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

Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Digest Number 1927

Expand Messages
  • Paul Andrew King
    ... And what is the point of altering the currriculum for something only a few will be able to evaluate - and those will see it as false anyway. If you were
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 28, 2003
      > >Michael: Let the students decide for themselves whether Spetner's
      >>calculations are incorrect, especially since no evolutionist is willing
      >>to dispute them on talkorigins.
      >
      >Paul: As I thought you want Spetner's argument included because you
      >thoink
      >you might be able to fool some of the students.
      >
      >Michael: I want Spetner's calculations included so that those students
      >who have the mathematical knowledge can analyze whether his calculations
      >are correct.

      And what is the point of altering the currriculum for something only
      a few will be able to evaluate - and those will see it as false
      anyway. If you were telling the truth you should have examples which
      all the students could evaluate. But you don;t even consider that -
      so I know that you were lying - making excuses to try to get
      Spetner's arguments in.

      >
      >>Michael: Spetner did not mention the subjects of the articles that were
      >>rejected by scientific journals but the reason for the rejection was not
      >>because of any errors in the articles.
      >
      >Paul: And how would you know that ?
      >
      >Michael: One article was rejected because their was insufficient interest
      >in the subject.

      You have evaded the question. Howeve you have implicitly admitted
      that these particular calculations were not included. Obviously
      Spetner has not even tried to get his results published in the
      scientiffc literature.

      >
      >>Michael: Then what is the reason for your not willing to read a new copy
      >>of Spetner's book despite the fact that it costs only around $10.47 but
      >>is willing to read a used copy of the book as long as it can be found in
      >>the UK?
      >
      >Paul: I never said that I was unwilling to READ a new copy.
      >
      >Now are you going to stop lying ?
      >
      >Michael: Don't you remember saying that you weren't willing to pay full
      >price for Spetner's book, Not By Chance!?

      Yes, I do. But that is not refusing to read it.

      > I even told you that
      >Amazon.com had used copies of the book, but you said that you would only
      >purchase a used copy from the UK.

      Which again is not refusing to read it.

      > But forget about the past, just tell
      >everyone why you haven't read Spetner's book.

      Because I have never even seen a copy. Give me one and I'll read it.

      Now why don't you apologise for lying ?

      >
      >>Michael: Since you haven't seen the math, how do you know?
      >
      >Paul: THe same way I know that there is no proof that 2 + 2 = 5.
      >THere CAN'T be a mathematical proof because it is alrady DISPROVEN.
      >
      >Michael: I will repost the e-mail that Spetner sent me on 12-11-02.

      Oh the old trick of repeating a refuted argument and hoping that
      nobody notices.

      >
      >Unless two mutations (i.e. alleles that arose from mutations) are
      >genetically linked, at least on the same chromosome, they will experience
      >
      >selection independently

      Just as my refutation assumes !


      >. And even if they are on the same chromosome,
      >they
      >have to somehow get into the same individual if they are to be selected
      >together.

      No problem there ! Unless Spetner assumes that horses reproduce by
      parthenogenesis

      > Each allele will confer its own selective advantage on the
      >organism containing it, and the alleles will be selected independently.

      Just as I assumed. (DId you actually tell Spetner what my argument
      WAS ? Becuae HE doesn't seem to know ! Is that why you don't want
      me to communicate with Spetner ?)

      >As
      >selection proceeds, the frequency of each in the population will go up or
      >
      >down randomly, but with the bias associated with its selection
      >coefficient.

      Still consistent with my assumptions

      >One can easily show mathematically that the gene frequencies are stable
      >only when all but one of the alleles of a given gene are eliminated. A
      >population rarely arrives at this stable state, but an evolutionary
      >change
      >is said to occur when the frequencies of all competing alleles are
      >sufficiently low and that of one allele is nearly 100%. If two mutations
      >are genetically linked, then they will be selected together for or
      >against.
      >It would be very unlikely that under the random conditions that prevail
      >in
      >natural selection that two independent mutations should work their way
      >together to become the majority of the population.

      WHich my argument does NOT assume.

      > A more probable way to
      >
      >get both mutations to dominate the population is to do it successively.

      Spetner doesn't explain why and doesn't deal with the fact that my
      calculations INCLUDE successive steps that he ignores.

