data to put it nicely.
Ditto. Except your data is missing; it's all inference.
>
> To put it bluntly, evolution is an exotic fairy tale for kids that
> never grew up.
Sigh. When will the fairy you believe in make his next appearance?
>
> it really is THAT simple.
>
> ---
> Intelligent beyond your wildest dreams...
>
Only if it's mescalin.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not many things in life are "all of nothing" you fool.
You can be wrong about this inference but not wrong about other
inferences.
Your interpretation of evolution's evidence can be wrong, but you may
have other interpretations right.
You can even like hot dogs but hate hot dog buns. How about THAT.
sheesh.. you guys are dumb as rocks at times.
All-Seeing-I
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:22 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:32 am, Will in New Haven
>
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 10:14 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
> > > > explanition.
>
> > > evolution. Your first post was an attempt to attach a straw man. This
> > > is your regular appeal to "reasonable doubt" theory. This isn't a
> > > criminal trial and the best explanation is what we are going to run
> > > with. That it _does_ meet the "reasonable doubt" standard for everyone
> > > with a decent education in the field is just a bonus.
>
> > Look. My goal has never been to show evolution wrong.
>
NO. The truth.
Get over it
[snip rant]
All-Seeing-I
It is not always a matter of "common design". It can also be a matter
of "common material" and "common parts" doing various jobs depending
on the part's location and dependencies within the common design.
Also. Please note. You had to say " I account for it by supposing"
Which is what? What exactly is "supposing"? Supposing is INFERRING
FROM THE DATA. Which is what i have noted here and in many other
threads.
And what happens when we infer from data? The data COULD BE INACCURATE
based on the fact that man himself is notoriously inaccurate.
Why is man inaccurate? Because man does not even have the same level
of perception of a common house pet. THATS why.
I applaud your scientific efforts. But as long as there is more then a
single interpretation of the data, you have to "suppose and infer" the
evidence for evolution in order for it to be relevant to mankind's
origins.
Through all of this you still have not shown where man's common
ancestor is? What physical evidence is there for the ancestral
connection that does NOT have more then one explanation?
Because as it stands now, All you have offered is your interpretation
of data. Which could have more then one interpretation.
it really IS that simple JH
--
Brighter then the sun is...
The All Seeing I
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in news:4942da39-3528-4f82-a391-
> a43687cf3...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> >proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> >population.
>
> >The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> >Therefore:
> >The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> >We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> >from an ape.
>
> >Therefore all men evolved from apes.
>
> >Nope.
>
> You are such an obedient little liar. Too bad your master, the father of
> lies, can't (and won't) reward such behaviour with anything really
> meaningful.
DAVE... Dave.... dave...
I was wondering where you were.
Did you look at the clock Dave? It is still ticking away.
El wants his answer. Time is running out.
You have stood in the darkness, to understand what the light is, long
enough. Time to come home now.
Boikat
You realize that you just spewed another pile of blather, don't you?
>
> sheesh.. you guys are dumb as rocks at times.-
What a strange comment from someone who responded with "Trilobite"
when challenged to present an example of a Cambrian Mammal.
Boikat
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:4d84cd47-8773-485f...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
"Which is what? What exactly is "supposing"? Supposing is INFERRING
FROM THE DATA. Which is what i have noted here and in many other
threads.
And what happens when we infer from data? The data COULD BE INACCURATE
based on the fact that man himself is notoriously inaccurate.
Why is man inaccurate? Because man does not even have the same level
of perception of a common house pet. THATS why.
"
And religion is the untimate "supposing."
.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
>perceptions that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
really? common house pets can see atoms like we can?
oh. creationsits don't believe in atoms.
sorry
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> Look. My goal has never been to show evolution wrong. I happen to
>believe that evolution is a God given necessary part of species
>survival. Each and every one of us can show evolution happens for
>ourselves with a garden, or a litter of dogs.
>
>But, There IS however, A Reasonable Doubt for evolution from a single
>common ancestor.....Anyone with a decent education can see as much. I
>suspect even those without an education can figure that much out as
>well.
funny that those with the most scientific educations disagree with
you.
but what would they know? they do science for a living. you have never
set foot in a lab.
>
>The Molecules to Man Version of Evolution has to be INFERRED from
>data;
and it's also irrelevant to evolution. more proof that you don't know
science
But the data itself can doubtful. Even the interpretation of the
>data can raise some doubts. Which in turn produces a reasonable doubt
>that should be enough to acquit in a court of law.
meaningless vague generality that, if applied to religion, would
destroy the very concept of god.
>
>Many of you accept the molecules to man version of evolution because
>you want to not because it is a known fact.
no one thinks it's a fact. we think it's irrelevant. different idea.
but you? you're a taliban christian who thinks science is found in
church bulletins. you're such an idiot you think a jellyfish is a
shark because both are 'fish'
>
>The best possible answer that fits what we can see for ourselves and
>what we can actually manipulated for ourselves is known as micro
>evolution. I call it variation of the same kind of life. Everything
>beyond that is not observed, cannot be observed, and is therefore an
>inference and a belief of what happened.
all of science is inference. and it works.
creationism? meaningless views of the world based on ghosts and
wizards
>
>But if we go with ancient texts that say life started with a created
>"kind" and then filled the earth with variations of the original kind,
>and variations of those variations, then evolution makes sense. We can
>see that happening in real time with no inferences or wild exotic
>stories needed.
but no one knows how life got started. how do the ancient texts, based
on people's writings, know how life got started?
kind of puts your argument in the toilet
where it belongs.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>So you cannot show a common ancestor. The only thing you can do is
>make up stories over data that can have faults.
>
so can ancient texts. we can SEE evolution
yet you say ancient texts are accurate in describing the START of
life...when it's a fact that no one who wrote an ancient text was
around to see the start of life.
kind of trashes your view, doesn't it?
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>It is not always a matter of "common design". It can also be a matter
>of "common material" and "common parts" doing various jobs depending
>on the part's location and dependencies within the common design.
it's actually a common process. those of us who do process engineering
for a living are familiar with the concept
creationists? not so much
>
>Also. Please note. You had to say " I account for it by supposing"
>
>Which is what? What exactly is "supposing"? Supposing is INFERRING
>FROM THE DATA. Which is what i have noted here and in many other
>threads.
well no. we infer from TESTING PROCESSES and THEORIES. that's what
scientists do.
funny you never mention theories. ever.
>
>And what happens when we infer from data? The data COULD BE INACCURATE
>based on the fact that man himself is notoriously inaccurate.
and yet we can repeat experiments.
and ancient texts? they can't be repeated. they can't be tested. if
our data is false, then why aren't ancient texts false?
ANOTHER contradiction in creationism
>
>Why is man inaccurate? Because man does not even have the same level
>of perception of a common house pet. THATS why.
fine. you tell me when a house pet can actually see atoms like humans
can.
m'kay?
>
>I applaud your scientific efforts. But as long as there is more then a
>single interpretation of the data, you have to "suppose and infer" the
>evidence for evolution in order for it to be relevant to mankind's
>origins.
wrong. becaues we can't tell what is TRUTH but we can tell what is
false
and your view is false. it's false because your own method says it
is. your own method says humans have false perceptions. yet you
refuse to apply this to ancient texts
which means your method is not logical
>
>Through all of this you still have not shown where man's common
>ancestor is? What physical evidence is there for the ancestral
>connection that does NOT have more then one explanation?
we don't have to show man's ancestor. we have to show there is a
process than can generate man from ancestors. and we have shown that
we have tested it
we have confirmed it
creationism? magic. voodoo. mystical mumbo jumbo based on obscure
texts, priests and snake oil salesmen
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> and creationism has no explanation for this at all. none.
>
>You have been everything from a nurse, to a scientist to a garbage
>man.
>
>IOW you are 500 years old or, you are a nut. I vote the latter
never, ever did i say i was a nurse. you obviously have reading
problems
no doubt one reason for you being a creationist.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>IOW you cannot show your work that does not have more then one
>interpretation.
>
>
logical fallacy. it's not our job to come up with other explanations.
if you think there are, then it's your job
creationsits have no logic at all. it's why they believe a 2000 year
old lie
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>My theory happens to dovetails with the information that has been
>handed down to us from our ancestors AND; it matches what we can
>actually observe for ourselves in the real world.
no it doesn't it doesn't explain the fact organisms have changed with
time, as the fossil record shows.
that's a glaring error in creationism...in fact it's fatal...the
inability to explain change
>
>Yours? Nothing more then an inference of the data to put it nicely.
>
>To put it bluntly, evolution is an exotic fairy tale for kids that
>never grew up.
>
>it really is THAT simple.
no scientist agrees with this. guys who blow up schools or think 'god
did it' is truth agree with it
but they've been wrong for 2000 years
>
>---
John Harshman
None of which is relevant to the data.
> Also. Please note. You had to say " I account for it by supposing"
>
> Which is what? What exactly is "supposing"? Supposing is INFERRING
> FROM THE DATA. Which is what i have noted here and in many other
> threads.
You say "inferring from the data" as if it's a bad thing. But that's the
only way we know anything at all.
> And what happens when we infer from data? The data COULD BE INACCURATE
> based on the fact that man himself is notoriously inaccurate.
In what way could the data be inaccurate?
> Why is man inaccurate? Because man does not even have the same level
> of perception of a common house pet. THATS why.
Got you there. I asked my cat and he came up with the same answer. So
you know it's true.
> I applaud your scientific efforts. But as long as there is more then a
> single interpretation of the data, you have to "suppose and infer" the
> evidence for evolution in order for it to be relevant to mankind's
> origins.
What is the alternative interpretation? You forgot to mention it.
> Through all of this you still have not shown where man's common
> ancestor is? What physical evidence is there for the ancestral
> connection that does NOT have more then one explanation?
I've shown you the physical evidence, and you have yet to come up with
another explanation.
> Because as it stands now, All you have offered is your interpretation
> of data. Which could have more then one interpretation.
If it could, what is that second interpretation?
> it really IS that simple JH
>
> --
> Brighter then the sun is...
>
> The All Seeing I
Put down the crack pipe and back away from it. Do you ever listen to
yourself?
raven1
>Not many things in life are "all of nothing" you fool.
You mean "all or nothing", oh illiterate imbecile, and that's exactly
what you're implying. It's not my fault if you're too dense to see the
implications of your own argument.
>You can be wrong about this inference but not wrong about other
>inferences.
Given that your approach removes any basis on which to assess the
accuracy of any inference, what method are you proposing to evaluate
them? Oh wait, I recall: their correspondence to "ancient texts",
written, alas for your cause, by humans who labored under the same
limits of perception you claim for modern humans, rendering them
worthless by your own "reasoning". Your position refutes itself.
>Your interpretation of evolution's evidence can be wrong, but you may
>have other interpretations right.
But how do you propose to judge that, given that your epistemological
nihilism precludes a method of doing so?
>You can even like hot dogs but hate hot dog buns. How about THAT.
Is this supposed to be relevant?
>sheesh.. you guys are dumb as rocks at times.
I'll be sending you the invoice for my Irony-ometer repair in the
morning.
richardal...@googlemail.com
More bollocks
>
> Get over it
>
> [snip rant]
Evasion noted.
RF
Ye Old One
Harpic!
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
What a stupid statement, but then nothing better is expected from you.
hot dog
n noun
1 a hot sausage served in a long, soft roll.
2 North American informal a person, especially a skier or
surfer, who performs stunts.
n exclamation North American informal expressing enthusiastic
approval.
n verb (hotdog) (hotdogs, hotdogging, hotdogged) North American
informal perform stunts.
DERIVATIVES
hotdogger noun
So, moron, if you like hotdogs then you must like the rolls.
>
>sheesh.. you guys are dumb as rocks at times.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Is something we never get from Mudbrain.
>
>Get over it
>
>[snip rant]
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Good, because any designer should be shot for the shoddy job.
>It can also be a matter
>of "common material" and "common parts" doing various jobs depending
>on the part's location and dependencies within the common design.
There is no design.
>
>Also. Please note. You had to say " I account for it by supposing"
>
>Which is what? What exactly is "supposing"? Supposing is INFERRING
>FROM THE DATA. Which is what i have noted here and in many other
>threads.
infer
n verb (infers, inferring, inferred) deduce from evidence and
reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
DERIVATIVES
inferable (also inferrable) adjective
ORIGIN
C15 (in the sense 'bring about, inflict'): from Latin inferre
'bring in, bring about'.
USAGE
Do not confuse the words infer and imply. They can describe
the same situation, but from different points of view. If a speaker or
writer implies something, as in he implied that the General was a
traitor, it means that the person is suggesting something though not
saying it directly. If you infer something from what has been said, as
in we inferred from his words that the General was a traitor, this
means that you come to the conclusion that this is what they really
mean.
So, yes, Mudbrain, We do deduce things from the evidence.
deduce
n verb
1 arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning.
2 archaic trace the course or derivation of.
DERIVATIVES
deducible adjective
ORIGIN
Middle English: from Latin deducere, from de- 'down' + ducere
'lead'.
Not the brightest of people are you Mudbrain?
>
>And what happens when we infer from data? The data COULD BE INACCURATE
>based on the fact that man himself is notoriously inaccurate.
Rubbish.
>
>Why is man inaccurate? Because man does not even have the same level
>of perception of a common house pet. THATS why.
Rubbish.
>
>I applaud your scientific efforts. But as long as there is more then a
>single interpretation of the data, you have to "suppose and infer" the
>evidence for evolution in order for it to be relevant to mankind's
>origins.
Do you have an alternative scientific theory?
No. Of course not.
>
>Through all of this you still have not shown where man's common
>ancestor is? What physical evidence is there for the ancestral
>connection that does NOT have more then one explanation?
The fossil record, genetics etc.
>
>Because as it stands now, All you have offered is your interpretation
>of data. Which could have more then one interpretation.
If you have another one then present it.
>
>it really IS that simple JH
The only simple thing is your mind.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Mike Dworetsky
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:50:14 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 26, 9:18 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:36:06 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>>
>>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>> A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
>>>> proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
>>>> population.
>>>
>>>> The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>>>> Therefore:
>>>> The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>>>
>>>> We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man
>>>> evolved from an ape.
>>>
>>>
>>> gee. when i was in nursing school we studied anatomy using 1
>>> skeleton. i guess the moron thinks that neither doctors or nurses
>>> can do any medical work at all because there's no relationship in
>>> anatomy from 1 person to the next.
>>>
>>> the idiot doesn't seem to realize that skeletons change with
>>> time....evolution. the fact these skeletons were different, and the
>>> fact that human skeletons are NEVER found in strata from 20M years
>>> ago means that somehow THOSE organisms got changed to us.
>>>
>>> that's evolution
>>>
>>> and creationism has no explanation for this at all. none.
>>
>> You have been everything from a nurse, to a scientist to a garbage
>> man.
>>
>
> "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
> butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
> accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
> give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
> problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
> efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
> --Robert Heinlein's character, Lazarus Long
>
>> IOW you are 500 years old or, you are a nut. I vote the latter
>
Oooh. Can we have a vote?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
UC
>
> Humans *are* apes, you stupid freak, as has been pointed out to you
> several times, and humans share common ancestry with all modern apes,
> which also has been pointed out to you several times..
>
> Boikat
Humans are not apes. Apes cannot speak. Our ability to speak is a
mutation that (among others) differentiates us from apes. We share
ancestry with modern apes, but neither our remote ancestors nor those
of the apes are to be called "apes", which is a vernacular term
applied to modern forms only.
All-seeing-I
Suggesting science is wrong in this case does not mean science is
wrong in ALL cases idiot.
Boikat
Yet, you keep making that very claim, based upong your "limited
perception" bullshit.
Boikat
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:bc836955-51b3-4289...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
ah, but it is your "special case." The one that casts doubt on your
"special" scripture, Other scriptures don't count, just yours.
.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 27, 12:04嚙窮m, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:34:42 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 26, 12:44嚙緘m, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:47:54 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> >> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 26, 9:31嚙窮m, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:14:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> >> >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 26, 6:25嚙窮m, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Nov 26, 5:36嚙窮m, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> *************************************
>>
>> >> >> >> Logical Fallacy of the Day,
>>
>> >> >> >> brought to you by ASS-I(diot) in association with BonKo, makers of the
>> >> >> >> home trepanning kit and the ever popular Vegematic Brain Dicer
>>
>> >> >> >> ************************************
>>
>> >> >> >> > A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
>> >> >> >> > proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
>> >> >> >> > population.
>>
>> >> >> >> > The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>> >> >> >> > Therefore:
>> >> >> >> > The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>>
>> >> >> >> > We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
>> >> >> >> > from an ape.
>>
>> >> >> >> Damn, you're stupid. 嚙瘠ommon ancestry of humans ans other modern apes
>> >> >> >> does not rest on "2 bones form 20 million years ago". It is based on
>> >> >> >> piles of more recent fossil evidence, detailed morphology and
>> >> >> >> genetics. 嚙磐ou apparently lack the needed perceptive and cognitive
>> >> >> >> abilities to understand that simple body of evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
>>
>> >> >> >> > Therefore all men evolved from apes
>>
>> >> >> >> Humans *are* apes, you stupid freak, as has been pointed out to you
>> >> >> >> several times, and humans share common ancestry with all modern apes,
>> >> >> >> which also has been pointed out to you several times..
>>
>> >> >> >> > Nope.
>>
>> >> >> >> Since human evolution and common ancestry with other modern apes does
>> >> >> >> not rest on "2 bones from 20 million years ago", your argument
>> >> >> >> represents an example of a "Straw man", which is a logical fallacy,
>> >> >> >> which means you are presenting a view or opinion not held by
>> >> >> >> paleontologists or anthropologists, and you are attempting to refute
>> >> >> >> the false view. 嚙磋efuting a false viewpoint does not refute the actual
>> >> >> >> view held by paleontologists, anthropologists or biologists, and so,
>> >> >> >> you are once again worng, and only ended up making yourself look
>> >> >> >> stupid
>>
>> >> >> >> In other words, you created an false view, and attempted to discredit
>> >> >> >> the false view (and even at that, you simply proclaimed it wrong,
>> >> >> >> which, in and of itself, does not refute the claim), and think you've
>> >> >> >> made some point. 嚙磐our conclusion is wrong, because your claim is
>> >> >> >> wrong.
>>
>> >> >> >> Taken it to a simpler level, you are a liar, since the evolution of
>> >> >> >> modern man and the common ancestry with the other modern apes does not
>> >> >> >> rest on "2 bones from 20 million years ago", therefore, since your
>> >> >> >> claim is wrong, so is your conclusion.
>>
>> >> >> >> Thank you for today's example of a logical fallacy.
>>
>> >> >> >> Boikat
>>
>> >> >> >Your brain has finally melted and has begun to leak out of your ass.
>>
>> >> >> >Show your work.
>>
>> >> >> Test your own genes and compare them to those of other great apes. The
>> >> >> work has been shown. You refuse to acknowledge it because it does not
>> >> >> fit with the disgraced doctrines you preach.
>>
>> >> >> >Where is this common ancestor? What evidence is there
>> >> >> >for the ancestorial connection that does NOT have more then one
>> >> >> >explanition.
>>
>> >> >> You do understand that "God did it" is not an explanation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >IOW you CAN''T show your work so you have to INFER from data.
>>
>> >> >But your interpretation of the data could be flawed based on human
>> >> >perceptions that are flawed and not as accurate as a common house pet.
>>
>> >> >yeah. You have shown evolution to be true. NOT
>>
>> >> Oh dear. Once again, we're back to "we don't know everything,
>> >> therefore, we know nothing". If we followed your approach to
>> >> knowledge, we'd still be living in caves.
>>
>> >Not many things in life are "all of nothing" 嚙緙ou fool.
>>
>> You mean "all or nothing", oh illiterate imbecile, and that's exactly
>> what you're implying. It's not my fault if you're too dense to see the
>> implications of your own argument.
>
>Suggesting science is wrong in this case does not mean science is
>wrong in ALL cases idiot.
Scientists are really impressed when someone shows them how they have
been wrong. They don't really care when silly people assert they are
wrong but are unable to substantiate it. I realize that you seem to
think that you are the second coming of Immanuel Velikovsky, but you may
not have caught on that he was offering nonsense.
bpuharic
but i stand by my statement that creationism is wrong in all cases...
but he ignores that fact
heekster
I don't think that is necessary.
Can you think of anyone in here who has *not* referred to
adman/(M)adman/Uriel/ASI, as an idiot, or an expression equivalent to
idiot?
Will in New Haven
Shut the fuck UP, UC. Your interest in this argument is nitpicking
semantics. You give aid and comfort to morons. Excuse me, to
_different_ morons. If you have been absent due to illness, get sick
again.
--
Will in New Haven
UC
I understand your frustration, but I do think it would be useful to
avoid using vernacular terms when dealing with these creationists.
Apes and modern humans are clearly distinct in many important ways. It
is confusing to call us "apes" when there is a useful distinction to
be made between ourselves and our genetically close relatives.
John Stockwell
> A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization)
> proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the
> population.
>
> The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
> Therefore:
> The proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
>
> We found 2 bones from 20 million years ago that suggests man evolved
> from an ape.
>
> Therefore all men evolved from apes.
You are forgetting how science is done. First of all, we recognize
that the
universe exhibits uniformity, that we can objectify our experience as
to
permit the notion of natural law. Given a large number of observations
such
laws allow us to formulate theories that are more general structures.
A given
theory will generate hypotheses that can be tested.
The theory of evolution is the generalizing structure---the model if
you will, that
explains the observed laws of taxonomy and faunal succession. Given
the notion
of common descent which is the primary part of our notions of
evolution, we expect
that there will be a common ancestry for organisms that fall within a
particular taxonomic
branch. For humans based on what is known of the fossil record, we
expect as
a prediction of evolution that ape-human intermediates existed in the
ancient past,
and based on other fossil evidence, we expect that these intermediates
would be
found in Africa and be found to have lived 1 to several million years
ago.
Scientists have gone to Africa, and have confirmed that prediction by
finding
fossils that bear both exclusively human and exclusively ape-like
characteristics.
This isn't just a couple of bones, but the remains of more than 1000
individuals.
The only inductive part of this is the notion that we can, in fact, do
the science in
the first place. This is not the naive inductivism strawman that you
are demolishing.
because there is an element of feedback in testing of scientific
ideas. This is closer
to a Bayesian process, than inductivism.
-John
>
> Nope.
UC
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > Humans are not apes. Apes cannot speak. Our ability to speak is a
> > mutation that (among others) differentiates us from apes. We share
> > ancestry with modern apes, but neither our remote ancestors nor those
> > of the apes are to be called "apes", which is a vernacular term
> > applied to modern forms only.
>
> Shut the fuck UP, UC. Your interest in this argument is nitpicking
> semantics. You give aid and comfort to morons. Excuse me, to
> _different_ morons. If you have been absent due to illness, get sick
> again.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
"A 2.4 million year old genetic mutation for a size reduction in
chewing muscles may have lead to a smaller, weaker jaw and separated
man from his ape-like ancestors by shifting man towards more reliance
on brains and less on muscles. (Stedman, 2004). Man compensated for
not being able to tear hides with his teeth, or to gnaw the tough
parts of an animal, by banging rocks together to knock off sharp-edged
cutting chips. In time, the importance of tool-making became such a
powerful selective influence for intelligence and creative skills that
weak jaw muscles can be said to have led to a bigger, better brain."
From:
r norman
All of that is quite true. A series of genetic mutations over
millions of years most certainly DID separate humans from our ape-like
ancestors. In other words, humans form a very distinct subset of
apes, distinctly different from the other apes. Nobody denies that at
all.
What you never seem to understand is that biological vernacular speaks
of a group using a single descriptor that includes ALL members of that
group, no matter how different or specialized some subset may be.
If you invent a vehicle called a "sports car" and make a zillion of
them and then somebody comes along with a new invention (a mutation)
that makes some of the bright red, an entirely new color never before
seen in the world of sports cars, you end up with a small subset of
new thingies. They are still sports cars, though.
Humans are a very distinctly different kind of ape. End of story. Now
go away.
UC
But vernacular terms don't always "nest". Consider "trees".
Will in New Haven
Language changes over time. One might even say that it evolves. :,-)
At one time "ape" referred to what we now call the apes and their
closer tailed relatives. So we have some "fossil" usages, such as the
monkeys that are called "Barbary Apes." The term "monkey" is a fairly
recent one and is now applied to two distantly-related groups, the Old
World and New World Monkeys.
Then the term "ape" began to mean "all the Hominoidea except for human
beings." This has, admittedly, been the common usage for a long time.
However, it is a problematical usage from a biological point of view.
Certainly, the so-called great apes and humans form a grouping where
all are more closely related to one another than any of them is to the
Gibbons. That makes the normal usage of ape less accurate. In biology,
and what we are talking about is biology, it has become acceptable
usage to include humans with the apes.
Using the term to refer to the Hominoidea excluding humans is not
wrong and, in many contexts, it is no problem. In a specific
discussion of _biological relationships_ the term ape includes human
beings.
UC
I think it is confusing and counter-productive to call humans "apes"
and to treat the vernacular terms as if they were Linnaean. It plays
into the hands of creationists.
Boikat
> On Nov 26, 7:25 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Humans *are* apes, you stupid freak, as has been pointed out to you
> > several times, and humans share common ancestry with all modern apes,
> > which also has been pointed out to you several times..
>
> > Boikat
>
> Humans are not apes.
Yes we are.
> Apes cannot speak.
At least one species of ape can.
> Our ability to speak is a
> mutation that (among others) differentiates us from apes.
So, we are a species of ape with a mutation that allowed the
develoment of speach. Your point?
> We share
> ancestry with modern apes, but neither our remote ancestors nor those
> of the apes are to be called "apes", which is a vernacular term
> applied to modern forms only.
And the same venacular applies to humans, too. Maybe you just don't
like being associated with those other "damned dirty apes".
Boikat
Boikat
> On Nov 27, 1:17 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 10:37 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 7:25 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Humans *are* apes, you stupid freak, as has been pointed out to you
> > > > several times, and humans share common ancestry with all modern apes,
> > > > which also has been pointed out to you several times..
>
> > > > Boikat
>
> > > Humans are not apes. Apes cannot speak. Our ability to speak is a
> > > mutation that (among others) differentiates us from apes. We share
> > > ancestry with modern apes, but neither our remote ancestors nor those
> > > of the apes are to be called "apes", which is a vernacular term
> > > applied to modern forms only.
>
> > Shut the fuck UP, UC. Your interest in this argument is nitpicking
> > semantics. You give aid and comfort to morons. Excuse me, to
> > _different_ morons. If you have been absent due to illness, get sick
> > again.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> I understand your frustration, but I do think it would be useful to
> avoid using vernacular terms when dealing with these creationists.
> Apes and modern humans are clearly distinct in many important ways.
And very similar in many other important ways.
> It
> is confusing to call us "apes" when there is a useful distinction to
> be made between ourselves and our genetically close relatives
The only people "confused" are dullards.
Boikat
John McKendry
Noble words, but isn't it you who are treating the vernacular term as
if it were Linnaean, i.e. as if it had rigidly delimited boundaries
that are established by a universally accepted authority and that
admit of no alteration? When biologists say "humans are apes", they
are using the words to convey something that is surprising and
therefore informative. What better use for words? They are saying
that if you consider the characteristics that make an animal an "ape",
you find that humans have all those characteristics. (And if we were to
discover tomorrow a chimpanzee with a mutation enabling a human-like
larynx, nobody would hesitate to count it among the apes: "not speaking"
is not part of the common meaning of "ape", until it gets tacked on
as a tendentious afterthought.)
This may upset the creationists, who seem to have an aversion to being
identified as apes. Is that what you mean by "playing into their hands"?
If pointing out the observable facts of biology in plain words is
counterproductive, what do you suggest as an alternative strategy?
John
r norman
As usual, you demonstrate your incredible fixation on your
self-defined notions of "vernacular" and "linnean". You also totally
ignore a number of facts so obvious to the rest of humanity that they
should not need explicit statement. But you seem to be of a different
ilk, so I will explicitly state them here.
First, people use words to communicate, to transmit information (and,
as I also indicated once before, to confuse or to irritate). And
different people in different contexs use the same words in different
meanings. Calling humans "apes" (because humans ARE apes) is simply a
way of indicating to people ignorant of human affinities something
about our nature: we are an island separated from other animals, but
not alone: we are part of an archipelago. Maybe we seem to be for
from our neighbors but that distance is illusory when you look at any
biological measure you want. By cultural measures we are light years
away but you are talking to biologists about biological matters.
Saying humans are apes not only expresses biological fact, saying
humans are apes not only is instructive in teaching biological
relationships, but saying humans are apes drives certain people
absolutely bonkers with rage and that, alone, is enough reason to
continue.
Second, I did refer to "biological vernacular" indicating that I am a
biologist speaking about biology to a group of readers who claim, as
you do, to be interested in biology and so I use the word "ape" in the
way that biologists do. It is NOT a "linnean" term, whatever that may
be. It is simply biology-speak. You with your friends can call
humans "featherless bipeds" (to use one historic reference).
Nevertheless, we are apes. We are also animals although some people
don't like to hear that.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> But vernacular terms don't always "nest". Consider "trees".
Don't you mean "birds"? I've never see a tree nest.
("Nest" is so, well, *vernacular*, don't you think? Please
use the proper, unambiguous graph-theoretic notation if you
do not wish to be misunderstood.)
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Someone must have been smoking some good herb to come up with the wild
and exotic story of humans being related to apes.
End of story. Now go away u
All-Seeing-I
> Saying humans are apes not only expresses biological fact, saying
> humans are apes not only is instructive in teaching biological
> relationships, but saying humans are apes drives certain people
> absolutely bonkers with rage and that, alone, is enough reason to
> continue.
ATTEN. Lurkers:
Behold the reason men are apes too!
They just wanna drive the creationist's "bonkers"!!
Boikat
Yes, ignore the first part of the statement. by all means. It
demonstrates your ignorance.
Boikat
SeppoP
<snip>
>
> ATTEN. Lurkers:
>
> Behold the reason men are apes too!
>
> They just wanna drive the creationist's "bonkers"!!
>
No need for that. You already are utterly, completely and irrevocably
"bonkers".
- sp