Evolution and Time

[El_Guero]

ABSTRACT

An abstract is a summary of work intended or (in some journals) work completed. And asbtract is not considered to be valid for support in professional paper - i.e., you cannot quote a mere abstract in your paper to support your paper.

True RESEARCH means reading the RELEVANT works and BEING ABLE to write upon the topic in a manner that is clear and easy for the average professional to understand.

 

[UTEOTW]

I as a graduate school trained professional and a practicing computer engineer have read several of the 'papers' for which you provided a link and a summary.

I have found:

Your papers sometimes add support to what you are arguing;

Good.

Your papers are always in technical jargon that obfuscates the intent of the paper and are difficult to read;

Surprise there. A technical paper using technical jargon. Who would have thought?

Your papers are sometimes TOTALLY wrong and are later peer reviewed and shown to be such;

Examples?

Out of more than a dozen papers that you referenced that I read, I learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of merit.

Your opinion. Apparently the folks actually involved in the field found them worthwhile.

I, personally, have asked you clear and EASY questions for which you did NOT have an answer (clear or otherwise).

I doubt that as I generally try to answer just about everything. Just because you disagree with what I say doesn't mean it was not said.

You imply that a layperson cannot argue against you because of your implied special knowledge.

Support it. Show how an ad hominem adds to your argument.

It is not a personal attack.

I assume you have heard of a fallacious appeal to authority. Well when you have people referencing engineers and lawyers when trying to make points against some specific topic of evolution, it is a fallacious appeal to authority beause they have no training in that area to be an authority.

It is not a fallacy to refer back to actual experts. These are legitimate authorities. And it is rare for a YEer to ever use any legitimate authories in their attempts at persuation.

For years, you have argued against college educated professionals that they are not professional enough to read what you have posted and the citations in the articles you have given and the books those articles reference in them. You constantly want someone to read a thousand books in order to understand a point that you CANNOT make.

Simply put, all education is not equal. Why do we make doctors go to MEDICAL school before becoming a doctor? To be an expert in a particular field you need to have studied that field. These professionals of whom you speak may be smart, well educated and respected in their field. That DOES NOT make them authorities in subjects outside of their field.

And it is a valid criticism to point out that most of these YE posts dismiss evidence which they have not seen in fields which they do not understand.

And since I am deferring to the experts and I make no claims to have the knowledge to judge the merits of their specific claims, I do not need to have read and understood everything. I am trusting the opinion of the recognized experts in the field.

You and your ilk, on the other hand, cannot rest on the opinions of the informed and must therefore rest upon the opinions of the uninformed and the ignorant (meaning uneducated in that topic). If you do not have the background to understand the technical jargon, the education in that field to make use of the claims and the knowledge that comes from reading the actual work, how can you in good conscience dismiss it?

What amazing hubris!


And I belive I posted abstracts of the actual published papers and not simply papers that were being proposed. The full works are available and have been reviewed. I have written plenty of abstracts and plenty of papers. (Though none of the papers I have written as lead author have been subject to peer review, they have been in conference proceedings. The journal acticles with which I was involved I was a co-author by reason of having done some of the actual work.) I have an idea of what an abstract is.

 

[grahame]

I am glad that you see that an education is something to be scoffed at.

Could you please explain to me just why it is that I should listen to a lawyer talking about paleontology. This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Do you also get your medical advice from lawyers?

If criticisms such as this had legs, they could get them published. As it is, you are expecting that I should accept the word of a layperson with no expertise in the subject at hand over the opinion of those who have dedicated their lived to learning and researching the subject.

Next.

I'm not scoffing at education. I'm just telling you that I don't know much and that perhaps you might enlighten me? I apologise if you saw my question offensive. For I most certainly did not mean it in that way.

As it is, you are expecting that I should accept the word of a layperson with no expertise in the subject at hand over the opinion of those who have dedicated their lived to learning and researching the subject.