      >
      >Notice that according to Spetner "it would be very unlikely that under
      >the random conditions that prevail in natural selection that two
      >independent mutations should work their way together to become the
      >majority of the population." Now let's see the mathematical proof that
      >this is incorrect.

      I don't need to. That isn't my argument. All I've done is some
      simple calculations using Spetner's numbers AND THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS
      SPETNER MAKES ABOVE ! I already HAVE my results. You've seen them.
      So where is Spenter's refutation ? Why does he just produce this
      waffle that doesn't deal with the real issue ?

      >
      >> In fact, what
      >>is the relevance of all this since you claim that you don't know whether
      >>your supposed refutations change Spetner's conclusion that evolution is
      >>so improbable that it couldn't have happened?
      >
      >Paul: The relevance is that THIS argument HAS been disproven.
      >
      >As you know. So please don't try to pretend otherwise.
      >
      >THe reason I don;t know if it affects the conclusion is that I don't
      >know if there are any OTHER arguments in the book.
      >
      >Michael: Then you must wonder whether the reason that there is no
      >refutation of Spetner's calculations on talkorigins is that there are
      >OTHER arguments in his book which show that evolution is so improbable
      >that it couldn't have happened.

      Not seriously. And there are articles elsewhere dealing with other
      parts of Spetner's claims.

      > But it is strange that you would not
      >have the curiosity to read Spetner's book and see whether these other
      >arguments exist.

      Because I HAVE read some of Spetner's other writings and I find them
      to be poorly argued and even dishonest.

      >
      >>>Michael: Then name the ancestors of the following phyla:
      >>> 1) Arthropoda
      >>> 2) Brachiopoda
      >>> 3) Echinodermata
      >>
      >>Paul: I don;t claim to be an expert.
      >>
      >>Michael: Then you don't go around claiming that the trace fossils in the
      >>Precambrian are the ancestors of the phyla in the Cambrian.
      >
      >Paul: I stated that they are BELIEVED to be. For good reasons.
      >
      >Michael: What are these reasons and associate the particular trace fossil
      >with the phylum it belongs to or was an ancestor to.

      See Eric's post.

      >
      >>>Michael: The Cambrian began 543 million years ago. Surely, fossils
      >from
      >>>the Precambrian, let's say 800 million years ago would have a better
      >>>chance of surviving geological activities such as earthquakes, than
      >>>fossils 2.7 billion years old.
      >>
      >>Paul: Provided you ignore numerous other relevant factors.
      >>
      >>Michael: What are these relevant factors?
      >
      >Paul: For a start the time period in which the animals that became the
      >fossils lived. The Precambrian covers billions of years.
      >
      >Michael: The fossils of cyanobacteria 3.3 billion to 3.5 billion years
      >old have been discovered. If the fossils of such small organisms could
      >have been preserved and survived tectonic activity for such a long time,
      >surely more recent fossils would have survived. Remember, according to
      >evolution the Precambrian should have been teeming with life in order to
      >produce all the phyla which appear in the Cambrian.

      Of course here we have a VERY abundant life form, one that existed
      for a very much greater period of time and which involves yet other
      forms of fossilisation.
      Did you even THINK about those facts ? They are easy enough to find out.

      >
      >>Michael: A 0.7 waist to hip ratio will give women an hourglass figure,
      >>which is what men find attractive. Watch the Miss Universe beauty
      >>pageant; from the head down the women are similar. This would indicate
      >>that men worldwide genetically find a certain shape in women attractive.
      >
      >Paul: And the changes in waist measurement deemed important - from the
      >corsets of the 19th century to the more "tubular" figure favoured not
      >so long ago suggest that even there there are cultural factors.
      >
      >Michael: The corsets were probably used to produce the 0.7 waist to hip
      >ratio.

      I guess that you haven't even looked. No, it was much more extreme than that.

      > Did Marilyn Monroe have a "tubular" figure?

      You are WAY behind the times if you are suggesting that Marilyn
      Monroe is a counter-example! Given the number of times you ave
      referred to fashion models you HAVE to know that I'm right.

      > The researcher who
      >came up with the 0.7 waist to hip ratio researched the vital statistics
      >of Playboy centerfolds through the years and the 0.7 waist to hip ratio
      >has remained constant.

      So we shouldn't be looking at fashion models - we should consider
      Playboy centrefolds instead. So why did you try to use fashion
      models as your examples again ?

      >
      >>> Think of what would happen
      >>>if this ratio is exceeded. The hips would have to be wider to
      >>>accommodate the larger upper thighs. But this would change the 0.7
      >>waist
      >>>to hip ratio. Of course, the legs could become thinner. But this
      >would
      >>>indicate less muscle and an unhealthier woman. Consequently, the best
      >>>explanation is that men were created to find high heels on women
      >>>attractive, just like they were created to find earrings, makeup, and
      >>>long, polished fingernails on women attractive.
      >>
      >>Paul: No,, the logical answer is to think that this argument is pure
      >>desperation on the part of a dishonest individual desperate to defend
      >>his false beliefs.
      >>
      >>Michael: The above argument refutes your claim that men evolved to find
      >>an unnaturally large leg length to body ratio attractive. Yet your only
      >>response is that it is a desperate argument.
      >
      >Paul: Yes, my response is that your argument is a piece of desperation -
      >because it it.
      >It does not refute my ACTUAL argument. It does not even prove the
      >point it claims to prove - indeed if the ratio REALLY was related to
      >the health of the woman then natural selection would be an adequate
      >explanation
      >
      >Michael: Natural selection would be an explanation for a natural leg
      >length to body ratio but you are claiming that men are attracted to the
      >larger leg length to body ratio produced by high heels. Consequently,
      >you have to explain the selective advantage of this unnatural leg length
      >to body ratio.

      You know full well that I never claimed that there was any selective
      advantage. So no I don't have to to explain it because I don't have
      to accept your misrepresentations as facts


      --
      --
      "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
      immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
      in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
      Guide to Taoism_

      Paul K.
    • Michael Tong
      ... Paul: And what is the point of altering the currriculum for something only a few will be able to evaluate - and those will see it as false anyway. If you
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 4 4:41 PM
        >Michael: I want Spetner's calculations included so that those students
        >who have the mathematical knowledge can analyze whether his calculations
        >are correct.

        Paul: And what is the point of altering the currriculum for something
        only
        a few will be able to evaluate - and those will see it as false
        anyway. If you were telling the truth you should have examples which
        all the students could evaluate. But you don;t even consider that -
        so I know that you were lying - making excuses to try to get
        Spetner's arguments in.

        Michael: As I said before, for the less advanced students, the teacher
        could skip some of the mathematics. In any subject, the more advanced
        students get more in depth coverage. The very purpose of presenting
        Spetner's calculations is for the students to critique. If a student
        determines they are false, he could write an article in talkorigins to
        that effect; something that no evolutionist has so far been willing to
        do.

        >Michael: One article was rejected because their was insufficient
        interest
        >in the subject.

        Paul: You have evaded the question. Howeve you have implicitly admitted
        that these particular calculations were not included. Obviously
        Spetner has not even tried to get his results published in the
        scientiffc literature.

        Michael: In his correspondence with Dr. Max in talkorigins, Spetner did
        not mention what articles were rejected.

        > But forget about the past, just tell
        >everyone why you haven't read Spetner's book.

        Paul: Because I have never even seen a copy. Give me one and I'll read
        it.

        Now why don't you apologise for lying ?

        Michael: I apologize for saying that you aren't willing to read Spetner's
        book, Not By Chance! It would have been more accurate for me to say that
        you aren't willing to pay $10.47 for a new copy of the book at Amazon.com
        nor are you willing to buy a used copy of the book at Amazon.com for a
        lesser price unless the book can be found in the UK. Now, tell us, why
        have you placed all these restrictions on buying the book?

        >Notice that according to Spetner "it would be very unlikely that under
        >the random conditions that prevail in natural selection that two
        >independent mutations should work their way together to become the
        >majority of the population." Now let's see the mathematical proof that
        >this is incorrect.

        Paul: I don't need to. That isn't my argument. All I've done is some
        simple calculations using Spetner's numbers AND THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS
        SPETNER MAKES ABOVE ! I already HAVE my results. You've seen them.
        So where is Spenter's refutation ? Why does he just produce this
        waffle that doesn't deal with the real issue ?

        Michael: As I said before, Spetner appears to be a busy person. Put your
        criticisms of Spetner's calculations on talkorigins and it might be worth
        his time to respond. But you refuse to do so because you say that there
        might be other arguments in Spetner's book that proves that evolution is
        so improbable that it couldn't have happened. Why should Spetner spend
        his time on someone who doesn't even have the curiosity to check out
        whether these other arguments exist?

        >Michael: Then you must wonder whether the reason that there is no
        >refutation of Spetner's calculations on talkorigins is that there are
        >OTHER arguments in his book which show that evolution is so improbable
        >that it couldn't have happened.

        Paul: Not seriously. And there are articles elsewhere dealing with other

        parts of Spetner's claims.

        Michael: The topic is Spetner's calculations showing evolution to be very
        improbable. Where are there articles refuting these calculations?

        > But it is strange that you would not
        >have the curiosity to read Spetner's book and see whether these other
        >arguments exist.

        Paul: Because I HAVE read some of Spetner's other writings and I find
        them
        to be poorly argued and even dishonest.

        Michael: What are some of these other writings?

        >Michael: What are these reasons and associate the particular trace
        fossil
        >with the phylum it belongs to or was an ancestor to.

        Paul: See Eric's post.

        Michael: See my response to Eric's post.

        >Michael: The fossils of cyanobacteria 3.3 billion to 3.5 billion years
        >old have been discovered. If the fossils of such small organisms could
        >have been preserved and survived tectonic activity for such a long time,
        >surely more recent fossils would have survived. Remember, according to
        >evolution the Precambrian should have been teeming with life in order to
        >produce all the phyla which appear in the Cambrian.

        Paul: Of course here we have a VERY abundant life form, one that existed
        for a very much greater period of time and which involves yet other
        forms of fossilisation.
        Did you even THINK about those facts ? They are easy enough to find out.

        Michael: But in order to evolve the organisms in the Cambrian, the
        Precambrian should have been teeming with life. Even Darwin said that
        in an interval of time equal to or greater than the time from the
        Cambrian to the present, there must have been an abundance of life to
        account for the varied life forms in the Cambrian. Yet, very few of
        these life forms have been found.

        >Michael: The corsets were probably used to produce the 0.7 waist to hip
        >ratio.

        Paul: I guess that you haven't even looked. No, it was much more extreme
        than that.

        Michael: But this extreme use of corsets haven't survived through time,
        which means it was some cultural fad. In contrast, high heels have been
        worn continuously since its conception. Moreover, it has spread
        worldwide since its origin in Europe. This is evidence that its
        attraction is genetic.

        > Did Marilyn Monroe have a "tubular" figure?

        Paul: You are WAY behind the times if you are suggesting that Marilyn
        Monroe is a counter-example! Given the number of times you ave
        referred to fashion models you HAVE to know that I'm right.

        Michael: Marilyn Monroe was considered gorgeous in the 50's as well as in
        the present. Your Elton John even wrote a song in tribute to her called,
        Candle in the Wind. It was later replayed when Princess Diana died.

        > The researcher who
        >came up with the 0.7 waist to hip ratio researched the vital statistics
        >of Playboy centerfolds through the years and the 0.7 waist to hip ratio
        >has remained constant.

        Paul: So we shouldn't be looking at fashion models - we should consider
        Playboy centrefolds instead. So why did you try to use fashion
        models as your examples again ?

        Michael: We should be looking at beautiful women. Are you suggesting
        that Playboy centerfolds are poor examples of beautiful women?

        >Michael: Natural selection would be an explanation for a natural leg
        >length to body ratio but you are claiming that men are attracted to the
        >larger leg length to body ratio produced by high heels. Consequently,
        >you have to explain the selective advantage of this unnatural leg length
        >to body ratio.

        Paul: You know full well that I never claimed that there was any
        selective
        advantage. So no I don't have to to explain it because I don't have
        to accept your misrepresentations as facts

        Michael: You claimed that men find high heels on women attractive because
        it exaggerate their leg length. If this attraction is genetic, then
        there must be a selective advantage. If this attraction is not genetic,
        then how did it originate?

        Yours truly,
        Michael

















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