Falsifiable common ancestor hypothesis

[iaoua iaoua]

Hi all,

so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!

Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
a direction that looks like science surely there are other ways we
could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
instance? Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their
shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt why don't you
pick up a chimp population and in a lab perform experiments to see if
you make a chimp's set of chromosomes turn into ones you expect the
common ancestor to have possessed and then from there start making a
human?

Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.
Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
requires to do it" rubbish either. I don't know how to make a man from
the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!

When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???

JC

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in news:iaoua-3202d195-9da6-453b-
9a01-c88...@m11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

Good grief, but you're stupid.

[Mike Dworetsky]

You seriously overestimate vowel-boy.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Arkalen]

(2012/01/17 1:56), iaoua iaoua wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two.

Oh, is LOOKS LIKE the criterion now ? Because we've got plenty of
*those*. Actually I remember bringing up some examples by name AT LEAST
twice in these series of threads you've been playing in, so I see no way
to account for this curious oversight of yours.

> All the
> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!

Again, what are you saying here ? That we're lying when we say jungles
don't fossilize well ? That evolutionary biologists picked chimpanzees
as our nearest relatives just because they lived in the jungle where
things don't fossilize well ?

Or are you whining because the Universe hadn't bowed to your wishes yet
? If YOU think it's lame that it's hard to find fossils in jungles,
think about how paleontologists feel !

>
> Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
> a direction that looks like science surely there are other ways we
> could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
> instance?

Yes. Why, do you have some reason that it's impossible for humans and
chimpanzees to be related, even in theory ?

> Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their
> shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt why don't you
> pick up a chimp population and in a lab perform experiments to see if
> you make a chimp's set of chromosomes turn into ones you expect the
> common ancestor to have possessed and then from there start making a
> human?

Because such an experiment would actually have no bearing whatsoever on
the question ? Wow, you haven't gotten better at this stuff. Remember
when you suggested an experiment to differentiate your theory from
Einstein's relativity, and it turned out your experiment would have had
the exact same result under both theories ? And you knew this when you
proposed it ?

Yeah, that's not how it's done.

>
> Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
> You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.

Do we need a whole chimp ? Because we can't exactly accelerate their
development "as much as we will". Can we have just chimp chromosomes ?
But to make mutations happen to them as they happen in the wild we'd
still need the whole organism, and even if we could just do it in cells
we still couldn't accelerate the process "as much as we will", and
anyway we can't culture non-cancerous chimp cells indefinitely. Can we
simulate chimp chromosomes on the computer ?

Because in that case, finding out which changes between the chimpanzee
and the human genetic code happened when and why (i.e. re-creating the
history of mutations that happened to both) is exactly what many
researchers are doing.

> Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
> requires to do it" rubbish either.

We've decoded the human genome, and I think we've decoded the chimp
genome too. Both are huge and the effects of genes are still being
discovered and you need to account for the differences between
individuals so it isn't quite a matter of putting them next to each
other, finding the differences, and those are the "mutations it requires
to do it", but... isn't it ?

> I don't know how to make a man from
> the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!
>
> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???

Once you learn what "conclusive" means and when the word can apply. It
would really help if you knew how to articulate a hypothesis, determine
its implications, understand which evidence can support that hypothesis
and which can't, and learned how to design an experiment that could
distinguish between hypotheses.

>
> JC
>


--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

[Boikat]

On Jan 16, 10:56 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!

You want lame? How about your grasp of science? That's pretty lame.

>
> Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
> a direction that looks like science

It's obvious that you would not know science if it kicked you in the
ass.

> surely there are other ways we
> could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
> instance? Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their

> shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt.

I'm game. You *are* going to fund the expedition, yes? Good. I
require at least 1 million US dollars to secure teansportation,
equipment, supplies and personel. Put up, or shut up.

> why don't you
> pick up a chimp population and in a lab perform experiments to see if
> you make a chimp's set of chromosomes turn into ones you expect the
> common ancestor to have possessed and then from there start making a
> human?

I do not happen to have a genetics lab in my spare room. However, if
youi are willing to fund the research, I'll need at least 1 million US
dollars to buy the needed equipment, researchers and to construct a
proper lab, which means hiring advisors (So, maybe 10 million US
dollars, not just 1 million). I can start as soon as you have forked
over the cash. Put up, or shut up.

>
> Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
> You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.
> Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
> requires to do it" rubbish either.

All of science is "rubbish" to the pig-ignorant.

> I don't know how to make a man from
> the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!

You can substitute "earth" with "banana pudding", "succotash", or
"carved out of wood". But, if you want to play like you understand
science, where is the observation that would even lead to a conjecture
that man was made from "earth", as in "dirt" as in "clay"?

>
> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???

"Shortly after you pull your head out of your ass". would be a start.

Boikat

[Kalkidas]

On 1/16/2012 10:49 AM, Arkalen wrote:
> (2012/01/17 1:56), iaoua iaoua wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two.
>
> Oh, is LOOKS LIKE the criterion now ? Because we've got plenty of
> *those*. Actually I remember bringing up some examples by name AT LEAST
> twice in these series of threads you've been playing in, so I see no way
> to account for this curious oversight of yours.

Actually, "looks like" is the only criterion. If there is no preserved
DNA, there is nothing else but comparative anatomy.

[snip]

[Arkalen]

(2012/01/17 2:50), Boikat wrote:
> On Jan 16, 10:56 am, iaoua iaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
>> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>
> You want lame? How about your grasp of science? That's pretty lame.
>
>>
>> Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
>> a direction that looks like science
>
> It's obvious that you would not know science if it kicked you in the
> ass.
>
>
>> surely there are other ways we
>> could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
>> instance? Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their
>> shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt.
>
> I'm game. You *are* going to fund the expedition, yes? Good. I
> require at least 1 million US dollars to secure teansportation,
> equipment, supplies and personel. Put up, or shut up.

Honestly, if he just showed me where the giant X was on google maps I'd
go there from my own pocket. The glory of discovering The Definite
Common Ancestor of humans and chimpanzees would be well worth the price
of a shovel and plane ticket.

[Arkalen]

(2012/01/17 3:01), Kalkidas wrote:
> On 1/16/2012 10:49 AM, Arkalen wrote:
>> (2012/01/17 1:56), iaoua iaoua wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>>> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>>> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two.
>>
>> Oh, is LOOKS LIKE the criterion now ? Because we've got plenty of
>> *those*. Actually I remember bringing up some examples by name AT LEAST
>> twice in these series of threads you've been playing in, so I see no way
>> to account for this curious oversight of yours.
>
> Actually, "looks like" is the only criterion.

Something James has trouble understanding.

> If there is no preserved
> DNA, there is nothing else but comparative anatomy.

I don't think preserved DNA would clinch it either. It would clearly be
BETTER than comparative anatomy, but in both cases a single sample won't
say much, you need a whole lot of them to build a family tree out of and
see which one fits best as an ancestor.

I suppose a lot could be discovered from looking at the specific
mutations and comparing them with the mutations in humans, chimpanzees
and gorillas and if you saw one that has all the mutations that are
thought to be primitive to humans and chimpanzees, none of those that
are thought to be derived, and no additional derived mutations of its
own, then I guess you COULD say it was the ancestor even with a single
specimen... But even then, wouldn't individual variation introduce some
uncertainty ?

>
> [snip]

[Kleuskes & Moos]

You still have pretty strong evidence of how close two species are related
from _current_ DNA of both species alone, supporting the existence of some
common ancestor, and if there's _any_ common ancestor, maths says there's
a last common ancestor.

Unless, of course, you are willing to assume some unknown deity copied and
pasted the whole bunch into existence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________
/ ... or were you driving the PONTIAC \
| that HONKED at me in MIAMI last |
\ Tuesday? /
-------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Garamond Lethe]

I certainly did.

Oh, well, live and learn....

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <iaoua-3202d195-9da6-4...@m11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the

As someone else has noted, there is no shortage of fossils that
look like a possible common ancestor of the two. Especially since
you didn't specify *last* common ancestor.

>instance? Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their
>shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt why don't you
>pick up a chimp population and in a lab perform experiments to see if
>you make a chimp's set of chromosomes turn into ones you expect the
>common ancestor to have possessed and then from there start making a
>human?

Well, here's a good start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius

[David Canzi]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
>same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!

Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
falsifiable?

--
David Canzi | "I put a dollar in a change machine. Nothing changed."
| -- George Carlin

[John Harshman]

iaoua iaoua wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> humans had a common ancestor.

No, you've been talking about the conjecture. The rest of us realize
that it's a well-established fact.

> We've heard excuses about why we can't
> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two.

No, you've heard excuses. The rest of us have heard reasons. But to recap:

1. Fossils occur only under the proper conditions, and there's no
guarantee the relevant organism would have been preserved.

2. It's impossible to recognize an ancestor even if we see one.

3. It isn't completely clear what even a fossil that "looks like a
common ancestor" ought to look like. Was it bipedal or did it walk on
all fours? etc.

> All the
> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!

There your paranoia is showing. Mainstream science has no interest in
proving Iaoua wrong. Posters to talk origin don't even have all that
much interest. We do this for amusement only.

> Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
> a direction that looks like science surely there are other ways we
> could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
> instance? Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their
> shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt why don't you
> pick up a chimp population and in a lab perform experiments to see if
> you make a chimp's set of chromosomes turn into ones you expect the
> common ancestor to have possessed and then from there start making a
> human?

Almost certainly unethical and certainly unnecessary. Compare genomes;
there's your evidence.

> Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
> You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.
> Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
> requires to do it" rubbish either. I don't know how to make a man from
> the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!

Doesn't that directly argue against your claim? We don't know how to
turn a common ancestor into a human. So why is that an argument against
evolution? Of course we are in the process of learning what all the
important differences are. We know some of them already, though the
chromosomal number isn't one of the important differences, merely an
incidental one.

> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???

When you open your eyes. In other words, never.

[Arkalen]

In the "Damn, wish I'd come up with that" category :

[alextangent]

On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
>
> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>
> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
> falsifiable?

It's certainly not desirable.

[iaoua iaoua]

On Jan 16, 5:03 pm, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:iaoua-3202d195-9da6-453b-
> 9a01-c88c7ecfb...@m11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

I was asked not so long ago to identify your offensive posts. I didn't
bother looking in the archives. I knew it wouldn't take long for you
to demonstrate it yourself.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
>
> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>
> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
> falsifiable?
>

Well that's the problem isn't it! It's a useless hypothesis because we
can't test it over and above common design.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

Of common design.

The problem is this. Was it design through forces of nature or through
forces of intelligence? We have yet to design a test to eliminate the
one over the other.

JC

[Arkalen]

You're a delicate flower and no mistake.

[iaoua iaoua]

On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
>
> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>
> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
> falsifiable?
>

Sorry I'll try and give you a better answer. If it could be shown that
the necessary mutations from chimp to common ancestor to human were
impossible we could falsify the hypothesis. However, we can't. They'll
just keep crying that just because we haven't figured out how to do it
yet doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. They will never drop
their dogma that easily. The best we can hope for is to encourage them
to keep trying in the hope that close contact with nature will help
them see the beauty of its designs.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

Can Arkalen the great scientist count?

How many chromosomes does a chimp have?

JC

[Arkalen]

(2012/01/17 6:17), iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
> Can Arkalen the great scientist count?
>
> How many chromosomes does a chimp have?

Two more than humans do. And you know what's awesome ? WHERE CHIMPANZEES
HAVE TWO CHROMOSOMES, HUMANS HAVE ONE EXTRA-LARGE CHROMOSOME THAT'S
CLEARLY THE FUSION OF TWO CHROMOSOMES. That's pretty wicked. Hadn't you
come across that factoid before ? It's a weird coincidence to be sure.

The thing is, chromosomes are just how the genes are organised at the
time of mitosis. The number of chromosomes doesn't affect the amount of
genetic material there is overall, and the overall genetic material is
what contains the mutations we're interested in - including mutations
that could have resulted in two chromosomes fusing, if that's what
happened. (actual geneticists, please correct me if I'm wrong here)

>
> JC
>
> On Jan 16, 5:49 pm, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> (2012/01/17 1:56), iaoua iaoua wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>
>>> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>>> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>>> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two.
>>
>> Oh, is LOOKS LIKE the criterion now ? Because we've got plenty of
>> *those*. Actually I remember bringing up some examples by name AT LEAST
>> twice in these series of threads you've been playing in, so I see no way
>> to account for this curious oversight of yours.
>>
>>> All the
>>> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>>> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>>> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>>> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>>> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>>
>> Again, what are you saying here ? That we're lying when we say jungles
>> don't fossilize well ? That evolutionary biologists picked chimpanzees
>> as our nearest relatives just because they lived in the jungle where
>> things don't fossilize well ?

Well ? Not going to back up your insinuations ? All this talk of how
"lame" paleontologists are was just smoke and mirrors you didn't mean
anything by ?

>>
>> Or are you whining because the Universe hadn't bowed to your wishes yet
>> ? If YOU think it's lame that it's hard to find fossils in jungles,
>> think about how paleontologists feel !
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
>>> a direction that looks like science surely there are other ways we
>>> could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
>>> instance?
>>
>> Yes. Why, do you have some reason that it's impossible for humans and
>> chimpanzees to be related, even in theory ?

Apparently not ?

Well, that was an anticlimactic response to people answering your Big
Challenge.

[Arkalen]

(2012/01/17 6:28), iaoua iaoua wrote:
> On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi"<dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> iaoua iaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>
>>> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>>> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>>> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
>>> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>>> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>>> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>>> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>>> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>>
>> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
>> falsifiable?
>>
>
> Sorry I'll try and give you a better answer.

Hey genius. He said "YOU AND I". You're both human. He's not talking
about chimps. A "better" answer would be one that actually *answers his
question*.

> If it could be shown that
> the necessary mutations from chimp to common ancestor to human were
> impossible we could falsify the hypothesis. However, we can't.

And why on Earth not ? Do you think those mutations are impossible ?
Then why can't it be demonstrated ? And if you don't think they're
impossible then what are you on about ?

> They'll
> just keep crying that just because we haven't figured out how to do it
> yet doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. They will never drop
> their dogma that easily. The best we can hope for is to encourage them
> to keep trying in the hope that close contact with nature will help
> them see the beauty of its designs.

Yeah, the computer scientist is lecturing biologists on keeping close
contact with nature. Why don't you just keep doing that.

>
> JC
>
>> --
>> David Canzi | "I put a dollar in a change machine. Nothing changed."
>> | -- George Carlin
>
>

[Eric Root]

How was it offensive? The truth hurts?

Eric Root

[Perseus]

On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
>
> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>
> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
> falsifiable?

Well, we need to falsify also the existence of god, and the big bang.
What sort of shit has one read sometimes.
Are we obliged to falsify how the sun is producing its heat? It is
fucking deduction we made from what we know about experimental
physics.
We can only falsify a limited amount of small things that we can be
managed and controlled in our laboratories. But most of the things
and theories of science can not be falsified.

Perseus

[David Canzi]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi all,
>>
>> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
>> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>>
>> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
>> falsifiable?
>>
>
>Well that's the problem isn't it! It's a useless hypothesis because we
>can't test it over and above common design.

I didn't ask you about humans and chimps. I asked you about you
and me.

Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor falsifiable?

Suppose geneologists were unable to find a common ancestor for
you and me, and yet you still continued to claim that you and I
have a common ancestor. Claiming that the geneological data are
incomplete would be a lame excuse, right?

[Richard Norman]

The data are incomplete only for some of us. Pooh-Bah could trace
his ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. It is
written in a book -- it must be true!

[John Harshman]

No, we can easily distinguish common design from common descent. Common
design could explain functional similarities, but can't explain
nonfunctional similarities. (Nor can it explain non-homologous
functional similarities.) Your claim that we can't tell what is and
isn't functional in the genome is a god of the gaps argument, and an
ignorant one at that, since we can indeed tell rather well.

> The problem is this. Was it design through forces of nature or through
> forces of intelligence? We have yet to design a test to eliminate the
> one over the other.

Of course we can. Design through forces of intelligence would not be
expected to produce a nested hierarchy. But "forces of intelligence"
isn't a well characterized mechanism. You need a robust theory to
compare to the standard one. How many designers are there? What are
its/their abilities? Did it design everything from scratch, or did it
make little tweaks to existing organisms? Did it create ex nihilo? Did
it base new designs on previous designs? Go on, tell us more.

>>> Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
>>> You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.
>>> Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
>>> requires to do it" rubbish either. I don't know how to make a man from
>>> the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!
>> Doesn't that directly argue against your claim? We don't know how to
>> turn a common ancestor into a human. So why is that an argument against
>> evolution? Of course we are in the process of learning what all the
>> important differences are. We know some of them already, though the
>> chromosomal number isn't one of the important differences, merely an
>> incidental one.
>>
>>> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???
>> When you open your eyes. In other words, never.

It would also help if you took your fingers out of your ears and stopped
shouting "la la la la, I can't hear you".

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/16/12 8:56 AM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???

When are you going to support your wild, fantastic conjecture that the
Bible has some relevance to origins?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mike Painter]

iaoua iaoua wrote:
> Hi all,

<snip>

>
> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???

Never, and for the same reason that a child does not hear because he has his
fingers in his ears and is screaming no, no, no.

[chris thompson]

On Jan 16, 11:56 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and

> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the

> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!

Have you ever looked for fossils? If so, please describe the
experience.

Chris

...I HAVE looked for fossils, so I want to know if you know anything
about the subject. Of course you don't- you know as little about this
as you know any biology, geology, or anything else related to
evolution.

So tell us about your expertise in finding fossils, if you can.

snip

[hersheyh]

On Monday, January 16, 2012 11:56:10 AM UTC-5, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two.

Actually there are plenty of fossil *hominids* that are, in various ways, intermediate between modern humans and chimpanzees and they form a reasonable timeline of changes (and some that are likely ancestral to both). What is almost completely missing (I believe there is one fossil) are fossils between these ancient ape-hominid fossils and the two modern chimpanzee species. That is, there are more "missing links" in the *chimp* lineage than in the human lineage.

What do you think the "common ancestor's" fossil remains should look like? Smaller braincase than humans but larger than chimpanzee? More bipedal than chimpanzees but less so than modern humans? Larger canine teeth than modern humans but less so than modern chimpanzees? DNA in the two modern species that differ by roughly the amount expected by neutral drift if they shared a common ancestor 5 mybp? Only a few chromosome rearrangement differences?

> All the
> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!

Every fossil intermediate we find produces two gaps where only one existed before.

> Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
> a direction that looks like science surely there are other ways we
> could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
> instance? Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their
> shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt why don't you
> pick up a chimp population and in a lab perform experiments to see if
> you make a chimp's set of chromosomes turn into ones you expect the
> common ancestor to have possessed and then from there start making a
> human?
>

> Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
> You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.
> Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
> requires to do it" rubbish either. I don't know how to make a man from
> the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!

We, in fact, do know, in principle, how to make a human genome if we start with a chimp genome. There are around 40-50 million differences between the two genomes and we know what and where they are. The vast majority of these differences are unimportant to the phenotypic differences between the two species. One we know which few hundred differences in the 40-50 million are crucial in determining the phenotypic differences between the modern species, it might be technically (if not ethically) possible to change one of the modern genomes (human or chimp) into the other genome (working initially on cells grown in culture and then either inducing it to become an embryo or transplanting a nucleus or some other technique). Trying to blindly and ignorantly change all 40-50 million differences wouldn't be possible at the present time.

Our current inability to actually do the above (and our probable unwillingness to do it even when it is possible) is quite different from our inability to make a human starting with clay, which would require alchemy among other magical fantasies and wishful thinking. In fact, making a man from sterile dirt would be impossible and will always remain impossible because dirt is not chemically the same as bio-organic chemicals. Doing that would be more like converting lead into gold. Changing a chimp into a human may not be currently feasible, but it is, in principle, possible. Changing dirt into a human is also not be currently feasible, but the reason is that it would be chemically impossible to do so.

> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???
>

> JC

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iaoua-57b625f7-183a-4...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.c
om:

I wasn't being offensive. It was simply an observation.

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iaoua-8e491797-60aa-4...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.
com:

> On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
>> falsifiable?
>>
>
> Well that's the problem isn't it! It's a useless hypothesis because we
> can't test it over and above common design.

Since it relies on the supernatural, is unfalsifiable, and can't be tested,
you can apply "common design" to anything. In other words, until you can
provide a valid theory of common design (and you, particularly, wouldn't
have a clue where to even start), it's meaningless and useless.

[Nashton]

> JC
>

The elephant, no, the heard of elephants in the room was never, is not
and will never be the dearth of fossils pointing to a common ancestor.
The "scientists" working on this find one every over year. ;)

The biggest logical hurdle is that there isn't an explanation as to
which evolutionary pressures produced a species as sophisticated as
humans. I can understand the pressure to produce a tool using species, a
species that survives on a specific diet, a species that is terrestrial
and so on and so forth.

In the meantime, I derive the greatest amusement in reading about how
species X is now considered the common ancestor as opposed to species Y
that they swore was the one last year.

They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
the ToE is simply utterly useless.

Utterly useless.

[Arkalen]

It's really interesting how every single creationist has a different
"biggest logical hurdle" to evolution, each one bespeaking of totally
different aspects of the theory of evolution they accept or reject.
You'd think they'd realize this and make their statements less
all-sweeping as a result.

> I can understand the pressure to produce a tool using species, a
> species that survives on a specific diet, a species that is terrestrial
> and so on and so forth.

And you can't understand the pressure to produce more socially-savvy
individuals in a social species, to produce individuals that can
out-think their peers as members of a fairly smart species, or a species
that is more able to predict the future and manipulate its environment
to its benefit ? Humans' intelligence has been a massive boon to them
evolutionarily speaking up to now.

Ultimately, your "biggest logical hurdle" is yet one more argument from
personal incredulity. Other people with different standards of
incredulity will have different hurdles.

>
> In the meantime, I derive the greatest amusement in reading about how
> species X is now considered the common ancestor as opposed to species Y
> that they swore was the one last year.

You should read fewer "science" news headlines and actually look at what
the scientists say. It's almost annoying how much they emphasize at
every turn that species X probably isn't actually ancestral.

>
> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>
> Utterly useless.
>

Saying it twice won't make it true. The ToE has led to increased
knowledge in the field of biology, it has practical applications both in
biological fields (like medicine) and technology (especially computer
science and robotics), and of course it provides explanations on many
questions of the origin of our world. Believing it's incorrect is one
thing, calling it "useless" is rather bizarre.

[iaoua iaoua]

On Jan 16, 9:59 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2012/01/17 6:17), iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
>
>
> > Can Arkalen the great scientist count?
>
> > How many chromosomes does a chimp have?
>
> Two more than humans do. And you know what's awesome ? WHERE CHIMPANZEES
> HAVE TWO CHROMOSOMES, HUMANS HAVE ONE EXTRA-LARGE CHROMOSOME THAT'S
> CLEARLY THE FUSION OF TWO CHROMOSOMES. That's pretty wicked. Hadn't you
> come across that factoid before ? It's a weird coincidence to be sure.
>

So, seeing that you seem to be apparently unwilling to attempt to
defend your faith shovel in hand here's another chance to demonstrate
your conviction in your faith position. Take some chimps and get
fusing those chromosomes together. Make an identical chimp with no
difference other than that. Do you think you can do it?

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Jan 16, 11:43 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Hi all,
>
> >> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> >> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> >> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
> >> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> >> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> >> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> >> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> >> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>
> >> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
> >> falsifiable?
>
> >Well that's the problem isn't it! It's a useless hypothesis because we
> >can't test it over and above common design.
>
> I didn't ask you about humans and chimps.  I asked you about you
> and me.
>
> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor falsifiable?
>

Indeed you are right. I cannot think of any way we could test that
hypothesis conclusively. Can you?

JC

[Bob T.]

What an excellent point! If a person cannot build a human being out
of chimpanzee parts, what business does she have describing how chimps
and humans evolved?

Similarly, you must object to vucanologists who cannot create even a
small volcano, and all those astromers who claim to know something
about stars, but have yet to build one of their own.

- Bob T
>
> JC

[iaoua iaoua]

I disagree. A nested hierarchy does not eliminate intelligent design.
In fact on the contrary.

> isn't a well characterized mechanism. You need a robust theory to
> compare to the standard one. How many designers are there? What are
> its/their abilities? Did it design everything from scratch, or did it
> make little tweaks to existing organisms? Did it create ex nihilo? Did
> it base new designs on previous designs? Go on, tell us more.
>

Evolution of the gaps? Your double standards are abundantly clear.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Jan 17, 1:51 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 1/16/12 8:56 AM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
>
>
> > When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???
>
> When are you going to support your wild, fantastic conjecture that the
> Bible has some relevance to origins?
>

There was no mention of the bible in this thread. The thread is about
common descent versus common design. Notions of common design can be
explored independently from the bible or any other religious text for
that matter. However, your usual political strategy was duly noted.

JC

[Nashton]

On 12-01-16 1:03 PM, Ilas wrote:
> iaoua iaoua<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in news:iaoua-3202d195-9da6-453b-
> 9a01-c88...@m11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and

>> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the

>> same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>> two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>> searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>> don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>> excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>>

>> Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
>> a direction that looks like science surely there are other ways we
>> could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
>> instance? Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their
>> shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt why don't you
>> pick up a chimp population and in a lab perform experiments to see if
>> you make a chimp's set of chromosomes turn into ones you expect the
>> common ancestor to have possessed and then from there start making a
>> human?
>>

>> Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
>> You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.
>> Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
>> requires to do it" rubbish either. I don't know how to make a man from
>> the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!
>>

>> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???
>

> Good grief, but you're stupid.
>

Of course he is. ;)

You would say something like this, wouldn't you?

[Arkalen]

(2012/01/17 21:57), iaoua iaoua wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:59 pm, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> (2012/01/17 6:17), iaoua iaoua wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can Arkalen the great scientist count?
>>
>>> How many chromosomes does a chimp have?
>>
>> Two more than humans do. And you know what's awesome ? WHERE CHIMPANZEES
>> HAVE TWO CHROMOSOMES, HUMANS HAVE ONE EXTRA-LARGE CHROMOSOME THAT'S
>> CLEARLY THE FUSION OF TWO CHROMOSOMES. That's pretty wicked. Hadn't you
>> come across that factoid before ? It's a weird coincidence to be sure.
>>
>
> So, seeing that you seem to be apparently unwilling to attempt to
> defend your faith shovel in hand

Hey. Hey, James ! You still haven't told me : is there a single
theoretical fossil find that could convince you humans and chimpanzees
had a common ancestor ? If so, what would that fossil be like ? If not,
how on earth would a shovel help me "defend my faith" ?

Also, did you miss the several posts where I said I'd buy a shovel and
go dig out of my own pocket, as soon as you showed me on google maps
where your Clear Giant X is ? I don't care about convincing you but I'd
sure love a publication in Nature.

Geez, it's almost as if you didn't care about the truth at all, as if
you were lying about knowing where the Giant X is and you just wanted to
send people on wild goose chases. But surely that can't be the case.

> here's another chance to demonstrate
> your conviction in your faith position. Take some chimps and get
> fusing those chromosomes together. Make an identical chimp with no
> difference other than that. Do you think you can do it?

Do you have the chimpanzees, genetics lab, "fusing chromosomes for
Dummies" and twenty years available for me ? Then no.

Hey James, here's a chance to demonstrate that you have a working brain
and a tiny measure of good faith : please suggest an actual feasible
experiment that would actually serve to test an aspect of the theory of
evolution !

Take your ridiculous suggestion : what proposition would such an
experiment be testing ? That chromosome fusion can happen ? That it can
happen in the wild ? That it can happen without affecting phenotype
drastically ? That meiosis can occur with differently fused chromosomes
? That this can happen in chimpanzees ? That this could happen in the
ancestors of humans ? That this did happen to the ancestors of humans ?

Your "experiment" would give answers for SOME of those propositions, but
there are much simpler and feasible ways of getting the same result. How
about you come up with one ? And some others of those propositions
wouldn't be addressed by your "experiment" at all. How about you come up
with an experiment that does address them ?

[iaoua iaoua]

On Jan 17, 8:44 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:iaoua-8e491797-60aa-4...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.

Your opinions have been noted. But they don't affect the truth status
one iota. Something hypothesised to have happened in the past is true
if and only if it actually happened. Do you understand this simple
concept? Or do you really believe that only falsifiable events could
have happened in the past?

If so your position is self contradictory. Because the hypothesis that
we and chimps evolved from a common ancestor is not a falsifiable
hypothesis.

JC

[Arkalen]

(2012/01/17 22:14), iaoua iaoua wrote:
> On Jan 17, 8:44 am, Ilas<nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>> iaoua iaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:iaoua-8e491797-60aa-4...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.
>> com:
>>
>>> On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi"<dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:> >> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
>>>> falsifiable?
>>
>>> Well that's the problem isn't it! It's a useless hypothesis because we
>>> can't test it over and above common design.
>>
>> Since it relies on the supernatural, is unfalsifiable, and can't be tested,
>> you can apply "common design" to anything. In other words, until you can
>> provide a valid theory of common design (and you, particularly, wouldn't
>> have a clue where to even start), it's meaningless and useless.
>
> Your opinions have been noted. But they don't affect the truth status
> one iota.

Neither do yours. So where does that leave you ?

> Something hypothesised to have happened in the past is true
> if and only if it actually happened. Do you understand this simple
> concept?

Yes. Do you ?

> Or do you really believe that only falsifiable events could
> have happened in the past?

Nope. But only falsifiable events are those we can TELL happened in the
past. Because if you can't know when you're wrong, you can't know you're
right. And if you can't know you're right then odds are you are wrong,
because there are massively more false possibilities out there than true
ones.

>
> If so your position is self contradictory. Because the hypothesis that
> we and chimps evolved from a common ancestor is not a falsifiable
> hypothesis.

Just because you totally ignored the many possible falsifications that
were proposed to you doesn't mean they don't exist. And you're accusing
Ilas of thinking his opinions affect reality ?

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iaoua-1fb3d402-7bdb-4...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.co
m:

> I disagree. A nested hierarchy does not eliminate intelligent design.
> In fact on the contrary.

Nothing eliminates intelligent design, because - like all psuedo-science -
it doesn't depend on empirical evidence. That's why it's useless, unless
and until you can provide a testable, falsifiable theory of intelligent
design (or even a hypothesis. Hell, even a wild guess would be a start).
Nobody has done so so far, and I don't expect you to be the first.

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iaoua-6e022c4d-9714-4...@r16g2000yqi.googlegroups.
com:

> If so your position is self contradictory. Because the hypothesis that
> we and chimps evolved from a common ancestor is not a falsifiable
> hypothesis.

Oh, but it is. I can think of several ways. Can you? The rabbits in the
Precambrian comment wasn't random, by the way, so you could start there.
Here's a site that'll help get you started:

www.google.co.uk

[Nashton]

I see you haven't addressed the main thrust of my post, i.e. which
specific "evolutionary" pressures made it possible for humans to
"evolve" to a species with such a high degree of cultural
adaptation/sophistication, not seen in other species.

Trying to dance around the issue won't make it go away. Like any other
anti-creationist and anti-science evo-cheerleader, you're so
predictable. ;)

[David Canzi]

alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi all,
>>
>> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
>> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>>

>> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
>> falsifiable?
>

>It's certainly not desirable.

Yet it must be admitted that he is a member of my species.
No other species writes English fluently, and iaoau iaoua is
wrong in ways not yet achievable by artificial intelligence.

[David Canzi]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 11:43 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> >> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Hi all,
>>
>> >> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
>> >> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>> >> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
>> >> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>> >> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>> >> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>> >> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>> >> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>>
>> >> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
>> >> falsifiable?
>>
>> >Well that's the problem isn't it! It's a useless hypothesis because we
>> >can't test it over and above common design.
>>
>> I didn't ask you about humans and chimps.  I asked you about you
>> and me.
>>
>> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor falsifiable?
>>
>
>Indeed you are right. I cannot think of any way we could test that
>hypothesis conclusively. Can you?

Now, answer the next question:

[Arkalen]

I did, actually. But I can be more explicit if you want :

- Selection for a better evaluation of cause and effect, the ability to
model the future inside our own heads so we can better affect our
environment. That's an ability necessary for tool-using by the way, and
many tool-using animals seem to have rudiments of that ability; being
better at it means using tools more effectively and more imaginatively.

- Sexual selection for smarter partners (i.e. people like to mate with
smart people, because smart people are better at hunting and using tools
and all that stuff)

- Social selection for smarter individuals (i.e. smart people are better
liked, and better at making themselves liked, by other members of the
tribe, and in a social environment this improves their chances of
survival and reproduction)

- Competitive selection for smarter individuals (i.e. smart people are
more likely to outwit their enemies, which is kind of important in the
context of a small tribe because you can't count on the government to
put your enemies in prison)

Note that I said "smart" there, but I mean that as shorthand for "has
more human-like abilities than a chimpanzee". So that would include not
only what you could call "raw intelligence" but social skills, empathy,
manual skills, powers of observation, creativity, reasoning skills, and
that kind of stuff. Note that art tends to showcase many of those
abilities; it could be a kind of conspicuous display that arose through
sexual/social selection.

So for example the ability to better model the world and to better model
what others are thinking and to interact with them result in more
effective hunting strategies. And humans are indeed the best hunters on
the planet.

Note that Jared Diamond suggests that the selective forces on modern
societies are very different from what they were in Paleolithic tribes.
He constrasts agricultural societies where the leading cause of death is
disease, with tribal societies where the leading cause of death is
murder, and suggests that the latter selects for intelligence while the
former selects for disease resistance. So all of the selective forces
I've listed up there may not be at work in our modern society.

>
> Trying to dance around the issue won't make it go away. Like any other
> anti-creationist and anti-science evo-cheerleader, you're so
> predictable. ;)
>

[John Harshman]

How so?

>> isn't a well characterized mechanism. You need a robust theory to
>> compare to the standard one. How many designers are there? What are
>> its/their abilities? Did it design everything from scratch, or did it
>> make little tweaks to existing organisms? Did it create ex nihilo? Did
>> it base new designs on previous designs? Go on, tell us more.
>
> Evolution of the gaps? Your double standards are abundantly clear.

Avoiding the question doesn't get you any credit.

>>>>> Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
>>>>> You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.
>>>>> Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
>>>>> requires to do it" rubbish either. I don't know how to make a man from
>>>>> the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!
>>>> Doesn't that directly argue against your claim? We don't know how to
>>>> turn a common ancestor into a human. So why is that an argument against
>>>> evolution? Of course we are in the process of learning what all the
>>>> important differences are. We know some of them already, though the
>>>> chromosomal number isn't one of the important differences, merely an
>>>> incidental one.
>>>>> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???
>>>> When you open your eyes. In other words, never.
>> It would also help if you took your fingers out of your ears and stopped
>> shouting "la la la la, I can't hear you".

Of course you can't hear my advice with your fingers in your ears.

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:

> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>
> Utterly useless.

Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I gave
you then:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Reentrant]

On 17/01/2012 12:57, iaoua iaoua wrote:

> So, seeing that you seem to be apparently unwilling to attempt to
> defend your faith shovel in hand here's another chance to demonstrate
> your conviction in your faith position. Take some chimps and get
> fusing those chromosomes together. Make an identical chimp with no
> difference other than that. Do you think you can do it?
>
> JC
>

Equally, do you think you can replicate Noah's Ark?

--
Reentrant

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/17/12 6:13 AM, Ilas wrote:
> iaoua iaoua<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:iaoua-1fb3d402-7bdb-4...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.co
> m:
>
>> I disagree. A nested hierarchy does not eliminate intelligent design.
>> In fact on the contrary.
>

> Nothing eliminates intelligent design,...

From a theist's perspective, the Bible eliminates intelligent design.
It speaks instead either of fiat creation or of god calling for the
earth to do the producing. Neither of those is design, which means
making the plan and not the final product. Eve could plausibly be said
to be designed, but she is the exception.

[Ernest Major]

In message <ksadnQtZo-u...@giganews.com>, Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com> writes

>On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:
>
>> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
>> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
>> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>>
>> Utterly useless.
>
>
>Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
>this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I
>gave you then:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649
>

I seem to recall Nashton recently being quoted as conceding the utility
of the theory of evolution.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Jim T.]

Name an intelligent designer that works exclusively by creating nested
hierarchies, without taking good ideas from one branch and using them
in another. What kind of "intelligent" designer wouldn't do that?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:56:10 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
<iaoua...@gmail.com>:

>Hi all,
>
>so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and

>humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
>find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the

>same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
>two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
>searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
>don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
>excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>

>Anyway, in an attempt to bring all this hand waving and conjecture to
>a direction that looks like science surely there are other ways we
>could explore the hypothesis. Is it even hypothetically possible for
>instance? Those who believe it is and can't be bothered getting their
>shovel and looking for a common ancestor under the dirt why don't you
>pick up a chimp population and in a lab perform experiments to see if
>you make a chimp's set of chromosomes turn into ones you expect the
>common ancestor to have possessed and then from there start making a
>human?
>

>Now don't give me any of that "but it took millions of years" rubbish.
>You are free in a lab to accelerate the process as much as you will.
>Now don't give me any of that "but we don't know which mutations it
>requires to do it" rubbish either. I don't know how to make a man from
>the earth! But that doesn't mean that didn't happen either!!!
>

>When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???

What makes you think that fossils are required to determine
relationships? Or that science deals in "conclusive"
evidence, rather than the preponderance of evidence?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Perseus]

It looks as if you were telling that the aim our existence is to know
or to understand everything. This cannot be possible, even if we
would accept the existence of a god creator. If I were to accept
that exists a god, what would be the significant change in my
knowledge about everything in the Universe?

Then, by rejecting the god of the sheepherders and worshiping science,
I was also unable to understand everything in the universe, but
science is improving in telling me a lot more about something of the
universe, than by reading the holy babble of the sheepherders of
Judah.

Perseus

[Perseus]

Yeah, he probably would complain that we do not had falsified yet a
volcano, or a star, or more easy still, a galaxy or the big bang.
perseus

[Nashton]

Well, this is debatable. Abstraction is a human trait so you can't apply
this here.

That's an ability necessary for tool-using by the way, and
> many tool-using animals seem to have rudiments of that ability; being
> better at it means using tools more effectively and more imaginatively.

Still, they can't even come close to the intelligence and sophistication
of a human being.

>
> - Sexual selection for smarter partners (i.e. people like to mate with
> smart people, because smart people are better at hunting and using tools
> and all that stuff)

Right.

>
> - Social selection for smarter individuals (i.e. smart people are better
> liked, and better at making themselves liked, by other members of the
> tribe, and in a social environment this improves their chances of
> survival and reproduction)

OK.

>
> - Competitive selection for smarter individuals (i.e. smart people are
> more likely to outwit their enemies, which is kind of important in the
> context of a small tribe because you can't count on the government to
> put your enemies in prison)
>
> Note that I said "smart" there, but I mean that as shorthand for "has
> more human-like abilities than a chimpanzee". So that would include not
> only what you could call "raw intelligence" but social skills, empathy,
> manual skills, powers of observation, creativity, reasoning skills, and
> that kind of stuff. Note that art tends to showcase many of those
> abilities; it could be a kind of conspicuous display that arose through
> sexual/social selection.
>
> So for example the ability to better model the world and to better model
> what others are thinking and to interact with them result in more
> effective hunting strategies. And humans are indeed the best hunters on
> the planet.
>
> Note that Jared Diamond suggests that the selective forces on modern
> societies are very different from what they were in Paleolithic tribes.
> He constrasts agricultural societies where the leading cause of death is
> disease, with tribal societies where the leading cause of death is
> murder, and suggests that the latter selects for intelligence while the
> former selects for disease resistance. So all of the selective forces
> I've listed up there may not be at work in our modern society.

Nothing here convincing or compelling enough to demonstrate that the
selective pressure on human "ancestors" was any different than on any
other mammal. Don't hang your intelligence at the door before you enter.
Think about it and you will realize that the deeper you delve into
trying to explain, the more the door widens to a divinity as a creator.

The canyon between humans and any other mammal is so huge, that I'm
afraid, no amount of anthropomorphizing can even start to explain it.

[Nashton]

On 12-01-17 12:17 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:
>
>> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
>> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
>> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>>
>> Utterly useless.
>
>
> Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
> this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I gave
> you then:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649
>

I see.
And how does the future promise of this research translate into the ToE
being of any value or benefit to mankind *now*?

Thanks

[Burkhard]

So you still haven't got around to read all the literature i gave you
on the current use of the ToE in wildlife management and
preservation?

[Perseus]

On Jan 16, 11:43 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> >> iaoua iaoua  <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Hi all,
>
> >> >so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> >> >humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> >> >find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two. All the
> >> >same plenty of people are digging for one. The strategy seems to have
> >> >two fronts. On the one front let's have lots of people digging and
> >> >searching desparately for one. But on the other front just in case we
> >> >don't find one let's have people on talk origins already making
> >> >excuses for why we will never find one. Lame!!!
>

> >> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor
> >> falsifiable?
>
> >Well that's the problem isn't it! It's a useless hypothesis because we
> >can't test it over and above common design.
>
> I didn't ask you about humans and chimps.  I asked you about you
> and me.
>
> Is the hypothesis that you and I have a common ancestor falsifiable?
>

[Kermit]

On Jan 17, 5:05 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 4:57 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 9:59 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> > > (2012/01/17 6:17), iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
> > > > Can Arkalen the great scientist count?
>
> > > > How many chromosomes does a chimp have?
>
> > > Two more than humans do. And you know what's awesome ? WHERE CHIMPANZEES
> > > HAVE TWO CHROMOSOMES, HUMANS HAVE ONE EXTRA-LARGE CHROMOSOME THAT'S
> > > CLEARLY THE FUSION OF TWO CHROMOSOMES. That's pretty wicked. Hadn't you
> > > come across that factoid before ? It's a weird coincidence to be sure.
>
> > So, seeing that you seem to be apparently unwilling to attempt to
> > defend your faith shovel in hand here's another chance to demonstrate
> > your conviction in your faith position. Take some chimps and get
> > fusing those chromosomes together. Make an identical chimp with no
> > difference other than that. Do you think you can do it?
>
> What an excellent point!  If a person cannot build a human being out
> of chimpanzee parts, what business does she have describing how chimps
> and humans evolved?
>
> Similarly, you must object to vucanologists who cannot create even a
> small volcano, and all those astromers who claim to know something
> about stars, but have yet to build one of their own.

Well, Mr. Scientific Smarty-pants, you've outsmarted yourself with
this one.

It just so happens that Mr. Yow-yow *has created his own god, so he
should know what he's talking about! So there!

>
> - Bob T
>
> > JC

Kermit

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/17/12 5:08 AM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> On Jan 17, 1:51 am, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> On 1/16/12 8:56 AM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
>>> When am I going to start seeing something conclusive???
>>
>> When are you going to support your wild, fantastic conjecture that the
>> Bible has some relevance to origins?
>>
>
> There was no mention of the bible in this thread. The thread is about
> common descent versus common design.

Mention of common design *is* mention of the Bible, at least when you
mention it.

> Notions of common design can be
> explored independently from the bible or any other religious text for
> that matter.

As you use the term, notions of common design cannot be explored at all,
since such notions do not have any meaning. All they have is the Bible
or other religious text which, acting as a backdrop, gives them what
little context they are ever going to get.

And you have no reason at all, not even conjecture, for accepting any of it.

[Nashton]

Care to cite it again?

Thanks

[Arkalen]

So ? No animal's nose comes close to the length and dexterity of an
elephant's either but that doesn't mean there weren't selection
pressures on elephants to evolve trunks.

Also, there used to be a number of hominid species co-existing, probably
with comparable levels of intelligence (at least with smaller gaps
between them than there is between us and other animals); Neanderthals
would have been the most recent. But then we hominids aren't just
intelligent, we're pretty warlike too. And very good at driving other
species to extinction. It may be the large gap between us and other
species is partly because we killed off the closest competition.

Hey, it's not like I can go into your head and magic your incredulity
away. As long as you realize that your incredulity is indeed personal
and not shared by everyone.

>
> The canyon between humans and any other mammal is so huge, that I'm
> afraid, no amount of anthropomorphizing can even start to explain it.
>
>
>>> Trying to dance around the issue won't make it go away. Like any other
>>> anti-creationist and anti-science evo-cheerleader, you're so
>>> predictable. ;)
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2012-01-17 16:09, Nashton wrote:
> On 12-01-17 12:17 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:
>>
>>> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
>>> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
>>> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>>>
>>> Utterly useless.
>>
>>
>> Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
>> this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I gave
>> you then:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649

.

> I see.
> And how does the future promise of this research translate into the ToE
> being of any value or benefit to mankind *now*?

You have move the goal posts
from:

"the ToE is simply utterly useless"

to:
"the ToE [is of no] value or benefit to mankind *now*"

So you agree that the ToE (here: descent of all mammals from a common
ancestor) can be used to make new discoveries and thus is true? [Please
respond to this question]

In answer to your question: There is almost no chance that the recent
identification of these control genes will lead to useful drugs or
treatment before at least five years.

[jillery]

>humans. I can understand the pressure to produce a tool using species, a

>species that survives on a specific diet, a species that is terrestrial
>and so on and so forth.
>

>In the meantime, I derive the greatest amusement in reading about how
>species X is now considered the common ancestor as opposed to species Y
>that they swore was the one last year.
>

>They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
>iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
>the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>
>Utterly useless.

Feel better now?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:09:47 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:

"Of what use is a newborn baby?"

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:26:08 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

Ignoring evidence is not exactly the same as ignorant of
evidence, The latter is correctable, while the former is
willful.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:22:21 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

Well?

[Perseus]

On Jan 17, 9:09 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:

you mean by studying the the holy babble?

Perseus

[Perseus]

You should not either anthropomophize humans. They are mostly
morons.
In case of doubt look at the millions of people that believe in gods.

Perseo

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/17/12 6:25 PM, Arkalen wrote:
> [...]

> Also, there used to be a number of hominid species co-existing, probably
> with comparable levels of intelligence (at least with smaller gaps
> between them than there is between us and other animals); Neanderthals
> would have been the most recent.

<pedant>
Homo floresiensis (if age estimates are correct) would have been the
most recent intelligent nonhuman hominid to live at the same time as us.
I don't know of any evidence that they ever interacted with Homo
sapiens, though.
</pedant>

[John S. Wilkins]

In the "They Hate That" category:

> You should not either anthropomophize humans. They are mostly
> morons.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[John S. Wilkins]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:09:47 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>
> >On 12-01-17 12:17 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >> On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:
> >>
> >>> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
> >>> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
> >>> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
> >>>
> >>> Utterly useless.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
> >> this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I gave
> >> you then:
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649
> >>
> >
> >I see.
> >And how does the future promise of this research translate into the ToE
> >being of any value or benefit to mankind *now*?
>
> "Of what use is a newborn baby?"

Baked or boiled?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:53:56 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:09:47 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>>
>> >On 12-01-17 12:17 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> >> On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
>> >>> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
>> >>> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>> >>>
>> >>> Utterly useless.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
>> >> this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I gave
>> >> you then:
>> >>
>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649
>> >>
>> >
>> >I see.
>> >And how does the future promise of this research translate into the ToE
>> >being of any value or benefit to mankind *now*?
>>
>> "Of what use is a newborn baby?"
>
>Baked or boiled?

Stewed. With Irish potatoes, of course.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:46:43 -0700, the following appeared

And the "PhD candidate, destroyer of the Russian Mafia and
all-around superman" slinks away again...

[Mike Lyle]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:53:56 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:09:47 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>>
>> >On 12-01-17 12:17 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> >> On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
>> >>> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
>> >>> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>> >>>
>> >>> Utterly useless.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
>> >> this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I gave
>> >> you then:
>> >>
>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649
>> >>
>> >
>> >I see.
>> >And how does the future promise of this research translate into the ToE
>> >being of any value or benefit to mankind *now*?
>>
>> "Of what use is a newborn baby?"
>
>Baked or boiled?

You're so modest, John.

--
Mike.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Jan 19, 12:36 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:53:56 +1100, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.

>
>
>
>
>
> Wilkins) wrote:
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:09:47 -0400, the following appeared

> >> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <n...@na.ca>:

>
> >> >On 12-01-17 12:17 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >> >> On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:
>
> >> >>> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
> >> >>> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
> >> >>> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
>
> >> >>> Utterly useless.
>
> >> >> Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
> >> >> this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I gave
> >> >> you then:
>
> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649
>
> >> >I see.
> >> >And how does the future promise of this research translate into the ToE
> >> >being of any value or benefit to mankind *now*?
>
> >> "Of what use is a newborn baby?"
>
> >Baked or boiled?
>
> You're so modest, John.

He made dinner at my house once. He's an excellent cook.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Jan 19, 12:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:46:43 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:22:21 -0700, the following appeared
> >in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
> >>On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:56:10 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua

> >><iaoua.ia...@gmail.com>:

He claims to have raised his Brother-in-Law from the dead, briefly,
and to have deflected the bullets of a submachinegun at point-blank
range, through prayer. And to have written three master theses in two-
weeks time each.[1] And to have slept with many of the most beautiful
women in the world, many of whom he is simultaneous married to.
Seriously, do you think he can do everything?

[1] Literally speaking, I wrote my Masters thesis in the 11 hour
period ending a half-hour before the deadline to turn it in at 9am. I
don't think this is the sense in which he intends it.

Mitchell Coffey

[Craig Franck]

On 1/17/2012 4:07 PM, Nashton wrote:
> On 12-01-17 11:05 AM, Arkalen wrote:

>> - Selection for a better evaluation of cause and effect, the ability to
>> model the future inside our own heads so we can better affect our
>> environment.
>
> Well, this is debatable. Abstraction is a human trait so you can't apply
> this here.

That's like saying because language is a human trait, it could
not have developed from non-human abilities, by definition.

[...]

> Nothing here convincing or compelling enough to demonstrate that the
> selective pressure on human "ancestors" was any different than on any
> other mammal.

It's not just pressures, but responses that can be novel. It
took, after all, a couple of million years to develop our
human abilities.

A better creationist argument might be, contrasting with the
developments over the last 10,000 years, a ~2,500,000 year
ramp up is too *long* a period.

> Don't hang your intelligence at the door before you enter.
> Think about it and you will realize that the deeper you delve into
> trying to explain, the more the door widens to a divinity as a creator.

In other words, you prefer simple solutions to complex problems.

Fair enough (maybe that explains the 2.5 million years. . .).

> The canyon between humans and any other mammal is so huge, that I'm
> afraid, no amount of anthropomorphizing can even start to explain it.

How is evolution more anthropic than theism? It looks like another
attempt to turn the tables that failed.

Craig

[Craig Franck]

You would have more credibility if you didn't need to be spoon fed
information.

You think evolution is useless. Fine. But then it seems you haven't
learned how to work the Intertubes thingy, either.

Craig

[Craig Franck]

On 1/16/2012 4:23 PM, iaoua iaoua wrote:

> Of common design.
>
> The problem is this. Was it design through forces of nature or through
> forces of intelligence? We have yet to design a test to eliminate the
> one over the other.

We can't eliminate thoughtwave bombardment from the future, either.

ID fails any reasonable metric on what living things should look
like if it were a useful hypothesis.

Craig

[John S. Wilkins]

Mmmmm, long pig veal....

I had a devil of a time getting the materials when I cooked at
Mitchell's. Literally; I had to source them from recent Satanic rituals.

[chris thompson]

Nor has Nashton admitted the utility of fosmidomycin in treating
malaria- one of the world's worst diseases, especially in children.
Fosmidomycin was developed when it was discovered _Plasmodium_
actually had degenerate plastids that retained the ability to produce
some essential fatty acids. These are not present in animals. Thus,
humans were able to design a drug that targeted plant ancestors rather
than animal ancestors, thus reducing side-effects of the medication.

Nashton has tried to minimize the importance of this drug, but to me,
anything that spares people the debilitating effects and possible
death due to malaria (which we will probably never eradicate) shows
the utility of the ToE.

Now, I am not saying that all diseases can be cured using the ToE. In
fact, probably very few can be eliminated. But..you know, smallpox was
wiped out based on the common ancestry of cowpox and smallpox. Malaria
can be targeted now with a drug that does not have serious side-
effects. Hmm. Utility of evolution, again?

Chris

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Jan 19, 4:12 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

We don't mind left overs.

Mitchell

[Garamond Lethe]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:10:51 -0800, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> On Jan 19, 12:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

<snip>

>> And the "PhD candidate, destroyer of the Russian Mafia and all-around
>> superman" slinks away again...
>
> He claims to have raised his Brother-in-Law from the dead, briefly, and
> to have deflected the bullets of a submachinegun at point-blank range,
> through prayer. And to have written three master theses in two-
> weeks time each.[1]

I thought he said it took him three years to do six weeks of work. ;-)

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Jan 20, 2:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:10:51 -0800, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 12:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> And the "PhD candidate, destroyer of the Russian Mafia and all-around
> >> superman" slinks away again...
>
> > He claims to have raised his Brother-in-Law from the dead, briefly, and
> > to have deflected the bullets of a submachinegun at point-blank range,
> > through prayer. And to have written three master theses in two-
> > weeks time each.[1]
>
> I thought he said it took him three years to do six weeks of work.  ;-)

That's more like it.

How do we know God is not a graduate student? A graduate student would
have fucked off for six days and pulled an all nighters.

Mitchell

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:10:51 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com>:

Sorry I missed those; it's difficult to keep track.

So many delusions; so little time...

> And to have written three master theses in two-
>weeks time each.[1] And to have slept with many of the most beautiful
>women in the world, many of whom he is simultaneous married to.
>Seriously, do you think he can do everything?
>
>[1] Literally speaking, I wrote my Masters thesis in the 11 hour
>period ending a half-hour before the deadline to turn it in at 9am. I
>don't think this is the sense in which he intends it.
>
>Mitchell Coffey

[Perseus]

On Jan 20, 5:23 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:10:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey

> <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>:

What if they were not delusions, but a persistent intention to dupe
gullible people? We are being too benign by calling this blatant
lies delusions.

Perseus

[Perseus]

On Jan 19, 7:29 pm, Craig Franck <craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/17/2012 4:07 PM, Nashton wrote:
>
> > On 12-01-17 11:05 AM, Arkalen wrote:
> >> - Selection for a better evaluation of cause and effect, the ability to
> >> model the future inside our own heads so we can better affect our
> >> environment.
>
> > Well, this is debatable. Abstraction is a human trait so you can't apply
> > this here.
>
> That's like saying because language is a human trait, it could
> not have developed from non-human abilities, by definition.
>
> [...]
>
> > Nothing here convincing or compelling enough to demonstrate that the
> > selective pressure on human "ancestors" was any different than on any
> > other mammal.
>
> It's not just pressures, but responses that can be novel. It
> took, after all, a couple of million years to develop our
> human abilities.
>
> A better creationist argument might be, contrasting with the
> developments over the last 10,000 years, a ~2,500,000 year
> ramp up is too *long* a period.

In an International Interplanetary Society meeting, some enlightened
guys favored the existence of extraterrestrials on this planet. They
argued the mankind have not had time enough in the earth to develop an
intelligence. I suppose they are right; for six thousand years were
not time enough to develop their brains or their intelligence. The
most clever of them favored the idea the humans were a cross bred
between extraterrestrials and chimps.

In the next international symposium, someone got applauses by
postulating that "white human race" comes directly from
extraterrestrials without any animal crosses, while the "black race"
comes directly from evolved chimps, or from a cross between
extraterrestrials and chimps. This enlightened statement won him the
presidency of the International Interplanetary Society for the next
four years.

Perseus

[Steven L.]

"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message
news:jf1pjh$ps9$1...@dont-email.me:

> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:01:24 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> > On 1/16/2012 10:49 AM, Arkalen wrote:

> >> (2012/01/17 1:56), iaoua iaoua wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> so lately we've been talking about the conjecture that chimps and
> >>> humans had a common ancestor. We've heard excuses about why we can't
> >>> find a fossil that looks like a common ancestor of the two.
> >>

> >> Oh, is LOOKS LIKE the criterion now ? Because we've got plenty of
> >> *those*. Actually I remember bringing up some examples by name AT LEAST
> >> twice in these series of threads you've been playing in, so I see no
> >> way to account for this curious oversight of yours.
> >
> > Actually, "looks like" is the only criterion. If there is no preserved
> > DNA, there is nothing else but comparative anatomy.
>
> You still have pretty strong evidence of how close two species are related
> from _current_ DNA of both species alone, supporting the existence of some
> common ancestor, and if there's _any_ common ancestor, maths says there's
> a last common ancestor.

Not only that,

but this counts as a confirmed prediction, which in science counts as
great support for the hypothesis.

Before Watson and Crick figured out the structure of DNA as the carrier
of the genetic code, evolutionists assumed that *when* the genetic code
was finally deciphered, it should tend to confirm what they had already
learned from the fossil record.

It didn't have to turn out that way. You could imagine that the DNA of
a human would turn out to be closer to that of a reptile than that of an
ape, confounding the evolutionists. Or that the DNA of a human would
turn out to not resemble any other species (which would tend to refute
evolutionism and support creationist contentions that humans are
special).

But that didn't happen. Where DNA evidence shows that species A is more
closely related to B than to C, it has usually confirmed how
evolutionary biologists and paleontologists had already arranged the
evolutionary tree of life that way by the fossil record.

For me, a non-scientist, the evidence from DNA clinches the ToE.



-- Steven L.

[jillery]

Egad. Of course there is no evidence to suppose which "race" is the
presumptive recipient of said ET beastiality, anymore than there is
any evidence that their presumptive ET actuallly visited Earth. Which
only shows that no group has a monopoly on human stupidity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:31:39 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Perseus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

So you think he's playing solely to those who would happily
buy the Brooklyn Bridge? Then why is he posting to other
than religious fundamentalist groups?

[Steven L.]

"na...@na.ca" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:jf56n1$nep$6...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 12-01-17 5:26 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 9:09 pm, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:

> >> On 12-01-17 12:17 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2012-01-17 07:26, Nashton wrote:
> >>
> >>>> They can and do get away with this stuff because it wouldn't matter an
> >>>> iota if they considered a petrified turd to be a common ancestor because
> >>>> the ToE is simply utterly useless.
> >>
> >>>> Utterly useless.
> >>
> >>> Nashton; In October I gave you a clear specific example showing that
> >>> this long standing assertion of yours is false. Here is the link I gave
> >>> you then:
> >>
> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/49b5b739d0328649
> >>
> >> I see.
> >> And how does the future promise of this research translate into the ToE
> >> being of any value or benefit to mankind *now*?
> >>

> >> Thanks
> >
> > So you still haven't got around to read all the literature i gave you
> > on the current use of the ToE in wildlife management and
> > preservation?
> >
>
> Care to cite it again?

Why? So you can ignore it again?

Surf to Google Groups and search for "wildlife" by author Burkhard in
talk.origins
You'll find hits like this one:

Festa-Bianchet, Marco
Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife conservation, in particular
Chapter 12, Exploitative Wildlife Management as a Selective Pressure
for the Life-History Evolution of Large Mammals and Chapter 14:
Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
"Good Genes" versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations" with
further references.

Please don't claim that "The ToE is useless" anymore, without first
attempting to research whether (and if so how) the ToE is being
practically applied today.



-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68833fad-65a8-4637...@a8g2000vba.googlegroups.com:

No.
Smallpox was wiped out by the *empirical observation* that those who had
been infected by cowpox seemed to have become immune to smallpox. A
number of doctors--Jenner among them--noticed this phenomenon, and
gradually popularized the use of live cowpox inoculation to generate
immunity to smallpox.

They didn't know anything about the common ancestry of those two
strains--and cowpox vaccination was used successfully for many years
before Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Common ancestry offers a convincing explanation as to why Jenner was
successful. But a doctor didn't need to know that in order to vaccinate
his patients.



-- Steven L.

[Perseus]

On Jan 21, 5:45 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:31:39 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Perseus

> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com>:

I remember a phrase a Jehovah witness told me citing an epistle,
"those that preach the gospel should life of the gospel". Then,
there not any delusions here, we are talking about earning a life.
Those religious guys are living of the gospels. It is a trade,
comparable to being a plumber. But instead of repairing the pipes or
a tap in the kitchen, they make feel good their clients pointing how
bad are other people that would end in hell for the eternity.

Perseus