And that is your only objection to reading them? In other words you are saying, "You peasants know nothing?" And no, I don't expect you to accept the word of anyone who obviously cannot possibly know more than you.

 

[UTEOTW]

Fair enough. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It boils down like this. It has long been believed that four legged animals evolved from fish. Recently that has been getting support from various fossil finds. As far as it goes, yes, most of the fossils found have been more towards the ends. Fish with some features recognizeble as on the way to land animals and land animals with some distinctive left over fish traits. That is where one of the things the article to which you linked goes wrong. For example, if I remember, it claimed that Acanthostega gunneri was just a land animal. Well it was not. It was mostly aqautic.

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html

But this is where Tiktaalik roseae comes into play, the overall subject of the article.

Because the middle part was a bit muddy, some guys decided to go looking for just such an animal. They knew from dating the ends at just whatpart of time the intermediate would be. They then consulted a geology text to see just where rocks of that specfic age were found at the surface. They then chose an out crop of just the right age that was of just the right kind of environment.

And just as they thought, out popped a great find from the middle. Just where they thought it should be based on the science so far. And it is a goodie. All sorts of intermediate features. Front fins well on their way ti being arms. I'd call them already arms. Still plain old fish fins in the back. And lots of other things.

Here's more.

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tiktaalik.html

But my point about the page to which you linked is that basically it was written by a lawyer. Why would we consult a lawyer as an expert in anything outside of the law?

 

[grahame]

But my point about the page to which you linked is that basically it was written by a lawyer. Why would we consult a lawyer as an expert in anything outside of the law?

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know whether it was a lawyer or not who wrote it. As I said before, it is far beyond me. I'll just read from now on. The evolution arguments have moved along way up the ladder from when I was at school and they seem far more advanced.

 

[El_Guero]

UTEOTW


IMHO. In the past, I asked you some simple questions . . . you were UNABLE to reply in a manner that I would consider intelligible. When I asked for clarification . . . you would only post abstracts without clarification - hubris indeed. In fact several of the abstracts you referenced were not pertinent to the subject that you claimed they were pertinent to.

You have continually presented your self as an SME (subject matter expert). I have personally read at least one hundred pages of material that you have written or referenced in your posts. You have never been able to EXPLAIN anything in terms that most intelligent, college educated people can understand. You have taught me ZERO. Just so you know, a zero is not a passing grade.

I have formally studied Logic, Engineering, Theology, Math, leadership, Ethics, history, logistics, several foreign languages, computer systems, pedagogy, and several subjects that I do not think are germane to this discussion. And informally I have studied much much more. I would expect an SME to communicate in a clear and understandable manner.

Your continual (and therefore a reasonable person might imply intentional) obfuscation of the subject does not lead me to believe that your claim to be an SME is valid.

Sadly, instead of bringing learning and knowledge to this discussion you have brought obfuscation.


IMHO - you do not intend to be understood.

 

[UTEOTW]

And since I am deferring to the experts and I make no claims to have the knowledge to judge the merits of their specific claims...[/quote]

From my last post.

I do not claim to be an expert. I defer to those who are.

 

[El_Guero]

Either you are the SME you have purported to be or you are not.

And since I am deferring to the experts and I make no claims to have the knowledge to judge the merits of their specific claims... 'quote'

From my last post.

I do not claim to be an expert. I defer to those who are.

 

[Alcott]

I doubt that as I generally try to answer just about everything.

You made one of your "just about" exceptions to my question about basing beliefs on oral tradition, a related topic you did introduce.

 

[UTEOTW]

Either you are the SME you have purported to be or you are not.

I am not an expert and never claim to be.

The problem is, none of us are experts. Furthermore, and my point with Bob, is virtually all of the advocates of YEism are not experts in the areas they criticize either. There are a handful. But largely you have lawyers and engineers and mathematicians criticizing things that they have never formally studied, areas where they are not experts and areas where they are not abrest of what the latest science really says about these things.

