Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What kind of evidence is acceptable?

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    David Williams: You like to quote the above a lot. I put the stuff earlier about endosymbiosis because it is an example of cell mergers. You may also have read
    Message 1 of 119 , Dec 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      David Williams: You like to quote the above a lot. I put the stuff earlier
      about endosymbiosis because it is an example of cell mergers. You may also
      have read in Dr. Shapiro's book about horizontal gene transfer. One example
      of this is the transfer of antibiotic resistance between unrelated
      bacteria. Another example is the transfer of genes from mitochondria to the
      cell nucleus. Mitochondria cannot make all of its proteins anymore even
      though it has a nucleus. It can make some, but the cell makes the rest.
      One can read about sentient bacteria that can band together in a biofilm
      and show intelligent cooperation and then one can watch it try to kill. It
      was scary. Dr. Shapiro calls his hypothesis, natural genetic engineering.
      I think it might also be referred to as evolution through intelligent
      design, with the intelligent agents being the cells themselves. Some
      people seem to me to think of an intelligent agent as some kind of project
      engineer who designs life forms in some kind of office in another
      dimension. There is no way a present to scientifically detect such
      activity. But the work of cellular intelligent agents can be scientifically
      studied.

      David Williams: I found out about the intelligent behavior or red ants in
      Oklahoma one 4th of July. I put a fire cracker in an ant hill and lit it.
      Immediately, a platoon of red ants marched up the fire cracker and put out
      the fuse with their abdomens. While I was watching this with fascination, 2
      other platoons marched up my legs and bit me. I never tried to blow up ant
      hills again.

      David Williams: Intelligent behavior does not necessarily have to be
      directed by a marionette. An animal does not need a brain to see.

      Charles P: Thank you, David. I am glad that you have read Dr. Shapiro's
      book. Now I don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I keep repeating the quotes
      in hopes that someone else would read the book and share their
      interpretations of the evidence.

      Charles P: I have been trying to draw attention to animal echolocation
      under the subject of The Gaps Are Real, but that subject has changed its
      content to discussion of Bible scripture.

      Charles P: Common ancestry within a group is self-evident. Common
      ancestry between non-related groups is not self-evident. Animal
      echolocation is an example of common design between non-related groups.
      Without empirical and verifiable evidence to support the evolution
      of animal echolocation in non-related groups, why should science writers
      not exclude common ancestry of non-related groups from evolution theories?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      D R Lindberg (To Jim in Missouri): You agreed that intermediate fossils can be identified independently of of theory. That eliminates any circularity. Charles
      Message 119 of 119 , Jan 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        D R Lindberg (To Jim in Missouri): You agreed that intermediate fossils
        can be identified independently of of theory. That eliminates any
        circularity.

        Charles P: The old idea of *transitional fossils* from the old Theory of
        Evolution is not acceptable as empirical and verifiable evidence. Naming
        them *intermediate* or some other name is a distinction without a
        difference. Arguing *circularity* draws attention away from the central
        issue. Look at this unscientific collection of intermediate fossils that
        does not even meet the standards of Wikipedia. This page was last modified
        on 14 January 2013 at 03:13.

        List of transitional fossils:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.

        1 This article needs additional citations for verification.

        2 This documentation needs attention from an expert in Palaeontology.

        Introduction to cladistics:
        http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html There are three basic
        assumptions in cladistics: (1) Any group of
        organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor. Please read (2)
        and (3) for additional information.

        Charles P: Everyone understands human genealogy and the concept of *common
        ancestor* for humans. Everyone understands dog genealogy and the concept
        of *common ancestor* for dogs. Why should anyone consider the concept of a
        *common ancestor* between living things that are self-evident as being very
        different?

        Phylogenetic trees:
        http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phylogenetic+trees Limitations.

        1 Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or
        genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they
        have important limitations.

        2 When extinct species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as
        it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.

        3 Scepticism must apply when extinct species are included in trees that
        are wholly or partly based on DNA sequence data, due to the fact that
        little useful "ancient DNA" is preserved for longer than 100,000 years, and
        except in the most unusual circumstances no DNA sequences long enough for
        use in phylogenetic analyses have yet been recovered from material over 1
        million years old.

        Understanding homology and analogy:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 Note:
        There is no empirical and verifiable method for determining *common
        ancestry* between non-related living things.

        Charles P: Common ancestry is assumed in the science of cladistics.
        Transitional fossils are assumed to be intermediate between other fossils.
        Transitional fossils are extinct species. Transitional fossils are
        terminal nodes. Transitional fossils are unlikely to be direct ancestors
        of any extant species.

        **********************************************

        Charles P: The skeptic does not have to qualify as a *creationist*. The
        skeptic does not have to qualify as an *Intelligent Design Theorist*. The
        skeptic does not have to qualify as *anti-science*. All a skeptic needs is
        to do their homework to verify for themselves what is scientific and what
        is not scientific.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.