The Cart Before The Horse
All-Seeing-I
Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
"Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
for a long time.
BUT
"Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
information."
Well.
We had the cart before the horse it seems.
Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
preconceived position.
--
Pieces of the puzzle make the picture emerge sez.....
The All Seeing I
All-Seeing-I
links:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>"The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
>Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
>"Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
>the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
>particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
>Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
>for a long time.
>BUT
>
>"Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
>on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
>analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
>Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
>papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
>2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
>information."
>
>
>Well.
>We had the cart before the horse it seems.
Nope.
>
>Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
>Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
Correct, because all the other evidence was so conclusive.
>
>So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
>preconceived position.
Nope.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And yet you fail every single time. That really should tell you
something - that you are stupid.
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
richardal...@googlemail.com
>
> I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
How on earth would you know that?
All you succeed in doing is to expose your ignorance, arrogance and
dishonesty.
RF
Boikat
> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> for a long time.
> BUT
>
> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> information."
>
> Well.
> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
Wrong.
>
> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
What? you mean a prediction of the theory was verified by additional
data? Will wonders never cease!
>
> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
> preconceived position.
Damn, you're stupid.
>
> --
> Pieces of the puzzle make the picture emerge sez.....
Yes, adn it's resolution increases as more data verified the theory,
which you are too stupid to grasp.
>
> The Null Thinking I(diot)
Nym to more accuratly reflect reality.
Boikat
bpuharic
?? so people noticed things and drew an obvious conclusion? that,
given the fact evolution exists, perhaps it produced both humans and
chimps?
yes. humans can and do make observations.
thanks for stating the obvious.
Burkhard
> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> for a long time.
> BUT
>
> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> information."
>
> Well.
> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>
> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
>
Indeed. theories are always tested _after_ they are formulated, on
account it being rather impossible to do it otherwise, time travel
not yet being a possibility
> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
> preconceived position.
Only of course that the geneticists that unraveled the genome had no
particular stake in the ToE, and their findings are repeated over and
over again in laboratories, resulting in medical applications that are
put to the test daily. So now you are throwing out the rest of biology
and chemistry too? Only asking because on another thread, you claimed
your beef was not with science generally... not that anybody here
believed you were truthful then, or even capable of being truthful.
Boikat
>
> I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it
Your ignorance is showing again. Nothing there discredits any part of
the ToE, fool.
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
Dear Numbnuts,
There is a long list of evidences for the close relationship of humans and
other apes such as gorillas, chimps, and bonobos, and other more distant
relations such as orangutans, and monkeys of various sorts.
These include appearance and morphology, fossil evidence, behaviour, and
geographical distribution. The later addition of more evidence from DNA
that confirms inferences from the earlier evidence is a confirmation, not a
refutation. What are you smoking/injecting?
It sounds as if you subscribe to the "evil atheist conspiracy" theory of
science. Actually, everything you have posted supports this assertion.
Imagine this scenario:
Thirty years ago, before DNA testing, police arrested a man for a series of
six rapes. They used geographical profiling, modus operandi, and eyewitness
victim accounts to deduce that all the rapes were probably committed by one
man. In one case he had left a fingerprint on a patent-leather handbag
belonging to a victim, and his prints were on file due to a previous
offence.
Ten years ago, following an appeal against his conviction, police tested his
DNA against samples taken from a number of old cases and stored. To their
gratification, the DNA matched perfectly in the case he was convicted for,
and in addition they were able to connect him, not only to the original
series, but eleven other unsolved cases where they had not previously
suspected his involvement.
ASI's reasoning leads to: "They used more forensic science after the
conviction; therefore he is innocent, let him go."
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
David Hare-Scott
Well you nothing about Descartes. Maybe you know something about dewhores.
David
PG
tot1h5djssi1abljv...@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:55:52 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
>
>And yet you fail every single time. That really should tell you
>something - that you are stupid.
I've only lurked here so far, but it never fails to amaze me how a few
fundies come to be wired in such a way as to be utterly incapable of seeing
the obvious under their collectively evolved noses. You would think that
virtually the entire scientific (physical sciences) world being unanimously
behind evolutionary theory would make them stop and think for a second or
two, but no.
I'm waiting to hear if there's anything behind the latest media reports that
NASA has reappraised the data on the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite, and has
now concluded that the magnetite crystals are almost certainly formed from
bacteria of Martian origin. Only read about this in the British press so
far, anything from NASA yet?
pg
TomS
<gdGdncHu9Y9aY43W...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
>
>All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
>> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>>
>> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
>> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
>> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>>
>> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
>> for a long time.
>> BUT
>>
>> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
>nt
>> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
>> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
>> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
>> information."
>>
>>
>> Well.
>> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>>
>> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
>> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
>>
>> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
>> preconceived position.
>
>Dear Numbnuts,
>
>d=20
>other apes such as gorillas, chimps, and bonobos, and other more distant=20
>relations such as orangutans, and monkeys of various sorts.
