Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.
I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)
New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.
Asses to Asses...Rust to Rust! Good riddance. Unfortunately it matters not how much scientific evidence is provided, you're still going to have the majority of creationists and IDer's saying but the bible says...and well I believe that... ID may be indeed be in it's death throes but I think it's going to be harder to finally put down than a Rhino in full plate mail.
Anyways, um back in what 2005? 2006? We (Brett and I) went through the whole Nilsson and Pelger eye debacle. Remember they were mathematicians who admitted they were wildly misquoted and they had no model of an eye. They had speculative mathematic estimates on how many generations it might take to create the right general eye shape if progressive evolution continued at a constant rate generation to generation. There was no computer model, this was pretty much as speculative as you could get without calling it simply guesswork. They also admitted the mathematical figures wouldn’t create a functioning eye wired to the brain capable of sight, since the mechanics of the eye aren’t fully understood.
Nilsson isn’t hard to get a hold of, he freely admits to all that ask, that his model does not in any way show what folks like Dawkins claims it does.
Now here is the really odd part. Anyone who quoted or tried to use the Nilsson and Pelger “eye model” as proof of evolution ended up taking a shellacking. They were shown to be either ignorant or like in the case of Dawkins, probably slightly culpable in repeating a known fallacy.
I’m pretty surprised to hear you Brett bringing it up again or even interested in quoting a source with out dated disproven inaccurate information. Is there a new Nilsson eye model, or are you simply quoting a false outdated source without checking the facts?
Seriously this doesn't kill ID; it is an evolutionists embarrassment, many of your previous arguments are better.
Sorry to interrupt, back to your backslapping and high fives.
Yeah, um... again I said nothing about the eye. There is a new book that shows that eyes evolved 40 plus times. But I didn't bring it up. But I think the whole eye thing is a waste since it's already been shown to have evolved even before that model. We have actual animals with partly evolved eyes. They stopped evolving when they went into caves didn't need them to progress in the dark.
But I will have to question your source since the IDers are known for cherry picking and quote mining. It's also possible you missread that whole thing, or are simply regurgitating it. And once again Steve... computer models are not always done with fancy graphics. You program the math into the computer and it runs the permutations, they could be done by hand but will take awhile.
And of course here is Nilsson TALKING ABOUT eye evolution:
So YOU tell me Steve, if he's freely talking about eye evolution here, has he changed his mind? Or could it be a cherry pick thing were it wasn't done in the way you creationists think a computer model should be done so there fore he's made it all up!
But if your whole argument is this eye thing Steve, you really need to actually read up on it more. Since you seem to have stopped at only what the IDer's say and they can't be trusted. It a ridiculous argument to begin with... half an eye.. that's just soo funny! It's like you can't even fathom how that might be useful! Of course that's not how it happened but you keep thinking that. Cause it's always better to think with your heart;P
Did you know that humans are one of the only animals with 2 kinds of lice? One is related to the chimp lice, while the other showed up later after we started loosing body hair... it's evolved from gorilla lice. Puts the loss of all over body hair around 1.8 million years ago.
I have way more knowledge on lice than I should. 6 months after meeting my significant other, her three kids came down with lice and we dealt with them for something like 2 1/2 months. Nothing we were doing seemed to work until we realized how a fresh supply was unknowingly being brought into our house on a regular basis. I read there are even "Africanized" head lice because regular head lice are specialized to grab onto Caucasian hair shafts and they don't really care for African American hair.
These are Dan-Erik Nilsson words when questioned about the experiment:
"You are right that my article with Pelger is not based on computer simulation of eye evolution. I do not know of anyone else who [has] successfully tried to make such a simulation either. But we are currently working on it. To make it behave like real evolution is not a simple task. At present our model does produce eyes gradually on the screen, but it does not look pretty, and the genetic algorithms need a fair amount of work before the model will be useful. But we are working on it, and it looks both promising and exciting."
NO one is saying he did not do a mathematical model, he did not create a computer model which shows how an eye could evolve.
The problem with all of your pro evolved arguments is they are circular. Since the eye must have evolved 40 separate times you state eye evolution is easy, because it happened 40 times. Uhhm no, it is still quite difficult. That is why at best we have math with no variables and a Cinderella story of how an optical orb or pinhole camera type eye could evolove-that ain't proof.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1416
Here is Berlinski's actual words, the actual artical and Nilsson's admissions.
You will notice on the videos you link to Nilsson is talking about what he is trying to show, and what would have to happen. That is his hypothesis- he is currently trying to prove it. Don't jump the gun and award him a success just yet.
As usual it is an overstatement or an unproven application we disagree on. His math is sound, but it is not the type of comprehensive model it is be reported as. And as you have stated many times you can't use math to prove biology. -Steve
I never said it was the end all be all. YOU keep bringing it up. You imply that by this not being the model you want that this somehow makes eye evolution not possible... You imply that Nilsson doesn't agree with evolution. Your putting words in his mouth that imply he agrees with you. This is clearly not the case.
And of course he's not the only person working on eyes and how they evolved. If they evolved 40 plus times, then that does seem like a relatively easy adaption that would be beneficial in all it's forms. Or are you still stuck on 'every mutation is a negative mutaion' mantra?
Have you read the new book then?
This isn't the same thing as making a quadratic equation. It's math for a model. Not the same thing.
But again, you seem so hung up on the eyes you miss seeing the evidence beyond it. You seem to miss the lies the ID people convey, from trumping up a list of scientists that agree with them to quote mining papers. They are not scientists. They are the opposite of scientists. It's just lying for Jesus.
Brett you are getting hung up on the whole Science vs. Religion.
You constantly seem to think we have to be at loggerheads on every point.
Christians don’t reject science, we tend to be more conservative in ascribing unlimited explanatory power to a theory. We accept the same data, but we don’t jump to far reaching conclusions; we tend to say this is true, but it only applies as far as we can study and observe, it doesn’t prove whatever we want to grandfather in with it.
You declared ID is dead. You then linked to an article with the central point being that the computer model for the evolution of the eye puts the final nail in ID’s coffin.
When it is shown to be an old fallacy rather than adjust your statement you seem to feel the need to strengthen your barriers and therefore more adamantly deny anything IDists or I say has merit.
There is no computer model for the evolution of the eye. That is a fact. Evolutionists have misused Nilsson and Pelger’s research and overstated the ramifications; that is also a fact. If you deny either of these facts which are easy to verify with even a cursorily internet search, what is there left to talk about? You claim to be a die hard logical fact person and yet only accept scientific facts which support your preconceived notions.
Again science and religion are not enemies. I’ve stated it dozens of times, but you still miss the point. You can believe all you want about evolution, there are many Christians who believe exactly like you do and yet also believe in Jesus. Evolution does not disprove Jesus. Your basic premises of evolution is true so God is false is false. It always will be, but you tend to always use it as your foundation for these discussions.
No I have not read this new book, you haven’t either. It is something like $45.00 on Amazon currently. A little out of my price range. I have checked reviews online and I hope my local library gets it. I’m pretty interested to hear what it has to say. My suspicion is it will be similar to the old “ascent of man”-illustration type of propaganda. The type of evolutionary hypothesis which describes how the steps would be ordered, what would have to take place at each step, and how it would improve the host without ever touching on a logical cause and effect relationship. In other words it will assume evolution to be true and never therefore critically explore if it is likely to have happened. No observation of the process, just a fanciful explanation of what might have happened. Again, I haven’t read it yet, but that is usually what these groundbreaking new evolutionary books do. I’ve read enough of them to be cynical. Of course then someone from the Discovery institute will right a counter volume. And the infighting will continue.
I'm done with this for now, I'm a bit under the weather and not interested in arguing, if you want to discuss though, I'm always available.
The Disco one? Yeah, I don't trust those guys, they lie. I don't trust that that wasn't quote mined from the email. I have only seen this 'lie' mentioned on the ID sites. I can't find it anywhere else. So who is lying? Or covering up information. You automatically assume it's the scientists but after that ID List of Scientists who doubt evolution debacle I'm not sure.
The post was a joke Steve, plus your info was from 2003. Has the 'official' christians approved model by completed? I don't really know. Nor do I care. You seem to cling to the eye, well there's a hell of a lot more than eyes involved with evolution. You only reject science that disagrees with your beliefs, but your still happy to use it if it makes you feel better.
Science and religion are enemies. One focuses on what is real while the other on the supernatural and illusion. One can be tested and repeated, use to build our knowledge and give us things like medicine, power and space travel. The other gives us witch burnings and oppression. So you tell me, are they not at odds? Science has disproved all religions. ALL of them. Religion dosen't trump science because you don't agree with it. And please keep in mind you have the EXACT same arguments and reasons and evidence that Muslims do. So who's right?
No I haven't the read new book. I don't really care about eyes. You seem to be hung up on it. But we know it happend as we have modern animals that have stopped evolving there eyes once they went into caves. That would be an observation of the process. A stop in the process.
Actually I don't want to discuss this, as all your info is from the DI people Steve. Irreducible Complexity was disproven at the Dover trial. Yet they still keep pitching it. If they are that dishonest why should I regard anything they say as truthful? They have shown they are Lying for Jesus.
Interesting read. And it pretty much confirms that this is a mathematical analysis, that would most likely be done on the computer, it's not the tradition 'computer model' it's a generational model done on the computer. But it could also be done without. So I don't see a problem. Computers are just math anyways.
To toss out the actual information because you don't think it should be called a computer model when it isn't called a computer model (this might be a science thing to dumb it down for the public) is just cherry picking.
17 comments:
Asses to Asses...Rust to Rust! Good riddance. Unfortunately it matters not how much scientific evidence is provided, you're still going to have the majority of creationists and IDer's saying but the bible says...and well I believe that... ID may be indeed be in it's death throes but I think it's going to be harder to finally put down than a Rhino in full plate mail.
LOL! I agree. It died as science at the Dover trial but the faithful keep it going as religion...
Of course it will get resurrected again at some point...
They do love them some resurrection!;P
Best,
Brett
Anyways, um back in what 2005? 2006? We (Brett and I) went through the whole Nilsson and Pelger eye debacle. Remember they were mathematicians who admitted they were wildly misquoted and they had no model of an eye. They had speculative mathematic estimates on how many generations it might take to create the right general eye shape if progressive evolution continued at a constant rate generation to generation. There was no computer model, this was pretty much as speculative as you could get without calling it simply guesswork. They also admitted the mathematical figures wouldn’t create a functioning eye wired to the brain capable of sight, since the mechanics of the eye aren’t fully understood.
Nilsson isn’t hard to get a hold of, he freely admits to all that ask, that his model does not in any way show what folks like Dawkins claims it does.
Now here is the really odd part. Anyone who quoted or tried to use the Nilsson and Pelger “eye model” as proof of evolution ended up taking a shellacking. They were shown to be either ignorant or like in the case of Dawkins, probably slightly culpable in repeating a known fallacy.
I’m pretty surprised to hear you Brett bringing it up again or even interested in quoting a source with out dated disproven inaccurate information. Is there a new Nilsson eye model, or are you simply quoting a false outdated source without checking the facts?
Seriously this doesn't kill ID; it is an evolutionists embarrassment, many of your previous arguments are better.
Sorry to interrupt, back to your backslapping and high fives.
-Steve
Yeah, um... again I said nothing about the eye. There is a new book that shows that eyes evolved 40 plus times. But I didn't bring it up. But I think the whole eye thing is a waste since it's already been shown to have evolved even before that model. We have actual animals with partly evolved eyes. They stopped evolving when they went into caves didn't need them to progress in the dark.
But I will have to question your source since the IDers are known for cherry picking and quote mining. It's also possible you missread that whole thing, or are simply regurgitating it. And once again Steve... computer models are not always done with fancy graphics. You program the math into the computer and it runs the permutations, they could be done by hand but will take awhile.
And of course here is Nilsson TALKING ABOUT eye evolution:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html
Direct video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0&feature=player_embedded#!
So YOU tell me Steve, if he's freely talking about eye evolution here, has he changed his mind? Or could it be a cherry pick thing were it wasn't done in the way you creationists think a computer model should be done so there fore he's made it all up!
But if your whole argument is this eye thing Steve, you really need to actually read up on it more. Since you seem to have stopped at only what the IDer's say and they can't be trusted. It a ridiculous argument to begin with... half an eye.. that's just soo funny! It's like you can't even fathom how that might be useful! Of course that's not how it happened but you keep thinking that. Cause it's always better to think with your heart;P
Best,
Brett
Sorry to interrupt, back to your backslapping and high fives.
Actually I prefer the highly evolved art of male pattern scratching. ;)
Fatboy,
Did you know that humans are one of the only animals with 2 kinds of lice? One is related to the chimp lice, while the other showed up later after we started loosing body hair... it's evolved from gorilla lice. Puts the loss of all over body hair around 1.8 million years ago.
Best,
Brett
And just because I'm feeling especially annoyed today here's more on the death of ID:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php
No eyes mentioned!
Best,
Brett
I have way more knowledge on lice than I should. 6 months after meeting my significant other, her three kids came down with lice and we dealt with them for something like 2 1/2 months. Nothing we were doing seemed to work until we realized how a fresh supply was unknowingly being brought into our house on a regular basis.
I read there are even "Africanized" head lice because regular head lice are specialized to grab onto Caucasian hair shafts and they don't really care for African American hair.
These are Dan-Erik Nilsson words when questioned about the experiment:
"You are right that my article with Pelger is not
based on computer simulation of eye evolution.
I do not know of anyone else who [has]
successfully tried to make such a simulation either.
But we are currently working on it. To
make it behave like real evolution is not a simple
task. At present our model does produce
eyes gradually on the screen, but it does not
look pretty, and the genetic algorithms need a
fair amount of work before the model will be
useful. But we are working on it, and it looks
both promising and exciting."
NO one is saying he did not do a mathematical model, he did not create a computer model which shows how an eye could evolve.
The problem with all of your pro evolved arguments is they are circular. Since the eye must have evolved 40 separate times you state eye evolution is easy, because it happened 40 times. Uhhm no, it is still quite difficult. That is why at best we have math with no variables and a Cinderella story of how an optical orb or pinhole camera type eye could evolove-that ain't proof.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1416
Here is Berlinski's actual words, the actual artical and Nilsson's admissions.
You will notice on the videos you link to Nilsson is talking about what he is trying to show, and what would have to happen. That is his hypothesis- he is currently trying to prove it. Don't jump the gun and award him a success just yet.
As usual it is an overstatement or an unproven application we disagree on. His math is sound, but it is not the type of comprehensive model it is be reported as. And as you have stated many times you can't use math to prove biology.
-Steve
Steve,
I never said it was the end all be all. YOU keep bringing it up. You imply that by this not being the model you want that this somehow makes eye evolution not possible... You imply that Nilsson doesn't agree with evolution. Your putting words in his mouth that imply he agrees with you. This is clearly not the case.
And of course he's not the only person working on eyes and how they evolved. If they evolved 40 plus times, then that does seem like a relatively easy adaption that would be beneficial in all it's forms. Or are you still stuck on 'every mutation is a negative mutaion' mantra?
Have you read the new book then?
This isn't the same thing as making a quadratic equation. It's math for a model. Not the same thing.
But again, you seem so hung up on the eyes you miss seeing the evidence beyond it. You seem to miss the lies the ID people convey, from trumping up a list of scientists that agree with them to quote mining papers. They are not scientists. They are the opposite of scientists. It's just lying for Jesus.
Best,
Brett
Oh and could you provide a link to that quote? I don't trust the ID people.. it might be a quote mine or a misquote or not actually from him.
Best,
Brett
The link is in my previous post.
Brett you are getting hung up on the whole Science vs. Religion.
You constantly seem to think we have to be at loggerheads on every point.
Christians don’t reject science, we tend to be more conservative in ascribing unlimited explanatory power to a theory. We accept the same data, but we don’t jump to far reaching conclusions; we tend to say this is true, but it only applies as far as we can study and observe, it doesn’t prove whatever we want to grandfather in with it.
You declared ID is dead. You then linked to an article with the central point being that the computer model for the evolution of the eye puts the final nail in ID’s coffin.
When it is shown to be an old fallacy rather than adjust your statement you seem to feel the need to strengthen your barriers and therefore more adamantly deny anything IDists or I say has merit.
There is no computer model for the evolution of the eye. That is a fact. Evolutionists have misused Nilsson and Pelger’s research and overstated the ramifications; that is also a fact. If you deny either of these facts which are easy to verify with even a cursorily internet search, what is there left to talk about? You claim to be a die hard logical fact person and yet only accept scientific facts which support your preconceived notions.
Again science and religion are not enemies. I’ve stated it dozens of times, but you still miss the point. You can believe all you want about evolution, there are many Christians who believe exactly like you do and yet also believe in Jesus. Evolution does not disprove Jesus. Your basic premises of evolution is true so God is false is false. It always will be, but you tend to always use it as your foundation for these discussions.
No I have not read this new book, you haven’t either. It is something like $45.00 on Amazon currently. A little out of my price range. I have checked reviews online and I hope my local library gets it. I’m pretty interested to hear what it has to say. My suspicion is it will be similar to the old “ascent of man”-illustration type of propaganda. The type of evolutionary hypothesis which describes how the steps would be ordered, what would have to take place at each step, and how it would improve the host without ever touching on a logical cause and effect relationship. In other words it will assume evolution to be true and never therefore critically explore if it is likely to have happened. No observation of the process, just a fanciful explanation of what might have happened. Again, I haven’t read it yet, but that is usually what these groundbreaking new evolutionary books do. I’ve read enough of them to be cynical. Of course then someone from the Discovery institute will right a counter volume. And the infighting will continue.
I'm done with this for now, I'm a bit under the weather and not interested in arguing, if you want to discuss though, I'm always available.
-Steve
The Disco one? Yeah, I don't trust those guys, they lie. I don't trust that that wasn't quote mined from the email. I have only seen this 'lie' mentioned on the ID sites. I can't find it anywhere else. So who is lying? Or covering up information. You automatically assume it's the scientists but after that ID List of Scientists who doubt evolution debacle I'm not sure.
The post was a joke Steve, plus your info was from 2003. Has the 'official' christians approved model by completed? I don't really know. Nor do I care. You seem to cling to the eye, well there's a hell of a lot more than eyes involved with evolution. You only reject science that disagrees with your beliefs, but your still happy to use it if it makes you feel better.
Science and religion are enemies. One focuses on what is real while the other on the supernatural and illusion. One can be tested and repeated, use to build our knowledge and give us things like medicine, power and space travel. The other gives us witch burnings and oppression. So you tell me, are they not at odds? Science has disproved all religions. ALL of them. Religion dosen't trump science because you don't agree with it. And please keep in mind you have the EXACT same arguments and reasons and evidence that Muslims do. So who's right?
No I haven't the read new book. I don't really care about eyes. You seem to be hung up on it. But we know it happend as we have modern animals that have stopped evolving there eyes once they went into caves. That would be an observation of the process. A stop in the process.
Actually I don't want to discuss this, as all your info is from the DI people Steve. Irreducible Complexity was disproven at the Dover trial. Yet they still keep pitching it. If they are that dishonest why should I regard anything they say as truthful? They have shown they are Lying for Jesus.
Best,
Brett
Not to continue the debate, but to clarify.
All the eye hub bub is about a peer reviewed article called "a pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve"
as always please read the original material and come to your own conclusions:
http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/Nilsson1994.pdf
Thanks!
Interesting read. And it pretty much confirms that this is a mathematical analysis, that would most likely be done on the computer, it's not the tradition 'computer model' it's a generational model done on the computer. But it could also be done without. So I don't see a problem. Computers are just math anyways.
To toss out the actual information because you don't think it should be called a computer model when it isn't called a computer model (this might be a science thing to dumb it down for the public) is just cherry picking.
Thanks!
Brett
Jess summed it up well;
It's a computer model, not a computer simulation.
Best,
Brett
Leave it to Jess to restore sanity. Yes, that is exactly what I should have said in the first place. Thanks Jess!
Post a Comment