I generally follow US political news fairly closely so you would think that the public hearings on the riot on January 6th would not contain much that is new to me. But I have been impressed at how well put together the hearings have been, with the committee combining live testimony with previous closed-door testimony to lay out a clear and coherent picture of what happened and why. What it laid out was a damning indictment of what a lying, lawless, person Donald Trump is.
What the hearings reveal is that what happened on January 6th was the culmination of a plan hatched by Trump and a few of his close political advisors, based on a hare-brained theory concocted by a lawyer named John Eastman, that Mike Pence had the power to unilaterally overturn the results, a theory that all the legal and other sane people working in the White House and justice department thought was utterly crazy and possibly criminal. They told Eastman and Trump so but they went ahead anyway, which shows criminal intent.
The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol presented evidence on Thursday that Donald Trump was told his last-gasp attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election was unlawful but forged ahead anyway.
Trump then pressured his vice-president, Mike Pence, to reject a tally of state electors as part of a plot that brought the country “dangerously close to catastrophe”, the panel heard.
…Trump was told repeatedly that the plan was unlawful, according to witnesses and testimony from his closest advisers. Yet in the final days before Congress was due to certify the election results Trump increased his public and private pressure campaign on his loyal lieutenant to do his bidding.
“What the president wanted the vice-president to do was not just wrong, it was illegal and unconstitutional,” Congresswoman Liz Cheney, a Republican of Wyoming and the committee’s vice-chair, said on Thursday.
…The hearing concluded ominously, with a warning from Luttig that the same forces continue to threaten American democracy.
Trump and his allies remain “clear and present danger to American democracy,” Luttig told the panel, not because of what happened on January 6 but because of their determination to “succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020”.
I cannot summarize all what came out in the hearings yesterday, but Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, and Trevor Noah did a good job of it.
Samantha Bee’s show this week was taped before yesterday’s hearings but she gave the background from the previous two hearings.
It is clear that Trump is worried about the effect these hearings are having because today he issued an all-caps statement “I DEMAND EQUAL TIME!!!”.
And yet I suspect that if he was subpoenaed, he would refuse.
It looks like a lot of people might be more gripped by numbers they see on gas pumps and grocery store cash registers.
https://www.westernjournal.com/tv-ratings-jan-6-hearing-viewers-changed-channel-droves/
Mano, you may need to apply the anti-troll spray. PZ did.
jimf @3,
Actually, I find trolls amusing most of the time, to see how vacuous their arguments are and their pitiful attempts to change the subject when it touches on things that look bad for them. They can also be revealing. For example, we now know that txpiper is a Trump acolyte, a gun nut, and an anti-evolutionist, which reveals a lot about them. I suspect that they may also be anti-vaxxers since these seem to form a package.
It is clear that such people are not seeking genuine engagement but merely want to distract. If they start becoming really disruptive, I may take some action but for the moment, I recommend others do what I do, have a good chuckle at the idiocy revealed in their posts, and move on.
@jimf: not everyone is that brittle and intolerant.
@txpiper: you appear to be under the impression the hearings are trying to be, or should be, gripping prime time television. Hint: that’s not what they’re about. The fact they ARE gripping to an engaged, interested minority is just a bonus, but nobody could ever expect the average American to give a shit. Hardly. You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West.
sonofrojblake @#5,
I am surprised that you did not provide a link to this classic scene that you were alluding to, that ends with the punchline you omitted.
sonofrojblake,
With the mid-terms looming, and lots of economic bad news, I think the hearings might have a little to do with distraction.
Mano @6: I think the percentage of readers who know the punchline is not much less than 100.
So Vice President Kamal Harris can reject whatever the people choose and certify whoever she wants as President 🙂 (herself most likely)?
@txpiper @7
I suppose the Democrats planned it all including the insurrection so that they may have something to distract the midterms with -- And being all super intelligent and all they knew how the economy was going to perform (in 2021 no less).But I suppose it could be worse -- If the Republicans were in power we might be staring at a Russia-US war given that war is the favorite distraction of Republicans when things dont go their way.
@txpiper, 7: is it a distraction? Or is nobody watching? I mean… pick one.
sonofrojblake@10,
I’m sure democrats want people to watch and talk about the hearings, but they don’t seem to be drawing much attention. I wonder what the numbers would have been were they just on C-SPAN.
txpiper, being evasive is being evasive. Very noticeable. Not subtle.
I can be less subtle, of course. So:
sonofrojblake is asking you “is it a distraction? Or is nobody watching?”
It can’t be both.
More to the point, your evasion only works if one considers the hearings to have no national or constitutional or legal or political significance — being a distraction and all.
In short, you’re intimating that you consider the hearings to have no merit at all, other than being a distraction.
That they have of no intrinsic significance to you, personally.
Which is fine, but is not answering the question posed to you.
(You responded to it, but you did not answer it)
You have to wonder why DJT wants “equal time” at the hearings, then. Why bother if almost no-one will see it? He could just as easily do his presentation on his own networks and/or sites.
Do you think he’s just stupid, or is it that he’s being ill-advised on how many people are paying attention to the hearings?
John Morales,
” “is it a distraction? Or is nobody watching?” It can’t be both.”
The committee might hope that the hearings draw attention away from other issues, but it might not be doing that. So it could be both, a failed distraction due to low viewership.
===
Owlmirror,
“You have to wonder why DJT wants “equal time” at the hearings, then.”
I have no idea. Chairman Thompson has already let it be known that committee will not be making any any criminal referrals. Were I Trump I would ignore these proceedings.
txpiper:
A failed distraction, by its nature, fails to be an actual distraction. So, no, it cannot be both.
But I know what you mean… you intended to say an attempted distraction.
Except you didn’t.
Anyway, if it has in fact failed or was merely an attempt, what’s the problem with its continuance? It has no significance, since it does not distract.
Very committal of you. “might” indeed, “might not” indeed.
Which goes to show you know nothing about Trump’s character.
You’re making the same type of conceptual error; here: if you were Trump, you would act like Trump, else you would not be like Trump.
In any event, we know damn well how he has reacted. With empty bluster.
(You do know how to find stuff on the internet, no?)
John Morales,
Very penetrating analysis. You win. You need to put those skills to work sorting out how random DNA replication errors produced those gears.
You thought you were in some sort of competition? Heh.
(That you imagine pointing out the obvious is some sort of “win” is informative)
Please explain this knowledge you claim to have about their thoughts and desires. Psychic abilities, or projecting your assumptions?
#4 Mano
It is difficult to find a better example of this than comment #16!
“I DEMAND EQUAL TIME!!!”
So… He wants the January 6th committee to have 6 or 7 more years of free, widespread publicity before he gets to respond? I’m fine with that. Strange that he’s suggesting it, though.
@txpiper: You’re not convincing anyone because your take involves arguing both sides of one issue: politicians and accountability. On the one hand, you want maximum accountability for gas prices. On the other you seem dismissive of an attempt to greatly reduce the degree of accountability politicians have on any issue to the people they govern. That’s what authoritarian coups do, they make the government only accountable to those who could fund another coup. Gas prices would be the least of your concerns at that point. No politician would be accountable to you for those or anything else.
I suppose if you’re very, very rich this makes sense. The coup would have installed a government that was more responsive to you in particular in that case. But for 99.9%+ of Americans it would just be installing a government that had little reason to even pretend to care what they wanted anymore. I’m not rich enough for them to listen to me and I doubt anyone else here is either.
This is why your arguments all read as gibberish. And why you should probably rethink your bad take on this. Unless you’re a billionaire, you’re supporting ideas that even go against your own personal interests.
lanir,
“You’re not convincing anyone….”
Of what? Polls seem to indicate that people are noticing economic problems that they are associating with democrat policies. I see no reason to doubt that democrats want to draw attention away from those problems, but the J6 hearings viewership is fading. That is my perception, but I could be wrong.
Mano Singham @ # 4: I suspect that they may also be anti-vaxxers since these seem to form a package.
Yep, somewhere on FtB a couple of weeks ago txpiper expressed a preference for “naturally-acquired immunity” in a discussion of vaccination (an excellent example of failed distraction, at least).
So far the pattern of across-the-board wrongness persists unbroken. A hint for txpiper: try getting something right, just to make your comments potentially slightly interesting!
Pierce R. Butler,
I’m not a good match for Mano’s Trump acolyte, gun nut, anti-evolutionist and anti-vax package,
The only time I recall ever mentioning Donald Trump in an FTB discussion was in response to Owlmirror’s question above. I am not an NRA member, have no cc license, and own no rifles. I was Moderna vaccinated. And I’m not so much anti-evolution as I am aware that you have to believe in stupid things in order to accept baseline evolutionary dogma.
txpiper @ # 23: … you have to believe in stupid things in order to accept baseline evolutionary dogma.
Doubtlessly I’ll regret this, but it’s been a slow day: name those “stupid things”, please.
“Facts are stupid things”
— Ronald Reagan
txpiper @21
Yeah, because inflation is only affecting the USA ffs.
A good citizen would take great pains to point out that the current global supply crisis started during covid, much of which fell within the trump dictatorship, has been exascerbated by the invasion by putin of Ukraine and subsequent soaring demand for a suddenly diminished supply of oil gas, wheat, bla bla fucking bla.
Your handwaving suggests that you are a chump who perhaps deserves to have had your democracy stolen from you by your glorious billionaire overlords.
The Jan 6 hearings are showing the world that the fuckwit trump should be in jail and that the USA cannot deliver justice in a fair way.
But hey, that’s capitalism folks!
#23 txpiper
But you own multiple other firearms, and you oppose gun buybacks and restrictions except as a last resort. And even then, you will only give yours up for $20,000 each. You are one of the people objecting to the most effective firearm legislation, making you a gun nut.
This comment alone reveals you to be anti-evolution, but your other comments have done as much while also revealing your total lack of knowledge on the topic. To wit, you consider evolution a random process, you think every organism is ‘finished’ and static, you did not know beneficial mutations are retained generationally, you explicitly reject evolution as the origin for complex traits… you are very obviously anti-evolution.
(I don’t know about the other accusations against you as I did not witness your commentary on those topics.)
Nearly a decade ago, I asked txpiper a rather open set of questions which he never answered:
====================
OK, you disbelieve in facts.
Can we try and figure out the prior beliefs or disbeliefs that lead to these current disbeliefs? For example, if you disbelieved in the Titanic disaster, it might be because you disbelieved in icebergs, or passenger ships, or because you imagined that everything known about the Titanic is nothing more than a conspiracy of historians and oceanographers, presumably using props put together by a team of special effects artists.
The age of the Earth follows from radiometric dating of uranium isotopes and their decay products (and of other isotopes/decay products, but let’s keep things simple). Do you deny the existence of uranium, or of isotopes, or of radioactive decay? Do you imagine that spectroscopy and radiation detectors are figments of physicists’ minds? Do you imagine that the atomic bombs tested in and deployed by the US were just conventional explosives that were magically scaled up? Do you imagine that fission plants all secretly have coal furnaces that make them go?
Maybe it’s even deeper than that.
Do you deny the existence of atoms? Do you imagine that chemicals are magical irreducible essences?
The age of the universe follows from an analysis of the cosmic background radiation.
Do you deny the existence of this radiation? Do you imagine that the radiation signature has not been properly analyzed? Do you imagine that the speed of light is not what it has been measured to be?
====================
And I’ll add a couple more for good luck: Is there anything about radiometric dating or cosmological dating that you think is actually stupid to believe?
Those simply burning with curiosity as to what txpiper sees through that the world’s biologists haven’t may enjoy a sneak peek via PZ Myers (who made a post and a video in response to a txpiper email; the post, alas, got multiple comments but none from txpiper, at least under that ‘nym). Prof. Myers sums up txpiper’s case in 7 points, all long-standing creationist clichés.
txpiper @ # 23: I am not an NRA member, have no cc license, and own no rifles.
But does admit to owning multiple firearms.
txpiper @ # 23: I was Moderna vaccinated.
But left some wiggle room with the previous, rather contradictory, statement at From the Ashes of Faith that I’m inclined to prefer naturally acquired antibodies.
I do hope our esteemed host here gets full amusement value from such trollery, because he won’t find any other kind.
ok, now I’m actually curious…
txpiper> you claim not to be a “gun nut”, not to own a cc license (I’m assuming you mean concealed carry, or ar you being vague, evasive, and pseudo-coy again?), and own no rifles? Do you really like shotguns or something?
I’m trying to think of reasonable scenarios where one would own multiple firearms, but no rifles, and I’m sincerely puzzled.
I’ve a little bit of experience with some firearms, and with minimal training, I can maybe hit a human sized target at about 20-30 yards with a handgun. A rifle, at 30 yards, with minimal training, and I can pick which eye to land a round in. Plus, with a rifle, I can hit targets much further out than 30 yards, and the rounds are significantly more powerful. Like, a handgun and a rifle aren’t even in the same class.
Shotguns, I’ve really minimal experience with. I guess there is some more versatility with the ammo? And I’ve heard people claim they are a good choice for “home defense”, but anyone looking to own a firearm for home defense is really bad at risk assessment, so I’m not terribly inclined to put much stock in what they say.
Holms @27
Dont forget all the executions!
txpiper -- comment 37 https://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2022/06/06/what-will-it-take-to-change-peoples-minds-on-guns/
Pierce R. Butler,
“name those “stupid things”, please.”
There are several, but they are all, more or less, related to the mutations/selection paradigm. I mentioned just a few of the reasons why the operational centerpiece of evolutionary theory is not workable in this post . If you disagree, and I’m sure you do, feel free to explain why you believe that it is. I will have some questions for you.
===
Owlmirror,
“Can we try and figure out the prior beliefs or disbeliefs that lead to these current disbeliefs?”
As it pertains to dating, sure we can. It is things like this . This is what I mean I say that you have to believe in stupid things.
txpiper, you haven’t explained what is the stupid thing that needs to be believed.
You also haven’t addressed how that in any way affects radiometric dating, or cosmological dating. How would what you linked to affect radiometric or cosmological dating at all?
Spell it out. Show the actual logic chain. Something.
txpiper @ # 32: … just a few of the reasons why the operational centerpiece of evolutionary theory is not workable …
John Morales and Holms attempted to set you straight in the following comments, but you ran away. Answer them, and Owlmirror here, before claiming any right to any further time from any of the rest of us.
Owlmirror, muscle tissue cannot last for 18 million years. Original biological remnants cannot last for 80 million years , much less 180 million years . You have been deceived.
===
Pierce R. Butler,
I have made no claims in regards to your time.
Once you get past the canned jargon, and actually try to apply the mutations/selection idea, you realize how sappy it is. Evolution has to be presented and taught from a certain direction, and people have to be surreptitiously trained to not ask certain questions. So, they wind up not really knowing a lot about how things are actually supposed to evolve. I don’t blame you for balking.
Why not? What makes it not last? How long can it last?
Do you think that the remnants of organisms encased in amber also cannot last for millions of years?
How does muscle tissue affect radiometric dating?
Owlmirror,
“Why not?”
Because things like cartilage cells, chromosomes and DNA cannot last that long. You believe otherwise out of necessity, not evidence.
.
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od | ˈˌsīənˈtifik ˈmeTHəd |
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses
.
Your atheism is way out in front of your science.
txpiper @ # 35: I have made no claims in regards to your time.
txpiper @ # 32: I will have some questions for you.
Self-contradict much?
Back to # 35: Once you get past the canned jargon, and actually try to apply the mutations/selection idea, you realize how sappy it is.
(a) Anyone who endorses “biblical prophecy” doesn’t have much room to maneuver with such accusations. (b) Nothing you have said anywhere on FtB indicates any “actually trying to apply” scientific techniques anywhere in any way. (c) What PZ said.
The text at the link emphasizes that fragments were found. Why is that a problem?
Are they supposed to completely evaporate or something?
Repeating because you ignored it: Do you think that the remnants of organisms encased in amber also cannot last for millions of years?
Repeating because you ignored it: How does muscle tissue (or cartilage cells, chromosomes and DNA) affect radiometric dating?
How odd that txpiper @ # 37 provides a link which includes a scientist saying
to support a claim that “… DNA cannot last that long.”
Pierce R. Butler,
“How odd that txpiper @ # 37 provides a link which includes a scientist saying…”
That’s not odd at all. That’s a perfect example of an excited sucker who will believe absolutely anything.
txpiper:
If they’re seeing something that isn’t there, then doesn’t that mean that radiometric dating is correct? Regardless of the putative falsity of the muscles/cartilage/chromosomes/DNA, the slow decay of uranium-238 and uranium-235 into other isotopes, and eventually into lead, isn’t based on those, and therefore stands.
txpiper @ # 41: That’s a perfect example of an excited sucker who will believe absolutely anything.
What Pierce R. Butler said @ # 38, (a).
@txpiper:
And for that matter, regardless of the putative falsity of the muscles/cartilage/chromosomes/DNA, the cosmological dating of the universe isn’t based on those either. So the conclusion is that there isn’t 18myo/80myo/180myo soft tissue, but the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
Yes?
Pierce R. Butler,
Tell me about the mutations that you believe produced the gears. Explain it the way Professor Myers would do it. Can you do so without invoking silly rules that you have to believe to make evolution work? Rules like this?
“Every step has to produce a functional organism, because it’s that organism that will construct the next step.”
Would those matching partial pinions have evolved coincidentally, or one at a time? You know, you can’t just make gears out of anything. How many protein experiments would have failed while natural selection was tinkering? Did the mounts evolve separately from the gears? What kind of random DNA copy errors would have coordinated the gears with the leg muscles, and the necessary neurology?
I know these are hard questions, and like I told Professor Myers, there isn’t anything really helpful in the literature. Did you notice that the two papers he referred to, this one and this one didn’t even mention mutations?
Maybe I’m asking too much. Perhaps it would be easier if you just explain why believe in things like this.
txpiper remains fixated on a putative gotcha while refusing to address everyone else’s points, and thinks that calling an elementary evolutionary truism a “silly rule” actually makes a significant point.
{sigh}
How many protein experiments would have failed while natural selection was tinkering?
Quite possibly millions: evolution, as the textbooks txpiper considers too silly to read inform attentive readers, gets ferocious at the individual level. (Still, not so harsh as txpiper’s sado-god.)
… the two papers he referred to… didn’t even mention mutations?
And the US Constitution doesn’t use the phrase “checks and balances” either. The argument from inane literalism works only for inane literalists.
Answer Morales’s and Owlmirror’s questions, please.
Ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
“an elementary evolutionary truism”
No, that rule is not true. It is just another absurd belief. There is no way that random mutations could possible occur so as to develop multiple bio-systems simultaneously. The easy proof of this obvious fact is your (and Professor Myers’) unwillingness to explain how this could possibly happen.
This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that your very poor worldview forces you to believe asinine things.
==
“Quite possibly millions”
Another preposterous belief. There are numerous specialized proteins in a bacterial flagellum. You have to be deliberately obtuse to believe that such a motor assembly could be the product of random failures.
I’m tired of this exchange. You have no serious interest in science, facts of the truth. Believe whatever you like.
@txpiper:
Following up on what I wrote above:
Or rather, that’s the conclusion that you seem to be moving towards, since you’ve posted several such links of findings with blunt statements that you reject them, but nothing suggesting that there’s any problem with radiometric or cosmological dating, or how paleontologists wrongly (according to you) claiming to have found fragments of muscles/cartilage/chromosomes/DNA in dinosaurs could affect radiometric or cosmological dating.
Still:
2x Repeating because you ignored it: Do you think that the remnants of organisms encased in amber also cannot last for millions of years?
@txpiper: Just like the easy proof of the obvious facts that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is about 13.8 billion years old is your unwillingness to explain how the Earth could possibly not be that old or the universe that old..
@txpiper:
Repeating because you ignored it: Are cartilage cells, chromosomes and DNA supposed to completely evaporate, rather than fragmenting as the science article you linked to claimed?
txpiper @ # 48: I’m tired of this exchange.
We all are: you haven’t put forward anything that hasn’t been debunked over and over decades ago.
txpiper, gotta admire your powers of projection.
Let me quess that you are tired of not having your ID or creationist ideas taken seriously by people who believe (to quote you several times in this thread) “stupid things”.
So, genius, pray tell us, how do these complex structures come to be?
I would guess that you can do it in 3 words or less.
God (1)
God did (2)
God did it (3)
#32 txpiper
Why is that example (muscle tissue from a fossil) ‘stupid’? Has the finding been debunked by a method involving real data, perhaps from another team re-analysing the same sample, or are you simply dismissing it because you find it hard to believe?
You then link to two more scientific sources announcing soft tissue findings in fossils in comment #35, and declare those equally stupid without an explanation. Then in #37, another source detailing preserved soft tissue. Making four scientific sources documenting preservation of soft tissue in deep time, which you dismiss out of personal incredulity rather than any data driven argument.
can we please stop trying to legitimately argue with this troll?
Their current go-to is a relatively recent discovery (approximately 10 years ago, by vague, lazy, googling…), and if we can’t instantaneously throw up a detailed ancestral listing with diagrams about how this very niche particular thing evolved, then all of evolution is invalid. period.
It’s a slow-mo gish-gallop/moving goal post claim. As long as the troll can google some recent interesting discovery, the whole field is invalidated, unless everyone knows every detail about everything discovered, ever. It’s shorthand for if the body of science doesn’t know absolutely everything about absolutely everything, right damned now, it’s all completely invalid. And therefore, just that because people are constantly making new discoveries and observations, the whole field and body of knowledge is invalidated because those very same discoveries and observations, are discovered, and observed, before they are investigated.
This person seems to feel that the whole scientific method should be invalidated because the first step often involves making an observation.
Save us all some time, and stop interacting with this troll in good faith, please…
No time of yours is consumed by this interaction. If it is tedious to you, skip it.
lochaber,
“if we can’t instantaneously throw up a detailed ancestral listing with diagrams about how this very niche particular thing evolved”
No, I haven’t asked for anything like that, and you know I haven’t.
You (have to) believe that random DNA copy errors and natural selection gave you a brain with about 86 billion neurons and about 600 trillion synapses. But you can’t begin to imagine how mutations built those gears. You can’t respond to even basic questions, and yet you have immense faith in a chance-dependent process that you can’t even comprehend, much less explain.
Maybe the example I’ve used is over-taxing. Let’s try this. You have muscles called the superior oblique that enable your eyeballs to rotate in certain directions. They work in a pulley arrangement, the pulley being a loop of cartilage called the trochlea of superior oblique muscle. You can see the muscle and the trochlea highlighted in green here
I won’t rattle your sensibilities by asking how for developmental details. Doing that seems to cause some sort of mental shutdown. So, I will ask you an easy question.
Why do you believe so strongly that this very precise and functional system was designed and implemented by random molecular-level accidents?
It’s quite fascinating how txpiper has ignored everything I’ve written since comment #39 (June 20, 2022 at 2:18 pm). I suspect it’s because he can see where I’m going with my lines of argument, and realizes that if he engages with them, he would have to concede that I’m right — or at least, that believing in a ~4.5 billion year old Earth and a ~13.8 billion year old universe is reasonable, and does not require believing anything “stupid”, as he proclaimed above (and, as a possible bonus, that the paleontologists he’s been sneering at aren’t as “stupid” as he proclaims).
However, conceding that he might be wrong is probably too much of a blow to his ego, and I suspect that his next move will be abandon this thread altogether.
txpiper @#57:
Quoted for irony…
Owlmirror,
There are old earth and young earth creationists. I used to be the former, but I provided links showing one of the reasons why I am the latter. But the age of the earth is only an interesting, but non-critical, issue for me. As it pertains to evolution, I don’t really care, but you must. In my view, zillions of years does not make the mutations/selection idea more plausible. But the theory you subscribe to depends on nebulous “deep time” to accomplish miracles. You have to ignore all arguments and anomalies, so there is no point in pursuing the subject.
txpiper, let me fix that for you.
txpiper:
Youngly the latter. 🙂
Kinda sad, really.
Liar. You obviously care.
Cared enough to attempt to distract from your failure to apprehend the significance of the hearings with “You win. You need to put those skills to work sorting out how random DNA replication errors produced those gears.”
(See, bringing it up regularly out of the blue is not the best way to show you don’t care)
Anyway, in response to your suggestion, I don’t need to, being already a thing:
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=genetic+algorithm+produced+gears
No, you showed something that doesn’t makes sense for rejecting an old Earth, and refuse to even discuss the issues.
It’s like you became a Flat-Earther because you saw one of those stupid Youtube videos, and now you don’t want to discuss how the stupid Youtube video was in fact stupid.
Well, it’s an example of how your epistemology is critically flawed.
I’m putting biology and evolution on hold until after I get some traction with the age of the Earth.
txpiper, your entire argument is that because you cannot imagine how a thing could arise, its existence is therefore impossible and belief in it is ‘stupid’. Aside from pointing out that this is an old chestnut of a logical fallacy with applicability that scales with your own ignorance, it prompts me to ask: do you have an explanation for how God came to exist?
@ Holms
Hahahahahaha. Holms, you amuse me no end. (You might want to report this revelation back to bigot HQ.)
The trend in your intelligence is sharply downward lately, Bob.
[Silentbob, a bit nasty to get personal with an allusion to a topic Holms has undertaken to avoid on this blog. Admirably so, hitherto. Kudos, Holms.]
Owlmirror,
“you showed something that doesn’t makes sense for rejecting an old Earth”
If you’re referring to ancient biological remains, the data speaks for itself. The more spectacular the discoveries are, the more the strictures of science seem to melt away to keep the theory from being molested.
“Reports of dinosaur protein and complex organic structure preservation are problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it remains unclear how such organics would be preserved for tens of millions of years. If endogenous, putative dinosaur soft tissues should contain diagenetically unstable proteins and phospholipids, vulnerable to hydrolysis, although the released fatty acid moieties from phospholipids could be stabilized through in situ polymerization into kerogen-like aliphatic structures. At 25°C and neutral pH, peptide bond half-lives from uncatalyzed hydrolysis are too short to allow for Mesozoic peptide preservation, although hydrolysis rates can be decreased through terminal modifications and steric effects on internal bonds. Estimates based on experimental gelatinization suggest that, even when frozen (0°C), relatively intact collagen has an upper age limit of only 2,700,000 years.”
https://elifesciences.org/articles/46205
.
“refuse to even discuss the issues.”
Most of them. Anyone interested can read miles of arguments online. Fatigue has narrowed my interest down to very basic issues, like how embarrassingly pitiful the mutations/selection idea is. That’s the operating system of the faith, and nobody wants to talk about it, either.
You and I would have completely different perspectives on such things as the exposed strata in the Grand Canyon. You see zillions of years, and I see unimaginable catastrophe. I don’t think we are actually interested in each other’s views on the age of the earth.
@txpiper:
So by the link you you provided and cited, those who think they’re seeing such remains are mistaken.
But this doesn’t contradict radiometric dating, so, as I keep having to point out, radiometric dating remains completely unchallenged. The Earth remains being about 4.5 billion years old.
We can talk about how you’re wrong about the rest of geology after we talk about how you’re wrong about the age of the Earth.
I actually am interested in how your views have formed as the result of a confused and broken epistemology.
#67 txpiper
But even there, you display an unwillingness to bother thinking about the evidence.
“But even there, you display an unwillingness to bother thinking about the evidence.”
.
Holms, there is no evidence that supports the foolish notion that random mutations, spaced perhaps thousands of generations or years apart, can pile up until a hyper-complex, regulated, integrated biological system is finished and functional. Things like that do not happen. Evolution is not smarter than you. The mutations/selection idea is a pathetic lie. Mutations are not helpful events, and natural selection is not a fairy that makes atheist dreams come true.
You are having your nose rubbed in evidence, but it does not support the theory of evolution. Sophisticated biological arrangements are exhibitions of craftsmanship, not miraculous accidents.
Yes there is, your argument is still nothing more than an argument from incredulity. You display particular ignorance when you say “Evolution is not smarter than you” -- no, how can it be when it is not a thinking entity at all. “Not even wrong” comes to mind here. Also noted is your confusion of atheism with evolution belief; you should be aware they are separate concepts.
“argument from incredulity”
.
“We believe stupid things, and so should you.”
.
The only thing between you and Suckerville is prudent incredulity. I think that droll mantra originated with Mark Isaak at TalkOrigins. If you want to see credulousness in action, read his 15 easy steps describing how bombardier beetles acquired their defense mechanism. Since you won’t notice, I’ll point out that he doesn’t mention mutations because that would spoil the fairy tale.
.
cred·u·lous | ˈkrejələs |
adjective
having or showing too great a readiness to believe things
No, more like “I don’t understand this. It is not possible for something to be true if I don’t get it -- it must be wrong.”
@ ^
Hahaha. You’re killing me man. Srsly.
So for example, if someone were to say, “the only way I can imagine this common human experience (that I have never personally experienced) is in terms of ‘stereotypes’; therefore all the people who have actually had the experience and say it has nothing to do with ‘stereotypes’ must be wrong”, you would agree that person is a wanker?
(Sorry to be off topic, but Holms arguing against his own argument that nearly got him banned -- without realizing it -- is so hilarious. I won’t comment in this thread again.)
Silentbob, your laughter is as the braying of a donkey.
See, here’s the thing. Ontology.
Evolution is not a subjective experience; human experience, however is.
In short, you are making a category error and braying at your cleverness.
On the record.
#74 sbob
Your issue here is caused by your erroneous recollection of my position; you are essentially arguing against your own strawman. Given that I will not revive those arguments at Mano’s request, this line of argument is futile.
@txpiper:
You’ve constantly (and drearily) proclaimed that we believe stupid things about science because we’re atheists, but of course, that’s part of a false dichotomy.
Plenty of scientists who are Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) would also accept that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
Do all such religious people also believe something stupid?
If a religious Christian specifically told you, in response to your confused ideas about the contents of dinosaur bones, that that was completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth or the universe, and that they were in fact a geologist who would gladly explain radiometric dating to you, would you treat them the same way that you have treated me? Just ignored them, and repeated your arguments, and showed no interest in the question?
I’m still trying to lock down what you actually think is the case, come to think of it. Would you state specifically that the Earth is about 6000 years old? Somewhat older than that? Something else?
Owlmirror,
“Plenty of scientists who are Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) would also accept that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.”
Yes. Hugh Ross for instance.
=
“Do all such religious people also believe something stupid?”
No, that’s not one of the things I have in mind. A brief list of those things would be:
-a LUCA
-the mutations/selection deal
-the idea that evolving features are functional every step of the way
-organic remnants lasting millions of years
-the notion that things like ribosome, ATP, high-performance enzymes ‘evolved’
-convergent evolution
-coordinated parallel evolution
-etc.
=
“Would you state specifically that the Earth is about 6000 years old?”
I believe that human history is about 6000 years old.
So, everything you don’t understand is ‘stupid’, and you won’t even bother with the data.
-the idea that there is data that supports stupid things
Yes, grab a text book and peruse some of it.
Why is txpiper droning on about his very poor grasp of evolution via natural selection? Human history did not begin when some people in Mesopotamia invented writing approximately 6000 years ago. Isadore of Seville is the source of that nonsensical figure of 6000. Magically, Adam begat Seth at 230 etc, and Noah was 600.
Isadore is clearly wrong on his timeline. Modern humans have been living in Europe for 38,000 years, but Isadore didn’t even know about the ice ages.
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/isidore_chronicon_01_trans.htm
Any recombination of genes results in offspring that have their own unique DNA. In humans, this results in every individual having approximately 100 ‘mutations’. They are not always functional. Some are lethal, and do not result in viable offspring. Most are benign. Some, such as the ability to digest amylase, confer an advantage. No amount of disbelief is going to change the way recombinant DNA functions.
I live on top of an ancient Rift Valley that dwarfs the Grand Canyon. It’s not visible as a huge canyon because it’s filled with marine limestones and sandstone layers that contain multiple species of extinct animals. Of particular interest are the plethora of shelled Octopus that are about 430 million years old. The asteroid bombardment which is also preserved in those limestones is truly fascinating science.
There are also outcrops of flood basalts from volcanic activity, despite the fact that there are zero volcanoes or mountains in the State of Minnesota, and its location far inland from the deep bodies of salt water where limestone is formed.
The reality of geology is not affected by the ignorant claims of Iron Age goat herders, or the YEC idiots who think the book written by those goat herders is a science treatise.
Why are any of you still engaging txpiper?
They are a creationist who believes that evolution is a stupid belief. Hahahahaha!
They do not offer an explanation, they simply offer rejections to evolution, seemingly to distract and time-waste.
To txpiper the fossil record is not proof of evolution because of all the gaps, because fossilisation is so common, don’t you know?
Please stop taking their bait. They are not teally interested.
tuatara, SIWOTI.
“I think the hearings might have a little to do with distraction,” says the right-wing troll who then changed the subject to evolution.
You want to see distraction, boy? Just look at the Republicans’ sudden fixation on the made-up threat of transwomen.
John Morales, everyone except for me…
txpiper:
Wait, so now believing that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old does not mean believing something stupid?
Did you actually change your mind, or are you so confused that you can’t even keep track of what you actually think anymore?
I’m hoping for the former, but I sadly suspect that it’s the latter.
Yeah, this confused statement makes it look like you’re just too confused to even type coherently.
I’d ask what “human history” has to do with the age of either the Earth or for that matter, the universe, but you’d probably respond with something even more confused rather than even pretend to try to answer clearly.
[tuatara @86]
To amplify and hopefully clarify; I’ve been commenting on threads (usenet at first) for over 3 decades.
I stick with the original definition of trolling: intentionally disrupting a discussion for the yuks. And, in my estimation, from what I’ve seen txpiper is not one of those specimens.
A couple of other points:
-- To quote someone famous (or infamous, depending):
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
-- You may not be the only one, after all, not every reader of this blog necessarily partakes of the comments.
So, refuting or otherwise addressing claims such as txpiper drops means anyone reading has ready access to a different POV.
The converse is that, if one just ignores them, they’re not.
(Also, for someone like me, it’s kinda fun. And a bit nostalgic, this disputing of creationists. Quite relaxing)
Owlmirror, I think txpiper means that humans were spontaneously created about 6000 years ago as Adam and Eve, because unlike evolution, that is not a stupid thing to believe.
John Morales, yes I completely agree with your definition of a troll. txpiper aims to distract and is a time waster. They are not a troll. They have a genuine belief they they alone hold the secrets to life, the universe, and everything.
In saying “everyone except for me” I was of course playing along.
Speaking of trolls, have you seen the film “Border”?
Well, I thought I hit preview but apparently not.
Further to the above, I greatly appreciate the POV of many of the commentariat here (definitely including you, John Morales). It is a fantastic resource.
But that said, txpiper has shown that they are not interested in any of the arguments put forward here in support of evolution. As such I just don’t think they warrant honest engagement. If they were genuinely interested in learning why evolution has such strenuous support I would say carry on.
tuatara,
If they’re interested enough to keep engaging, they’re staring into the Abyss.
(They may not notice, but their brain does. So pressure to become ever-more wilfully and obstinately ignorant builds up. Cognitive dissonance ensues)
—
No, I haven’t seen the film “Border”.
John Morales.
Ah, now I understand. Thanks. I can go along with that.
Border https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5501104/ was on SBS. An entertaining and moving temporary escape.
#87 owlmirror
It is also possible that he is being deliberately evasive, knowing he opens himself to laughter if he admits a belief in a young Earth.
Owlmirror,
“Wait, so now believing that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old does not mean believing something stupid?”
.
No. I don’t believe that, but the age of the universe/earth is not a dealbreaker. If you insist that 13.8 billion years ago, an infinitely small singularity of infinite gravity and density exploded and expanded into the universe, I’m not going to quarrel with you. If you think some of the resulting debris coalesced into the earth, and that a mars-sized body collided with the earth and fragments from that collision formed the moon, I need not argue.
If you believe that the composition, size, tilt and positions of the earth, moon and sun are cooincidental, I’m not buying. And if you believe that natural selection acting on random, molecular-level DNA copy failures is how every biological thing that ever existed formed, I think you are believing something terminally stupid.
tuatara,
“txpiper has shown that they are not interested in any of the arguments put forward here in support of evolution.”
.
Nobody has put any arguments forward that support the mutations/selection deal. It is just a premise that you have to believe.
It’s just a premise that you have to believe
No, the small changes to DNA that result when you make offspring are easily observable when you sequence DNA. We can measure and count the mutations, though Darwin had no such technology.
It seems others are starting to recognize the problem:
.
“There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347
@txpiper:
So Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) who believe that are believing something stupid? What about it is stupid? I mean, we’ve proven that your confused citations about the contents of dinosaur bones cannot possibly be relevant to the age of the Earth or of the Universe because you cannot possibly provide any connection whatsoever between said contents of such bones and the dating methods used to demonstrate the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. So what’s left?
txpiper:
Nothing new.
To such as you, it’s seemed thus since its earliest beginnings:
http://answersinscience.org/demise.html
@txpiper: Also, have you read “Omphalos”, by Philip Henry Gosse?
#98 txpiper
Those papers are a regular occurrence, and are just as regularly found to be flawed. As for people ‘starting’ to question evolution, while I was in uni studying biology a friend of mine was asking me about evolution. His questions were in the style of “is it true scientists are abandoning evolution?” because his pastor and christian youth group leaders -- people he trusted -- had been lying to him throughout his developing years.
And then of course there is Morales’ link which documents the ‘evolution is about to collapse’ claims as far back as 1825. I wonder if you will even click on it.
So, I guess that explains why we all enjoy perfect health, don’t have dangerous anatomy from which the essential act of eating can cause obstruction of our essential airway leading to death, don’t have a blind spot in our eyes because the blood vessels that supply the retina are between the retina and the incoming light, and all women give birth easily.
So my uncle shouldnt have died at the age of 16 due to a minor heart defect, nor my father suffer a massive haemorrhage from that cerebral aneurism that he was born with, a haemorrhage from which he never woke up, or my fathers brother still-born, or the 5 miscarriages my sister endured.
Right. It all makes sense now. There is the craftsmanship of a perfectly omnicient being in our design.
Gee, I had it all wrong all along. Seems all this shit was designed flawed. Fantastic.
I have to admit, I was curious enough to follow the link, even though I saw the red flags of “survival of the fittest”, which phrase is not used by modern evolutionary biologists (except when explaining why they don’t use it).
Are the authors evolutionary biologists?
Hm, that would appear to be a strong no. Also, I think we can chalk a couple more tallies for the Salem Hypothesis.
The paper is titled “Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive”. Gee, aren’t mutations “stupid” and “always harmful”? Isn’t that right, txpiper?
And txpiper made the choice to stop copying the abstract just before these words:
Well, they definitely chose to write those words, and the editors definitely chose to print them.
Oh, and I note that they have in their outline:
Microevolution is empirically confirmed and explainable by survival of the fittest
But doesn’t believing in any kind of evolution mean that they believe something stupid, txpiper? Why would you cite those that you think are stupid?
Something else that the editors chose to print (same issue):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000360
Cybernetics as a conversation with the Cosmos
John S. Torday (Departments of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Evolutionary Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, USA)
Are you feeling Quantum Entangled, txpiper, as you read this comment and compose your responses in the comment box?
(I think the phrase “This isn’t even wrong” is strongly applicable for some reason.)
Owlmirror,
“we’ve proven that your confused citations about the contents of dinosaur bones cannot possibly be relevant to the age of the Earth”
You did no such thing. You only proved that you will believe that soft tissue can last for 180,000,000 years.
=
“have you read “Omphalos”, by Philip Henry Gosse?”
No, I have not.
=
“Are the authors evolutionary biologists?”
Physicians and engineers have to be realistic.
=
“doesn’t believing in any kind of evolution mean that they believe something stupid, txpiper?”
Of course not. There are profuse examples of adaptation. What I take issue with is random mutations/natural selection idea.
cf. #47
Ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
You’re in denial.
Well, it’s proven by your own standards of proof: The easy proof of this obvious fact is your unwillingness to explain how this could possibly
happen.be relevant.Maybe you want to have one standard for your own claims while having different standards for the claims of others, but two can play at that game.
txpiper:
You continue to emphasize the validity of my proof that the contents of dinosaur bones cannot possibly be relevant to the age of the Earth
John Morales,
‘solutions’ implies awareness of a defect or limitation. Random DNA replication errors are not searching for problems to solve.
See if you can find an evolutionary biologist, and ask them to help you understand how mutations and natural selection produced some specific biological feature. Don’t settle for jargon and gymnastics, and don’t settle for ‘fitness’. Ask about organ or system or bio-process development. Pick one, start with a mutant germ cell, and develop an outline that shows how this process works. If it happened countless millions of times, it can’t be so mysterious that a biologist can’t describe it. Maybe Professor Myers will help you out.
txpiper:
There is no problem to solve, it’s just a natural process.
You inadvertently evince your ignorance when you hold that you think the phrase “an initial set of candidate solutions is generated and iteratively updated” refers to problems that must be solved. No.
Each “solution” is the equivalent of an individual (the implicit “problem” is survival until successful reproduction — that’s the biological equivalent of the fitness function), so that set of candidate solutions is the equivalent to a population of organisms.
Each new iterated “solution” refers to the equivalent of offspring.
Basically, there’s a population of solutions which changes over time because their offspring are not the same as their progenitors, and the least successful ones fail to reproduce.
You fail to grasp that the idea behind evolutionary computing is directly and explicitly based on evolutionary theory; since it’s the same idea, you figure if it’s silly in vivo it must also be silly in silico.
I’m pointing you to a source (with many citations) and a whole field of computing which relies on that very idea you attempt to ignorantly disparage for its success and growth. The field exists. It is based on random change and selection. It works.
(In short: E pur si muove)
[txpiper has not read Omphalos]
Ah, OK. So, Philip Henry Gosse — who was much more knowledgeable about biology and geology than you, even though he died more than 130 years ago — was a Christian who was bothered by the discordance between the science of geology and the contents of the bible. Even without radiometric dating, there were plenty of geological formations that only made sense if they had taken millions of years to form. So he tried to untie the geological knot by positing a new law of nature:
That is, he posits that everything was created ex nihilo showing signs of a deeper past to them. His main argument in the course of the book is about the organisms that he has familiarized himself with, but his point is that the same idea applies to the Earth and the rest of the universe: it was created looking old.
He too was surprisingly coy about how old the Earth actually was:
So I was wondering if that was in any way close to what you were thinking with your ludicrously evasive response to my question.
Omphalos is free to download from:
https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/39910
and
https://archive.org/details/Omphalos_358
in case you want more details.
If you were to simply proclaim, when asked, that you follow Gosse, and insist that the Law of Prochronism renders the age of the Earth and/or the universe irrelevant, we could know that there’s simply no point in discussing radiometric or cosmological dating.
It’s almost impressive, how dedicated to willful ignorance, in the light of vast and abundant information, that our troll is.
Their whole premise is basically:
I don’t believe this thing could happen, therefore it never happened, and everyone else is stupid; prove me wrong.
some dedicated souls with more time, energy, and knowledge, than I have, provide info, links, explanations, etc.
troll: Pfft!, that’s nonsense, and you all are morons for believing it, therefore my position is irrefutable. because I refute your explanations as to why my position is irrefutable. checkmate.
banannas, pomeranians, corn, checkmate.
#107 txpiper
…Which is a documented phenomenon. Yes, I commonly believe things that are documented are things that are real.
As do biologists studying evolution, but the advantage biologists studying evolution have is that they are talking about their topic of study. Again, it is notable that you would rather avoid the truest reply to the question.
Owlmirror,
“I was wondering if that was in any way close to what you were thinking with your ludicrously evasive response to my question.”
No. I don’t agree with Gosse’s assessment.
Holms, find an evolutionary biologist, and ask them to help you understand how mutations and natural selection produced some specific biological feature. Don’t settle for jargon and gymnastics, and don’t settle for ‘fitness’. Ask about organ or system or bio-process development. Pick one, start with a mutant germ cell, and develop an outline that shows how this process works. If it happened countless millions of times, it can’t be so mysterious that a biologist can’t describe it.
You’re the one that doesn’t understand the concept, why don’t you do that? But of course what you are asking for is quite demanding on that person’s time, it might be best if you perused the educational materials available on youtube on that subject. You might enjoy the evidence from chromosome 2 of our primate relatedness.
Holms, find an evolutionary biologist, and ask them to help you understand how mutations and natural selection produced some specific biological feature.
What makes you think no one’s ever done that?
Also, biologists have written lots of books explaining such things. Have you ever tried to read any of them? Why should any of us pester any biologist face-to-face, when we could more easily read the books and papers where such questions are already answered?
“What makes you think no one’s ever done that?”
Because you cannot link to papers that actually attempt to test the paradigm.
For your part, you’ve offered no criticism beyond ‘it’s stupid’, even in the face of documentation of preserved soft tissues. It seems you are the one in arrears.
There are umpteen thousands of papers out there; if you cared to, you could look at this article (plenty of citations therein, each of which will lead you to further citations, and more papers than you could peruse in a lifetime).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_phylogenetics
While creationists have been going on about evolutionary theory’s imminent demise since its beginning, science has kept moving on and deepening our understanding.
(Rather similar to going on about the imminent demise of heliocentrism, or of atomic theory)
“There are umpteen thousands of papers out there…”
.
This is actually amazing. What impressive dancing.
Amazing, but true, txpiper.
Don’t believe me? Try Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=molecular+phylogenetics+and+evolution
(I just did: “About 596,000 results (0.04 sec)”
—
It’s OK. I understand why you deflect the import by pretending to mock.
[oops… I usually strip any unnecessary country domain from URLs in the process of simplifying them to the bare minimum; wouldn’t want you to think it’s a purely Australian thing, what I say]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=molecular+phylogenetics+and+evolution%5D
But how can you prove that those hundreds of thousands of Google Scholar search results were not miraculously put there just a moment ago, by a supernatural entity that suddenly had a weird craving for false scientific papers?
CR, touché.
…
Meanwhile, as I write this, the gripping congressional hearings on the events of January 6th continue to be gripping.
(Better than reality TV!)
John Morales @66:
Giving kudos to Holms for refraining to talk shit about trans people is the same as giving kudos to a nazi for refraining to complain about the Jews. He should have been banned from the entire blog, but no, ’cause Mano seemingly likes drama. Of course, I wouldn’t expect any better from you. If Silentbob’s laughter is as the braying of a donkey, your entire comment history here and elsewhere is as the droppings of a nag that prances around as if he was a stallion.
Hey txpiper, remember that paper you cited, which claims evolution needs to mutate (so funny!) to survive? Well pop on over to pharyngula to read a critique of a very similar claim.
#129 Tired
Bad analogy, try again.
Holms,
“It’s biochemistry. There are organic molecules that can absorb the energy of a photon and undergo a conformational change; there are single-celled organisms that can recognize the impact of light and change their behavior or biochemistry. We don’t need to explain any stepwise change…”
.
Classic Myers. They don’t need to explain stepwise changes because 1) he cannot, and 2) nobody is going to remind him that if it isn’t explainable, it isn’t valid science.
--
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od | ˈˌsīənˈtifik ˈmeTHəd |
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses
--
The claim in the Guardian article is absolutely correct. The evolutionary story is “absurdly crude and misleading”, and anyone who tries to actually apply the mutations/selection idea will quickly discover that it cannot be done. You’ll find frost on hell’s hinges before you find clergy like Professor Myers explaining how that process could actually produce things like this. But you have to believe that it did. I don’t see how you can stand it.
Except computer scientists and programmers; as I noted @47:
Ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
(They quickly discovered it was a bloody useful idea)
PS https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolutionary+computation
(About 1,960,000 results (0.03 sec))
PS
Actually, classic creationist quote-mining.
The actual quotation, with the carefully-elided content emphasised:
We don’t need to explain any stepwise change in the properties of abiological materials, because that’s just physics or organic chemistry.
Heh.
John, all he did was mention irrelevant things,
-biochemistry
-organic molecules that can absorb the energy of a photon
-single-celled organisms that can recognize the impact of light
-physics
-organic chemistry
none of which have anything to do with natural selection acting on random DNA replication errors.
When the subject he was addressing was: “…eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly?”, why didn’t he mention mutations or selection?
.
Professor Myers is no Eleanor or Fred, but he is a great dancer.
He specifically addressed the question of evolution needing to ‘mutate’ or expand its range, which is the same as the article you cited. He didn’t explain the history of the eye because he wasn’t replying to that query. Just how thick are you, and is this wilful or are you unable to help yourself?
@ 4 Mano Singham
Aaaaannd… 132 posts later….
(Isn’t it funny it’s always the same people who can’t “move on”.)
Holms,
“He didn’t explain the history of the eye because he wasn’t replying to that query.”
Professor Myers was responding to this:
“…taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place.”
by saying this:
“But we don’t take the existence of light sensitive cells for granted at all! It’s biochemistry”, and not mentioning the operating system of the theory. I would ask how you could not notice, but I know the answer.
Do minions rank lackeys, or is it the other way around?
=
Silentbob is right. It is time to end this waste of time.
Myers was responding to an accusation that biological explanations of sight always take the origin of sight as granted, starting the explanation in the middle rather than at the start. He was not responding to a query about the steps involved in going from simple to complex eyes. Instead he described the very start of sight: “There are organic molecules that can absorb the energy of a photon and undergo a conformational change; there are single-celled organisms that can recognize the impact of light and change their behavior or biochemistry.”
Are you even able to read, or is it understanding that is lacking? You even quoted the relevant text, so you don’t have the excuse that you missed what was said.
txpiper:
I can never figure out what you actually think, because you’re so terribly unclear. I suspect it may be that you’re not really sure what you think, but let’s see if you can clarify:
Are you saying that you think that “evolution occurs as the result of adaptations (and adaptations alone)”, or are you saying that “evolution occurs as the result of random mutations, natural selection, drift, and adaptations”?
(The next step is to figure out what you mean by adaptations, but one step at a time. . . )
Owlmirror,
“Are you saying that you think that “evolution occurs as the result of adaptations (and adaptations alone)”, or are you saying that “evolution occurs as the result of random mutations, natural selection, drift, and adaptations”?”
.
The data speaks for itself. Speciation occurs. Adaptation occurs. If you want to call that evolution, I would not object. But I think that these are attainments, not accidents. I don’t buy the idea of randomness. I believe that DNA is a purposeful molecule. I have concluded, for myself, that organisms are, on a limited basis, prepared to adapt. To illustrate, I would point to all kinds of cave species that lose sight and pigment in an isolated, dark environment. Others have noticed why things like this do not fit the standard evolutionary model.
(I posted this article in the comments section of one of Professor Myers biology videos, and he deleted it. Perhaps you can explain why he found it offensive.)
“Terribly unclear,” as Owlmirror said. What does this mean?
Do you not buy the idea, for instance, that there’s a probability of getting three of a kind in a five-card poker hand? Or are you basically saying you’re a determinist? Or do you disagree that there are many varying external/environmental conditions, which are not built into anything’s genes and are described as “random” because they’re not predictable or controllable?
Or what are you trying to say? Exactly which sorts of ideas do you not buy?
There are many different DNA molecules. What are their purposes, or do they all have the same purpose? Do they consist of purposeful atoms, purposeful electrons, etc., and do they interact (purposefully) with purposeful electromagnetic radiation? Are you a panpsychist? Do you think there are any non-purposeful things in the world?
Stromatolites are one of the most ancient forms of life on Earth, with a fossil record that extends to the Archean. They don’t have eyes, but they do use sunlight to power a chemical reaction, just like green plants. Humans can only make Vitamin D via exposure to sunlight, yet their eyes aren’t involved in the process.
Where did stromatolites come from? Why would a designer create huge agglomerations of living biofilm crusts for a few billion years before moving on to more complex organisms?
Standard Evolutionary Theory accounts for exactly this process, so I’ve no idea why txpiper thinks reality (evolution over immense time periods, driven by natural selection) is somehow impossible without a head engineer. Lol.
txpiper: PZ probably banned you because you’re just one more in a VERY long line of useless cdesign-proponentsist cranks/trolls repeating the same tired PRATTs over and over again. I’ve been following him, and Panda’s Thumb, off and on since about 2001, and that’s about how long creationists like you have been showing up, gumming up the comments with obvious BS, getting debunked, and vanishing to make way for the next wave of creationists spouting the same nonsense again and again and again.
Also, did you bring your nonsense to a post that was actually about evolution? ‘Cuz this OP sure wasn’t. So that would be another good reason to ban your silly ass.
cr,
“What does this mean?”
The article I linked to states the problem:
.
“When people think about how evolution occurs, the classical model generally comes to mind. According to this view, species experience random genetic mutations that confer novel traits when they move to a new environment. The most beneficial traits — those that help individuals better adapt to their new habitat — get passed along to subsequent generations and eventually spread throughout the population.
It’s a relatively simple, easy-to-digest model, but it’s not able to explain all cases of evolution. “Imagine if you had a quick change in the environment,” said Nicolas Rohner, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. “This evolutionary process would take too long.” To rapidly adapt to a sudden shift in environment, a population would have to have some kind of standing genetic variation already available, which nature then selects for.”
.
Rapid, consistent adaptation is troublesome because they have to find some explanation that does not flirt with Lamarckism. I do not buy the standing genetic variation idea. I believe that DNA is, to a limited degree, reactive to environmental influences.
=
“There are many different DNA molecules”
Yes, and most of them are quite large. What process do you think built them all?
==
RB,
“PZ probably banned you because…”
Well, he believes that natural selection acting on random DNA copy errors is the process responsible for building every biological thing that ever existed. So, while I admire him as a professor and a biologist, I am not impressed with his analytical skills in regards to origins and development.
It doesn’t explain what you meant. Try putting it in your own words.
DNA replication.
What did you think I would say, “miracles”? Are those a process, in your view?
I thought this might be an interesting addition to the discussion.
“The early history and emergence of molecular functions and modular scale-free network behavior”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25058
It’s the computational version of the patterns I’m thinking about related to the origin of nucleotides and peptides.
Those patterns being the ones in the drawing centered on nucleic acid biosynthesis in my last blog post.
Standing variation is just another way of saying that each individual in a species has unique DNA. Yes, and..?
DNA does in fact react to environmental factors. It’s called epigenetics.
Once again, it’s clear that the only reason txpiper is denying evolution is their fundamental ignorance of genetics.
The human female reproductive system that kills both mother and child regularly is a compelling argument that there is no designer or design.
“Imagine if you had a quick change in the environment,” said Nicolas Rohner, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. “This evolutionary process would take too long.”
So what? Just because evolution can’t handle ALL possible circumstances, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work or can’t happen. Nor does it mean any particular “quick change” would necessarily wipe a given species out. Seriously, can you specify which “quick changes” SHOULD have wiped out our ancestors?
…I am not impressed with his analytical skills in regards to origins and development.
Why should we care about your feelings? You’ve been laughably dead wrong about every subject of which you’ve spoken so far, so you really have no credibility and no standing to judge other people’s “analytical skills.” As two of Brian Cox’s famous TV characters would say, “Fuck off!”
To rapidly adapt to a sudden shift in environment, a population would have to have some kind of standing genetic variation already available, which nature then selects for.”
Well, the more species are living in a particular environment, the greater the chance of at least a few of them having that “standing genetic variation already available” and thus being able to adapt to the quick change, and continue evolving afterword. That big meteor that (allegedly?) caused the climate change that killed off the big dinosaurs? Lots of smaller creatures survived it. (Also, if the “quick change” only covers part of the planet, and not all of it at once (i.e., ice ages), then creatures outside the changed area won’t need that “standing genetic variation already available,” and may even be able to repopulate the affected area later.) So your lame objection to evolutionary theory is, well, just lame.
cr,
“It doesn’t explain what you meant. Try putting it in your own words.”
Cave species losing sight and pigment is anomalous to evolutionary theory. These adaptations are reactions, not accidents.
Cutting to the chase, genomes deteriorate due to the mutations that are the supposed source of increasing complexity and sophistication. Mutations foul things up.
.
“What did you think I would say, “miracles”?”
You believe in countless billions of miraculous molecular-level accidents. You have to. What process produced replication enzymes?
=
“Standing variation is just another way of saying that each individual in a species has unique DNA.”
It is just technical shorthand for “saving up mutations for a rainy day”.
You mean like Brownian motion? Not miraculous, obviously…. Do you not believe in that? I mean, it seems like you only want to believe in miracles, so perhaps not.
Your term “countless billions” is nonsense of course, since if it’s a finite number such as “billions” it’s certainly countable. And in fact it’s not uncountably many, so that leaves us with just “billions” after dispensing with your rhetorical flourish which wasn’t meant to be taken literally. However, there are lot more than “billions” of these interactions, even for fairly small systems that are around for any appreciable length of time. So, despite your muddled attempt to make it sound big (and thus harder to believe), you’re not even really appreciating the gargantuan scale of these things, which by the way counts in my favor and not in yours despite your apparent confusion about that point.
What I gather from all this is that you might not buy anything at all in physics, because there are just so many objects and degrees of freedom in the physical world. To you, that’s the sort of thing that makes it all hard to believe. Why not be a solipsist then? That would allow you to tell us that there’s only one thing, you — can’t get much smaller and “simpler” than that, eh? I don’t know why you would bother to inform us of this, but I guess you could spend your time doing this sort of thing if you felt like it. If it were up to me, I think it would be a mistake to waste all of existence on shit like that.
The usual creationist tactics…. Always with the backsliding and goalpost-moving, so you can keep on hunting for the proverbial god of the gaps. Never a recognition when this happens, and not an even an attempt to address most of my questions.
I’m happy to admit I don’t personally know any of the chemistry details here. Your answer is apparently “God did it (somehow),” which obviously doesn’t tell much of anything. Anyway, if this were actually the problem for you, then why am I only getting it after all these misdirections and detours? Seriously, does it even matter to you what those processes are in the real world? What do you expect that answer to do? You can just have your crackpottery and stop bothering the rest of us about it. Doesn’t that sound better?
txpiper, it is bad enough that you think a news article about science is a serious refutation of science, but you compound this by only quoting the setup, i.e. the portion that proposes the puzzle to be explained. You forgot the article goes on to explain the conundrum, and surprise surprise, the explanation is all about gene regulation in an environment that places certain stresses on the organism. Some detail is given as to the steps taken in the research, and ends with:
“Altogether, the study strongly suggest that the surface fish originally had a type of cryptic variation for eye size, which was masked by HSP90. When the fish somehow wound up in the caves, the low conductivity — and likely other environmental factors — physiologically stressed the fish, depleting their levels of HSP90. The eye-size variation became unmasked, and nature quickly selected for the adaptive small-eye phenotype. Subsequent generations had smaller and smaller eyes, while the fish also became better adapted to the new environment, allowing their HSP90 levels to eventually return to normal.”
Oh and another key quote buried in the body of the article and hence easily missed by any rube that only skims it:
“The trait the cavefish are best known for — their eyeless sockets — was an adaptive change, Rohner explained.”
An adaptation, driven by the environmental regulation of gene expression and selection pressure to fix the changes in a population. So, evolution.
Aw, I thought txpiper would be happy to know that every individual that results from sexual reproduction is in fact, a unique snowflake with regards to its DNA. The variation is inherent in the process of recombining two gametes. Even in the case of identical twins you will find small differences in their DNA which are called mutations.
Fish adapting to an environment without light is in no way anomalous. It’s easily observed in nature, and completely compatible with evolution via natural selection.
Why would you think it was anything other than a response to a changed environment? Lack of light is the salient selection pressure. (It is explained by your cherry-picked citation, but trolls aren’t interested in intellectual honesty )
Incorrect.
Your scientific understanding of DNA and genetics is decades out of date. Mutations are generally benign, but might confer a slight advantage under a particular set of circumstances. (Such as when humans were domesticating and then breeding different varieties of animals and plants via artificial selection) The ability to digest dairy products is a fairly recent example of a mutation which is not found in all human populations. Clearly those people who carry the mutation have not been fouled up by their ability to digest cheese and milk as adults.
“Your scientific understanding of DNA and genetics is decades out of date. Mutations are generally benign, but might confer a slight advantage under a particular set of circumstances.”
.
Most Mutations in the Human Genome are Recent and Probably Harmful
.
Most ‘silent’ genetic mutations are harmful, not neutral — a finding with broad implications
Without weighing in on the merits of the contents txpiper’s adduced links:
First link:
Second link:
In short, the first one acknowledges the role of mutation in evolution, and the second acknowledges at least some mutations are “significantly beneficial”.
(Heh)
In his efforts to squirm out from one losing argument to another, txpiper has now moved on to arguing beneficial mutations are outnumbered by deleterious. A fact I not only agree with, but already knew, along with anyone else that studied university level biology. We’ve known that for decades, fumbling child. The point is, while mutations are random and more likely harmful than not, the selection pressures are not random, meaning the beneficial are more likely to be retained.
I wonder where the next squirm will lead us. My advice to txpiper is to maybe read the entire article you want to cite before linking it here.
[txpiper, I’m pretty sure I’ve already told you about your use of isolated full stops as paragraph delimiters.
There’s no need, a simple line feed does the job.
If you must space it even more, you could always do what I’ve just done.]
It is not coincidence that the mutation that creates the ability to digest dairy products into adulthood is most commonly found in the Indo-European populations that originally domesticated and then bred multiple types of dairy cattle and goats.
Being able to extract nutrients from a wide range of foods is a fairly basic state for omnivores. Obviously a mutation that confers the ability to consume a wider range of foods has been beneficial, judging by the exponential population growth of humans in the last 10,000 years.
Hello, piper, I see you’ve completely ignored my very easy refutation of your dumbass objection to evolutionary theory.
You’re out of your depth here, and you know it.
When did we stop?
tuatara, heh.
Humans lost their baculum, some time back.
(Win some, lose some. Stiff)
John Morales.
Happily baculum-less am I, or am I?
Oh dear. Come to think of it, now I am not sure.
It looks like Professor Myers was so preoccupied with Jordan Peterson and Kent Hovind today, that he forgot to deliver a Friday cephalopod.
This one is really impressive. About a minute in, it actually looks like the rings on the tentacles are lined up to look like stripes. It must have taken some blue-ribbon DNA copy errors to produce something like that.
Meanwhile, the gripping congressional hearings on the events of January 6th remain gripping.
https://time.com/6192327/trump-jan-6-hearings-reality-show/
Trump Would Love the Reality-Show Flair of the Jan. 6 Hearings if He Weren’t the Target
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-republicans-jan-6-hearing-millions-are-watching-rcna35003
Millions are watching the Jan. 6 hearings. That should terrify Republicans.
After years of feeding Donald Trump’s need for constant media attention, the GOP could find that huge TV audiences are a hazard.
and others.
But, just for txpiper:
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article262755583.html
Republican Sen. Rick Scott dismissed the importance of the ongoing Jan. 6 congressional hearings on Wednesday, comparing them to low-brow entertainment and arguing it will fail to prevent another attack.
“I think it’s irrelevant,” Scott said during a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “It’s reality TV.”
Senator Rick Scott found the attempt to stage an election coup was relevant back when he sought a pardon for his role in it.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/06/23/jan-6-panel-to-hone-in-on-trumps-efforts-to-meddle-at-doj-00041708
txpiper, nothing you’ve said so far undermines mutations as the origin of change. Yes, pretty octopus patterns, that’s nice. But why no reply to the points just made? Your previous post was about deleterious mutations outnumbering beneficial, and we replied to it.
Oh right. Squirm, squirm.
Holms,
“mutations as the origin of change. Yes, pretty octopus patterns, that’s nice.”
We’re not just talking about change here. The mimic octopus is exhibits mind-blowing organization and complexity. Your belief that this animal and its abilities are the result of random mutations is a religious committment that has nothing to do with science.
Giving up the ability to recognize when something is not possible is a very, very bad thing. But you had to.
.
“Your previous post was about deleterious mutations outnumbering beneficial”
Actually, it was about my claim that mutations don’t repair, improve or build genomes, or anything else. They cause them to deteriorate. “Mutations are generally benign” is similar to the junk DNA idea; necessary erroneous beliefs.
It was arrived at through a ton of actual scientific research, about which you seem to be thoroughly ignorant. If creationists had ever come up something better, rather than spending their time peddling lies and nonsense, it would have been taken seriously.
Where’s the contradiction? I got no answer when I asked before. Maybe this time? Do you not understand that “I don’t think so” is not the same as “it can’t be”? For the latter, you need literal proof that something implies P and not P, because it doesn’t mean expressions of your personal incredulity, surprise, amazement, or whatever you think you can use as a substitute.
“It was arrived at through a ton of actual scientific research…”
There is no such research. You just have to believe that there is. But you can prove me wrong by linking to any published work that explains how, step-by-step, DNA replication errors can produce things like the mimic octopus.
The scientific method demands incredulity.
You should be able to demonstrate conclusively that that species (or any other one) can’t have evolved, since you’re claiming it’s impossible. Show your work. If you can’t do that, you’re lying.
Mollusks have existed for over 450 million years. That’s plenty of time for them to diverge into clams, snails, slugs, squid, and octopuses.
Txpiper somehow sees the camouflage ability they have modified into a form of communication as not possible without a magical designer, but cannot explain why the squid and octopuses that currently exist don’t have an external shell.
Even cars have undergone quite a bit of evolution, though it is not gene based. When was the last time you had to crank start your pick-up truck txpiper?
txpiper “The mimic octopus is exhibits mind-blowing organization and complexity.”
Yes, and? So does every organism, including the single-celled ones. And they are all the product of tiny iterative changes, millions of them, thanks to selection pressures applying a non-random filter to all mutations. Evolution is microevolution carried out over deep time.
You’ve still offered no reason why any of this is impossible, beyond your personal scepticism. Unfortunately ‘it can’t be possible because it just can’t be’ is not very compelling; you’ll have to come up with something better.
Hey txpiper. Don’t forget that you are a self-confessed creationist (because I remember).
There, I fixed it for you. Now be a good moron and go play with the cephalopods that are obviously more complex than you.
txpiper:
The article you link to, though, proposes a more complicated scenario, but not exactly a purposeful one. It seems to be something like: the random variations in the fish mostly have their expression suppressed by the heat shock protein, but when stress inhibits the HSP, those variations are expressed.
So there’s still random mutations spread throughout the population.
But that’s literally supported by the link that you provided.
I’m still not sure what this means, though. DNA can perceive, analyze, remember and plan?
DNA is sentient?
DNA is sapient?
DNA is clairvoyant?
DNA is precognitive?
====================
Here’s the link to the actual cavefish paper written by the researchers written about in your Gizmodo article:
Cryptic Variation in Morphological Evolution: HSP90 as a Capacitor for Loss of Eyes in Cavefish
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4004346/
And here are all of the papers that cite that above paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4004346/citedby/
I see that there are at least 112 citing publications.
What would you tell all of those researchers (including the original ones, of course) to look for in the cavefish DNA that would support whatever it is you think is happening in that DNA?
I note that one of the citing works has the excellent keyword troglomorphy.
Damn good word, that.
Let me savour it in context: speleogenetic troglomorphism.
(aaahh… nice!)
Owlmirror,
“DNA can perceive, analyze, remember and plan?..sentient?..sapient?..clairvoyant..precognitive?”
Excellent question, and in my opinion, the answer seems to be, yes. I’ve asked similar questions about things like replication enzymes. They check, remove and replace incorrect nucleotides. Are they smart? How do they recognize errors if they are not conducting some kind of comparative analysis? Ditto with antibodies. What explains their hostility towards antigens?
Such discriminating things are obviously purposeful. In my opinion, it is naive to invoke randomness if you’re considering their origins.
===
“What would you tell all of those researchers (including the original ones, of course) to look for in the cavefish DNA that would support whatever it is you think is happening in that DNA?”
I would have no suggestions, but I would have lots of questions. There are thousands of true troglobite species; spiders, insects, mollusks, fish, millipedes, and amphibs. And there are lots of different adaptations. How many of those modifications are due to shock protein depletion?
“In such conditions, cryptic variation can accumulate and can be maintained without consequence….. changes in the environment can exhaust the chaperone buffer, unmasking vulnerable polymorphisms. And because multiple variants can be unmasked at the same time, this system provides a mechanism to create complex traits in a single step”
That is some lucky stuff right there. A chaperone protein keeps an accumulation of mutations from having any effect until it is circumstantially depleted, and then all the errors join hands to make the fish go blind, right on time. How cool is that?
Holy shit, this guy thinks molecules are sentient.
Still not clear what the answers are to these:
— Do they (molecules) consist of purposeful atoms, purposeful electrons, etc., and do they interact (purposefully) with purposeful electromagnetic radiation?
— Do you (txpiper) think there are any non-purposeful things in the world?
cr,
These animations represent what goes on in every cell in the human body (with some exceptions, and I believe the cell count estimate is now around 33 trillion). I do not believe that such things are accidental assemblies, or that the processes are random chemical reactions.
So… do you think the molecular interactions are the product of molecules with intent, or is it a stochastic process of chemistry? Don’t be shy.
All of those little protein machines depicted in the animation are coded in the DNA itself. So no, not “accidental assemblies” or “random chemical reactions” at all, except in the very narrow sense that such things are accidental/contingent like all other physical stuff is.
But guess what? You may find that very interesting or exciting or incomprehensible or whatever, but I don’t see any problem for evolution. You have not shown that there is one. (It also doesn’t answer my questions, yet again.)
It’s as if you believe the only thing that people in evolutionary biology do all day is chant the words “accident” and “random” to themselves, then somehow got to thinking that some flavor of panpsychism (plus young earth creationism) is a good alternative to that.
You’re not really arguing with what evolutionary biology is about. You’re only trying to attack a strawman which you think is easier to hit than the real thing (and having trouble even with that).
Txpiper just can’t imagine that xtian dogma is completely wrong, therefore he refuses to believe life is self generating.
It’s like declaring that you don’t believe the sky is blue, because the bible says it’s orange.
cr,
“All of those little protein machines depicted in the animation are coded in the DNA itself.”
Tell me about the processes that built the DNA molecule, produced the machines and did the coding.
First was RNA. Millions of years later it got incorporated into some DNA, and Kapow!!
Life diversified into metazoa, along with all the already extant types of fungus and algae.
Then those animals were selected by environmental and random pressures over another 1.9 billion years, and et voila. Life exists in a multitude of forms, both animal and vegetable.
txpiper, you’re doing it again (the classical creationist move); the goalpost is whether evolution happens given life exists, not whether evolution itself creates life.
As per Wikipedia: “Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.”
(In short, you lot keep conflating evolution with abiogenesis, and fall back on that as a last resort)
—
In passing, I’m looking forward to the next episode of the gripping congressional hearings on the events of January 6th.
(I get why you don’t want to talk about it, not having seen the show)
txpiper, so very quiet you are between your bursts.
Evolution literally means ‘unfolding’ — and how much more potent and wondrous is a Magical Maker that can create the simplest life that over time becomes the wonder we now see than the one who made it all happen not that long ago and where every change is deleterious?
In the former case, the Creator made stuff that evolves and changes and adapts and unfolds and populates and that becomes ever more complex over time; in the latter, the Creator made a system that’s clearly under stress right now, and that gets feebler and more decrepit and dysfunctional as time goes by, as the inevitable reproduction errors accumulate.
So. I reckon your version of God is a feeble one, and that, were I a goddist, mine would be superior — after all, my God construct would be able to make a few cells and watch it unfold over aeons into the amazing diversity we see today rather than make a wonderful toy that gets old and worn out over time unless actively managed.
(Also, politics is much too complicated to have arisen naturally. The January 6th hearings are proof of that. Right?)
txpiper’s request is very modest, guys. All he wants is a complete Molecular and Cell Biology unit -- normally taking at least a semester of guided teaching at a university just to cover the basic processes -- packed into a single blog comment. Now even though I enjoyed the subject at uni, and as much as I love lecturing rubes, that’s a weensy bit too much for me.
txpiper, if you truly want to learn this stuff in detail, you need to attend a biology course at a credible university, which of course excludes creationist-run places of ‘learning’. Failing that, you are left with the fact that you are a person uneducated in this topic yelling that the topic doesn’t make sense. Obviously the fact that you have no education in biology means you haven’t a leg to stand on.
I mean, you get where I’m coming from, right?
A proper God would be clever enough to Create a system where change was possible, indeed where it was necessary by Nature, and where that change would tend towards the beneficial.
The good changes would remain, and not only that, they would be the baseline for new changes. The bad changes would fade away, because of their deleterious nature. And what it made would ever grow more wondrous.
And all this would unfold over untold eons, even unto the end of time.
But your God is puny.
Makes wind-up toys that run down in a few thousand years.
“txpiper’s request is very modest”
Yes, it actually is. You have total, unassailable faith in evolutionary processes. You should be able to explain how they actually work using some actual biological thing.
“Mutations are the grist of evolution” should be more than a sappy religious incantation.
And as I pointed out, the information you requested cannot be briefly stated. And until you study, you are an uneducated buffoon ranting against things he does not understand.
It’s kinda sad YECcers are so befuddled; they don’t understand how evolutionary processes could possibly work, and therefore they think their puny God could not manage anything they can’t understand.
Science be dammed; it’s gotta be as the iron-age primitives conceived their deity.
Of course, it’s supremely easy to imagine a more powerful god:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
(That mob get to have their God and their science, too. No need for denialism)
txpiper, it really is sad. Sad that you do not appear to understand your own position.
To use your own criteria, for example;
“god created evetything in 6 days, then fucked off” is nothing more than a sappy religious incantation.
And….
You have total, unassailable faith in unscientific religious nomsense, all the while claiming that established science in unscientific, and demanding a complex field of study be fully explained to you within a few hundred words -- an explanation that you will nontheless refute with ‘but god did it’ (incidentally your puny and feeble-minded god that, if you look at his works, got hardly anything right).
Holms,
“the information you requested cannot be briefly stated”
That must be why I’ve never found anything published that tries to prove out the process. But you understand such things because you’re educated.
Actually, I believe that Muggeridge was probably correct. Some of us seem to have educated ourselves into imbecility.
===
tuatara,
But I composed a list of people in another blog who were much brighter than you who were not atheists. They were founders of disciplines.
Have you ever heard of Blaise Pascal? He makes you look like Gomer Pyle. Pascal’s wager is still a good bet, even better since the molecular level stuff came into view, and better still since the reestablishment of national Israel.
txpiper:
And who also ridiculed all religion, except their own.
(Only one less than a typical atheist would)
Ahem. Leaving aside the, um, “merits” of , this sort of speculative but personal gibe is typical of those who flail. I get it a lot, myself, and surely Tuatara is (or will get) used to it, as I have.
(A bit like Newton and his occult waste of time)
—
BTW, are you yet aware of any of the documented findings of the gripping congressional hearings on the events of January 6th?
[ffs!]
To paraphrase a meme (how anti-vaxxers do statistics:)
“If you have 4 pencils and I have 7 apples, how many pancakes will fit on the roof? Purple, because aliens don’t wear hats.”
txpiper
Yes precisely, you should see the thickness some of the textbooks used. One of mine is ~700p, and of course textbooks are only part of the education. Months of guided education per pathway just to cover the undergraduate level of detail, and here’s you asking for the entire history of the development of DNA in a blog comment.
-- said the uneducated of the educated people making fun of his ignorance.
Holy shit, he’s even a believer of near-term eschatology. Reckon your sky friend is about to initiate the time of tribulation? This makes your personal incredulity toward evolution even funnier.
[ffs!] seconded.
txpiper
I for one do not wager with my life on the matter of whether god exists or not. I am in fact not a gambler. I know that god does not exist (most certainly not a personal one who would go on to accommodate my worthless sinning ass for an eternity). It might be hard for you to understand but I have no fear of not going to a place that I do not believe exists. I know, isn’t it weird!
I am not afraid of the eternal oblivion of death.
I will not waste my breath on empty platitudes to a non-existent deity.
I would argue that the wager of Pascal is possible to avoid for those to whom the whole idea of a personal god is a nonsense. I would also argue that were Pascal a product of 20th Century France instead of 17th century France, he would have had a totally different view of religion.
Imagine if such an obviously intelligent person as you actually properly thought about this stuff!
@ 201 tuatara
Morales was of course referring to his own botched markup.
Should we start a book on whether this thread about “congressional hearings” will make it to 300 comments.
It’s basically a question of which is greater; Holms and Morales tediousness, or Mano’s patience.
Both seem asymptotic towards infinity.
“BTW, are you yet aware of any of the documented findings of the gripping congressional hearings on the events of January 6th?”
Probably not.
So now we have, what, more than 200 comments here, less than 5% of which are actually about the subject of the OP. I’m all in favor of free speech and open exchange of ideas, but letting one dumbass troll keep on diverting attention away from the original subject of a thread is really not a good look, either for the blog owner or for the regular commenters here. Especially now that he’s admitted he has no intention of talking about the original subject.
Seriously, who does Mano think he is — Jonathan MS Pierce?
“you should see the thickness some of the textbooks used…you asking for the entire history of the development of DNA”
Holms, I haven’t asked for that at all, and you know that I haven’t. What I have asked for is something that is not covered in your very thick textbooks; application and testing of the mutations/selection paradigm with a sketch or outline that describes the development of any significant specialized biological feature. It isn’t the size of the task that keeps you from doing this. And you know that, too.
==
“he’s even a believer of near-term eschatology”
Not necessarily near-term, but yes. Because unlike the alleged explanations about how errors built hyper-complex biology, the forecasts concerning Israel and other things are actually written down.
application and testing of the mutations/selection paradigm
Application- The amazing diversity of all living organisms currently on earth.
Testing- It is not necessary to test for mutations, everyone has them as evidenced when their DNA is sequenced. We also have multiple breeds of laboratory mice that have been bio engineered by inserting a mutation.
In short, all the extant animals are proof that evolution via natural selection works fine, so any favorable mutation will survive and breed, while unfavorable mutations will either die as embryos, or as juveniles, or from a myriad of other random events or diseases.
No 700 page book is needed to understand this simple and built in process. (Unless you need to actually breed some bioengineered lab mice)
I remember.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9757372 — Oct. 20, 2005
Heh.
(Behe sure went down in flames)
I await the next episode of the Jan 6th hearings.
Fridays testimony should be riveting.
As further evidence for how the dreaded genetic mutations give rise to increasing complexity, I present a recently discovered giant bacterium ( 1cm) which exhibits polyploidy and unlike most bacteria, an internal membrane as found in eukaryotic cells.
https://www.science.org/content/article/largest-bacterium-ever-discovered-has-unexpectedly-complex-cells
#206 txpiper
Your specific wording was “Tell me about the processes that built the DNA molecule, produced the machines and did the coding.” I was generous in interpreting this as a query about the genetic history of any single trait, but as worded here, you are actually asking about the entire history of DNA.
In either case, there is zero possibility of this being expressed in a blog comment.
…by third century priests collecting and editing the oral histories of bronze-age goat herders into an omnibus. Which you consider reliable for some reason.
@txpiper:
I really shouldn’t be surprised by you saying the damndest things, yet here we are.
It’s probably pointless to do this, but I can’t help but think of some of the arguments that refute or undermine this sort of thing.
1) Have you considered that if it were true, it would make no sense for animals (incuding humans) to have sense organs or brains? Everything that sense organs do only makes sense if clairvoyance/precognition don’t exist at all. Why even have brains, if DNA can think? We — and every other animal — should be walking around like brainless, sightless, deaf zombies that can perceive reality directly via our DNA.
2) Ignoring (1) above, doesn’t it seem strange, given your thesis, that parasitism and predation exist? It’s all very well to exclaim over echolocation, but echolocation is bat DNA products making the effort to consume the hell out of insect DNA products, or dolphin DNA products trying to eat teleost fish DNA products. The immune system exists because organisms are constantly being invaded by the products of other DNA (and RNA).
If DNA is “purposeful”, isn’t all of this murderous competition at cross-purposes?
3) Widespread broken genes/pseudogenes. There are probably other examples, but one of the more famous ones is L-gulonolactone oxidase, or GULO, which catalyzes the synthesis of vitamin C. Or at least it does in most animals. In humans, our ape cousins, and our more distant monkey cousins (but not in our even more distant primate cousins the lemurs), the gene that makes this enzyme is broken. It’s also broken in some bats, and in guinea pigs. If DNA were so smart, we would see no pseudogenes for anything metabolically necessary; everything would have been replicated without such a glaring error.
4) Fatal recessive genetic diseases. Same as above. We should never see cases of double recessives that lead to death; the DNA should just “smartly” repair itself. Even if a single copy is advantageous (why not make changes that confer the advantage without the possibility of death?), “smart” “precognitive” DNA should just know that the double dose is lethal and fix it.
5) Any fatal genetic birth defects. Again, “smart” “precognitive” DNA should prevent these from ever happening. But they do indeed happen.
@txpiper:
Have you read anything at all about the underlying biochemistry? It looks like you’ve read the most superficial overviews, and nothing else.
@txpiper:
So you’re saying that you’ve converted to Catholicism?
If there is a God/Supernatural Designer, I imagine Síe would be wapping txpiper upside their wooden noggin to point out that humans were given large brains and are expected to use them.
The science works and is used daily, as evidenced by our scientific capacity to genetically engineer mice, make Covid vaccine, and create spaceships that travel to Mars.
Pretending that it is crucial to believe in a young earth is simply lying, or you’ve learned about evolution via backwards thinking people who can’t wrap their heads around the immense time spans involved in the evolution of Earth life forms. God has a commandment about lying and spreading falsehoods. God also is going to be super pissed at the YECs for their grifting, because Síe knows their true heart.
Owlmirror,
“Have you read anything at all about the underlying biochemistry?”
There are lots of sources that explain what replication enzymes do. If you can link to anything that explains the impulsion behind their roles, I will surely read it.
=
“So you’re saying that you’ve converted to Catholicism?”
Hardly. I only pointed out that Pascal was brilliant, and not an atheist. That aside, he was not a strict doctrinal Catholic.
Pascal’s wager? What a load of bollocks. You know as well as we do that you don’t just have to “believe in god” to win the bet; you have to believe in the CORRECT interpretation of the ONE TRUE god. And you have to SINCERELY believe it too — just saying “I choose to believe because it’s the safest bet” won’t work.
A far more sensible bet is what could be called the Aurelian Wager: “Live the best life you can and do whatever good you can in this life. If the gods are just, they will reward you for being good; if the gods are unjust, then you still would have done your best with the time you had [and sucking up to unjust gods would likely not have helped anyway]; and if there are no gods and no afterlife, then you would have lived the best life you could have in the time you had.” How does that sound, piper?
Raging Bee @#216,
I agree with you that Pascal’s wager only makes sense if you don’t think it through as you have done.
I had never heard of the Aurelian Wager before. I like it. Thanks!
Another day, another move of the goalposts.
Molecules interact when brought into close proximity with enough energy to meet the activation energy requirement. It’s a stochastic process governed by ordinary forces. I now demand you explain how molecular self-awareness works, since that is your theory and you have made lengthy noises about only believing things you understand.
RB,
Pascal seems to operate from the premise that Christianity is the exclusive truth. He apparently accepted the idea of total depravity, which living a good life and doing good things cannot fix.
Pascal’s Wager is akin to Roko’s Basilisk.
(Appeals to frightened rubes)
txpiper: In other words, Pascal accepted — or had to pretend to accept — a lot of unfounded fearmongering bollocks put out by Christian con-artists of his time. So he wasn’t quite the genius you pretend he was — especially since even in his time there were MANY factions of Christianity, so it was pretty stupid (or cowardly) to speak of “THE exclusive truth.”
Mano: The “Aurelian Wager” comes from a quote attributed to Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, which I paraphrased from memory and tried to make a little more succinct.
Exactly. Even if you disregarded all other religious traditions (which already makes the whole exercise pointless), you and Pascal still have no good way to decide whether you should be betting on Catholic doctrine or whatever else there may be: Unitarian, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, you name it…. This includes not only every single “heretical” sect that may not even exist anymore, but also every single individual’s personal set of credences no matter how incoherent they may be.
It’s like you have a giant roulette wheel with thousands and thousands of different pockets where the ball could land. You’re pretending as if you can only bet on red (or black), in order to treat it as a binary choice, that it can’t be the case that a person bets on individual numbers. If in fact you’re not the one making the rules of this game (since that’s supposed to be the deity’s job), then who are you to say that? Why couldn’t it be the case that if you adhere to some flavor Sunni Islam, for instance, there’s actually a non-Sunni deity who wants to punish Sunnis or even merely those like you who subscribe to the very specific version of it that you happened to choose? Why is it that all possible gods are so completely fucking powerless that even your baseless assertions are enough to prevent them from doing anything?
Epicurus:
~ J. Lennon
A sentence of two halves, with the first half a commentary by txpiper on the mind of Pascal, and the second half a rare admission by txpiper of their own cop-out of a belief.
Given the total depravity of the “one true god”, documented as historical fact in his autobiography (you know, all the rapes and murders, incest and genocides he either committed or ordered and that make hitler look like a nice guy who you would want to take home to meet your parents), it would appear to me to be somewhat mind-numbingly stupid to claim that fealty to that self-same depraved god is the only path that can lead you away from depravity.
Meanwhile, the congressional hearings are ongoing, and make gripping viewing for those whose eyes actually work.
[It’s not a literal term, tuatara.
It’s a theological one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity ]
Thanks John Morales.
I was obviously not aware of that specific theological term.
Oh well, at least some if us learn things here.
@txpiper:
So he was brilliant enough to believe in God, but not brilliant enough to pick the right religion?
What’s stopping you from converting to the same non-strict-doctrine Catholicism?
I had a thought about Pascal’s Wager. It can be interpreted in (at least) two ways:
1) Under the first interpretation, Pascal was arguing for a specific set of religious beliefs, not only belief in God. He was arguing for his specific doctrines, not yours.
2) Under the second interpretation, God cares about belief, and only belief. Belief is necessary and sufficient for salvation. All believers — Muslims and Mormons, Jews and Hindus — will be welcome. Atheists won’t . . .
Wait. New thought. In this scenario, maybe I can tell God that I belived that God exists in the minds of believers. After all, if what is believed about God doesn’t matter, then maybe believing that God is make-believe is OK. So maybe I could get in anyway?
Anyway. What do you think Pascal intended? If it’s the second, that’s kind of surprising. Doesn’t Christianity hold that additional doctrines are as important as God-belief? If it’s the first — what makes you smarter than the brilliant Pascal?
Wait. That completely contradicts the idea that there’s any choice in the matter at all. You can’t really properly believe that God exists until God grants you the grace to believe.
The “Wager” itself is therefore completely bogus by Pascal’s own beliefs!
cr,
Humans seem to be wired for belief in an afterlife. Perhaps some of that is because they think concepts like justice and vindication are not just human constructs.
=======
Owlmirror,
“What’s stopping you from converting to the same non-strict-doctrine Catholicism?”
lol…my strict non-Catholic doctrine. Catholic theologians operate with license and wide latitude when they encounter theological snags. For instance, if the question is how can a sinful woman mother a sinless Christ, they concocted the Immaculate Conception, whereby Mary did not inherit original sin.
It is no different than the mutations/selection idea. It is a story line cooked up to solve a theoretical deficiency, not a discovery.
.
“What do you think Pascal intended?”
I don’t know about his intentions. He was a Jansenist, so some of his beliefs must have resembled Calvinism. I have never read his writings.
.
“Doesn’t Christianity hold that additional doctrines are as important as God-belief?”
Important for what?
.
“what makes you smarter than the brilliant Pascal?”
lol…nice try. I’ll join tuatara in Gomership.
I am a product of teachers (all dead now) I consider great because of their scripture management skills.
@txpiper:
But Blaise Pascal was a Catholic theologian. Do you have any respect for the man or not?
So you would argue that Jesus absolutely and definitely gestated inside the sinful womb of a sinful mother, completely enveloped by sin and nourished by sin for nine months?
Salvation. Or not-damnation. The whole point of Pascal’s Wager. Did you forget the topic so quickly?
#228 tx
Pathetic. Everything we know about genetics came to us via direct observation, making it the exact opposite of any doctrinal position.
Owlmirror,
“Blaise Pascal was a Catholic theologian”
He was a Jansenist.
“Jansen and his followers claimed that in their opposition to the doctrines of grace defined by Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–64), the theologians of the Counter-Reformation had erred in the other direction…”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jansenism
.
“Do you have any respect for the man or not?”
Of course. I don’t have to agree with everything a person believes to admire them.
.
“So you would argue that Jesus absolutely and definitely gestated inside the sinful womb of a sinful mother, completely enveloped by sin and nourished by sin for nine months?”
I would argue that Jesus did not inherit original sin from Mary.
.
“Salvation. Or not-damnation. The whole point of Pascal’s Wager. Did you forget the topic so quickly?”
No. You asked about additional doctrines. As it pertains to salvation, I am, for several reasons, a minimalist. Reward is a different category.
===
Holms, genetics and a supposed developmental process are not the same thing.
No, they don’t seem that way. People are very heavily socialized to believe that kind of stuff, and many (like me) reject it.
You also apparently believe in original sin. (And total depravity? You’re some kind of Calvinist?) Perhaps you should conclude such beliefs, including your own, are sinful.
Your premise that humans are all wired to believe in an afterlife is false, so there’s nothing to explain about it. Similarly, nobody needs to say why sunrises occur on the western horizon every morning, since in fact they don’t occur there.
So … I suppose that would mean less than 144,000?
It could be minimized all the way down to zero, you know.
#232 tx
You believe in immaculate conception after all, you just think the theologians named the wrong person. A far cry from the scorn you expressed for the idea only one comment prior: “…a story line cooked up to solve a theoretical deficiency” (#229).
I was replying to your reference to “the mutations/selection idea”, i.e. genetic mutation and selection pressuresas the engine of evolution. Our understand of this process is entirely due to observation, and not “a story line cooked up to solve a theoretical deficiency”.
txpiper, all the theological contortions necessary to buy you a place next to jesus presuppose belief in jesus, god, and an afterlife. Without that supposition the contortions of theology become silly exercises without merit or utility.
You and I are not gomers together. You are, after all is said, the only one here arguing against everyone else. I make no secret of the fact that my education ended when I was 15, but even I understand that intelligence and education are not the same things.
As for Pascal, well, he was 17 before Jansen’s writings were even published. Given that catholicism was the dominant religion at the time, 17 years is more than enough time to brainwash a person. And you know what they say, once a catholic, always a catholic.
I do not doubt his contributions to mathematics (among other fields) were great. But he still believed in god and jesus, so either he was a product of his time, or a bit thick. Out of respect to him I would err on the side of him being a product of his time.
So fuck off txpiper.
I don’t believe in sin, original or inherited.
I also don’t believe in immaculate conceptions.
None of that nonsense is necessary to have a sense of justice or vindication. (An odd pairing btw)
A pre verbal child will loudly protest the injustice of having a toy taken from them by another child, and feel vindication if an adult intervenes and they get the toy back. Even the dog understands the basics of personal property, so it is ridiculous to claim that humans are the only animals who understand personal boundaries.
“Our understand of this process is entirely due to observation, and not “a story line cooked up to solve a theoretical deficiency”.”
Holms, you have amply demonstrated that you can’t show a single thing in the way of an observation, experiment, or even a cursory explanation to support the sappy idea of mutations/selection building complex biological systems. All you have to offer is declarations.
Everything you believe depends on that ridiculous notion. I do not envy you having such a brown spot in your worldview. It would drive me nuts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
How can millimeters add up to a kilometer?
Has anyone actually lined up little millimeter-gauge-blocks for the full length of a kilometer and then measured them? How do we know that the measurements are correct? And how do we know that the measurements will hold up over tens, or even hundreds of kilometers? And you expect me to believe we can measure down the the nanometer, when we don’t even have nanometer gaugeblocks to measure against terameters?
pfft
I’m still waiting for txpiper to explain why the creator god spent billions of years designing biocrusts before getting to work on anything more complex than Cyanobacteria.
Owlmirror,
You might enjoy reading about James Tour. His Rice University research group recently published this paper, summarized in this New Scientist article.
You can read about his patents, publications and personal views here, and his beliefs regarding OOL, ID, evolution and creation here .
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I am lucky enough to be able to commute to work via bicycle. I’ve got a couple hellishly stressful miles through traffic, but after that, I get the rest of the trip on a relatively easy, flat, multi-use trail, where I don’t have to worry much about automobiles.
blah, blah, blah… maybe about two weeks ago, I thought I noticed a weird smell along my commute home at a certain point. Whatever, it’s a bay, there is tides and traffic, and I’m moving (relatively…)fast… but it persisted… So, one day when I was released early, I slowed down as I approached the location of foul odor, and, well, it smelled way worse at slower speeds… But I think I identified the source -- a seal (sea lion? (I’m bad at pinniped specifics))carcass washed up on the riprap.
Usually I’m going fast enough, that as long as I’m not inhaling right when I pass through the area of that seal carcass, it’s not too bad… But I still look over to see what’s happening, and sometimes when I’m not doing to well on foresight, will slow/stop my bike and begin to attempt a closer look (until I inevitably inhale, and then it’s a clumsy, scrunchy-faced, stumble to just out of range, where I can mount my bicycle and pedal my mortal ass off away from that ungodly stench).
I think that has some parallels to this thread, like, there is this thing going on that is vaguely curious on an intellectual level, so you go in for a closer look, and then are just hit by the absolute foulness of tortured logical fallacies, and have trouble reacting with anything other than vomit.
And then, get criticized because your virtual vomit doesn’t meet the appropriate virtual vomit classification schemes of internet troll -2495843w-025982
:/
#237 tx
You were shown documented examples of soft tissues surviving deep time, you dismissed them as stupid. You were asked to give more detail, but you had none to give; the concept was declared stupid purely out of a desire not to believe it. How long ago was that? You’ve yet to provide any detail beyond a simple refusal, you only have childish rebuttals in the style of ‘it can’t happen because it just can’t.’ This undermines your complaint quite badly, making demands of us while flatly ignoring multiple instances of documentation from the previous topic.
And what was it you wanted explained? Oh yes, just a small matter of the entire history of the DNA molecule.
@txpiper:
So God-belief is not sufficient for salvation. Well, you could have just said so.
Doesn’t that mean that Pascal’s Wager is nearly useless?
@txpiper:
So what exactly is seeing this supposed “unimaginable catastrophe” based on, and why does your sight trump the efforts of actual geologists?
Actually, if it’s unimaginable, clearly txpiper can not imagine it, by their own claim.
(cue Princess Bride quote)
“So what exactly is seeing this supposed “unimaginable catastrophe” based on…?”
A hundred million cubic miles of sedimentary rock.
@txpiper:
You’re not answering the question. What do you see in a “hundred million cubic miles of sedimentary rock” that actual geologists don’t?
Owlmirror,
Sediments are mostly deposited by water. Where did all that material come from?
You put a lot of stock in academia. My experiences tell me that lots of ‘actual’ people just believe what they are taught. Mullahs are actual, too.
@txpiper:
What does that have to do with your claimed catastrophe? Make a little intellectual effort, here.
It’s true, I do think that people who study sedimentation and erosion are more likely to be experts on those topics than someone who has no familiarity with those phenomena.
Aren’t you just projecting here? You just believe what you were taught, so that’s what everyone else does as well?
You’re generalizing from one example, but then, everyone generalizes from one example. At least, you do.
And, what, the rock record is just a bunch of hadiths that anyone can say anything about?
Someone could claim that the “hundred million cubic miles of sedimentary rock” were put there by aliens from outer space, and that’s just as good as actual geologists explaining erosion, uplift, the different types of soils deposited by different types of phenomena (rivers, shallow seas, deep seas, flash floods, wind), and so on?
Is that really where you want to go with this?
“What does that have to do with your claimed catastrophe?”
Imagine yourself standing next to a block, 1 mile wide, 1 mile long and 1 mile high. Then try to imagine 100,000,000 of those blocks. Do you believe that “rivers, shallow seas, deep seas, flash floods, wind” are adequate explanations for that much material?
For philosophical reasons, actual geologists thought that J Harlan Bretz was an idiot. But they were wrong. Actual paleontologists believe that zillions of random DNA replication errors turned Pakicetus into blue whales. People will accept most anything as long as they like what they are hearing. This is about what people believe, not what they know.
How odd that my local rocks are millions to billions of years old. I guess txpiper doesn’t understand how banded iron formations were formed, but he has no problem believing the long disproven idea of 17th century flood geology. From wiki:
Actual paleontologists believe that zillions of random DNA replication errors
Actual paleontologists don’t worry much about DNA, as their field involves the study of actual fossils of extinct organisms. Their modern dating methods are further proof against the silliness of thinking the myths in biblical scripture can shed any light on 3.8 billion years worth of geology.
What a ludicrous false analogy. The Grand Canyon isn’t made of “blocks”; it’s made of formations. Formations, I note, that are described and analyzed by actual geologists.
Try harder. Where’s the catastrophe?
Are you really so astoundingly ignorant of geology that you don’t know that different types of deposits can be distinguished? And that the circumstances and materials of their formation is meaningful?
Do you just not care about what you don’t know?
Bretz was an actual geologist, who gave actual geological answers to actual geological questions.
(“Where did the water come from?” From a glacial lake in Montana. When a dam of ice from the Cordilleran Ice Sheet formed at the Clark Fork of the Columbia river, the Missoula valley collected water and became a huge deep lake. When the ice dam melted, the water ripped west into what is now Washington state, and tore down hills and carved temporary rivers, forming the Channeled Scablands.
“Where did the water go?” Into the Columbia River, and from there into the sea.)
[We also know that the cycle of “ice dam; lake build up; ice dam melt; megaflood” happened more than once, because the sediments can be radiometrically dated.]
If Bretz had responded to the actual geological questions with nothing more than “you actual geologists just believe what you are taught for philosophical reasons”, he would have been an idiot. But he didn’t and he wasn’t.
Oh, and Bretz’s findings are now taught as part of mainstream geology.
So you reject geology because you don’t like hearing about geology?
My local fossils range from the ancient stromatolites found in association with the Banded Iron Formations, through marine limestone deposits that contain multiple fantastic shelled cephalopods and trilobites, which is topped with glacial tills that contain Mammoths, Mastodons, and beavers the size of black bears with long muskrat tails. We lack dinosaurs, which is sad.
It’s conspicuously lacking in strata that was deposited by flooding, except for some glacial dams bursting.
Owlmirror,
“The Grand Canyon isn’t made of “blocks” ”
The GC is just a cutaway exhibition. The sediments are, and the catastrophe was, all over the planet.
“…the area of outcrop and exposure of sediment and sedimentary rock comprises 75 percent of the land surface and well over 90 percent of the ocean basins and continental margins. In other words, 80–90 percent of the surface area of Earth is mantled with sediment or sedimentary rocks rather than with igneous or metamorphic varieties. The sediment-sedimentary rock shell forms only a thin superficial layer. The mean shell thickness in continental areas is 1.8 kilometres; the sediment shell in the ocean basins is roughly 0.3 kilometre. Rearranging this shell as a globally encircling layer (and depending on the raw estimates incorporated into the model), the shell thickness would be roughly 1–3 kilometres.” [.62-1.86 miles]
https://www.britannica.com/science/sedimentary-rock
.
“Bretz was an actual geologist…”
So were his critics.
#249
…therefore all geologists can be ignored. -- txpiper
Obviously, erosional deposit material came from earlier structures that were eroded. Take Australia as a prime example of this. Do you think it was always this flat? The Mount Lofty range is a greatly eroded mountain range with a maximum altitude of less than 1km. But dating methods put the origin of the range at over 400M years ago, being eroded in all that time and leading to sedimentary deposits up to 15km thick around it.
These things are checkable; geology, like any science, has a paper trail of data collection and citations in its literature. By contrast, your ‘divine murder cataclysm’ explanation provides only a magical explanation, attested to by a single book, edited together by third century religious figures from bronze age mythologies.
#251
They thought he was wrong until he won them over with real research. You are not Bretz, you are a guy saying ‘nope because nope’ because you would have to throw out many elements of your worldview if you accepted these sciences.
Another citation that does not say what the lying creationist claims? What does the Bible say about lying and hypocrisy?.
Limestone and sandstone are not formed by flooding or erosion of sediments. Those environmental conditions actually prevent them from forming. You need deep salt water filled with foraminifers and diatoms and thousands of years to allow the formation of limestone.
The ice age megafauna fossils are found in the subsoils, and there aren’t any large bodies of saltwater anywhere near the Great Lakes Region, so where did all the limestone with reefs and fossilized cephalopods up to 14 feet long come from?
I was there.
https://pharyngula.fandom.com/wiki/The_Eternal_Thread_and_its_descendants#Genesis_of_The_Thread
I’m finally glad I keep checking back into this thread now and again, it’s finally gone from irritating to outright hilarious…
It’s mind-boggling how absolutely ignorant and wrong someone can be, yet still be so damned confident that they are the only one to see the “real truth”
At this point, I’m beginning to wonder if this is a long-game Poe…
Tyrannosaurus Rex: the pre-flood giant kangaroo!
A few of the excellently considered points taken from the comments section.
@txpiper:
There are indeed sediments all over the planet.
But what planet-wide catastrophe are you referring to here? You can’t just say “sediments, therefore catastrophe”. There’s no argument there.
The Britannica article on sediments doesn’t help your case at all. Did you even read it? Did you understand any part of what your read?
Maybe you need to look up some of the harder words. I notice that some of the more technical words are underlined and link to a dictionary. But you have to click the link.
Or maybe you have a hard time paying attention for long periods of time while reading complex texts.
And so were those who published his original paper. And those who agreed with him, and the ones who collaborated with him, and those who were willing to keep an open mind until there was more evidence.
Why do you think Bretz helps you in any way? Bretz argued, geologically, for a local catastrophe. But a local catastrophe is not a global one. In fact, because we have a better idea of what a local catastrophe looks like, from his work, we can find others. And if there had been a global catastrophe, the whole planet would look like what Bretz found. But it doesn’t, because Bretz found a local catastrophe, and did not claim to have found a global one.
Owlmirror,
“But what planet-wide catastrophe are you referring to here?”
I am a creationist. I accept the toledoths and narratives in Genesis as accurate records, so I accept that there was a cataclysmic flood. I think geological evidence supports the written account. In my opinion, the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon is showing the violence that occurred when mankind and his habitat were destroyed:
“I will destroy them with the earth”.
I believe the rock layers in the GC were formed quickly. I took this picture while rafting the Colorado river in the Grand Canyon in 2007. We were not far from Lake Mead. In the background, you can see the layered remnants of the canyon wall and countless tons of fallen slough. In the foreground, at river level, you can see layered, eroding sediments deposited in 1983 when the water level in the lake was at a record high. They are showing exactly the same thing. It is only a matter of scale. The idea that the material that forms the strata accumulated over millions of years, maintaining color and composition till the layer was hundreds of feet thick, is not believable. It is, in fact, stupid.
.
“The Britannica article on sediments….”
The article makes it clear that the flood was planet-wide. The amounts and distribution of sediments should dispel notions that there could not have been a flood (or that it was only a regional event).
.
“Why do you think Bretz helps you in any way?”
The Bretz incident shows that a discipline can ignore evidence and draw wrong conclusions en masse. As the Wikipedia article notices:
[Bretz’s interpretation] “was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz’s views were initially discredited.”
In other words, the actual geologists who were involved in group-think, didn’t like what they heard. This still happens, all the time.
A bald faced lie.
That article does not say anything about planet wide floods, since it’s dealing with sedimentary rocks as a proportion of the earths crust vs metamorphic or volcanic rocks. (Also reality, since there is not enough water on this planet to cover all the land)
You can claim to believe in ghosts, or vampires, or any other supernatural entity, they are just imaginary as petulant sociopathic sky gods and the flood myth that the Jewish people ‘borrowed’ from the Sumerian and Babylonian cultures.
The Bretz incident shows that a discipline can ignore evidence and draw wrong conclusions en masse
And yet it moves.
I am a creationist. I accept the toledoths and narratives in Genesis as accurate records, so I accept that there was a cataclysmic flood…
What you believe has absolutely zero basis in evidence, and none of it even makes sense internally. Go shill for your tantrum-throwing little god somewhere else.
Oooh look! You have a photo that proves that your opinion born of a silly and superstitious old story the real meaning of which is lost to time, and disproves a sensible theory that is the result of thorough consideration of the physical evidence undertaken by many specialists in their various fields.
If we are just throwing opinions around, here are some of my polite ones.
Indigenous peoples around the world have or had many “creation” myths that appear to offer explanations of how the universe and everything in it came to be. A common misconception among non-indigenous people is that these stories are actually trying to seriously explain the origins of everything, but this is not an accurate assessment.
The primary purpose of these creation myths is to pass on knowledge of living practices, social structures and rules, food gathering and processing etc. How or when the universe or the earth or humans actually came to be, being unnecessary for the continuation of society, is considered a pointless question not actually worth asking. But the stories are useful for imparting valuable information unrelated to the surface stories that are presented. In pre-literate societies the stories were encoded into song and dance, thereby ensuring that they remained unchanged from one generation to the next, and the practical information they contain preserved. Outside of those practices of mythology the stories lose context and meaning
As an example, my own people have a story of how a particular mountain came to be isolated on the coast, far from the other mountains. The surface story is a tragic love story, similar to that of Romeo and Juliet, involving belligerent chiefs and magic spells that forbit daylight travel, but beneath the surface is much practical information including a map of the geological features including the location of the river and the villages inland behind the mountain which, was useful information for the effective navigation of a pre-literate ocean-going people. Saying that the very existence of the mountain in the place given by the story proves the truth of the story is a circular argument that even txpiper would call me out on were I to propose it. In reality the mountain is the remains of a volcanic plug that is itself the remains of a large and ancient volcano.
Superstition seems to be a natural condition arising from the way our brains evolved. For many it can take effort to overcome superstition, while others seem able to discard superstition fairly easily. Sadly, many indigenous people were extremely superstitious too, so readily adopted the abrahamic nonsense that they were coerced to take up (usually figuratively at gunpoint or after being stolen from their parents and sent to the “protection” of a predatory state) after their knowledgeable elders were murdered and their land stolen.
Taking the stories of the bible as literal truth is as nonsensical as taking that story of that mountains’ isolation being the result of magic spells (nonsense) that forbid the mountain from travelling during daylight (some more nonsense) as literal truth. The original information embedded in the stories of the “old testament” bible is long lost, leaving only an empty surface-level “truth” that is unrelated to the original deeper meaning. Given the many obscenities contained therein, taking the bible literally simply allows people to cling to silly superstitions that hinder human progress in obscene ways .
tuatara, good comment.
For anyone who wants a more concrete example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songline
Saying that the very existence of the mountain in the place given by the story proves the truth of the story is a circular argument that even txpiper would call me out on were I to propose it.
That’s only because the story isn’t in txpiper’s bible.
An opinion, derived from a single book, edited together by a council of believers, with bronze age mythology as its ultimate source. And you think this is more credible than the findings of geologists, people whose occupation is literally to study earth formations. You have a photo, they have field sample analysis methods refined over centuries of investigation, which has the added benefit of a checkable paper trail in the body of scientific literature. Navel gazing versus study.
You even think the low rocky shelf nearest the water level was deposited in a single year(!), and you have the hubris to call all professional geologists stupid.
You also mistake opinion for fact.
Up until they were won over with evidence.
You are laughable.
Hey, txpiper, one question --
I’d like to know what you think the value of pi is, and your reasoning/rationale behind that.
Shouldn’t be too difficult, at least easier than asking to sum up the grand total of molecular biochemistry in a brief blog comment…
@txpiper:
And is being a creationist part of your identity that you are literally incapable of changing? You don’t have the free will to not be a creationist?
Well, why do you “accept” them as accurate? Texts written by fallible humans are always at least potentially subject to error, inconsistency, and contradiction. In the case of Genesis, there’s a contradiction in sequence right in the first two chapters (Gen 1 — creation of all animals, then man and woman; Gen 2 — creation of man, then all animals, then woman). Doesn’t this at least hint to you that at least one of the narratives is not accurate?
Why don’t you care about what is actually true foremost?
But why would you think that? I mean, you’ve shown no interest in actually analyzing the geological evidence.
The first modern geologists were, by and large, Christians. They, too, were indoctrinated to believe that the Genesis narratives were accurate to some degree, and went looking at the earth for evidence of that biblical accuracy. Their first publications assumed a great flood. But the more they looked, the less sense a flood made to explain all of their observations, and at some point they gave up and said “There cannot possibly have been a recent global flood”. They cared about what is actually true foremost,
I doubt you’ll be able or willing to read this for comprehension, but it’s a more thorough history of early geology:
https://gis.ess.washington.edu/grg/publications/pdfs/Evolution_of_Creationism-2.pdf
That reminds me: Given all of the evidence for the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe and the lack of a recent global flood; all of the evidence that stands in contradiction to Genesis — do you think all of that evidence is an enormous and undetectable deception?
And yet, your belief is false.
Here’s some mudcracks in the Grand Canyon.
https://www.azgs.arizona.edu/photo/1-billion-year-old-mudcracks
You know mud, right? Soft wet stuff? And then the top layer dries out in the sun, and cracks form as the wet substrate shrinks as the water leaves that top layer? And in this case, the whole thing bakes in the sun so that it solidifies?
It’s physically impossible for that chunk of mudcracked sediment to “form quickly”.
Even assuming that this summary is accurate — which I don’t — what makes it not believable? What would force it to not have the same color and composition?
Since the Britannica article doesn’t even mention a planet-wide flood, and in fact reviews all of the different depositional processes which are not related to a planet-wide flood and could not happen in a planet-wide flood, the article cannot possibly make such a thing “clear”.
The only thing that’s clear is that you clearly did not read or understand the article.
Does being a creationist force you to be so blatantly dishonest about what geologists write?
The amounts and distribution of sediments have nothing to do with a global flood.
But they didn’t ignore the evidence, once more of it was provided.
Actual geologists either agreed with Bretz or eventually changed their minds.
Are you capable of changing your mind about what the Britannica article on sediment actually says, once it’s been rubbed in your face enough?
I believe that the rock layers in the GC were formed quickly
Despite your insistence that belief can alter physical realities, the consistent colors and composition of those layers of bedrock are proof that they all originated from different source rocks. Their ages have been established through U-Pb dating, which is highly accurate. The layering of sedimentary rocks is proof that they were not deposited by flooding. Flood deposits don’t result in well sorted layers of limestone and sandstones, they leave mudstones filled with debris and conglomerate.
Limestone forms on the seabeds that surround every landmass. It often contains the fossils of marine creatures. It never contains the fossils of ice age mammoths.
My local limestones and sandstones contain extensive tropical reefs of extinct life forms. They are intact, and extend for hundreds of miles across the upper Midwest states. (Which are notably lacking seas, and tropical climates).
There is no way a flood somehow washed this limestone bedrock thousands of miles inland and then left the remains of ice age animals nicely sorted out on top of the limestones, within in the gravels and glacial tills that underlie the soil.
ordovician stromatolites
In passing, I’m watching the (for now) final episode right now, via Australian news.