>
>geographical distribution. The later addition of more evidence from DNA=20
>that confirms inferences from the earlier evidence is a confirmation, not=
> a=20
>refutation. What are you smoking/injecting?
>
>science. Actually, everything you have posted supports this assertion.
>
>Imagine this scenario:
>
>of=20
>six rapes. They used geographical profiling, modus operandi, and eyewitn=
>ess=20
>victim accounts to deduce that all the rapes were probably committed by o=
>ne=20
>man. In one case he had left a fingerprint on a patent-leather handbag=20
>belonging to a victim, and his prints were on file due to a previous=20
>offence.
>
>Ten years ago, following an appeal against his conviction, police tested =
>his=20
>DNA against samples taken from a number of old cases and stored. To thei=
>r=20
>gratification, the DNA matched perfectly in the case he was convicted for=
>,=20
>and in addition they were able to connect him, not only to the original=20
>series, but eleven other unsolved cases where they had not previously=20
>suspected his involvement.
>
>ASI's reasoning leads to: "They used more forensic science after the=20
>conviction; therefore he is innocent, let him go."
Is there anyone left who thinks that ASI is being serious?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
IAAH
> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> for a long time.
> BUT
>
> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> information."
>
>
> Well.
> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
No, we had a theory that made a prediction - that
was later borne out through further research.
Just how this sort of thing is supposed to work.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
raven1
>On Nov 28, 3:38 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
>> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>>
>> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
>> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
>> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>>
>> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
>> for a long time.
>> BUT
>>
>> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
>> on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
>> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
>> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
>> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
>> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
>> information."
>>
>> Well.
>> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
In what way? There was already considerable supporting evidence for
the idea; genetic analysis just confirms what was already known.
>>
>> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
>> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
And genetic analysis confirmed it nicely.
>> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
>> preconceived position.
How does one "interpret" a genome? That would be like "interpreting" a
fingerprint at a crime scene. It is what it is.
>> Pieces of the puzzle make the picture emerge sez.....
>>
>> The All Seeing I
>
>links:
>http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
>
>I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
For definitions of "discredit" that mean "support"...
Ron O
First off you should put up the full citation so that the references
can be checked out, but I can tell you right now that no genomic
sequencing paper has done anything but strengthen the association
between chimps and humans as being the most closely related great ape
to humans, and had done nothing to place humans outside of the group
including all great apes.
Why keep going back to sources that you know are lying to you?
Why don't you try to check out what they claim before bringing it here
and demonstrating what an idiot loser you are for believing the lies
once again? What kind of fruit are you?
Ron Okimoto
All-Seeing-I
Dear Dumb Ass,
This is not an apple to apple comparison. Because the original theory
was not arrived at using forensic science. It was arrived at by making
an inference from observations between man and ape a couple of hundred
years before modern forensic science was used.
So as usual, the evolutionist has to compare evolution next to real
science for it to remotely seem plausible. Even if that comparison is
not an accurate one.
In your example there was already a high probability that the rapist
was guilty based on other types of valid science.
But with the man to ape theory it was nothing more then an idea based
on observations. Which had a higher probability of being wrong in the
first place because it was not based on science, but instead, based on
man's judgments of what he thought the observations meant.
As it has been pointed out to you so many times in the past, man's
interpretations of data, and therefore any inferences man makes based
on that data, are only going to be as accurate as man is with all of
his faults, prejudges and subjectiveness. Not to mention his limited
perceptions.
It appears that science is forcing it's discoveries (both old and new)
to fit the theory of evolution. Which is like forcing a round peg into
a square hole, obviously.
As long as there is more then a single interpretation of the evidence
then you have not arrived at any kind of truth. So why bother to
present it as such? Why defend something so vigorously that you know
ahead of time may be false, or may change as new discoveries are made?
Your analogy between forensic science and the original ToE is a bad
one. In fact I have not yet read a single analogy for evolution that
was not a bad one. That should tell you something. It should set up a
red flag in your mind that something is wrong when you cannot find an
exact apple to apple comparison for the ToE.
Evolution for the most part does do some good however. But the
speciation divergence part appears to be a pipe dream and you guys
have to keep filling the pipe to keep it relevant to real science.
I suggest you put down the pipe and look at the reality of evolution.
That reality is, you do not have the actual supporting evidence for
species divergence.
it REALLY is That simple, Numb nuts.
All-Seeing-I
>
> > I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
>
> How on earth would you know that?
> All you succeed in doing is to expose your ignorance, arrogance and
> dishonesty.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll take this post as evidence you know I am right.
hersheyh
> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> for a long time.
> BUT
>
> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> information."
>
> Well.
> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>
> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
Only if you think that morphology is not genetically rooted.
John Harshman
> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> for a long time.
> BUT
>
> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> information."
>
>
> Well.
> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
Whenever you say "it seems", it has so far been a clue that you have no
idea. As is the case now.
> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
Yes, that's because the anatomical evidence is good enough all by itself.
> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
> preconceived position.
You are free to present your own interpretation of the evidence. Let's
see if it's better than the standard one. Go ahead.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Do you think I or anyone else anyone gives a rat's fart about your
delusions of competency?
RF
Mike Dworetsky
Dear Numbnuts,
Imagine this scenario:
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
John Harshman
Mike Dworetsky
No, *I* called you Numbnuts. Are you copying me? Pay attention. You have
your attributions all wrong. It figures.
You appear to be saying that as scientific evidence accumulates for the
conclusion that humans and apes are closely related, and both descended from
a common ancestor, the conclusion becomes less reliable. That's truly
crazy, nuts, bizarre, insane.
Boikat
Talking to yourself is a sign of insanity.
>
> This is not an apple to apple comparison. Because the original theory
> was not arrived at using forensic science. It was arrived at by making
> an inference from observations between man and ape a couple of hundred
> years before modern forensic science was used.
Which still means that the human-ape relationship was already
recognized from the observed evidence at that point in time
>
> So as usual, the evolutionist has to compare evolution next to real
> science for it to remotely seem plausible. Even if that comparison is
> not an accurate one.
Since evolution *was* real science already, your comment only reflects
your ignorance.
>
> In your example there was already a high probability that the rapist
> was guilty based on other types of valid science.
As was the relationship between humans and the other great apes.
>
> But with the man to ape theory it was nothing more then an idea based
> on observations.
Obsevations of the *evidence*
> Which had a higher probability of being wrong in the
> first place because it was not based on science, but instead, based on
> man's judgments of what he thought the observations meant.
"Man's judgement" of the ecidence *is* science, you ignorant hill-
billy.
>
> As it has been pointed out to you so many times in the past, man's
> interpretations of data, and therefore any inferences man makes based
> on that data, are only going to be as accurate as man is with all of
> his faults, prejudges and subjectiveness. Not to mention his limited
> perceptions.
And, as has been pointed out to you before, that applies to
everything, including your "interpretations" of your ancient texts,
and leave that which cn be verified and tested, which leaves your
ifnorant nhilitic bullshit on the floor with the rest of your spewage.
>
> It appears that science is forcing it's discoveries (both old and new)
> to fit the theory of evolution. Which is like forcing a round peg into
> a square hole, obviously.
Good thing it's the other way around, idiot. The theory is modified
to fit the data.
>
> As long as there is more then a single interpretation of the evidence
> then you have not arrived at any kind of truth.
What matters is which interpretation is testable and realistic. You
can claim that your interpretation of a flower blooming is that little
invisible elves pry the bud open, if you like, but please, present the
evidence.
> So why bother to
> present it as such?
Because there is more supporting evidence that biological evolution is
closer to the truth than your bullshit.
> Why defend something so vigorously that you know
> ahead of time may be false, or may change as new discoveries are made?
>
Because it's more accurate than your mythological fairy tales.
> Your analogy between forensic science and the original ToE is a bad
> one. In fact I have not yet read a single analogy for evolution that
> was not a bad one. That should tell you something.
It tells virtually everyone that you are an idiot.
> It should set up a
> red flag in your mind that something is wrong when you cannot find an
> exact apple to apple comparison for the ToE.
Or, maybe it should set up a red flag in &your* mind that since pretty
much everyone thinks you're an idiot, maybe the problem is that you
are an idiot.
>
> Evolution for the most part does do some good however. But the
> speciation divergence part appears to be a pipe dream and you guys
> have to keep filling the pipe to keep it relevant to real science.
You're an idiot.
>
> I suggest you put down the pipe and look at the reality of evolution.
> That reality is, you do not have the actual supporting evidence for
> species divergence.
Projection.
>
> it REALLY is That simple, Numb nuts.
Yes, you are really that simple minded.
Boikat
Mark Evans
>
> I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
Then why don't you? So far all you have done is show that you do not
read or understand what you reference.
Mark Evans
All-seeing-I
Why is your inability to understand my delusion?
All-seeing-I
Are you drinking so early in the morning? Clearly my post was about
your inability to make a proper analogy.
SeppoP
> On Nov 28, 8:57 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 4:17 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 28, 9:55 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 28, 3:38 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
>>>>>> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>>>>>> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
>>>>>> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
>>>>>> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>>>>>> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
>>>>>> for a long time.
>>>>>> BUT
>>>>>> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
>>>>>> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
>>>>>> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
>>>>>> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
>>>>>> information."
>>>>>> Well.
>>>>>> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>>>>>> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
>>>>>> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
>>>>>> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
>>>>>> preconceived position.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Pieces of the puzzle make the picture emerge sez.....
>>>>>> The All Seeing I
>>>>> links:http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.fullhttp://en.wikipedia.or...
>>>>> I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
>>>> How on earth would you know that?
>>>> All you succeed in doing is to expose your ignorance, arrogance and
>>>> dishonesty.
>>>> RF- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I'll take this post as evidence you know I am right.
>> Do you think I or anyone else anyone gives a rat's fart about your
>> delusions of competency?
>
> Why is your inability to understand my delusion?
>
Your inability to construct coherent sentences is a matter between you
and your helper in mental health business. Not between you and Richard,
or the rest of us at t.o. for that matter.
-sp
MAB
>
> Why is your inability to understand my delusion?
Finally a remarkable quote from the ASI.
hersheyh
> On Nov 28, 4:38 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> > Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> > "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> > the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> > particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> > Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> > for a long time.
> > BUT
>
> > "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> > on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
> > analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> > Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
> > papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> > 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> > information."
>
> > Well.
> > We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>
> > Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
> > Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
>
> Only if you think that morphology is not genetically rooted.
I think it is worthwhile to point out that before sequencing was
available and geneticists had to use phenotypic (morphologic or
bichemical) differences to identify genetic difference, there were
many fewer genetic differences observable. This was both because of
the large, unseen pool of genetic variations (alleles) that are
selectively neutral and the large pool of genetic variations that
produced the same (e.g., lethal) or small (if you cannot identify a
10% loss of activity, you miss any mutation that produces such an
effect; if you do not search for or identify a 100% increase in
ability to use a secondary molecule, you can miss a possible new
phenotype) phenotypic effects.
Boikat
The best answer I could come up with to that question would be,
"Because, as far as I know, Richard is a paleontologist, not a
psychologist."
Boikat
Will in New Haven
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:55:52 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> >I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
>
> something - that you are stupid.
I told him he was stupid. And a bad debater. Did he thank me? No, he
pretended that I had insulted him.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
Assuming that he has been serious all along (which is not a sure
thing) it is more than that. It is hysterical and desperate.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
After all of your posts, I assume that you are wrong about anything that
you post on. I realize that you might get something right by accident,
but I would be a fool to trust anything you say without verifying it
carefully.
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 8:57 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 28, 2:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 28, 4:17 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> >>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 28, 9:55 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 28, 3:38 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> >>>>>> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
> >>>>>> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> >>>>>> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> >>>>>> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
> >>>>>> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> >>>>>> for a long time.
> >>>>>> BUT
> >>>>>> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> >>>>>> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your inability to read is my proplem ---how?
R Brown
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:48633a9a-cc68-494b...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
links:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
How about that? As technology improves we get more information that either
supports or rejects the theory that humans and apes evolved separately from
a common ancestor. In this case it looks like genome technology supports the
proposition.
Sucks to be you.
Steven L.
> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> for a long time.
> BUT
>
> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> information."
>
>
> Well.
> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>
> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
>
> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
> preconceived position.
No, that's how science works.
You formulate a hypothesis based on admittedly incomplete data.
Then after more data is gathered and more analysis is done, it starts to
look like your hypothesis might be right, and it becomes a scientific
theory.
Then as more data is gathered, if that data supports the theory, it adds
to the theory's credibility.
Do you consider the theory that Halley's Comet appears visible in the
night sky every 75 years to be a "preconceived position" too?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Dana Tweedy
> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> for a long time.
> BUT
>
> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> on the �radar screen� of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many �companion�
> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> information."
>
>
> Well.
> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
You are wrong again. There are many lines of evidence that show humans and
chimps are closely related. At the time of Huxley and Owen, it was anatomy,
behavior, and other biological similarities that confirmed the relationship.
Later, fossil evidence, biochemistry, and genetics would even further clinch
the deal.
Another creationist claim blows up in your face. How embarassing for you.
DJT
heekster
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 28, 3:38�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
>> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>>
>> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
>> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
>> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>>
>> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
>> for a long time.
>> BUT
>>
>> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
>> on the �radar screen� of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
>> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
>> Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many �companion�
>> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
>> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
>> information."
>>
>> Well.
>> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>>
Your buttocks were planted firmly on your shoulders, it seems.
>> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
Moron, a decedent is a dead person.
>> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
>>
>> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
>> preconceived position.
>>
Nonsense, and imbecility.
>> --
>> Pieces of the puzzle make the picture emerge sez.....
>>
>> The AScientific Igoramus
>
>links:
>http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
>
>I just love using evolution's own information to discredit it.
Yeah right.
If you ever actually manage to reach that point, be sure to let us
know about it.
All you've shown so far, is how incredibly ignorant and uneducated you
are.
Ye Old One
Then you get things wrong - as per usual.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Kermit
> "On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:43:18 -0000, in article
> <gdGdncHu9Y9aY43WnZ2dnUVZ8jedn...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
> >All-Seeing-I wrote:
> >> "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
> >> Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>
> >> "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
> >> the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
> >> particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>
> >> Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
> >> for a long time.
> >> BUT
>
> >> "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
> >nt
> >> analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
> >> papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
> >> 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
> >> information."
>
> >> Well.
> >> We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>
> >> Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
> >> Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
>
> >> So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
> >> preconceived position.
>
>
> >There is a long list of evidences for the close relationship of humans an=
> >d=20
> >other apes such as gorillas, chimps, and bonobos, and other more distant=20
> >relations such as orangutans, and monkeys of various sorts.
>
> >geographical distribution. The later addition of more evidence from DNA=20
> >that confirms inferences from the earlier evidence is a confirmation, not=
> > a=20
> >refutation. What are you smoking/injecting?
>
> >science. Actually, everything you have posted supports this assertion.
>
> >Imagine this scenario:
>
> >of=20
> >six rapes. They used geographical profiling, modus operandi, and eyewitn=
> >ess=20
> >victim accounts to deduce that all the rapes were probably committed by o=
> >ne=20
> >man. In one case he had left a fingerprint on a patent-leather handbag=20
> >belonging to a victim, and his prints were on file due to a previous=20
> >offence.
>
> >Ten years ago, following an appeal against his conviction, police tested =
> >his=20
> >DNA against samples taken from a number of old cases and stored. To thei=
> >r=20
> >gratification, the DNA matched perfectly in the case he was convicted for=
> >,=20
> >and in addition they were able to connect him, not only to the original=20
> >series, but eleven other unsolved cases where they had not previously=20
> >suspected his involvement.
>
> >ASI's reasoning leads to: "They used more forensic science after the=20
> >conviction; therefore he is innocent, let him go."
>
You weren't raised a Creationist, were you?
He gives no indication of being other than what he seems - an
irrational, emotion driven, disassociated from reality, Creationist.
They exist in the tens of millions in the US. I'm related to half of
'em.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Kermit
Ye Old One
Nobody wants to understand your delusions - get treatment for them.
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.
Kermit
Madman, you have given no indication that you understand similes,
metaphors, or analogies. Mike's analogy was apt, and clarified what
was wrong with your peculiar claim.
Here it is without the analogy:
We have good evidence before.
Now we have more, and better evidence.
Specifically, the genetic evidence had the potential to threated the
ToE - at least, the common descent part, but it didn't.
Kermit
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
He doesn't have a reading problem, you have a writing problem. You
are, like all creationists I've come across, illiterate.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 28, 4:43 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > "The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between
>> > Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen."
>>
>> > "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of
>> > the similarities and differences between humans and apes and did so
>> > particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature."
>>
>> > Clearly, the notion that man was evolved from an ape has been taught
>> > for a long time.
>> > BUT
>>
>> > "Less than a decade ago, sequencing the chimpanzee genome was not even
>> > on the “radar screen” of the major sequencing centers.[..] The recent
>> > analysis of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee
>> > Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005), and the many “companion”
>> > papers (Cheng et al. 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Linardopoulou et al.
>> > 2005) now provide researchers with a wealth of comparative genetic
>> > information."
>>
>> > Well.
>> > We had the cart before the horse it seems.
>>
>> > Man was considered a decedent of the Ape and closely related to the
>> > Chimp long before there was genetic biology to back that up.
>>
>> > So....Perhaps man's interpretation of the genome is simply from a
>> > preconceived position.
>>
inference
n noun
1 a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
2 the process of reaching a conclusion by inferring.
DERIVATIVES
inferential adjective
inferentially adverb
So yes, the ToE is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and
reasoning.
>
>So as usual, the evolutionist has to compare evolution next to real
>science for it to remotely seem plausible. Even if that comparison is
>not an accurate one.
But it is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
>
>In your example there was already a high probability that the rapist
>was guilty based on other types of valid science.
>
>But with the man to ape theory it was nothing more then an idea based
>on observations.
A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
>Which had a higher probability of being wrong in the
>first place because it was not based on science, but instead, based on
>man's judgments of what he thought the observations meant.
It is a perfectly good conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and
reasoning.
>
>As it has been pointed out to you so many times in the past, man's
>interpretations of data, and therefore any inferences man makes based
>on that data, are only going to be as accurate as man is with all of
>his faults, prejudges and subjectiveness. Not to mention his limited
>perceptions.
What limited perceptions? You may have limits, in fact you clearly do.
But don't tar us with the same brush of stupidity you are painted
with.
>
>It appears that science is forcing it's discoveries (both old and new)
>to fit the theory of evolution. Which is like forcing a round peg into
>a square hole, obviously.
The ToE is a valid conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and
reasoning.
>
>As long as there is more then a single interpretation of the evidence
>then you have not arrived at any kind of truth.
After 150 years nobody have been able to come up with an alternative.
>So why bother to
>present it as such? Why defend something so vigorously that you know
>ahead of time may be false, or may change as new discoveries are made?
May, but it is most unlikely. 150 years is a long time in science and
yet every single new discovery has supported the ToE and despite the
best efforts of all you cretinists you haven't managed to find a
single scrap of evidence against it - not one single scrap. Doesn't
that tell you something Mudbrain?
>
>Your analogy between forensic science and the original ToE is a bad
>one.
No, it was only bad to you.
>In fact I have not yet read a single analogy for evolution that
>was not a bad one.
Your poor reading ability is well known.
> That should tell you something. It should set up a
>red flag in your mind that something is wrong when you cannot find an
>exact apple to apple comparison for the ToE.
If the ToE is an apple then the only other apple is the ToE.
>
>Evolution for the most part does do some good however. But the
>speciation divergence part appears to be a pipe dream and you guys
>have to keep filling the pipe to keep it relevant to real science.
The evidence calls you a liar.
>
>I suggest you put down the pipe and look at the reality of evolution.
We all have, and understand it.
>That reality is, you do not have the actual supporting evidence for
>species divergence.
Except the mountain of evidence that does support it.
>
>
>it REALLY is That simple, Numb nuts.
You really are that simple Mudbrain.
heekster
It seems that RAF is an expert on plesiosaurs, and probably a
paleontologist.
In order to understand your delusions, we would require the services
of a world class linguist, to translate your grotesque pidgen into
something understandable, and then a team of psychiatrists,
specializing in delusions, and the mental disorders of willful
self-deceit, and acute imbecility.
heekster
That sounds like McNameless logic.
bpuharic
>>
>
>Dear Dumb Ass,
>
>This is not an apple to apple comparison. Because the original theory
>was not arrived at using forensic science. It was arrived at by making
>an inference from observations between man and ape a couple of hundred
>years before modern forensic science was used.
>
>So as usual, the evolutionist has to compare evolution next to real
>science for it to remotely seem plausible. Even if that comparison is
>not an accurate one.
>
of course, to those of us who ARE real scientists, vs creationist
magicians, evolution IS real science
>In your example there was already a high probability that the rapist
>was guilty based on other types of valid science.
>
>But with the man to ape theory it was nothing more then an idea based
>on observations
gee. go figure. i guess no REAL science is based on ideas from
observations, huh?
.. Which had a higher probability of being wrong in the
>first place because it was not based on science, but instead, based on
>man's judgments of what he thought the observations meant.
ROFLMAO!!! what does the moron think science IS??
>
>As it has been pointed out to you so many times in the past, man's
>interpretations of data, and therefore any inferences man makes based
>on that data, are only going to be as accurate as man is with all of
>his faults, prejudges and subjectiveness. Not to mention his limited
>perceptions.
well, not really. it's based on a METHOD...the scientific method. so
inferences are the least of the issue. TESTING and EXPERIMENTATION are
the basic elements of science
sorry, creationist, you have a comic book idea of science. no doubt 1
reason creationism is useless.
>
>It appears that science is forcing it's discoveries (both old and new)
>to fit the theory of evolution. Which is like forcing a round peg into
>a square hole, obviously.
>
it appears you dont know what science is. hint: you dont find it in
fundie church bulletins
>As long as there is more then a single interpretation of the evidence
>then you have not arrived at any kind of truth.
science is not about truth. it's about nature. more comic book science
and what relevance does such a statement have to science? if someone
says angels push the planets around that's as valid as the theory of
gravity?
is that what creationists believe?
So why bother to
>present it as such? Why defend something so vigorously that you know
>ahead of time may be false, or may change as new discoveries are made?
meaningless
>
>Your analogy between forensic science and the original ToE is a bad
>one. In fact I have not yet read a single analogy for evolution that
>was not a bad one
and atomic theory. and the germ theory of disease...and heliocentrism
IOW the creationist thinks all of science is flawed because it doesnt
include ghosts and demons as alternatives to germs and gravity
>
>I suggest you put down the pipe and look at the reality of evolution.
>That reality is, you do not have the actual supporting evidence for
>species divergence.
>
'species divergence'
anybody know what that is? creationists invent unique and personal
definitions...
Eric Root
Sorry, it was a very good analogy, and you are pretending otherwise to
avoid doing the honorable thing, and admitting you were wrong. In
fact, I can't think of once when your complaint about one of our
analogies was justified. It's just your cheezy, low-rent way of
running away from the fact that you are wrong.
Eric Root
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
The only "low rent" taking place is this atheist bullshit that has
hijacked real science.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
...
>
>The only "low rent" taking place is this atheist bullshit that has
>hijacked real science.
You seem to like telling that lie.
IAAH
Because "real science" should include a compulsory
belief in some god?