Just look at any one of those lists of "scientists who deny evolution" that you see and count how many have relevent degrees. Fractions of the numbers in bold at the top of the list.

The few YE guys with an appropriate education have had no ability at all to convince their peers. So they must be doing something wrong.

And then you get guys like Behe who have a degree that is closely related enough to count for something. And you know what, even though he quibbles with the mechanisms, he ACCEPTS universal common descent. (Well, says he has no problem with it at least.)

 

[UTEOTW]

You made one of your "just about" exceptions to my question about basing beliefs on oral tradition, a related topic you did introduce.

I don't remember us ever having a discussion on oral traditions.

 

[Alcott]

I hereby correct myself... it was TragicPizza, not you.

 

[BobRyan]

The few YE guys with an appropriate education have had no ability at all to convince their peers. So they must be doing something wrong.

This is the "Christian acceptance of the ACTUAL facts in science is not accepted by atheists. Atheist darwinists did not become Christians when looking at the hard data - they just ignored the inconvenient facts - THEREFORE Christians must be wrong no matter what science they are credentialed in ...".

How shallow!

I can't believe that ANYONE falls for that stuff!

UTEOTW
And then you get guys like Behe who have a degree that is closely related enough to count for something. And you know what, even though he quibbles with the mechanisms, he ACCEPTS universal common descent. (Well, says he has no problem with it at least.)

REW-10 is duped by atheist darwinists into believing the Intelligent Design (held to by EVOLUTIONISTS like Behe) is something that you have to be a Bible Believing Christian to accept -- And is corrected by me and others showing that ID vs ATHEIST darwinism is a debate between TWO groups of EVOLUTIONISTS because I.D does not argue the distinctives of God's account in GENESIS -- it just accepts ENOUGH truth to deny DISTINCTIVELY ATHEIST evoutionism!! (Something UTEOTW swallows whole)

ETEOTW then complains that Bible Believing Christians SEE the benefit of Behe's work in discrediting DISTINCTIVELY ATHEIST models of evolutionism - and charges that we should ALSO be arguing with Behe style I.D Evolutionists.

And of course that would be a GREAT debate to have Here! THE problem is that we CAN't HAVE it here since the supposed Christians that come here to promote evolutionism are promting the ATHEIST VERSION not the I.D one!!

Since they are not even arguing at the basic and MINIMAL level for evolution in a model that ever COULD be endorsed by a Christian evolutionist -- we are stuck debating the ATHEIST fare they bring here constantly!!

How sad that Christians are duped to the level that they could not even have the presence of mind to argue for I.D EVOLUTIONISM instead of ATHEIST evolutionism. But it is what it is - so we debate them where we find them sir.

You being one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

ABSTRACT

An abstract is a summary of work intended or (in some journals) work completed. And asbtract is not considered to be valid for support in professional paper - i.e., you cannot quote a mere abstract in your paper to support your paper.

True RESEARCH means reading the RELEVANT works and BEING ABLE to write upon the topic in a manner that is clear and easy for the average professional to understand.

True - UTEOTW is simply referring to the fact that "Atheists have degrees in science AND YET they can still believe in ATheism models for evolutionism STILL no matter what science FACTs they have to ignore" and shows in the form of "summaries" that these atheists actually believe as he claims.

But his argument is that this should in some way change the facts - alter science - be compelling.

And though that is "entertaining" it is not informative.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry UTEOTW -- this just never gets old.

UTEOTW Quote:
Originally Posted by UTEOTW

You cannot respond to the science that says that eukayotes came from symbiotic prokaryotes.

Excuse me sir - JUNK-SCIENCE simply "says" eukaryotes CAME FROM symbiotic prokaryotes.

REAL SCIENCE SHOWS that you CAN NOT get simple prokaryotes to BECOME useful symbiotic prokaryote-like organelles in inside a eukaryote no matter WHAT you do to artificially force them into it!

Quote:
You said no evidence at all. I presented a small sampling of

A sample of "hand waving" comprised of story-telling with no actual facts listed???

Yes sir you did -- duly noted. Thank you for providing those stories -- don't know what we would have done without them.

I just can't believe that you truly have no clue as to the difference between a fact and pure story-telling when reading an article. Have you never been taught to think objectively, to read critically, to distinguish fact from handwaiving??

The fact that you pretend not to be able to tell the "red from the blue" as we said earlier -- is astonishing!

UTEOTW

Quote:
You ignore the implications of the much greater genetic diversity among prokaryotes than eukaryotes.

That is like saying "You ignore the story-telling potential in the fact that we have greater diversity among insects than people"!!

No science SHOWS insect collections self-organizing into a human. Junk-science TELLS STORIES about interesting artifact like observing the greater diversity among insects and then imagining the story telling potential of linking those facts in some imaginative and creative way.

No science SHOWS a "special collection" of prokaryotes self-organizing into uekaryotes and no REAL science has even been able to MANIPULATE them artificially into doing such a thing. But JUNK-SCIENCE will "say it" about the untestable past - it will "tell a story" without having any ACTUAL science to support the salient point of the story.

Why this simple concept is so easy for ALL to see - yet you have to "pretend" not to get it -- is beyond me.

UTEOTW

Quote:
Hey kids, if you build enough strawmen, ignore enough data, keep your head in the sand and maintain the cognitive dissonance, you too can be a ....

"you too can be a" true believer in atheist darwinism??

 

[BobRyan]

As usual UTEOTW - the exchange get's to a point where you post such a glaring flaw that you can not answer it... here is the next post in that spiral sequence for you.

Quote:
UTEOTW said
He (Bob) quotes my abstract where it says that "geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology" all provide evidence for the symbiotic origin of the eukaryotes. And then goes right on as if he did not even read the sentence.

You said that there was "no evidence." The author asserts that these things provide evidence

He does not seem to be careful to even quote himself accurately. The article he posted said this -- "by contrast".

Quote:
from the Article itself
Advances in geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology have offered insight into complex molecular events that drove the evolution

UTEOTW translates "offerred insight" into the idea that they actually PROVIDED EVIDENCE.

But what is worse - the snippet that UTEOTW did not actually do "anything" but tell stories -

Here is UTEOTW's quote again

Quote:
Sabrina D. Dyall, Mark T. Brown, Patricia J. Johnson, Ancient Invasions: From Endosymbionts to Organelles, Science 9 April 2004: Vol. 304. no. 5668, pp. 253 - 257

The acquisitions of mitochondria and plastids were important events in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell, supplying it with compartmentalized bioenergetic and biosynthetic factories. Ancient invasions by eubacteria through symbiosis more than a billion years ago initiated these processes. Advances in geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology have offered insight into complex molecular events that drove the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles. In losing their autonomy, endosymbionts lost the bulk of their genomes, necessitating the evolution of elaborate mechanisms for organelle biogenesis and metabolite exchange. In the process, symbionts acquired many host-derived properties, lost much of their eubacterial identity, and were transformed into extraordinarily diverse organelles that reveal complex histories that we are only beginning to decipher.

The only actual fact is that we have had "Advances" in the sciences listed -- but "offered insight" is merely propaganda language for "have been used in our story telling" but it does not mean "have SHOWN the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles in the lab"

Everybody KNOWS this.

UTEOTW simply hopes that his frantic handwaiving will encourage some to "overlook it"

 

[BobRyan]

I am not doing your work for oyu.

I gave you the refence and the summary.

If you can neither frame nor sustain your own argument using your own quotes - don't expect us to do it for you UTOETW.

that is pretty much an "unwritten rule" that is used on this debate board for all topics not just yours.

Step up to the plate sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

It's an oral tradition that Jesus was divine, lived a sinless life, was sentenced to death, put in a tomb, and resurrected. One-- that's true, 2-- that's not true. It's an oral tradition in that it was not written down (on any records we have) until decades later. And it's not physically possible. Are you a believer in 'supernatural' oral tradition(s) or not?

Paul said it was by one man [not one woman, interestingly] that sin became part of humanity, and then by a new man sin will be atoned for. Paul's writings may not be oral tradition, though this concept he wrote about was, at least according to what you said. Is it true or untrue? If so, who were the 2 men to which he referred? Or were they concepts, not men?

If, in either case, you say they were 'symbolic,'analogous,' 'personified idealism,' then is the gospel message symbolic, analogous, or just idealistic? Where did it come from, and for what purpose?

The first letter that came to be included in our New Testament was written within twenty years of the Resurrection. There were many eyewitnesses to the event, and many of those were known by Paul. At least half, if not all, of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

Now, even if you hold to the traditional authorship of Genesis, Moses was not an eyewitness to the Creation.

 

[UTEOTW]

You really do enjoy quibbling over words, don't you.

I say that the author claims that "geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology" provide evidence for the symbiotic origin of eularyotes. His actual words were "offers insight." Do you think that these really mean different things? Come on.

And you keep complaining about the lack of details. Let's remember the thread. The question in the OP was about the time for evolution. I made a long post covering several topics showing why the OP was flawed. One aspect of this was the step change required for several prokaryotes to come together symbiotically to form the eukrotic cell.

Helen then said that there was no evidence for this. She, of course, provided no justification at all for such a claim.

So I simply responded with absracts of a few papers that discuss this very thing. The point was to show that others find evidence for that which she claims there is not evidence. The point was made. The point could have been made from just the titles of the papers. All I needed to show was that some people have some evidence that support this theory. That is sufficient to show that Helen's naked assertion was false. And it was accomplished.

You are also trying to make some hay over the tentative nature of the language used by the scientists. Here is a news flash for you. Most scientists will always use such tentative language. It is the nature of the business. If that is enough for you to dismiss them, then you have a convenient but faulty reason to do so built in.

An anecdote. The research I do is commercial in nature so we do not get to publish details with the outside world. But we do have our own internal debates. We have a couple of guys who always speak of their results in confidence. No one believes them except those who know the least and are awayed by such. Others makes a case but use the tentative laguage of science. Those we just and consider good scientist and engineers though they are less successful at convincing those with less knowledge of the situation.

When we come here and debate, we will of course use firm language even if it is not justified. But in the scientific writings, you will normally see tentative language and even reasons why the hypothesis or theory could be wrong. Because the great advances come from showing what was previously held was wrong or flawed or incomplete. Scientists welcome those who can provide the great leaps forward. But they also require strong evidence and good scholarship to accept radical changes.

If YEism could be demonstrated as a viable theory, most scientists would have no problem with that provided the burden was met of showing the ideas to be valid.

But it is not valid. It flies in contrast with reality.

 

[grahame]

The first letter that came to be included in our New Testament was written within twenty years of the Resurrection. There were many eyewitnesses to the event, and many of those were known by Paul. At least half, if not all, of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

Now, even if you hold to the traditional authorship of Genesis, Moses was not an eyewitness to the Creation.

I personally believe that Luke, Paul's companion probably kept a daily diary of their missionary journeys. It is quite prbably that Paul also made notes of his sermons. Preachers do it today, so why do we not think they did it then. Luke, when he wrote his gospel also mentioned that he had perfect understanding of those things most surely believed among us. So I don't hold to all this "oral" tradition stuff. Just a bit of common sense should suffice.
Similarly with Moses. He was obviously not an eye witness of the creation. But how do we not know that Abraham and those before him did not make notes as God spoke to them? I know that no one was an eye witness of the creation, even if Adam or Eve wrote things down. But there are shapes and shadows in other traditions around the world which seem to be a corruption of something that was known from the beginning after Adam was created. It is probably the most logical way of looking at things.