Video debates and Interviews

[betsy]

The idea was antiquated press talk. Scientists haven't talked in terms of "missing links" in generations. They don't need to. They have the molecular data to fill in where the fossil record leaves gaps.

Besides, what about the hominid fossil record do you feel is incomplete? We have a clear line between the early bipedal hominoids to modern humans. We don't have every organism, but we hardly need it, any more than any analysis requires ever solitary event or specimen to see trends.

Your problem, Betsy, is you know nothing about science, you know nothing about evolution. I'll wager you couldn't even describe what evolution is succinctly.

Interpretation: You got no rebutt.

[GostHacked]

Interpretation: You got no rebutt.

You never had an argument to begin with.

[ToadBrother]

Interpretation: You got no rebutt.

I posted the link with evidence, and you ignored it.

You have no idea what evolution is, do you Betsy.

[betsy]

I posted the link with evidence, and you ignored it.

I also posted the link that critiqued it! And you ignored it.

Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

100 years and counting.....still waiting....

...and they're still piddling around trying to find anything they can fit in that dark little box.

[ToadBrother]

I also posted the link that critiqued it! And you ignored it.

I don't recall any link that critiqued 29+ pieces of evidence for evolution. Perhaps you would like to repost it.

For instance, let's see your explanation for ERVs.

Edited April 9, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

100 years and counting.....still waiting....

...and they're still piddling around trying to find anything they can fit in that dark little box.

Do you do anything but crib creationist sites?

[betsy]

Do you do anything but crib creationist sites?

So what if they're creationist sites. You can try to debunk them by providing your own rebutt...with your back-up system!

Run to TalkOrigin.

Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

I don't recall any link that critiqued 29+ pieces of evidence for evolution. Perhaps you would like to repost it.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

[betsy]

Oh boy, the plot really thickens....

According to a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, the dean of British neo-Darwinists, "the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."

Lewontin said Dawkins uses unsubstantiated materials. And now according to Dawkins' camp, Gould was apparently "so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with.."

No wonder their followers are so confused they don't even know whether they're coming or going.

Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Furthermore, here's housekeeping 101 - sweep it under the rug.

"the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.

Ohhh the dirty buggers....

Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

You seem to even more concerned about Dawkins specifically than about evolution itself...to the point where you've now summoned Stephen J. Gould, twice.

Do you agree with what Gould says about evolution and Creationism?

[ToadBrother]

I'm gathering, Betsy, that you don't have an explanation for ERVs.

Do you even know what ERVs are, Betsy?

[betsy]

You seem to even more concerned about Dawkins specifically

Yep.

And I did said that I intend to focus on him. And then some....

[GostHacked]

Yep.

And I did said that I intend to focus on him. And then some....

Narrow the focus so much, the forest is missed.

[betsy]

You seem to even more concerned about Dawkins specifically than about evolution itself...to the point where you've now summoned Stephen J. Gould, twice.

Do you agree with what Gould says about evolution and Creationism?

I'm gathering, Betsy, that you don't have an explanation for ERVs.

Do you even know what ERVs are, Betsy?

Two samples of classic maneuver called, "Changing the channel." A variation of Deflection.

Interpretation: Desperate. Cannot rebutt.

Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

Two samples of classic maneuver called, "Changing the channel." A variation of Deflection.

Interpretation: Desperate. Cannot rebutt.

It's not that, Betsy. It's that, even if you were 100% correct about Dawkins, that doesn't even begin to chip away at the edifice of evolution.

Edited April 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[betsy]

It's not that, Betsy. It's that, even if you were 100% correct about Dawkins, that doesn't even begin to chip away at the edifice of evolution.

Bloodyminded, the only reason why so many people believed in evolution was because they were taught that in school.

The only reason why evolution is being taught in school and being passed off as fact is due to the secularist society/system.

I never thought I'd get stuck on Dawkins this long....but I just keep stumbling upon all these articles about him, one after the other. He seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.

If you've read the numerous quotes I've posted you'd see I'm not the one chipping away at evolution. Scientists are.

Besides, there's hardly anything solid to chip away. Evolution is like a dike that keeps leaking in various places. The pro-evolutionists keep plugging the holes to stop the leaks, to keep it from crumbling down. The pro-ID are simply unplugging those holes, and saying "let it go. It's useless. We've got something to replace it."

Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

Bloodyminded, the only reason why so many people believed in evolution was because they were taught that in school.

The only reason why evolution is being taught in school and being passed off as fact is due to the secularist society/system.

I never thought I'd get stuck on Dawkins this long....but I just keep stumbling upon all these articles about him, one after the other. He seem to be the gift that keeps on giving.

If you've read the numerous quotes I've posted you'd see I'm not the one chipping away at evolution. Scientists are.

No...evolutionary theory is becoming increasingly solid as time passes, not the other way around.

[betsy]

No...evolutionary theory is becoming increasingly solid as time passes, not the other way around.

That's what you say.

[GostHacked]

That's what you say.

That is what a lot of scientists say.

[ToadBrother]

Two samples of classic maneuver called, "Changing the channel." A variation of Deflection.

Interpretation: Desperate. Cannot rebutt.

You're evading Betsy. Do you know what an ERV is and do you know why it is a major piece of evidence for evolution in general, and specifically in hominoid evolution? Why won't you answer? Why are you so afraid?

You might as well put me on ignore now, because every single reply to every single post you make will be "Do you know what ERVs are and why are they not evidence for evolution?"

Edited April 9, 2011 by ToadBrother

[betsy]

You're evading Betsy. Do you know what an ERV is and do you know why it is a major piece of evidence for evolution in general, and specifically in hominoid evolution? Why won't you answer? Why are you so afraid?

You might as well put me on ignore now, because every single reply to every single post you make will be "Do you know what ERVs are and why are they not evidence for evolution?"

So they say that it is proof of evolution! I've given you a link that critiqued Theobald, and which you ignored. This is just an excerpt from that critique. It's a long one, a very long read....and I didn't even bother reading the whole thing myself.

Presumably, the alleged prediction and fulfillment are:

If universal common ancestry is true, then the same endogenous retrovirus (ERV) will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.

The same ERV exists in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.

Since this is the concept of “shared errors” applied to endogenous retroviruses (and since retroviruses are a type of transposon), much of the two preceding responses is applicable. It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species. Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species. After all, evolutionary theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs. This is but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution.

Moreover, ERVs are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald’s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms. To quote Dr. Max once again, “Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . . Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides ‘shared errors.’”

The claim here is that common ancestry is the only viable explanation for “finding [ERVs] in identical chromosomal positions of two different species.” It is based on the premise that ERVs are (and always have been) nonfunctional products of retroviral infection that have, for the most part, inserted randomly into the genome of the host organism. The presumed nonfunctionality of ERVs is thought to eliminate the explanation of design (because a Designer could have no purpose in placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species). The presumed randomness of ERV insertion is thought to eliminate the explanation of chance (because the DNA “chain” is too long for coincidental insertion at the same locus to be a realistic possibility). That leaves common ancestry as the remaining explanation.

Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding. The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded. God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson’s comments in the discussion of Prediction 19).

You should read that since you've seem to have got your belief hinged on it.

My belief however, is not hinged on this...what endogenous retroviruses do as they go do their little going on moving from here-to-there, carrying whatever it is they want to inject and how what they inject can do their own little gig blah-blah-blah.

I hope you get my meaning.

Edited April 10, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

So they say that it is proof of evolution! I've given you a link that critiqued Theobald, and which you ignored. This is just an excerpt from that critique. It's a long one, a very long read....and I didn't even bother reading the whole thing myself.

You should read that since you've seem to have got your belief hinged on it.

My belief however, is not hinged on this...what endogenous retroviruses do as they go do their little going on moving from here-to-there, carrying whatever it is they want to inject and how what they inject can do their own little gig blah-blah-blah.

I hope you get my meaning.

The quote was nothing more than handwaving. If you had read it, you would have seen there was no critique of anything. It is telling that you can't even be bothered reading the garbage you're quoting.

The point of ERVs, Betsy, is that different lineages with common ancestors will show the same viral DNA at the same points in the genome, which means a common ancestor was infected with the virus, which left a chunk of its own genome in the host's genome, and that chunk, along with the host's own "native" DNA is happily passed down the line (the molecular machinery used to replicate DNA has absolutely no idea whether the genes its duplicating are the organism's own or the virus's).

Since a key prediction of the Modern Synthesis is that more closely related species will have more genetic information in common, and that they will share a common ancestor, ERVs are considered not only good evidence of evolution, but also a very good way of determining when two related species may have diverged.

There are other keen things, too, like how all the great apes (including humans) have busted vitamin C synthesis pathways in the precise same genes. A common ancestor's gene broke, and that broken gene was passed on to all its descendants.

Edited April 10, 2011 by ToadBrother

[betsy]

The quote was nothing more than handwaving. If you had read it, you would have seen there was no critique of anything. It is telling that you can't even be bothered reading the garbage you're quoting.

The point of ERVs, Betsy, is that different lineages with common ancestors will show the same viral DNA at the same points in the genome, which means a common ancestor was infected with the virus, which left a chunk of its own genome in the host's genome, and that chunk, along with the host's own "native" DNA is happily passed down the line (the molecular machinery used to replicate DNA has absolutely no idea whether the genes its duplicating are the organism's own or the virus's).

Since a key prediction of the Modern Synthesis is that more closely related species will have more genetic information in common, and that they will share a common ancestor, ERVs are considered not only good evidence of evolution, but also a very good way of determining when two related species may have diverged.

There are other keen things, too, like how all the great apes (including humans) have busted vitamin C synthesis pathways in the precise same genes. A common ancestor's gene broke, and that broken gene was passed on to all its descendants.

You know what, Toadbrother....I've got a big problem with this term "NON-FUNCTIONAL."

Let me quote my source again:

The presumed nonfunctionality of ERVs is thought to eliminate the explanation of design (because a Designer could have no purpose in placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species).

This reminds so much of vestigial organs. Remember? The presumed non-functional organs such as the appendix, the tonsils etc..? Let me refresh your memory.

The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.

The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997:

Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection.313

It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx.

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.312

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

And now here you guys go again jumping to hasty conclusion with these ERVS.

Be patient. With hi-tech you probably need not wait a century to discover why it's been Designed that way.

Edited April 10, 2011 by betsy