In fact, atheism is the default rational position
on the existence or not of any god.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
bpuharic
>
>The only "low rent" taking place is this atheist bullshit that has
>hijacked real science.
more area 51 crap from the creationist losers.
why do they think scientists would let this happen?
answer: they hate science
Mike Dworetsky
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:04:09 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 4:43 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
>>> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
[snipology]
>>>
>>> Your analogy between forensic science and the original ToE is a bad
>>> one. In fact I have not yet read a single analogy for evolution that
>>> was not a bad one. That should tell you something. It should set up
>>> a red flag in your mind that something is wrong when you cannot
>>> find an exact apple to apple comparison for the ToE.
>>>
>>> Evolution for the most part does do some good however. But the
>>> speciation divergence part appears to be a pipe dream and you guys
>>> have to keep filling the pipe to keep it relevant to real science.
>>>
>>> I suggest you put down the pipe and look at the reality of
>>> evolution. That reality is, you do not have the actual supporting
>>> evidence for species divergence.
>>>
>>>
>>> it REALLY is That simple, Numb nuts.
>>
>>
>> No, *I* called you Numbnuts. Are you copying me? Pay attention.
>> You have your attributions all wrong. It figures.
>>
>> You appear to be saying that as scientific evidence accumulates for
>> the conclusion that humans and apes are closely related, and both
>> descended from a common ancestor, the conclusion becomes less
>> reliable. That's truly crazy, nuts, bizarre, insane.
>
>
> That sounds like McNameless logic.
I thought the same thing. And he is plagiarizing my "insults".
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Burkhard
> > Imagine this scenario:
>
> > Thirty years ago, before DNA testing, police arrested a man for a series of
> > six rapes. They used geographical profiling, modus operandi, and eyewitness
> > victim accounts to deduce that all the rapes were probably committed by one
> > man. In one case he had left a fingerprint on a patent-leather handbag
> > belonging to a victim, and his prints were on file due to a previous
> > offence.
>
> > Ten years ago, following an appeal against his conviction, police tested his
> > DNA against samples taken from a number of old cases and stored. To their
> > gratification, the DNA matched perfectly in the case he was convicted for,
> > and in addition they were able to connect him, not only to the original
> > series, but eleven other unsolved cases where they had not previously
> > suspected his involvement.
>
> > ASI's reasoning leads to: "They used more forensic science after the
> > conviction; therefore he is innocent, let him go."
>
> > --
> > Mike Dworetsky
>
> Dear Dumb Ass,
>
> This is not an apple to apple comparison. Because the original theory
> was not arrived at using forensic science. It was arrived at by making
> an inference from observations between man and ape a couple of hundred
> years before modern forensic science was used.
mike's analogy is in fact spot - but your answer betrays your
inability to understand analogies which is also behind the violence
and distortions you inflict on the bible.
Mike starts with a scenario where we have, without science, good
reasons to believe something - here the guilt of the accused, beyond
reasonable doubt, just by inferring what happened in the past (when
the crime was committed) from general observations like his MO and
eyewitness accounts. Now, some times later, DNA testing and genetics
comes along, tests evidence that was not available when the first
verdict was made, and _confirms_it.
This is exactly the same scenario as with the ToE: simply by looking
at nature's MO, Darwin could already infer to a high degree of
reliability what must have happened. Now, some times later, genetics
comes along and confirms the theory further.
you claim that the fact that this is new evidence shows that Darwin's
theory was wrong - similarly, you would have to conclude that we
should let people out of prison when new _confirming_ evidence comes
in.
Or take another discipline: Archeologists and philologists were able
to date artifacts and texts with a high degree of accuracy even in the
18th and 19th, simply by looking at what is visible, and correlating
say pottery with unknown date to similar looking on with known date.
It was much later that chemistry became good enough to analyse the
paint or the ink. In most cases, the old assessment was confirmed. by
your logic again, this means that the older theories that worked simly
by looking carefully at the pottery etc were in fact wrong
>
> So as usual, the evolutionist has to compare evolution next to real
> science for it to remotely seem plausible. Even if that comparison is
> not an accurate one.
>
> In your example there was already a high probability that the rapist
> was guilty based on other types of valid science.
No, in his example, it was based on observation of his MO and on
eyewitness statements, not science.
>
> But with the man to ape theory it was nothing more then an idea based
> on observations.
As in hs example Besides, all science is based on observations, what
do you think it is ased on, revelation?
Which had a higher probability of being wrong in the
> first place because it was not based on science, but instead, based on
> man's judgments of what he thought the observations meant.
That is science. you observe, yu interpret, and then you test.
>
> As it has been pointed out to you so many times in the past, man's
> interpretations of data, and therefore any inferences man makes based
> on that data, are only going to be as accurate as man is with all of
> his faults, prejudges and subjectiveness. Not to mention his limited
> perceptions.
That applies to all science, and indeed all human knowledge. Still
means some interpretations are objectively better than others.
>
> It appears that science is forcing it's discoveries (both old and new)
> to fit the theory of evolution. Which is like forcing a round peg into
> a square hole, obviously.
>
We call it; confirmation through testing
> As long as there is more then a single interpretation of the evidence
> then you have not arrived at any kind of truth.
Really? So let's get every single criminal out of jail. There is
always the possibilitythe polic framed him/her
> So why bother to
> present it as such? Why defend something so vigorously that you know
> ahead of time may be false, or may change as new discoveries are made?
>
Because that is how science works You present the best available
theory, and you give it up or modify to when and only when new and
contradictory evidence comes up. Your approach results in nihilism
where you never leave the house. Why, my theory that there is a world
outside my house could after all be wrong, so why believe it in the
first place?
and as was shown to you before, the same applies to your ancient texts
- a new discovery might show they are all fakes, so why believe
anything they say?
Ye Old One
>The only "low rent" taking place is this atheist bullshit that has
>hijacked real science.
Question: Are you capable of making a post without lying?
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
VoiceOfReason
Yeah, like the "atheist bullshit" that most Christians accept as fact.
TomS
<65f4bff9-44ae-4697...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Kermit
stated..."
>
>On Nov 28, 5:25=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:43:18 -0000, in article
>> <gdGdncHu9Y9aY43WnZ2dnUVZ8jedn...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
>> >ASI's reasoning leads to: =A0"They used more forensic science after the=
>=3D20
>> >conviction; therefore he is innocent, let him go."
>>
>> Is there anyone left who thinks that ASI is being serious?
>
>You weren't raised a Creationist, were you?
No, I wasn't.
I recall hearing about evolution in school, and reading about it,
and I didn't think that it was at all controversial. However, I
did get some strange reactions from some grownups when I casually
mentioned it, which I didn't understand, particularly as the
grownups didn't seem to feel any need to explain their reactions.
>
>He gives no indication of being other than what he seems - an
>irrational, emotion driven, disassociated from reality, Creationist.
>They exist in the tens of millions in the US. I'm related to half of
>'em.
It does seem exceptionally strange when a creationist gives a nice
piece of evidence for evolution, and then claims that it is an
argument against evolution.
Eric Root
> "On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:36:16 -0800 (PST), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Nov 28, 5:25=A0am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> "On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:43:18 -0000, in article
> >> <gdGdncHu9Y9aY43WnZ2dnUVZ8jedn...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >> >ASI's reasoning leads to: =A0"They used more forensic science after the=
> >=3D20
> >> >conviction; therefore he is innocent, let him go."
>
> >> Is there anyone left who thinks that ASI is being serious?
>
> >You weren't raised a Creationist, were you?
>
> No, I wasn't.
>
> I recall hearing about evolution in school, and reading about it,
> and I didn't think that it was at all controversial. However, I
> did get some strange reactions from some grownups when I casually
> mentioned it, which I didn't understand, particularly as the
> grownups didn't seem to feel any need to explain their reactions.
>
>
>
> >He gives no indication of being other than what he seems - an
> >irrational, emotion driven, disassociated from reality, Creationist.
> >They exist in the tens of millions in the US. I'm related to half of
> >'em.
>
> It does seem exceptionally strange when a creationist gives a nice
> piece of evidence for evolution, and then claims that it is an
> argument against evolution.
>
It's become adman's modus operandi
Eric Root
No, avoiding analogies by pretending they fail to be "apples to apples
comparisons" is definitely low rent, and need to take it to heart;
why do you think we _make_ the analogies if they aren't pertinent to
your mistakes?
And quit with that childish whining about imaginary "atheist sh*t." If
evolution was atheist and unsupported by evidence, then I would reject
it in a heartbeat, but I don't because it is good science.
All fall short, but you fall _waaay_ short, and a lot of it is on
purpose. you need to do something about it.
Eric Root
Kermit
I think it's another example of his not understanding his own
limitations. He really has given no indication of know what a metaphor
*is, except to think that it's a loophole for those rare occasions
when he finds a passage from an old myth to be inconvenient.
He takes (as far as I can tell) all of Genesis to be literal truth,
but claims that *we don't understand it's "metaphorical nature". He
does claim that angel are aliens (they are interchangeable concepts
when understood properly) but is simply saying that the translators of
the bible didn't know their nature as well as he does :/
The Dunning-Kruger force is strong in this one.
Kermit
Kermit
Despite all the evidence that many scientists are theists, including
paleontology and genetics? Must be that special perception you keep
talking about.
This fella also had special perception:
http://tinyurl.com/ygf4pn8
Kermit
heekster
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
He plagiarizes everything he's ever posted; that is to say he has
never posted an original thought. He just regurgitates whatever he
might have read, and often transmogrifies it in doing so, because he
doesn't understand it.
I would not be surprised if his bloviations were copy/pasted.