Fractal-inspired Tree of Life

| 55 Comments

For mammals. Click on nodes repeatedly to burrow deeper into it and to access Wikipedia links.

Via The Finch & Pea

55 Comments

Fractals or not the tree shown in the links is still based on classification systems based on judgements of connecting creatures based on traits! Placental’s and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minior traits of reproductive systems. A tree of life needs to be a real tree and not just some concept of connecting very unlike biological entities.

Robert Byers said: Placental’s and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minor traits of reproductive systems.

Riiight. That would be useful.

After all, it would be far more practical to group animals by general size and shape, and maybe, color, than by something as trivial as entirely different reproductive strategies.

Marsupials and placental mammals are placed close together based on physical traits; at least, closer to each other than either are to egg-laying monotremes. But if you’re suggesting that the anatomical traits of marsupials doesn’t justify distinguishing them from placental mammals at all, you’re wrong. You’re also forgetting the genetic evidence which groups marsupials together and placental mammals together (and both in a clade distinct from monotremes, again).

So if you think we can just mix up all the mammals willy-nilly without any kind of nested hierarchy based on common descent and subsequent evolutionary branching, you’re comically wrong.

Placental’s and marsupials should be connected based on traits of anatomy and that in the main things and not based on minor traits of reproductive systems.

Why not classify them by size? Say, teeny, petite, small, medium, large, gigantic. Or by the letter they start with…A is for Aardvark…

So according to Robert, bats should be classified with birds and whales should be classified with fish. After all, nothing as trivial as mode of reproduction should be used to judge relationships.

See the thing is that if your classification is based on phylogenetic relationships, it makes sense. It tells you something important about the organisms. It explains the genetic similarities as well as the anatomical similarities. If you refuse to accept that organisms are related, then your classification becomes arbitrary and it tells you nothing about the organisms, only about your own biases.

Keep it up Robert, your are a shining example of the how reality denial affects judgement in all areas. (Yea i made that error on porpoise).

Man DS,

That’s what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

ogremk5 said:

Man DS,

That’s what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

You are obviously a gentleman of intelligence and discernment, as are all who agree with me. :)

It’s time for Byers to show that his ideas work.

His medications should all be tested on marsupial “mice,” not those supposedly more closely related placental mice.

What difference could it make? It’s probably fair to say that Byers doesn’t know, and never will.

Glen Daivdson

ogremk5 said:

Man DS,

That’s what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

They should be grouped with other carnivores that laugh, like Kookaburras. :)

Have you noticed that trolls look the same at all magnifications?

Kevin B said:

ogremk5 said:

Man DS,

That’s what I was going to say.

Hey Robert, what area of carnivore should hyenas be in? (cat, dog, bear, weasel, other?)

They should be grouped with other carnivores that laugh, like Kookaburras. :)

Have you noticed that trolls look the same at all magnifications?

So we now having “laughing kind”. I guess and “non-laughing kind”?

Should we have the “intelligent eyes” kind? I see that in specs for show dogs a lot “intelligent eyes”. Hey Byers, you’re the expert, should we group “intelligent eyed” dogs with primates, dolphins, and potatoes?

… and squid. Don’t forget squid.

Man, this whole thread should go to the BW, but I’ll be kind and request that (a) Byers not post in it again, on pain of permanent banishment, and (b) others not feed his fantasies.

Thanks!

All I get is a black screen of death - no tree. :(

Windows XP strikes again.

Paul Burnett said:

All I get is a black screen of death - no tree. :(

Windows XP strikes again.

It’s because my new Internet Explorer 8 doesn’t have Java - the tree jumps right with Google Chrome.

Kevin B said:

Have you noticed that trolls look the same at all magnifications?

Trolls are apparently an ancient group.

All evidence indicates they don’t have the ability to evolve at all.

How about I do the unexpected and actually make a comment about fractal trees?

Fractals are fun but phylogenies are not really fractal. For example, one simple model of speciation and extinction is a Birth-Death process. This has particles (species) that have a constant probability Bdt, of spltting in the next (very) small interval dt of time. And it has a constant probability Ddt of going extinct in the next very small interval dt of time. Work on models for inferring phylogenies makes more and more use of these Birth-Death models.

But they aren’t really fractal. For example, they do not keep on splitting infinitely, and the ratios of lengths of branches do not follow the rules you would see in a fractal.

So fractal diagrams give mesmerizing graphics, but they don’t really look like even simple models of speciating lineages.

There are some good sources on the web of estimates of trees from real data. Two are www.timetree.org and treebase.org. Take a look, and see whether those trees are fractal.

These are all just pretty pictures designed to make you’re materialistic beliefs seem more real. It doesn’t matter how much government money is used to create great graphics the diagrams are still based upon atheistically motivated assumptions that can’t be tested empirically.

Impressive pieces of graphic art however … kind of reminds me of the “Illuminated - On the Origin of Species” work that was discussed here several months ago.

your not you’re

Fittest meme, unless you can provide specifics to support your “atheistically motivated assumptions that can’t be tested empirically” claim, so that readers can evaluate your claim against reality, anything else you post here will go to the BW.

Every graphically illustrated link between two species that is indicated to be older than man is by definition not empirically observable. These graphic representations are provided to support a theory that claims all life descended through a natural, unguided process from one common ancestor. This is in direct contradiction to God’s stated act of creation and thus atheistic.

I don’t know why you can’t just own up to the fact that you believe what you do because you want to.

“Not directly observable” and “not empirically observable” are not synonyms. Equating them is mistaken.

Here’s why I don’t “own up to the fact that you believe what you do because you want to”: That claim is false.

Please describe how you can empirically observe an event that happened before any observer existed.

Empirical - Relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory (1st definition Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary). Are you trying to redefine words again like you do with species, fact, theory, etc.?

Please describe how you can empirically observe an event that happened before any observer existed.

By observing in the present the evidence left by the past event. In cosmology, for example, multiple independent lines of observable evidence support the inference of a discrete beginning of the universe in a ‘Big Bang,’ including the observed red shifts that indicate on-going expansion, the properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the measured proportions of light elements in the universe. We do not directly observe that beginning, but we observe the evidence it left.

In the case of biological phylogenies, we observe fossils, whose relationships are supported by morphology, and genes, which provide evidence for common ancestry of animals and allow is to make reliable inferences about their degrees of relatedness. The nested hierarchies that result from those two independent ways of assessing common ancestry provide empirical evidence for the inference of common ancestry.

And a question for fittest meme: Do we convict people of murder in the absence of eyewitness testimony? If we find footprints that match a suspect’s shoes outside the door of the home in which a murder occurred, and match the composition of the mud outside the home to the mud on the suspect’s shoes, and find corresponding muddy footprints down the hall and through the door to the murder room, and find the suspect’s fingerprints on the knife in the victim’s chest, and find the suspect’s DNA under the victim’s fingernails and scratches on the suspect’s arms, are we justified in making the inference that the suspect most likely committed the murder? Or must we have eyewitness testimony from a third party who observed the murder?

Richard B. Hoppe said:

”… we observe fossils, … “

Yes we do. And those fossils are found in a distinct pattern all around the world. The same sequence of fossils is found throughout the world, where ever you look.

Remember, newer layers are deposited on older layers. (I have read some creationist literature that denies this ‘Law of Steno’, so obvious it hardly requires stating.)

With denial of such fundamental principles of logic, it’s easy for creationists to deny anything that wasn’t observed in recorded history, or Last Thursday.

When you try to apply their own denial to something like the resurrection or the six-day creation, they fly to pieces.

Richard:

You are admitting that the species linking lines on the chart are inferences. An inference is a mental construct established from facts or premises (other inferences). A thought by definition is not empirically observable.

The act of convicting a murder suspect without an eye-witness is indeed also acting upon an inference.

Even though a murder conviction must pass the the test of “beyond a reasonable doubt” some suspects are indeed wrongly convicted in spite of the inferred conclusions drawn from the collected evidence.

In the case of establishing related biological phylogenies the case is no where close to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In fact much of the collected morphological and genetic evidence points respected scientist to very different conclusions regarding supposed relatedness of ancestral species. The fossil record itself requires a great deal of inference to establish morphological assumptions based upon partial skeletal remains. And the genetic evidence you suggest most also be inferential since most now agree that DNA is not stable beyond several thousand years. To suggest a speciation event at a particular period in time millions of years ago is layering inferences upon inferences.

Evolutionists like yourself somehow defend the “fact” of of such events with arguments that do nothing more than say “it’s possible.” In light of what scientists now know about the complexity of the genetic code that is required to create and direct even one new protein to perform a new function I would say that even suggesting that it’s possible without an intelligent author is a stretch.

prongs:

I’ve got an experiment you can try. You’ll need: a clear jar like a 1 pint canning jar, 4 or 5 different types of soil (small pea gravel, sand, peat, potting soil, ashes, lime, etc.), and some water.

First, one at a time, put about 2-3 tablespoons of each soil into your jar. it should take about 4 types of soil to fill your jar about half full. Now empirically observe the characteristics of the division lines between the chronologically established layers you have created. It is likely that the division lines between the layers are not perfectly parallel nor are they distinctly defined.

Next, pour enough water into the jar so that the soil is completely saturated and there is about an inch of water over the top layer of soil. Now, put the top on the jar and shake it thoroughly. Let the jar sit for several minutes and observe again.

Are there different layers than there were before? What type of soils are on the lower levels? What types are at the top?

Are the division lines more or less defined and parallel than those that were established with the chronological layering?

Can you think of any events in Earth’s history that could have created the same sort of conditions as shaking the jar with water?

Google information on the geological features especially the Toutle River Canyon that resulted from the cataclysmic events related to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

As a truly open minded scientists (one who is not just trying to defend a position they strongly beleive in), I think you will have to admit that there are other ways that geological layers can and have been formed that do not abide by the “Law of Steno.”

Hey Fittest Meme -

I’m a fair-minded person.

I accept the theory of evolution, but only because it’s supported by multiple converging strong lines of evidence from many different fields. It has nothing to do with religion or what I “want” to believe.

I’m quite willing to consider ID/creationism as an alternative.

Logically, that would only require that -

1) You provide a coherent, testable ID/creationism explanation of the diversity of earth’s biosphere, which stands up to investigation and

2) You provide a reasonable, testable alternate explanation for all the evidence which seems to support evolution.

You can begin to convince me by honestly and intelligently answering the following questions -

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

Fittest meme wrote

You are admitting that the species linking lines on the chart are inferences. An inference is a mental construct established from facts or premises (other inferences). A thought by definition is not empirically observable.

Admitting it? I assert it. The great bulk of our knowledge is inferential, the inferences based on our consideration of the empirical evidence. In science we require that those inferences be testable; that is, we require that they lead us to new empirical observations that we can assess with respect to their consistency with the inferences. New evidence, independent of the evidence giving rise to and already supporting the inferences, provides additional confidence in the inferences. Thus the independent lines of evidence I mentioned provide considerable support for the inferences I described.

The act of convicting a murder suspect without an eye-witness is indeed also acting upon an inference. Even though a murder conviction must pass the the test of “beyond a reasonable doubt” some suspects are indeed wrongly convicted in spite of the inferred conclusions drawn from the collected evidence.

Sure. No one I’m aware of is claiming infallibility except for creationists in their literal reading of Genesis. And in fact, eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable forms of evidence, and it is likely that more defendants are convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness testimony than on any other sort of evidence (prosecutorial misconduct aside). For examples see here.

Inferences in science are strongly constrained by the empirical evidence. It ain’t an ‘anything goes’ enterprise, unlike the magic invoked by creationists.

In the case of establishing related biological phylogenies the case is no where close to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In fact much of the collected morphological and genetic evidence points respected scientist to very different conclusions regarding supposed relatedness of ancestral species.

Name those “respected scientists” and the “very different conclusions” you mean (I presume you meant scientists, plural.)

And the genetic evidence you suggest most also be inferential since most now agree that DNA is not stable beyond several thousand years.

I was referring to the nested hierarchy formed by the measured genetic relationships among extant species. However, you are factually wrong. DNA is stable enough to allow sequencing the genomes of Neandertal and Denisovan remains that are in the tens of thousands of years old–see here and here for examples.

Evolutionists like yourself somehow defend the “fact” of of such events with arguments that do nothing more than say “it’s possible.” In light of what scientists now know about the complexity of the genetic code that is required to create and direct even one new protein to perform a new function I would say that even suggesting that it’s possible without an intelligent author is a stretch.

Hm? In fact the genetic code is pretty simple–four bases in various combinations through straight chemical processes produce proteins. And “one new protein to perform a new function” reflects ignorance of how evolution works. Evolution is descent with modification, so the question is how stretches of DNA come to be formed (most often by gene dupication), and how duplicates subsequently evolve to produce new proteins. For one approach to answering that question see the work of Joe Thornton. For a very recent example of research on the evolution of a new gene coding for a new protein, see the research to which I pointed just four days ago here on PT. For reconstructing the ancestry of extant proteins, see research like this. Notice this sentence:

Using structural, phylogenetic, and functional analysis, we identify the specific set of historical mutations that recapitulate the evolution of GR’s hormone specificity from an MR-like ancestor.

fittest meme said:

prongs:

I’ve got an experiment you can try. You’ll need: a clear jar like a 1 pint canning jar, 4 or 5 different types of soil (small pea gravel, sand, peat, potting soil, ashes, lime, etc.), and some water.

First, one at a time, put about 2-3 tablespoons of each soil into your jar. it should take about 4 types of soil to fill your jar about half full. Now empirically observe the characteristics of the division lines between the chronologically established layers you have created. It is likely that the division lines between the layers are not perfectly parallel nor are they distinctly defined.

Next, pour enough water into the jar so that the soil is completely saturated and there is about an inch of water over the top layer of soil. Now, put the top on the jar and shake it thoroughly. Let the jar sit for several minutes and observe again.

Are there different layers than there were before? What type of soils are on the lower levels? What types are at the top?

Are the division lines more or less defined and parallel than those that were established with the chronological layering?

Can you think of any events in Earth’s history that could have created the same sort of conditions as shaking the jar with water?

Google information on the geological features especially the Toutle River Canyon that resulted from the cataclysmic events related to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

As a truly open minded scientists (one who is not just trying to defend a position they strongly beleive in), I think you will have to admit that there are other ways that geological layers can and have been formed that do not abide by the “Law of Steno.”

That’s very funny! Clearly, you never actually studied geology. Comparing types of soil in a jar with the makeup of rock layers around the world is simply ridiculous.

The bigoted idiots are out in force here, aren’t they?

dalehusband said:

fittest meme said:

prongs:

I’ve got an experiment you can try. You’ll need: a clear jar like a 1 pint canning jar, 4 or 5 different types of soil (small pea gravel, sand, peat, potting soil, ashes, lime, etc.), and some water.

First, one at a time, put about 2-3 tablespoons of each soil into your jar. it should take about 4 types of soil to fill your jar about half full. Now empirically observe the characteristics of the division lines between the chronologically established layers you have created. It is likely that the division lines between the layers are not perfectly parallel nor are they distinctly defined.

Next, pour enough water into the jar so that the soil is completely saturated and there is about an inch of water over the top layer of soil. Now, put the top on the jar and shake it thoroughly. Let the jar sit for several minutes and observe again.

Are there different layers than there were before? What type of soils are on the lower levels? What types are at the top?

Are the division lines more or less defined and parallel than those that were established with the chronological layering?

Can you think of any events in Earth’s history that could have created the same sort of conditions as shaking the jar with water?

Google information on the geological features especially the Toutle River Canyon that resulted from the cataclysmic events related to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

As a truly open minded scientists (one who is not just trying to defend a position they strongly beleive in), I think you will have to admit that there are other ways that geological layers can and have been formed that do not abide by the “Law of Steno.”

That’s very funny! Clearly, you never actually studied geology. Comparing types of soil in a jar with the makeup of rock layers around the world is simply ridiculous.

The bigoted idiots are out in force here, aren’t they?

I know this clown is pathetic. This guy is actually asking us to do an old Kent Hovind experiment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5El[…]feature=plcp I’d bet real money Meme has never done it, hell, I’d bet HOVIND has never done it. This is how truly pathetic Meme is he’s is actually bringing up old Hovind arguments, be gone you pathetic idiot.

Trolls are apparently an ancient group.

All evidence indicates they don’t have the ability to evolve at all.

Then they must have been designed that way!!!!1111!!!!eleven!!!!!!

fittest meme spews:

especially the Toutle River Canyon that resulted from the cataclysmic events related to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

I have been a resident of Washington State since 12 years before the famous 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens. When you drive down Interstate 5 from Seattle to Portland you pass over the canyon of the Toutle River at about mileage marker 50.

I can assure fittest meme, as my own eyewitness testimony that the Toutle River Canyon was there before 1980.

I can assure fittest meme, as my own eyewitness testimony that the Toutle River Canyon was there before 1980.

Unless your ‘memory’ of it, along with the rest of the cosmos, was created last Thursday.

How about it, FM, can you PROVE, without inferences, that the entire universe, complete with fake ‘evidence’ of great age, including our own ‘memories’ of a fake past, wasn’t created last Thursday?

Lucky for you Joe you’re close enough to this evidence that you can actually view it for yourself. You’re just going to have to go about 35 miles upstream from the Hwy 5 bridge to see the canyon we are discussing. Of course I think you know this.

Aren’t you a professor? Do you purposefully deceive your students the same way you are trying to deceive the readers of this board?

It is amazing to me how hard you guys work to obscure the truth that most of us can see very plainly when we look at the evidence for ourselves, use our own reason, and discern who’s testimony is truthful and whose is motivated by self interest. You academic “experts” in your attempt to justify your own self worth look more and more foolish all the time. Fortunately others have demonstrated that there’s hope for you.

A former academian - Saul of Tarsus, who transformed his life when he discovered that much of what he had been taught were lies, recorded some wise words in a letter he once wrote to a group of truth seekers in Rome around 57AD. The following is a translation from his original greek:

“But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and the sky. Through everything God made they can clearly see his invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature. Yes they knew God but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.”

Richard, I was going to mention that Joe is one of those scientists that contested the truthfulness of the tree-of-life representation you posted at the start of this thread. He in fact provided evidence of work by other scientists that contradicted many of the conclusions reached by those that authored your fractal tree.

Regarding the possibility of creating new functioning proteins (not modifying existing ones), I’m sure you’ve read Michael Behe’s latest response to the debate here.

Rando, I wasn’t aware of the Hovind experiment. I actually did do this myself. The point that both of us make is that chronology is not the only way of layering sediments, and that millions of years are not necessary to create many of the geological stratification we observe empirically. I think that is pretty self-evident by my experiment results, the results of the video you posted, and one’s own reason and logic even if they didn’t do the experiment.

fittest meme said:

Lucky for you Joe you’re close enough to this evidence that you can actually view it for yourself. You’re just going to have to go about 35 miles upstream from the Hwy 5 bridge to see the canyon we are discussing. Of course I think you know this.

Aren’t you a professor? Do you purposefully deceive your students the same way you are trying to deceive the readers of this board?

Are you accusing Joe Felsenstein of being a liar simply because he contradicts your assertions?

apokryltaros said:

Are you accusing Joe Felsenstein of being a liar simply because he contradicts your assertions?

No, I’m calling Joe Felsenstein deceptive because he ignored the evidence I presented and led the conversation off-topic by commenting on a part of the river that was 35 miles downstream from the area he knew i was referring to.

For an experiment that demonstrates that one-time hydrogolic sorting (ie settling out of sediments after one only inundation) does not produce the results fittest claims, and the results it does produce do not match observations of geological stratification, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY.

How about it, FM? How do you KNOW the world isn’t only a week old? And how can you prove it?

Saul of Tarsus. Wasn’t he that guy who had a temporal lobe seizure on the road to Damascus?

fittest meme said:

Rando, I wasn’t aware of the Hovind experiment. I actually did do this myself. The point that both of us make is that chronology is not the only way of layering sediments, and that millions of years are not necessary to create many of the geological stratification we observe empirically. I think that is pretty self-evident by my experiment results, the results of the video you posted, and one’s own reason and logic even if they didn’t do the experiment.

Gee, I have a piece of limestone (belemnite is on it–reason for owning) that has a wormhole bored through it. It’s typical of a whole host of rocks–limestones not exclusive–with burrows, shells, reefs, etc., all of which take time to form. A whole lot of time to form huge stacks of them.

That’s what an knowledgeable person considers, what a real scientist deals with. Creationists typically latch onto one small aspect, ignorant of the whole, and fault those who deal with the whole for not considering what could happen with respect to a tiny part of it.

Glen Davidson

… I think you will have to admit that there are other ways that geological layers can and have been formed that do not abide by the “Law of Steno.”

… chronology is not the only way of layering sediments, and that millions of years are not necessary to create many of the geological stratification we observe empirically. I think that is pretty self-evident by my experiment results, …

Your statements are untrue, false, deceptive, misleading.

Geological layers were not ‘formed’ in a Mason jar from potting soil. Individual geological layers, or closely grouped layers, almost certainly were laid down in comparatively short periods of time. Real stratigraphers and sedimentologists know this. You are neither.

Your ‘experiment’ is no such thing, and you are a fraud or a poe, or a worse a knowing, intentional deceiver.

If there is a Hell, I believe there is a special place for those who deceive and mislead others, away from the truth. I hope you’re not one of them, like that criminal Hovind.

Hey Fittest Meme -

I’m a fair-minded person.

And as a fair-minded person, now that you’ve thrown a few grossly unjustified accusations of dishonesty, let me state that I recognize EVASION as a sign I may be dealing with a dishonest person.

I accept the theory of evolution, but only because it’s supported by multiple converging strong lines of evidence from many different fields. It has nothing to do with religion or what I “want” to believe.

I’m quite willing to consider ID/creationism as an alternative.

Logically, that would only require that -

1) You provide a coherent, testable ID/creationism explanation of the diversity of earth’s biosphere, which stands up to investigation and

2) You provide a reasonable, testable alternate explanation for all the evidence which seems to support evolution.

You can begin to convince me by honestly and intelligently answering the following questions -

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) Some parts of the Bible suggest that pi equals exactly three, and that the earth is flat and has four corners. Do you accept these as facts of physical reality, and if not, why do you deny the theory of evolution on the grounds of Biblical literacy, if it can be symbolic about other scientific issues?

If fattest meme want s to argue that the world is five thousand years old he can just go over to the carbon dating thread and explain that evidence. If not he can just go a way. Everyone else has already looked at the evidence, only the willfully ignorant or dishonest continue to claim that the earth is not ancient.

DS said:

If fattest meme want s to argue that the world is five thousand years old he can just go over to the carbon dating thread and explain that evidence. If not he can just go a way. Everyone else has already looked at the evidence, only the willfully ignorant or dishonest continue to claim that the earth is not ancient.

I’ve stated so many times that creationism is largely about authoritarian political and social impulses, that it would almost be cliched for me to note that again.

Another critical point is that it’s all about denial of reality, not about making convincing positive claims.

That’s true for all the organizations, web sites, and trolls, whether self-proclaimed YEC or still using “plausible deniability” ID language.

It’s about evolution denial. They just want to deny evolution. Whether they think that denying evolution, no matter what, is a ritual required for acceptance in their social group, whether the reality of biologic evolution interferes with self-serving fantasies, or, most likely, both, they just want to deny and contradict.

Putting aside technical questions about how good fractals are as the basis for a visual model of phylogenetic relationships, they were good enough to cause Fittest Meme a great deal of discomfort and cognitive dissonance.

But all he wants to do is plug his ears, close his eyes, and scream “It isn’t true because Baby doesn’t want it to be true” (frequently projecting his own mentality onto others, I might add).

He simply ignores obvious, logical, civil questions, which anyone seriously interested in advancing a positive claim would be enthusiastic to answer.

He wants to “frame the issue” by attacking individual scientific details, and getting argued with about those details, to create the false impression that science is on the defensive.

An offer to listen if he has a coherent, testable explanation of his own, and/or an explanation for why so much evidence seems to support the theory of evolution, is met with deafening silence.

fittest meme said:

apokryltaros said:

Are you accusing Joe Felsenstein of being a liar simply because he contradicts your assertions?

No, I’m calling Joe Felsenstein deceptive because he ignored the evidence I presented and led the conversation off-topic by commenting on a part of the river that was 35 miles downstream from the area he knew i was referring to.

What evidence did you present? You mean your baseless and inane assertions that contradict reality? Or your incessant accusations that scientists are engaged in an evil materialistic conspiracy to remain magically ignorant?

The only reason you’re falsely accusing Joe Felsenstein of allegedly deceiving his students is because he contradicted your assertion instead of bowing down to it.

DS said:

If fattest meme wants to argue that the world is five thousand years old he can just go over to the carbon dating thread and explain that evidence.

He might say that evidence is merely based upon “atheistically motivated assumptions” and therefore invalid. But then he would have to explain how at least a few pioneers in radiometric dating were Christians, such as Dr Laurence Kulp who advanced radiometric dating in general and carbon dating in particular. Kulp opened one of the first radiocarbon dating labs over half a century ago. Fittest meme would have to explain away how many theists routinely use radiometric dating today (click link here).

Even nearly two centuries ago, most scientists had already discarded the idea that a single event resulted in the strata we have today. This included Christian scientists such as pioneering geologist Adam Sedgwick who in 1831 recanted his world Flood position (link here). Sedgwick and other theists had strong theological motivations to have a prior commitment for a world Flood, but even this prior commitment withered as contrary evidence continued to accumulate.

What can happen when a YEC gets real life geological experience in the field? This link here about geophysicist Glenn Morton is rather telling (and Gordon Glover himself is an ex-YEC, Glover during his younger years even dreamed of working for ICR).

fittest meme said:

No, I’m calling Joe Felsenstein deceptive because he ignored the evidence I presented and led the conversation off-topic by commenting on a part of the river that was 35 miles downstream from the area he knew i was referring to.

You did not present any credible evidence, you delusional pest. He contradicted your clear statement, nothing more or less. Maybe you should have phrased it differently. Or maybe you are the actual deceptive one?

fittest meme said:

It is amazing to me how hard you guys work to obscure the truth that most of us can see very plainly when we look at the evidence for ourselves, use our own reason, and discern who’s testimony is truthful and whose is motivated by self interest. You academic “experts” in your attempt to justify your own self worth look more and more foolish all the time. Fortunately others have demonstrated that there’s hope for you.

Actually, that criticism is exactly the issue we have with Creationists.

So now, I can see from your own words, fittest meme, that you are indeed a pathological liar, like nearly all other Creationist propaganda pests we know about.

I was positive Meme got his crap from a Hovind site, and low and behold I found this gem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRj3[…]ature=relmfu

Not only does Hovind mention his Experiment, but Hovind also holds up the Toutle River Canyon as one of his examples. Meme is either a Hovind fan or he is ripping his crap from a Hovind based creationist site. I’m not going to waste my time looking for the rest of his examples but rest assured they’ve all been debunked. Just in case he tries it here’s the other half of Potholer54’s videos debunking the other half of this Hovind crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSv[…]ture=related

Rando said:

I was positive Meme got his crap from a Hovind site, and low and behold I found this gem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRj3[…]ature=relmfu

Not only does Hovind mention his Experiment, but Hovind also holds up the Toutle River Canyon as one of his examples. Meme is either a Hovind fan or he is ripping his crap from a Hovind based creationist site. I’m not going to waste my time looking for the rest of his examples but rest assured they’ve all been debunked. Just in case he tries it here’s the other half of Potholer54’s videos debunking the other half of this Hovind crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSv[…]ture=related

Perhaps he’s Hovind’s son, who now runs the ‘ministry’.

prongs said:

Rando said:

I was positive Meme got his crap from a Hovind site, and low and behold I found this gem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRj3[…]ature=relmfu

Not only does Hovind mention his Experiment, but Hovind also holds up the Toutle River Canyon as one of his examples. Meme is either a Hovind fan or he is ripping his crap from a Hovind based creationist site. I’m not going to waste my time looking for the rest of his examples but rest assured they’ve all been debunked. Just in case he tries it here’s the other half of Potholer54’s videos debunking the other half of this Hovind crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSv[…]ture=related

Perhaps he’s Hovind’s son, who now runs the ‘ministry’.

No, if it was Eric Hovind he wouldn’t hide behind a nick name. I’ve seen Eric appear on other atheist sites and he likes to get his name out there. Eric would also never deny knowing his daddy’s arguments. Besides if it was Eric, he would have started off with his Prepositional Apologetics that he got from his new friend, Satan’s Butthole. No Meme is sadly just another in a long line of creationist clones, I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried to feed us some crap he copied from ICR or Ray Comfort.

Just a new argument that’s all I want to see. Just one new argument that I can actually research and try to understand why it’s wrong, rather than simply typing in Talk Origins or Rational Wiki, and seeing that it has been done before.

I’m kind of confused…who put the Earth in a mason jar and shook it?

James said:

I’m kind of confused…who put the Earth in a mason jar and shook it?

Why, the Designer, of course!!!111!!one!!!!

Actually that “experiment” might reveal something.

After following directions, let it settle for a bit, then pour–or better yet, siphon–out the water. Look at what’s left.

Now, how much mucky, dead-animal-stinking sludge would be covering the WHOLE EARTH after an extinction level event that laid down hundreds of feet of sediment over a year of inundation, thousands of meters deep?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on November 14, 2012 2:23 PM.

Evolving a new function via gene duplication and divergence was the previous entry in this blog.

Can William Lane Craig feel pain? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter