Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(15-05-2013 09:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:PJ, seriously, read the Jerry Coyne book, Why Evolution Is True. He explains how natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation work among other things.
I understand how they work. These lead to new and extinct species. There is some irreducible complexity (and transitions missing in the fossil record) regarding species becoming land to sea animals and/or vice versa, abiogenesis, etc. using these given, real principles of evolution.

Thank you.

There is nothing that has been demonstrated to be 'irreducibly complex'.

I am still eagerly awaiting your book report. Have you not read anything yet?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-05-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
PJ avoids direct questions constantly.

PJ fails at describing the Kiwi wing as devolution

This thread is 13 pages of someone pretending to be curious and open-minded when the last few pages especially prove that there was never an attempt to read the referenced books in earnest or that their mind was open enough to attempt to understand what they were saying.

We were trolled.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
15-05-2013, 03:06 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2013 03:29 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(15-05-2013 09:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Your, and other creationists, charge is that "half a wing" is useless.

Yes, because there is no creature in the fossil record with half a wing, only animals with forelimbs that are assumed to be vestigial or ancilliary wings.

You keep responding to questions I didn't ask/misreading my posts, so I'll try to be briefer and more clear:

You didn't look at the photo I suggested. Both photos you posted of ambulocetus are what are known as fossil reconstructions. One of the photos you posted is labeled as such! I was frustrated beyond words when I saw the photo I posted the URL to that you never looked at.

I know you know this is standard practice is paleontology, but for the lay readers here I'll assist - scientists find 15 oe 20 or 50 bones of a creature presumed to have 200 bones, and create the rest. Then they often even add feathers and skin to their models when none were discovered. Therefore, what was taken to be an ancient whale with forelimbs was likely a reptile and never a sea creature at all.

The same, I mentioned is true of Lucy and many proto-human and transitory fossil forms. You did not address that fact.

Thanks.

Half a wing. Fossil is right here.
[Image: hoQMfRm.jpg]
[Image: tQVxgMc.jpg]


Worse still. Dinosaurs with out wings, but with feathers.
[Image: 36cIBwP.jpg]
[Image: SYtATSE.gif]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
15-05-2013, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2013 03:47 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(15-05-2013 09:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Your, and other creationists, charge is that "half a wing" is useless.

Yes, because there is no creature in the fossil record with half a wing, only animals with forelimbs that are assumed to be vestigial or ancilliary wings.

You keep responding to questions I didn't ask/misreading my posts, so I'll try to be briefer and more clear:

You didn't look at the photo I suggested. Both photos you posted of ambulocetus are what are known as fossil reconstructions. One of the photos you posted is labeled as such! I was frustrated beyond words when I saw the photo I posted the URL to that you never looked at.

I know you know this is standard practice is paleontology, but for the lay readers here I'll assist - scientists find 15 oe 20 or 50 bones of a creature presumed to have 200 bones, and create the rest. Then they often even add feathers and skin to their models when none were discovered. Therefore, what was taken to be an ancient whale with forelimbs was likely a reptile and never a sea creature at all.

The same, I mentioned is true of Lucy and many proto-human and transitory fossil forms. You did not address that fact.

Thanks.

Actually retroviruses are documented and show up on two species. How does that happen with out evolution?

However you seem to be stuck on Lucy....

Do you want to see the other skeletons?

Here is homo erectus.

[Image: A9ddzs2.jpg]


New Australopithecus skeletons
[Image: The-Malapa-skeletons.jpg]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 05:56 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(15-05-2013 09:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:PJ, seriously, read the Jerry Coyne book, Why Evolution Is True. He explains how natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation work among other things.
I understand how they work. These lead to new and extinct species. There is some irreducible complexity (and transitions missing in the fossil record) regarding species becoming land to sea animals and/or vice versa, abiogenesis, etc. using these given, real principles of evolution.

Thank you.

If you understand it, you would not assert irreducible complexity. Also, if you understand the mechanisms and science, then why are you asking for book recommendations? I'm not clear on why you keep asking these questions if you already, as you say, understand evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:I'm done. You read what you want, but you don't try to understand any of it. No book recommended to you will do a bit of good to help show you where you are wrong.

So you didn't look at the photos I recommended demonstrating the full ambulocetus is not a full anything?

Quote:If you understand it, you would not assert irreducible complexity.

I'm not sure what kind of fallacy the above is or if it's merely an ad hom assertion. There are biologists, anatomists, etc. who are Christians, Jews and even irreligious who are struggling with the issues of irreducible complexity. One example is the debate over methods of abiogenesis. I think the sentence above is a cheap shot. How can I defend against it? Oh, I understand the mechanisms, but the complexity is still there on a statistical basis.

Quote:Also, if you understand the mechanisms and science, then why are you asking for book recommendations? I'm not clear on why you keep asking these questions if you already, as you say, understand evolution.

I understand the mechanisms and I want a book that isn't "just so stories":

*We lack complete fossils (like Ambulocetus) but it must be just so

*We lack clinical observation (it's too slow to see today except on a micro/single species level) but it's just so

*Etc.

I not only UNDERSTAND the mechanisms, I believe them to be VALID mechanisms. That still leaves the facts:

*God made wolves and doglike animals and we can breed (or the above mechanisms) can make new dog species

*Bacteria can evolve rapidly as can viruses; and we can look at thousands of generations of them in a lab in mere weeks, but we can never see them becoming complex creatures

*A non-flying creature has to evolve wings, new respiration/transpiration mechanisms, new eyesight, new eyelids, resistance to predators while it develops with what TBD calls "baby wings", etc., new pray, internal brain "guidance systems", feathers, sebaceous glands for the feathers, new methods of gestation/fetal development; all the above have to be more than heritable traits, they have to be dominant, the creatures need to survive during however many intermediate steps (not that we have any intermediate fossils in the record), etc., etc., etc.

I COMPLETELY believe in Evolution but am aware of the statistical improbabilities of developing big changes. "Small changes over time add to big ones" is a misstatement of "Small changes over time, like several mutations out of every thousand to billion births does not equal changes on complexity orders approaching googleplexes or beyond..."

If that does not make sense to you, I'll clarify further.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
This
"...while it develops with what TBD calls "baby wings"..."
is why I am done. How the hell do you get this out of anything I said? Troll somewhere else or read the books you claim to have read again. This time, do it without going to the internet for a creationist special pleading argument to justify your desire to not see the facts.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(17-05-2013 01:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This
"...while it develops with what TBD calls "baby wings"..."
is why I am done. How the hell do you get this out of anything I said? Troll somewhere else or read the books you claim to have read again. This time, do it without going to the internet for a creationist special pleading argument to justify your desire to not see the facts.

You didn't really expect intellectual honesty and an open mind from PleaseJesus when he started this thread, did you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
17-05-2013, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2013 12:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(17-05-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *God made wolves and doglike animals and we can breed (or the above mechanisms) can make new dog species..

Speculation. Assertion with no evidence. No proof even attempted or offered.

(17-05-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *Bacteria can evolve rapidly as can viruses; and we can look at thousands of generations of them in a lab in mere weeks, but we can never see them becoming complex creatures.

Of course you can't. That statement alone PROVES you actually understand NOTHING about Evolution.
In the infinitesimally small time frame, you DO see exactly what you would expect to see, and what is predicted by the theory. Bacteria becoming resistant to one or another antibiotic. Responding to their environment, and adapting. Being selected by the trait(s) that better enable it to survive.

In the time the Earth has existed, humans have existed .003 percent of the time, that's .00003 of the time the Earth has exited. In one infinitesimally small human lifetime, you would probably not even "expect" to see the changes you DO see. Age of the earth is 4.54×10^9, Homo sapiens about 160,000 years.
160,000/4,540,000,000=3.52422907×10^-5 = 0.00003

On a clock if all of the time of the Earth were compressed into 24 hours, all of the human historical period would be in 1 second to midnight. You would "expect" to see nothing. So knock off that macro/micro shit they duped you with.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-petrone...75989.html

(17-05-2013 01:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Oh, I understand the mechanisms, but the complexity is still there on a statistical basis.

Again proves SPJTJ understands nothing about either Probability or Evolution.
1. Very highly improbable events happen all the time.
2. There is no "statistical" threshold beyond which things do not happen. Nor does he even try to state what that might be. The sentence is actually meaningless, both in term of a complex organisms, and Probability.

He's clearly WAY over his head here.

As Chad has said, nothing is "irreducibly" complex. Just too hard for YOU. Take anything apart, and eventually you will see how it works, and why. An American seeing a jet plane fly over in 1850, or Neanderthaler in 50,000 BCE would assume it was a god, an alien, or a divine being. Just because iyt's hard for YOU, does not mean it's the work of the gods.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-05-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
PJ's responses to my responses made no sense. The Jerry Coyne book is not a just-so story, whatever that means, or any story. The "facts" you wrote about the wolves etc. make no sense either. PJ, don't accuse me of cheap shots or fallacies when you are the one who sorely needs a class in Logic 101.

I'm done here too.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: