Creationist/Woo Split From Nature Paper Thread

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#121  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Dec 11, 2014 3:13 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:So you admit he didn't snip out you saying you wanted the paper copy pasted and in fact answered you as to how to read it in full?


Can I get an answer please?

Also he is under no requirement to post the entire text here, he has shown you exactly where and how you can read the entire paper for free. There is no reluctance in such an open and honest answer to your question but your posts have been filled with misrepresentation of what is contained in other posters posts.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 35
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#122  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 11, 2014 3:32 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Also he is under no requirement to post the entire text here


yabut that's how science works, we examine the information. Without the information allowed to be examined, we are just taking the word of a priest.

I prefer the scientific method of inquiry.

The reason Catholics hid information in latin was because they didn't want people examining what was being said.

I reject religious imparting of information, it is contrary to the ideals of science.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#123  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Dec 11, 2014 3:35 am

And just more misrepresentation and dishonest posts. You can read the full text whenever you want and everyone can see that. Do you think this kind of dishonest tactic is helping your argument?
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 35
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#124  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 11, 2014 3:36 am

Darth, have you read the paper?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#125  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Dec 11, 2014 3:46 am

When you stop misrepresenting people, make honest posts and answer the questions put to you I will answer yours.

I couldn't care less if the paper was talking about bollocks and you were on the right side of the argument (you aren't), you dishonestly accused someone of something (funnily enough by doing that very something yourself) and got caught in it and now don't want to admit that you did so.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 35
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#126  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 11, 2014 3:55 am

DarthHelmet86 wrote:
I couldn't care less if the paper was talking about bollocks


Then why are you distracting the conversation away from the science?

I would prefer the talk is directed towards the science. The paper is the science. That is what the talk about, not you defending what you have admittedly no idea about. You are intentionally directing the conversation away from the paper, thus away from the science. Your cross, you bear it. Don't ruin the thread over it.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#127  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Dec 11, 2014 3:58 am

And more dishonest posting and misrepresentation. Might want to give that FUA a check big red link at the top of every page.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 35
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#128  Postby Rumraket » Dec 11, 2014 10:13 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
I don't think you know how to respond, and I think you're afraid of pursuing this subject in depth, which is why you are now erecting my accusation back at me instead.


Strange to snip the part of the quote where I ask "I can't read the full text without logging in. Can you copy/pasta the whole paper?" and then imply I can not debate the subject. That looks like a dishonest manipulation in an attempt to set-up a personal attack.

So, can you copy/pasta the whole paper so we can talk about your inappropriate extrapolations from the science within, or not?

It is illegal to copy-paste the whole paper, so I won't. Registration is free, so you can just create an account and get access to the paper if there's anything you want to discuss.

Regardless, there really isn't anything else of relevance to my case in the paper, what matters is that the protein fragments extracted from dinosaur tissue phylogenetically places dinosaurs as the ancestors of modern birds. The piece of the paper I linked is enough to show this.

To understand why this is evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs requires you bother to understand the logic underlying phylogenetics in the first place. That logic is that twin(or more) nested hierarchical arrangements of shared derived characteristics strongly implies common ancestry. Why? Because if evolution did not take place, if the species in question do not share descent, then there is antecedently no particular expectation of finding the patterns we find. The patterns are predicted by theory, while merely being compatible with but not predicted by, various types of design. Therefore the evidence favors evolutionary theory with common descent.

If you disagree, you basically have a problem with paternity testing on genetic grounds.
Last edited by Rumraket on Dec 11, 2014 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#129  Postby Rumraket » Dec 11, 2014 10:14 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
I understand the premise, it is strong and apparent. You believe everything came from a first life, of course everything will be connected.

That's not the premise, that is an evidentially derived conclusion. We have evidence of universal common descent. What is important here is that this evidence could be different, it could point to multiple independent origins. But it does not, so that is why "I believe everything came from a first life", because that is what the evidence shows.


So we agree here. Not sure why you are initiating the response with a negative.

Because when you accuse me of believing "everything came from a first life, of course everything will be connected" it seems like you are insinuating that I'm merely assuming common descent and then force-fitting the data to the assumption. That's not how it works as I just explained.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#130  Postby Rumraket » Dec 11, 2014 10:26 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
No that's not what I said at all and follows in no way. If you disagree, please explicitly derive this conclusion from statements I made through a deductive logical syllogism.

Evolution is based in inherited traits, your 'ability to falsify' argument is finding non-iherited traits.

That is one part of the ways in which evolution, the whole fucking shebang, could be falsified. Yes, this single potential demonstration could falsify all of evolutionary theory. Micro and macroevolution, common descent, all of it. Obviously none of these things could be true if traits could not be inherited, that descendants were sort of "reset" to some basic form every time without the capacity for an organism to pass on it's particular traits (whether in the Darwinian sense of changes in traits due to mutations, or lamarckian in the sense of passing on acquired characteristics).

But obviously, inheritance exists and works, so evolutionary theory is not falsified, but it is still potentially falsifiable. The fact that the way in which to falsify the theory is not actually the case doesn't mean it couldn't be the case.

Further, if it could be shown that there was no mechanism of change, for example mutations (genetic or phenotypic) or recombination due to mixing of alleles during sexual reproduction. If mutations did not occur, and/or sexual recombination of chromosomes did not happen, evolution would be instantly falsified, because there'd be no mechanism that could change the traits of a species such that natural selection or drift could operate on them, changing them over generations into another species.

Or if it could be shown that natural selection didn't work, that the traits that mutate over time do not contribute to differential reproductive success, then the observed amount of time would make it absurd for the presently observed biodiversity to have simply drifted genetically, totally absent selection, into existence. That would also falsify evolution.

Clearly then, as I have now forcefully argued, the theory is eminently falsifiable.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote: If life is created outside of from inherited traits, you will not say that this falsifies evolution theory.

What do you mean "created outside of from inherited traits"? I don't understand that sentence.
Last edited by Rumraket on Dec 11, 2014 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#131  Postby Rumraket » Dec 11, 2014 10:28 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:The way scientific inquiry works is the parties examine the material.

I am thoroughly confused by this reticence to divulge the paper.

I am thoroughly confused by your reluctance to simply registrate so you can get free access to the paper yourself. Why must I bring and dissect it all here before you for you to be bothered reading it? I'm happy to discuss the subject, but no, I'm not required to bring the books, open them and flip the pages for you too.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#132  Postby Rumraket » Dec 11, 2014 10:30 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:
Also he is under no requirement to post the entire text here


yabut that's how science works, we examine the information. Without the information allowed to be examined, we are just taking the word of a priest.

The information IS allowed to be examined. The information is available freely if simply you register an account and log in, that's how I got the information in the first place, nobody brought it to me.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:The reason Catholics hid information in Latin was because they didn't want people examining what was being said.

I reject religious imparting of information, it is contrary to the ideals of science.

I completely agree, but the information isn't hidden or in Latin. What you are required to do is reminiscent of registering yourself at a public library in order to borrow their books. If this is too much for you then this discussion can go no further.
Last edited by Rumraket on Dec 11, 2014 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#133  Postby Rumraket » Dec 11, 2014 10:37 am

Rumraket wrote:
Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
No that's not what I said at all and follows in no way. If you disagree, please explicitly derive this conclusion from statements I made through a deductive logical syllogism.

Evolution is based in inherited traits, your 'ability to falsify' argument is finding non-iherited traits.

That is one part of the ways in which evolution, the whole fucking shebang, could be falsified. Yes, this single potential demonstration could falsify all of evolutionary theory. Micro and macroevolution, common descent, all of it. Obviously none of these things could be true if traits could not be inherited, that descendants were sort of "reset" to some basic form every time without the capacity for an organism to pass on it's particular traits (whether in the Darwinian sense of changes in traits due to mutations, or lamarckian in the sense of passing on acquired characteristics).

But obviously, inheritance exists and works, so evolutionary theory is not falsified, but it is still potentially falsifiable. The fact that the way in which to falsify the theory is not actually the case doesn't mean it couldn't be the case.

Further, if it could be shown that there was no mechanism of change, for example mutations (genetic or phenotypic) or recombination due to mixing of alleles during sexual reproduction. If mutations did not occur, and/or sexual recombination of chromosomes did not happen, evolution would be instantly falsified, because there'd be no mechanism that could change the traits of a species such that natural selection or drift could operate on them, changing them over generations into another species.

Or if it could be shown that natural selection didn't work, that the traits that mutate over time do not contribute to differential reproductive success, then the observed amount of time would make it absurd for the presently observed biodiversity to have simply drifted genetically, totally absent selection, into existence. That would also falsify evolution.

Clearly then, as I have now forcefully argued, the theory is eminently falsifiable.

There's actually many more ways.

If you could show that all the genetic evidence was made up, as in a gigantic hoax, or statistical anomaly, it would also be falsified. Before the advent of DNA, if you could show that all fossils ever, or at least a signficant majority of them were fakes, you would also have falsified it. You must agree, since that is what you attempted to argue when you said the theory is falsely propped up with fake fossils. That must mean you think fossils, if they are not what they are taken to be, can actually falsify the theory.

Looks like you can't have your cake and eat it too. You are constradicting your own thoughts on the matter when you simultaneously try to argue that fossil hoaxes imply the theory is false, while at the same time claim the theory is unfalsifiable.

So, which one is it?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#134  Postby SkyMutt » Dec 11, 2014 9:59 pm

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Can you copy/pasta the whole paper?


This request by you, Jerome Da Gnome, which you've petulantly repeated several times, is actually a request of a fellow member to not only violate the Forum User's Agreement (Section 3.8: Proprietary Rights), but United States copyright law, as clearly stated on the Sciencemag site:

The materials on this Website are protected by United States copyright law except that no copyright is claimed in any work of the US government. Users may download material from this site (one machine-readable copy and one print copy per page) for personal, noncommercial use only. Except where otherwise permitted below, any further reproduction, distribution, transmission, display, publication, or broadcast requires the prior written permission of The American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Serious, but not entirely serious.

"The charm of a man is measured by the charm of the women who think he is a scoundrel."
— H. L. Mencken
User avatar
SkyMutt
 
Posts: 851
Age: 62
Male

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#135  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 11, 2014 11:41 pm

Spending a lot of time looking for reasons not to talk about the science, and you don't understand copyright law.

Hell, you even snipped the part where the site says this: "may be downloaded, printed, linked to, and/or redistributed for noncommercial, course teaching purposes only provided such materials are not altered or modified in any way and provided credit to the relevant site and an indication of the URL where the material appears are included."

Which is in compliance with copyright law, and certainly not against the rules of the forum.

Did you stop reading when you thought you had a reason not to present the science, or did you snip it intentionally?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#136  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 11, 2014 11:54 pm

Rumraket wrote:
If you could show that all the genetic evidence was made up, as in a gigantic hoax, or statistical anomaly, it would also be falsified. Before the advent of DNA, if you could show that all fossils ever, or at least a signficant majority of them were fakes, you would also have falsified it. You must agree, since that is what you attempted to argue when you said the theory is falsely propped up with fake fossils. That must mean you think fossils, if they are not what they are taken to be, can actually falsify the theory.


Guy, that sort of 'falsification' is not falsification according to how science works. Aliens seeded the earth, or goddidit, are also falsifiable by that standard. You don't seem to understand the term. Nor do you understand your own argument. Fake fossils can not falsify evolution, as you fully know, fake fossils exist, you will not now admit that the theory is falsified.

Principle of Falsification:

Being unrestricted, scientific theories cannot be verified by any possible accumulation of observational evidence. The formation of hypothesis is a creative process of the imagination and is not a passive reaction to observed regularities. A scientific test consists in a persevering search for negative, falsifying instances. If a hypothesis survives continuing and serious attempts to falsify it, then it has ``proved its mettle'' and can be provisionally accepted, but it can never be established conclusively. Later corroboration generates a series of hypothesis into a scientific theory.


http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/p ... ation.html

Now that you have been educated as to what scientific falsification is, could you present something that fits the parameter?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#137  Postby SkyMutt » Dec 11, 2014 11:56 pm

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Spending a lot of time looking for reasons not to talk about the science, and you don't understand copyright law.

Hell, you even snipped the part where the site says this: "may be downloaded, printed, linked to, and/or redistributed for noncommercial, course teaching purposes only provided such materials are not altered or modified in any way and provided credit to the relevant site and an indication of the URL where the material appears are included."

Which is in compliance with copyright law, and certainly not against the rules of the forum.

Did you stop reading when you thought you had a reason not to present the science, or did you snip it intentionally?


Nobody''s teaching a course here Jerome Da Gnome. The Sciencemag site says that "any further reproduction, distribution, transmission, display, publication, or broadcast requires the prior written permission of The American Association for the Advancement of Science." You've been demanding that Rumraket reproduce the paper in its entirety here. Unless he got written permission, that would be against copyright law.

I talked with you about science, and showed that your argument about Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was complete rubbish. Rumraket is handling your latest line of drivel rather well, so I don't see any openings to step in at the moment.
Last edited by SkyMutt on Dec 11, 2014 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Serious, but not entirely serious.

"The charm of a man is measured by the charm of the women who think he is a scoundrel."
— H. L. Mencken
User avatar
SkyMutt
 
Posts: 851
Age: 62
Male

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#138  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 11, 2014 11:58 pm

The ultimate problem is you now sorta' think the paper doesn't say what you claimed it said, so you don't want that false claim exposed.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#139  Postby Scar » Dec 12, 2014 12:20 am

The ultimate problem is that you are trolling.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#140  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 12, 2014 12:33 am

What you did right there, not addressing the topic, addressing a poster with name-calling, that is trolling.

What we are doing here is to examine the claim concerning DNA showing the transitional dino-birds. We started with the fossils, when that fell on its face with the initiation being a hoax, the claim was made fossils were not needed, DNA could be used.

We are talking about science. An examination of the data so as to determine the validity of a theory.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest