From A Storehouse of Knowledge

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Contents 1 Dino Bone, blood cells and stuff 2 A living transitional 3 Blyth 3.1 Edit break 4 Archive 5 Explaining my reversion

Dino Bone, blood cells and stuff

Lets quote Mary from the paper cited "Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia." The words of significance here are derived, reminiscent and demineralized. These "soft" structures only appeared after dissolving the bone sample in acid. In the conclusion she states "If these components are demonstrated chemically to be original, a mechanism must exist to allow their persistence across geological time. " This indicates that the materials have not at time of writing this article been identified by chemical analysis. The papaer cited in (11) is preliminary and discusses some possible areas of investigation for preservation of this type of material. A fairly complete discussion of the "blood" findings is HERE And just an aside comment citing "Wired" magazine, really ? Hamster 14:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm dotpointing for clarity.
• "Reminiscent" is only used for one of the four soft tissue types, and not the one discussed in the article.
• "Derived from" is merely specifying from whence the researchers got the soft tissues.
• "Demineralized" refers to the process of removing what has been permineralized. Across "geological time" there should only be what is permineralized, because what is not permineralized should have already been destroyed!
• The researchers had no problem referring to "blood vessels" (or just "vessels") throughout the paper. Contrast this with "structures morphologically remiscent" because they doubted that the "structures" were red blood cells (not getting into the reasons for those doubt just yet). They did not doubt that they had blood vessels.
• I doubt any discussion at TO is "fairly complete". My experience is that "discussions" are extremely biased, and most of the assertions are unsupported. In my experience several assertions for which citations are given are contradicted by the sources cited. I will have a look, though.
• Yes the paper discusses areas of investigation for preservation of this type of material. That's the point. Current knowledge says that preservation of this kind of material for the time required by evolution is impossible. Rather than conclude that the existense of the material indicates a relatively short period (and thus falsifies evolution), mechanisms are sought to allow the long period.
• Are you aware of another paper chemically identifying these tissues? I would be interested in reading it.
• I didn't cite "Wired", but what of it? You above cited TO (and it has been cited in article content), and Wired has much more credibility than TO.

LowKey 22:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ok maybe wired has changed. I knew it as a newspaper checkout rag , one step up from the Batboy terrorises the Bronx. It was not remotely considered a source for scientific papers. The chemical makeup of the "vessels" is a key item since without it they may look like vessels but are not shown to be vessels. Derived from isnt a simple statement of source but indicates some processing took place, not simply removal of the surrounding minerals. Hamster 00:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My comment was more about the credibility of TO than Wired. I don't understand the reluctance to accept that these were vessels when the researchers themselves were prepared to accept them as such, even referring to them as such multiple (many) times. Yes "derived" indicates more than simply picking something up, and indicates a process, but the particular process was explained in the paper and it was simply the removal of the surrounding minerals. One derives orange juice from oranges by discarding everything but the juice that is already in the orange. LowKey 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"If these components are demonstrated chemically to be original, a mechanism must exist to allow their persistence across geological time. " This indicates that the materials have not at time of writing this article been identified by chemical analysis. No, it indicates that they haven't been determined to be original; it doesn't indicate that they haven't been identified.

The papaer cited in (11) [Schweitzer M, Wittmeyer J, Horner J, Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present,Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Science, Volume 274, 22 January 2007] is preliminary ... A fairly complete discussion of the "blood" findings is HERE How can something last updated in 2004 be "fairly complete" given that the other paper you refer to was published in 2007? As for the TO article, it's a load of considerable spin. It spends five paragraphs setting up creationism as a load of bollocks before it starts to get to the point. It then quotes Wieland several times, but the only issue it takes with the quotes is a claimed inconsistency in switching from "fossil bone" to "unfossilised dinosaur bone". Yet the "fossilised bone" was in a question, not a claim, and the two are not incompatible anyway depending on what meanings of "fossilised" are being used. "Fossil" is often taken to mean "turned to stone" (or "permineralised"), but can include material that is not permineralised. So the "fossil bone" need not be permineralised, as is indicated by the reference to "unfossilised dinosaur bone". So after more than six paragraphs, TO has produced no criticism of substance. That's not the end of it, of course, but it's enough to show that the article is more spin than substance.

These "soft" structures only appeared after dissolving the bone sample in acid. This is an example of attempting to subtly prejudice the reader. You yourself quote Schweitzer as referring to "soft tissues" but here you put "soft" in scare quotes to suggest that they weren't really soft tissues. In denial? Secondly, so what? A gift only "appears" after you have removed the wrapping paper. That doesn't indicate anything other than the obvious; that the surrounding material needed to be removed to see what was inside.

Derived from isnt a simple statement of source but indicates some processing took place,... Agreed, but...

... not simply removal of the surrounding minerals. Why not just that?

Philip J. Rayment 06:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the inference here Mr Rayemnt. Are you saying that this was fresh, bleeding dinosaur flesh?--Bob M 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Clearly it wasn't "fresh", and neither was it "bleeding" in the normal sense of that word which involves blood running or oozing from a wound. It gave every appearance, however, of being actual dinosaur blood vessels with not enough deterioration (let alone permineralisation) to be unable to identify them as such, and, more to the point, not enough deterioration for them to be millions of years old. Philip J. Rayment 09:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. How old would you suggest?--Bob M 09:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, on the basis of recorded history (i.e. the Bible) that they would only be a few thousand years old. On the basis of the (lack of) deterioration of the material, and assuming the most favourable possible preservation, the upper limit is, from memory, in the order of hundreds of thousands of years. Philip J. Rayment 10:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate response. Please provide data that supports this. Plus "it hasn't been observed." Must not be true then. Sterile 12:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus "it hasn't been observed." Must not be true then. This is simply you trying to pick an argument. Do you believe that it is not true because it hasn't been observed? Of course you don't. Do you think I believe it? Given that I've never claimed that, you have no reason for implying that I do. Further, you should know that I don't, given that when I rearranged the section with your addition, I retained this very point. So you are here trying to put words in my mouth that you know—or at the very least should know—are false. You are therefore clearly not acting in good faith, and don't deserve any further answer. Philip J. Rayment 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Derived from isnt a simple statement of source but indicates some processing took place,... Agreed, but... ... not simply removal of the surrounding minerals. Why not just that? Because she says in one of her papers that the soft material was not present until after the fossil was dissolved in acid. Hamster 06:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

...she says in one of her papers that the soft material was not present until after the fossil was dissolved in acid. On-line reference, or, failing that, an exact, in-context, quote please. Philip J. Rayment 11:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What I found in the later paper (i.e. the one studying multiple samples rather than just B.Rex) is that she refers to "the detailed preservation of still-soft, transparent, hollow and flexible tissues and cells over geological time" (emphasis in the original). She also refers to the soft tissues being "retained". Those are pretty clear statements that the soft components were already there before the permineralised portion was removed. LowKey 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the four or five related papers, and the words of choice are "remained", "revealed" "perserved", and "retained" but nowhere is there any indication that the material was not already present before the testing began. In fact this one (free registration is required) justifies at length the conclusion that the material is original and not a later "addition" (this is a refutational response to another paper by someone else suggesting that the vessels are actually a replacing biofilm). Hamster, what, exactly did Schweitzer say and where? LowKey 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this and I probably won't have time to, but I will just point out that there a good chemical tests that can tell the age of biomaterials, and squishiness is but one. I'd be interested in what the chemistry says. Sterile 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The faith is strong in this one. You couldn't be much interested if you won't even read about it. If you did, you would have noticed that Schweitzer's papers were about more than squishiness, and in fact dealt with the chemistry. LowKey 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, are we going to play character attack? Why, not? I'll join in! You would spell her name right if you were interested! Who is this Schwartzer character? Did I not say "I haven't looked at this"? Have you said anything about chemistry on this page? Sorry for being busy and curious. Sterile 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking your character. I have fixed my "Schwartzer" braino. If I find extended quotes from the papers, would you take the time to read them (not a dig, but a genuine question)?. Alternatively, if I summarise, would you accept it as accurate? LowKey 06:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A living transitional

You may now hand wave it away with a CMI quote. Ace McWicked 21:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Aw, he's cute. Sterile 00:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But definiatly not transitional and probably, somehow, disproves evolution. Ace McWicked 01:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] Sterile 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome vid Sterile. Ace McWicked 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Typical. Instead of address the arguments, simply mock, in this case by using a string of straw-man claims. For example, the "tornado in a junkyard" claim was made by Hoyle about abiogenesis, but in the video it's made out that creationists use it of the eye. And the video has the creationist asking why there are still monkeys if humans evolved from them, an argument explicitly rejected by creationists[2]. And it makes out that the evolutionist (unlike the creationist) admits his mistakes, which I rarely see happening. Philip J. Rayment 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As normal, and contrary to this repeated assertion, I don't need a CMI quote to see the fallacy. What evidence is there that this skink was not created with the ability to give birth either way? The article is nothing more than story-telling with an incorrect heading—it's not "evolving before our eyes", as they didn't actually see it change. I'm not sure how it might disprove evolution (although it probably does), but at the very least, the fact that this sort of flimsy "evidence" is offered as examples of evolution in action shows how bereft of actual evidence evolution really is. Further, the article shows how the belief interprets the facts. "That suggests that it is rather easy to evolve. After all, to give birth to live young, a female simply has to keep the developing offspring inside herself for longer." No, it's not "simple" at all, as the article then goes on to hint at: "But this gives rise to a host of challenges: she must provide it with food so that it can keep growing, protect it from her own immune system, which is liable to attack it, and ultimately eject it in a way that doesn't kill it." That is, there are a whole host of changes required, but these are brushed aside as unimportant because, according to the story (not the observational evidence), it must have happened so many times. An objective scientists would recognise that it's not a minor change at all, wonder how it then could have happened so many times, and therefore wonder if evolution really is the explanation. But in evolution, the the hypothesis interprets the facts. Philip J. Rayment 03:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blyth

What is Blyth? I was told to read about it hereSeveral ingredients 07:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Who, rather than what. Blyth published descriptions of natural selection from 1835 to 1837. LowKey 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC) p.s. I said to read about him because you deleted the reference to him from the article. LowKey 07:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I see[3]. However, I don't think Edward Blyth should be mentioned under natural selection. Rather, he should be mentioned under the history of the development of the theory of evolution. I know it sounds like a long title, but I think it is important to put depth and context to this subject.Several ingredients 08:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The context is that Blyth described natural selection. As this is arguably what he is most notable for it seems quite odd to suggest not mentioning it. He did not actually have a role in developing the theory of evolution. Blyth saw natural selection as a conservative phenomenon rather than the instrument of change that Darwin envisaged. LowKey 10:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A conservative phenomenom? What on earth is that? Conservative means wanting to conserve the present, and resisting change. Phenomenom means an occurence or fact that can be observed. I don't think conservatism has anything to do with a fact that can be observed. Blyth's work, I might add, had still to be peer-reviewed and deemed to be consistent with biology, mentioning his work would be good under a "history/development of the theory" section. However, his work is by no means the only. As we already know, Charles Darwin developed the theory of natural selection through keen observation while on a trip to South America. Charles Darwin saw natural selection as a natural way that weaker organism would be 'weeded out' from the population, so that ones with characteristics that help them survive would...survive, and pass on their characteristics (genes) to the next generation.Several ingredients 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A conservative phenomenom? What on earth is that? Conservative means wanting to conserve the present, and resisting change. Phenomenom means an occurence or fact that can be observed. Correct. Natural selection weeds out the defects, thereby conserving the gene pool. This is what is observed, unlike Darwin's idea that natural selection would produce novel features, introducing change.

As we already know, Charles Darwin developed the theory of natural selection through keen observation while on a trip to South America. If you are saying that he developed it himself independently of Blyth, you are incorrect. He had read Blyth on it already.[4]

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 14:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting Darwin developed natural selection independently from Blyth, I was suggesting that Mr. Darwin had observed variations in the characteristics of several animals, such as Galapagos tortoises or "Darwin's Finches"[5].

In science, it doesn't so much matter as to who made the idea, but what the idea is. As long as it is consistent with evidence and observation then the hypothesis can be considered to be well-supported, perhaps after several decades of consistency it may be upgraded to "theory".Several ingredients 21:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also curious to find out what you mean by "novel" features... A mutation is a mutation, and it changes the features in an organism (albeit in rather small ways), this makes the organism different from the one that begot it. Because it is different, there must be something new about it by definition. Or is there a way something can be different without having anything new about it?Several ingredients 21:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In science, it doesn't so much matter as to who made the idea, but what the idea is. So you'd agree that ID being supported by Christians doesn't negate it being science, contrary to the decision by Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller ID case? I agree with you on that, though.

As for "novel features", if a new version of the MediaWiki software came out that allowed editors to see who else is on-line, I expect that you'd call that a "novel (or "new") feature". But if a new version came out in which the "Show changes" button failed to show changes but instead crashed your browser, would you call that a "novel feature"? Sure you might say that it has a new bug, but it's hardly what you'd call a "novel feature". In other words, a "novel feature" is an improvement that didn't exist before. See genetic mutation for more.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 07:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, how I love the smell of a false analogy...MediaWiki software...Gene mutations...Hmmm...Nope, they aren't even close. Do you have any idea on the size and power of genetic mutations? They're all very small, because genetic mutations happen when a gene/s is/are being copied. Naturally, there are going to be mistakes along the way- genes aren't like computers in how they copy information. Going by your MediaWiki-gene mutation analogy; the "mutation" in MediaWiki software has deleted a hefty portion of the "genome", by rendering recent changes useless. Does this happen in one mutation? NO! Any "mutations" that would start to take away from recent changes would be selected against and be rarer than "mutations" that would make recent changes better. I recommend you look at Richard Dawkin's "blind watchmaker" program" to get a better understanding of how powerful selection (in this case artificial) is. Think about how powerful this can be in nature, over not hundreds, but hundreds of millions of generations?Several ingredients 11:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as an analogy to copying, just to "novel features", and on that point, you've not responded, so I guess that you now understand the difference between "novel features" and "change". I'm not saying that genes and computers copy information in the same way, but how do they differ in ways that are relevant here? Both have error-correcting mechanisms, for example, although I suspect that the genetic ones are more sophisticated. I think the genetic ones are also faster, copying from multiple starting points at once.

In order to disable a function (such as the Show changes button), only a very minor change is necessary. In computer terms not only could this happen in a single "mutation", the change could be a single bit, and the same applies for genes (a single nucleotide in a single mutation).

Any "mutations" that would start to take away from recent changes would be selected against and be rarer than "mutations" that would make recent changes better. Ignoring artificial selection (which would apply for software and for which your comment is probably true), this is actually false for living things. Mutations that make things worse far outweigh mutations that make things better, and natural selection is simply not up to the task, for various reasons.

Natural selection needs improvements to select, and mutations don't supply them, so it really doesn't matter how good natural selection is, but it's not that good.

Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker program was, ummmm, designed. More specifically, it was designed produce the outcome it did by careful selection of the values of the parameters.[6]

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll use this green quote template thingy as well...Mutations that make things worse far outweigh mutations that make things better, and natural selection is simply not up to the task, for various reasons.^{[Citation Needed]} from say...oh, I don't know a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL not just creation.com, please... Here, I'll even link you to one.[7]. Before you make an objection such as "But peer reviewed journals have a (something that conflicts with your world-view) bias[8], realise this, they're doing science, they always have to give a good reason why they think this experiment is not working, or why this conculsion is wrong.

Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker program was, ummmm, designed. You just missed the point...Were every single one of those biomorphs designed by the programmers? No, there could be an infinite number of them (or at least as high a number you can think of) given enough generations. Now, a certain branch of creationism says that God started the universe off and has guided it, but has little to no intervention. I don't think you're that kind of creationist, but your comments on the program being designed, yet not being totally designed implies that you consider this sort of creationism a possibility.Several ingredients 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

[Citation Needed] I was rebutting a claim you made. Perhaps you should first back up your claim that beneficial mutations are more common than harmful ones.

...a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL not just creation.com, please... Here, I'll even link you to one. And here's one in return.

Before you make an objection such as "But peer reviewed journals have a ... bias[6], realise this, they're doing science... Not when they speculate about the past.

...they always have to give a good reason why they think this experiment is not working, or why this conculsion is wrong. Define "good reason", and explain what experiment can be done to show that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

You just missed the point...Were every single one of those biomorphs designed by the programmers? Every single one was created by a program designed by the programmers to create biomorphs. Perhaps you miss the point.

No, there could be an infinite number of them ... given enough generations. Indeed, if the program was designed to be truly random in this. It wasn't.

Now, a certain branch of creationism says that God started the universe off and has guided it, but has little to no intervention. I don't think you're that kind of creationist, but your comments on the program being designed, yet not being totally designed implies that you consider this sort of creationism a possibility. No, I'm not that kind of creationist, but yes, that sort of creationism is a theoretical possibility, but not a biblical one. The point, though is that Dawkins' program doesn't realistically replicate evolution.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 07:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent use of the Gish Gallop there, really wonderful execution of it... I shall now have to provide a refutation? Shan't I? Well, I shall also refrain from the annoying green quote template thingy, at least for now. First of all, your response to my "[Citation needed]" on your claim that most genetic mutations are detrimental to the organism. The burden of proof is on you to explain fully- preferably with verifiability- that most genetic mutations are detrimental, and how this makes natural selection under genetic mutation impossible. However, I'm a somewhat kind person so I'll cite my sources about genetic mutations[9][10]and [11].

One down, six to go! You gave me a link from creation.com, with their peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps you didn't look at RationalWiki's article on the peer-review process [It's and excellent featured article] where they show why creationists are wearing the peer-review mask in order to scrape some credibility, but also spread their rather unscientific (unfalsifiable, untestable, unsubstantiated with evidence, unprovable etc.)[12]. Now, I'm sure you'll jump up and down and say "Gotcha!" when you read that, then go on to say that evolution is all that I just said...Falsifiable, yes, rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would certainly falsify evolution- or perhaps a monkey giving birth to a fish would falsify genetics. Untestable...No, it's been tested[13]. Unsubstantiated...Oh, gosh I have a mountain of evidence for you![14], [15] and [16]. Is evolution unproveable? Oh...It is very much proveable, with the links I just put forth.

5 more to go! You say that peer-reviewed journals aren't science when they speculate about the past. So, they can be science here, but not here because it clashes with the bible's historical authority? The very same bible that implies a ~6,000 year old universe? Oh, I remember, you're a YEC...Here you go[17]. You'll reject it anyway, but there's what science has to say. I mean, unless the laws of physics were wildly different in the past than what they were now, something that is speculation, then this form of dating works. Back to the original point. What science journals do is record their observations and put forth theories based on them. Not just whatever unbiblical idea they can think of. If they observe things that fit with evolution, then they've done just that. They don't just say "Hmm, I know. I've got it all worked out! We evolved! YES! That's right." *several people object* "What evidence do you have for that assertion?" "Can you show me what led to that conclusion?" "I'd like to see your notes." If that person made up that claim it would be dropped by the scientific community in favour of one that is supported by evidence. If that person has evidence in favour of that assertion, then the scientists would review it and compare it to their observation to see if its consistent. If not, revise the hypothesis. If it goes with the hypothesis then it can be considered supported, or well-supported. And eventually become considered a theory.

4 more to go! You've told be to define what I meant by "good reason". By that I mean a reason that is supported by evidence from other scientists. One scientist may have observed X phenomenon in Y experiment and drawn Z conclusion in a paper. But another scientist could be reviewing the paper, having observed something else in a similar experiment and drawn a different conclusion. From this, they can decide on which experiment is most suitable to explain the phenomenon, and agree on a conclusion. As for your challenge for "what experiment can be performed that shows dinosaurs evolved into birds. Well, show me an experiment that shows the earth rotates the sun? Or that there is such a thing as black holes? We know they exist and we know their properties because we have observed them. You could say reality is like one big experiment, albeit with less control, that is ready to be observed. I'm sure you're familiar with the fossil record, if not check here.

Halfway there!*phew* Here you say that all those biomorphs were programmed within parameters that allowed them to turn into interesting shapes. I don't contest this. This program was designed to show the power of selection, not as evidence for it. The program was used to dissolve some of the incredulity some people have when they see a complex natural organism and told it is the product of natural selection.

Two more to go! No, there could be an almost infinite number of biomorphs, given enough generations. The program wasn't written randomly because it was designed to work under non-random selection! The explain it is to explain it straight from the site. The original biomorph is a black dot. Nothing special about it. The other six are its "children" each with a small mutation to it's colour, size or number. You select the one that looks "best" or "fittest", then that one has six "children" that share its primary characteristic, but has mutated to something else. This selection goes on. The program is random in the sense of each mutation. The program isn't random when it comes to the size of the mutation. The mutations are rather large and don't resemble the ones found in nature, which are quite considerably smaller (after 320 generations I got a biomorph that was rather intricate and beautiful, 320 generations of say humans wouldn't produce that kind of change). The reason for this is that people want to see change happen quickly instead of over millions of generations.

Last one!I understand that you are likely to be a fundamentalist, though not a strict bible literalist, so you would find differing viewpoints from the same source as you to be...wrong. I don't have much problem with that- although I can't understand the fundamentalist's reasoning fully. That one would use the bible instead of personal reasoning is beyond me. Yes, you do use logic, reasoning and fact, but when that contradicts your biblical viewpoint it immediately becomes bad science, logic or reasoning. Now, your point is "That Dawkins' program doesn't realistically replicate evolution" but of course it doesn't! I never meant that, it's just a fun program that demonstrates natural selection. I'd also like you to read this page, so you can "refute" what I've said without using an escape hatch.Several ingredients 10:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(From edit comment) A lengthy refutation that took 30 painstaking minutes. It will probably be waved away using creationist escape hatches. No, it will be rejected by means of reason. And this response has taken longer than 30 minutes.

Excellent use of the Gish Gallop there, really wonderful execution of it. My response doesn't even fit RW's jaundiced description. Sounds more like starting a response with an insult.

First of all, your response to my "[Citation needed]" on your claim that most genetic mutations are detrimental to the organism. The burden of proof is on you to explain fully- preferably with verifiability- that most genetic mutations are detrimental... Obviously the burden of proof is on me to explain my claim, and on you to explain your claim. Your claim came first, so your claim needs to be substantiated first.

However, I'm a somewhat kind person... A kind deceiver? Great advertisement!

...I'll cite my sources about genetic mutations[7][8]and [9] I see. You expect me to use peer-reviewed sources, but I'm supposed to accept non-peer-reviewed anti-creationist web-sites? Sounds a bit like double standards to me. But I guess that wasn't in the RW standards page either. As for your sources, I'll first clarify that I was using your terms of "better" and "worse", but creationists accept that there are beneficial mutations, and make the distinction between information-gaining mutations and information-lowing mutations. As your first link points out, some mutations (i.e. information-losing ones) can be beneficial depending on the circumstances. Another point regarding your first link is that it spends most of the effort on convincing people that most mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful, but neutral. There is an argument against this (that most are in fact very slightly harmful), but apart from that point, I essentially agree with that. When I said that most are harmful, I was meaning most of the non-neutral ones, or to put it another way, the harmful ones outweigh the beneficial ones. With that thought in mind, your third source actually supports my claim, when it says, "While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, as suggested by the creationists, or neutral..." (my emphasis)

You gave me a link from creation.com, with their peer-reviewed journal. Yep. Glad to see you acknowledge it as such.

Perhaps you didn't look at RationalWiki's article on the peer-review process [It's and excellent featured article] ... A "featured article" on RW means an article decided by a group of non-rational people as the best of a non-rational bunch of articles. Hardly a ringing endorsement. And yes, I did read it, but it had little of substance.

...they show why creationists are wearing the peer-review mask in order to scrape some credibility... Claiming and showing are two quite different things. RW's argument is based on its POV that creationism is unscientific, therefore any claim to peer review is hollow. The lack of peer review argument is usually used to show that it's unscientific, which at that point becomes a circular argument.

...spread their rather unscientific (unfalsifiable, untestable, unsubstantiated with evidence, unprovable etc.) And you jump on that fallacious bandwagon also.

Now, I'm sure you'll jump up and down and say "Gotcha!" when you read that, then go on to say that evolution is all that I just said... See origins science.

yes, rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would certainly falsify evolution How? There are several ways that evolution could be salvaged. First, if rabbit fossils were found, one option is to reclassify it as no pre-Cambrian. Another is to invoke an intrusive burial. Another is to dismiss it as a "tiny mystery" (as was done with Gentry's research) awaiting future explanation. I've often had evolutionists suggest that rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would falsify evolution, but none has ever demonstrated that it conclusively would. And the history of similar cases is that it wouldn't.

perhaps a monkey giving birth to a fish would falsify genetics. Errr, yes, but we are talking about evolution, the untestable philosophy about the past, not biology, the testable science in the present. You've just changed subjects.

No, it's been tested[11]. Andy Schlafly's stunt about Lenski's research (which stunt I opposed, incidentally) is not a test of evolution. Lenski's research was actually good evidence against evolution, in showing how difficult—how long it takes—to get a pair of co-ordinated mutations. Translate that into, for example, the number of generations required to turn an ape into a man and you'll find that the million years or so proposed by evolution is short by many orders of magnitude.

I have a mountain of evidence for you![12], [13] and [14]. Wikipedia (another biased, non-peer-reviewed source) fails to address (in its Evidence of common descent article the refutations offered by creationists, specifically that many of its supposed evidences for common descent are entirely compatible with biblical creation. Your second link is not specifically on evidence, and considering the time I'm spending responding to your post, I'm not about to wade through it looking for some unspecified evidence. Your third link claims to be evidence against recent creation, not evidence for evolution. Are you trying to waste my time?

Is evolution unproveable? Oh...It is very much proveable, with the links I just put forth. Wrong.

So, they can be science here, but not here because it clashes with the bible's historical authority? No. It can be science when it conducts repeatable experiments, which means that it is observing things in the present. It's when it delves into the unrepeatable, unobservable, past, that it ceases to be science. This is a pretty basic point of biblical creation, yet you seem ignorant of it. Which leads me to conclude that you have very little knowledge of the idea you fulminate against.

Here you go[15]. You'll reject it anyway, but there's what science has to say. Of course, given that its (a) contrary to historical observation, and (b) shown to be unreliable when tested against objects of known age.

I mean, unless the laws of physics were wildly different in the past than what they were now, something that is speculation, then this form of dating works. Again, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that creationists have pointed out that a change in the laws of physics is not the only way that the dating could be wrong. And it has been shown empirically to not always work.

What science journals do is record their observations and put forth theories based on them. Partly on them, and partly on their worldview, such as naturalism. This sort of (very simplified) logic: We exist, we can't consider supernatural explanations (because we've decided to a priori exclude them), so this is the most reasonable naturalistic explanation we can come up with. Yes, that is a theory based on the observation (that we are here) and the philosophy that the explanation has to be a natural one.

If that person made up that claim it would be dropped by the scientific community in favour of one that is supported by evidence. Yet that is essentially what Darwin did. He had no hard evidence. He argued largely by analogy with artificial selection, and with very little evidence. He even pointed out that the fossil evidence didn't support his ideas. And his motive as much as anything was to come up with an explanation that didn't involve God.

You've told be to define what I meant by "good reason". By that I mean a reason that is supported by evidence from other scientists. It would be nice if that was the case, but often it's the case that "good reason" means merely that the conclusion doesn't fit with the ruling paradigm, evolution.

As for your challenge for "what experiment can be performed that shows dinosaurs evolved into birds. Well, show me an experiment that shows the earth rotates the sun? Or that there is such a thing as black holes? Are you admitting that no such experiment is possible?

We know they exist and we know their properties because we have observed them. I'm not disputing that birds exist (nor black holes nor the sun). I'm asking how we do an experiment to show that dinosaurs turned into birds. That is, I'm asking how we do an experiment to prove that a particular, unique, event happened in the past. Your analogies are nothing like that.

I'm sure you're familiar with the fossil record, if not check here I'm familiar with it. Familiar enough to know that, to quote a respected palaeontologist, "there is not one [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument".

Halfway there!*phew* I haven't been timing, but I know I'm way over your 30 minutes, and all I'm doing is repeating answers that I've provided many, many, times before. You really should learn more about the topic you so readily criticise.

This program was designed to show the power of selection, not as evidence for it. Isn't something that's "designed to show" something, evidence by definition?

The program was used to dissolve some of the incredulity some people have when they see a complex natural organism and told it is the product of natural selection. First, biblical creationists objections are not ones of incredulity. Secondly, the main issue here is the ability of mutations to generate the variations that natural selection selects from. It's not really about the power of natural selection itself.

...it was designed to work under non-random selection! But non-random (artificial; intelligent) selection is not an issue!

I understand that you are likely to be a fundamentalist, though not a strict bible literalist, ... I reject the pejorative label "fundamentalist" unless it is clearly used in the sense of accepting the fundamental truths of the Bible. I read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which is literally where it is meant to be understood literally, such as describing historical events, but figuratively where the language is figurative. I don't believe, for example, that Jesus is made of wood and has a handle and hinges attached (John 10:9, KJV).

That one would use the bible instead of personal reasoning is beyond me. It's beyond you why one would rely on an authoritative source for historical events rather than trying to figure them out for yourself? So what's your "personal reasoning" on, say, the first World War, if you eschew using authoritative reference books?

Yes, you do use logic, reasoning and fact, but when that contradicts your biblical viewpoint it immediately becomes bad science, logic or reasoning. So if conclusion A contradicts conclusion B, and (for the sake of argument) A is correct, then surely it's correct to describe the thinking that led to conclusion B as "bad"?

Now, your point is "That Dawkins' program doesn't realistically replicate evolution" but of course it doesn't! I never meant that, it's just a fun program that demonstrates natural selection. Oh, is that all. Then, yet again, I urge you to study what creationists actually believe, because they accept natural selection. Hang on a tic; you should already be aware of that, because in this very discussion, you've discussed the point that a creationist described the idea before Darwin. Perhaps not studying creation isn't the problem. Perhaps it's an inability to remember things beyond a few days?

I'd also like you to read this page, so you can "refute" what I've said without using an escape hatch. Another piece of RW junk? What for? The article accuses creationists of using arguments that they don't use (such as Goddidit, meaning that we invoke God simply because we have no other explanation) or arguments that make perfect sense (such as things being different before the flood/fall), but misrepresenting them (claiming that things were different before the flood or Fall, for example, has always been part of the argument, is is not "arbitrarily changing the rules" as claimed by RW).

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit break

You really should learn more about the topic you so readily criticise. Pot/Kettle...Ace McWicked 20:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

...arguments that make perfect sense... Erm, ah, OK. Sterile 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pot/Kettle I knew you'd feel you had to comment. But yet again, you're comparing chalk and cheese. My comment was in the context of an earlier comment in the same discussion: This is a pretty basic point of biblical creation, yet you seem ignorant of it. Which leads me to conclude that you have very little knowledge of the idea you fulminate against. (emphasis added). As before, I'm saying that someone should have at least a basic understanding before criticising a topic. I never said that they should be an expert in every area, which is how you use it against me.

Erm, ah, OK. Well, they do! Do seriously question that things would change as a result of both the Fall and the Flood?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 10:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit break. I have a lot to get through (I used a word processor to count 2019 words in it)and I can't properly refute this before I go to bed. I've just been summarising your points and then I'll get to refuting them tomorrow.Several ingredients 10:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No hurry. I've got plenty of other discussions that I'm yet to reply to! Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But yet again, you're comparing chalk and cheese. Well, it isn't as when we started our discussion you didn't even have a basic understanding but I have come to expect this deflection of valid criticism from you. Carry on. Ace McWicked 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess there's an aspect of this that I haven't emphasised. I have only ever used the criticism in connection with the creation viewpoint as a whole. I've not criticised anyone for not understanding the basics of baraminology, nor of genetic information, nor of the RATE project. You are accusing me of only having a basic understanding of a particular theory, not of uniformitarianism/evolution as a whole. You will notice in my quote of myself above I didn't say a pretty basic point of biblical creation's philosophy of science, but a pretty basic point of biblical creation. That is, it's basic to the overall worldview, not to one particular aspect of it. Your criticism of my knowledge of the Big Bang is about my knowledge of a particular aspect of the secular worldview, and that is how my criticism differs from yours, and hence how I'm not being hypocritical. Now it might seem I'm splitting hairs, but that aspect—that I'm talking about things that are basic to the worldview—has always been a fundamental distinction in my mind. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are setting yourself up now, so broadly, as to always be able to defend a charge of hypocrisy. No matter what you misunderstand you can always say "Yeah, but that is one particular aspect, I understand the larger uniformitarianism/evolution as a whole". Sneaky. Ace McWicked 20:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And, if I were to accept the above then you are arguing dishonestly and with out assuming good faith via arguing vehemently on material you haven't read against a person who has. Ace McWicked 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are setting yourself up now, so broadly... As I've already said, this is something I always had in mind, not something I'm doing "now".

...you can always say "Yeah, but that is one particular aspect, I understand the larger uniformitarianism/evolution as a whole" Yes, I can, because I do. The sorts of ignorance I'm talking about would be paralleled by a creationist who doesn't realise that evolution has moved on from Larmarkism, or that the Big Bang has replaced the Steady State hypothesis, or who thinks that evolutionists' only source of information is Origin of the Species.

...you are arguing ... vehemently on material you haven't read against a person who has. So what am I supposed to do? Not argue because you've read something I haven't? Aren't I allowed to critique and even disagree with your argument? I read many of your links, but was not convinced that they refuted the point I was arguing.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 07:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So what am I supposed to do? Not argue because you've read something I haven't? Well, yes - because what I had read was his direct work written by his very own hand. I don't argue about what specific beliefs Russell Humphreys has in cosmology because I am fairly unfamiliar with his work. It would be extremely rude, ignorant, arrogant and pig headed of me to argue with someone about his (Humphreys) beliefs, someone who has read and studied his specific work, if I had very little understanding of it. Which is exactly what you were doing. I had studied Guths work for years, read many of his papers and his original work where he laid out his beliefs specifically and followed those who built on his work. It is an extremely dishonest, and arrogant, argument to insist I am wrong when admitting you didn't actually know what he really meant and then still arguing I was incorrect even when I quoted from his book. Have you read anything by Guth?

Aren't I allowed to critique and even disagree with your argument? yes, but you have provided nothing in the way of a rebuttal, no links (aside from four quotes back in April) no cogent reasoning aside from "I don't agree".

I read many of your links, but was not convinced that they refuted the point I was arguing. my comments on your talkpage relate to this. Ace McWicked 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't argue about what specific beliefs Russell Humphreys has in cosmology because I am fairly unfamiliar with his work. It would be extremely rude, ignorant, arrogant and pig headed of me to argue with someone about his (Humphreys) beliefs, ... Perhaps you should pop over to talk:Human genome and tell that to Martin Arrowsmith, who hasn't read Sanford but has been arguing with me (who has read him) based on what I've quoted of him. And I haven't criticised him for that. I don't agree with your opinion on it being rude, etc.

Have you read anything by Guth? You linked to some of his stuff, didn't you? And I read some of your links, so the answer is probably yes.

yes, but you have provided nothing in the way of a rebuttal Nonsense. I have provided extensive rebuttal. That you don't agree with it doesn't mean that I haven't provided it, nor does it mean that it wasn't cogent. To claim that all I've said is that "I don't agree" is simply wrong.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

tell that to Martin Arrowsmith Why? I haven't been following the conversation and my quibble is with you. So you think its fine to argue about things you haven't fully studied, understood or about things you haven't read? Remember this? That is a very poor standard of debate and I find it quite insulting that you'll mount such disagreements while admitting you don't think you need to do the research.

You linked to some of his stuff, didn't you? And I read some of your links, so the answer is probably yes. Yes, you have now because I provided it so you'd see beyond the single quote you attribured to Guth. I meant before you started debating me on it - had you read anything by Guth?

I have provided extensive rebuttal. Where? How? I see no links, no references, you have only provided your disagreement backed up by nothing. Ace McWicked 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Should we archive this page? As much as I'd like to keep the discussion on one page, I can't help but think that some browsers can't handle editing it.Several ingredients 05:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've put an edit break in, which should help. I don't want to archive an ongoing discussion, but most of the page is that discussion. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 10:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Explaining my reversion

Awc asked me in an edit comment to explain my reversion of two of his edits, in which reversion I put "Revert last two changes made for reasons that are incorrect.", so here goes. The following are his edit comments that I called incorrect.

• "The offspring may also have *more* information (to the extent that the concept even makes sense) than either parent."

I withdraw my comment about this one; I misread the new wording, sorry.

• "by some definitions this is new information; but it is certainly not new genes"

It is also not what I had for breakfast, but we don't mention that, because it's not relevant. The same here. The section is talking about genetic information, and the point is to highlight that genetic recombination doesn't introduce any new (genetic) information, so changing that to genes is to introduce a new argument. I also question what he means by "by some definitions". I know that some armchair evolutionists deny the existence of genetic information, and perhaps some professional evolutionists do too, but that is not reason to doubt that it really is information.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 23:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)