Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.

That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away

And you have their shoes
~ Jack Handy

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 13 users Like Commonsensei's post
14-07-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(14-07-2015 11:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Have you understood the context? Dogs and cats are considered separate kinds. The Bible says animals and plants will bear according to their own kind.

Perhaps your friends would have been better off saying, "Dogs and cats sit along separate evolutionary paths and one cannot produce the other nor become the other over time."

Bro, do you even science?

All animals, including humans, share a common ancestry with something; from bacteria to plants to mammals. If you go way, way back, you're looking at the LUCA - the Last Universal Common Ancestor, a pre-bacterial species. At the beginnings of life, ancestry was not as linear as it is today because the genetic code took time to evolve. Before high fidelity replication, organisms could not be easily mapped on a phylogenetic tree. LUCA lived after the genetic code and at least some rudimentary early form of molecular proofreading had already evolved. It was not the very first cell, but rather, the one whose descendants survived beyond the very early stages of microbial evolution.

More recently than that, and more relevant to this discussion- somewhere, there was a carnivorous little beastie who existed on land, and from that little creature evolved two distinct lineages, the cat-like and the dog-like. For reference, these lineages are so broad that the dog-like category includes skunks, seals, otters, and bears, while the cat-like is similarly overarching.

Just because the lineage is still a mystery doesn't mean you can throw everything out. It just means we haven't discovered the mystery. However, i can state with fair assurance based on all past discoveries that have been determined to be natural and not supernatural, this will most likely mirror those conclusions.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Tonechaser77's post
14-07-2015, 01:06 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2015 01:17 PM by Commonsensei.)
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(14-07-2015 11:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Dogs and cats are considered separate kinds. The Bible says animals and plants will bear according to their own kind.

Q, what do you mean when you say "kind"?

It's a very broad term.

If we separate it just to Animals and Plants then we would have hybrids or Fish Eagles and Moose Men. Their would be no bounds. Since Animals can bear according to their kind.

If you mean kind as Vertebrates, then they are the same. Just like fish, birds, reptiles, or any other animal with spines.

If this is it's definition then A cat and dog should have no problem bearing of their own kind. We should see Cat Dog hybrids.
[Image: latest?cb=20131218161054]

What would happen with Invertabrets, mollusk, arthropods, coelenterate, etc. Are these still considered the same kind as Vertabrets?

What about this? Is it a rock, an animal or a plant?
[Image: Living-Rock-3.jpg]
How would it be defined in this "Kind" ?

If you mean a Kind of Mammal then they are still the same. Just like Whales, Moose, and Humans. Etc.

And still we would see no problem in the two producing in their own kind.

If you mean Kind as in Species, Then would you say a lion is like at cat or is a cat?
Or the same as a Fox is it like a dog or it is a dog?

But lions and domestic cat's can't bread. Neater can Fox's or dogs.

So they wouldn't be considered the same kind?

Just asking for a little clarification.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
14-07-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
WTF is a Nick Seldon?

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
14-07-2015, 07:34 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(14-07-2015 12:19 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 11:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Have you understood the context? Dogs and cats are considered separate kinds. The Bible says animals and plants will bear according to their own kind.

Perhaps your friends would have been better off saying, "Dogs and cats sit along separate evolutionary paths and one cannot produce the other nor become the other over time."

Bro, do you even science?

All animals, including humans, share a common ancestry with something; from bacteria to plants to mammals. If you go way, way back, you're looking at the LUCA - the Last Universal Common Ancestor, a pre-bacterial species. At the beginnings of life, ancestry was not as linear as it is today because the genetic code took time to evolve. Before high fidelity replication, organisms could not be easily mapped on a phylogenetic tree. LUCA lived after the genetic code and at least some rudimentary early form of molecular proofreading had already evolved. It was not the very first cell, but rather, the one whose descendants survived beyond the very early stages of microbial evolution.

More recently than that, and more relevant to this discussion- somewhere, there was a carnivorous little beastie who existed on land, and from that little creature evolved two distinct lineages, the cat-like and the dog-like. For reference, these lineages are so broad that the dog-like category includes skunks, seals, otters, and bears, while the cat-like is similarly overarching.

Just because the lineage is still a mystery doesn't mean you can throw everything out. It just means we haven't discovered the mystery. However, i can state with fair assurance based on all past discoveries that have been determined to be natural and not supernatural, this will most likely mirror those conclusions.

It's too bad that he will comprehend about 11 of those words. Drinking Beverage

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
14-07-2015, 07:36 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(14-07-2015 07:34 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 12:19 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  Bro, do you even science?

All animals, including humans, share a common ancestry with something; from bacteria to plants to mammals. If you go way, way back, you're looking at the LUCA - the Last Universal Common Ancestor, a pre-bacterial species. At the beginnings of life, ancestry was not as linear as it is today because the genetic code took time to evolve. Before high fidelity replication, organisms could not be easily mapped on a phylogenetic tree. LUCA lived after the genetic code and at least some rudimentary early form of molecular proofreading had already evolved. It was not the very first cell, but rather, the one whose descendants survived beyond the very early stages of microbial evolution.

More recently than that, and more relevant to this discussion- somewhere, there was a carnivorous little beastie who existed on land, and from that little creature evolved two distinct lineages, the cat-like and the dog-like. For reference, these lineages are so broad that the dog-like category includes skunks, seals, otters, and bears, while the cat-like is similarly overarching.

Just because the lineage is still a mystery doesn't mean you can throw everything out. It just means we haven't discovered the mystery. However, i can state with fair assurance based on all past discoveries that have been determined to be natural and not supernatural, this will most likely mirror those conclusions.

It's too bad that he will comprehend about 11 of those words. Drinking Beverage

If you were in a comedy club, you'd have to close with that. I scared my dog from laughing so hard. Laughat

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tonechaser77's post
15-07-2015, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2015 09:13 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Wow, you guys. I simply chose not to engage with him at all, once he implied I didn't get what the Creationist meant by "cats don't give birth to dogs".

Of course I understood what it meant. It's just such an obvious example of a ridiculous non-issue that it wasn't worth engaging, either with the Creationists who said this to my face or with the one online.

I replied "I'll inform the scientific community immediately", then as now, because it was presented as if it was some conundrum that science was either unaware of or was unable to solve in order to make evolution by natural selection from a common ancestry a viable theory/model. In the words of Monty Python, "Stop that! It's just Silly."

The biochemical mechanisms of genetic inheritance are so well-understood that we can search for markers of common inheritance in the DNA among parts of the DNA that have nothing to do with phenotype (phenotype = the outcome of how exons/genes express as "animal bits", from hemoglobin to fur to dopamine to bone structure to developmental timing... we cannot use phenotype-making genes/DNA for these studies because they are shaped and changed by environment, etc, via Natural Selection, and thus don't provide a basis for pattern-seeking in the biochemical sense) to determine not only whether groups *must* share a common ancestor, but how long ago this must have been based on rates of change within the genome by random mutation (which turns out, surprisingly, to be a measurable and steady figure), in the *exact same way we determine paternity in tests used in court*. There's a lot more to this, but I suspect you've already stopped reading because you're not interested in biochemistry or, well, fact.

Suffice to say, we already understand how DNA and inheritance work to a *REALLY HIGH DEGREE*, and for someone to come up and say "cats don't birth dogs", or any variation thereupon, is to essentially proclaim that this person grasps how biochemical evolution and genetic inheritance works better than ... you know, geneticists.

Stop that, it's just Silly!

I have now wasted the amount of time it took me to type this, since I am certain to a fairly high degree of confidence that Q has no interest in learning why saying something like that to a scientist is so ridiculous, and not an argument but in fact a red herring bordering on nonsense--as is the whole "created kinds" argument, really--roughly akin to walking up to my face and screaming, "Breelawarkbwarfnarf! Breelawarkbwarfnarf!!!!" and then wondering why I find them unworthy of a genuine response.

Here's a simple test for you, Q. When you can (should take less than 100 words) explain what the formula for genetic inheritance is, which is small and easily comprehensible to anyone who graduated highschool algebra, and tell me how it operates to explain why and how evolution operates from generation to generation, I will discuss with you why it explains the ridiculousness of the "Created Kinds" argument, and why I not only am not being harsh in my above assessment of such claims, but am indeed being incredibly kind and gentle about it, compared to the derision such a suggestion deserves, like if someone came up to you and said that the Gospels never claim Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." Would you have a discussion of theology with a person who made such an incredible misstatement, or would you tell them what to go look up and then wait for them to do the research first, to provide the necessary foundation for any further discussion?

Certainly! Such an assertion would deserve only scorn and derision, because you have seen the words for yourself. Well, likewise, I know the very simple formula and I know how evolutionary genetics operate... but until you show me you've "read the Gospels", so to speak, we can't have a discussion.

(Edit to add: I said the above about phenotype because arguing over "Kinds" is arguing over phenotype, what the animals appear to be, while purporting to be an argument over common ancestry, which is really an argument about genetics. If you try to use phenotype to discuss genotype, you're in for a headache and a lot of nonsense. Yes, they're related issues, obviously, but not related discussions.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-07-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(14-07-2015 12:19 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 11:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Have you understood the context? Dogs and cats are considered separate kinds. The Bible says animals and plants will bear according to their own kind.

Perhaps your friends would have been better off saying, "Dogs and cats sit along separate evolutionary paths and one cannot produce the other nor become the other over time."

Bro, do you even science?

All animals, including humans, share a common ancestry with something; from bacteria to plants to mammals. If you go way, way back, you're looking at the LUCA - the Last Universal Common Ancestor, a pre-bacterial species. At the beginnings of life, ancestry was not as linear as it is today because the genetic code took time to evolve. Before high fidelity replication, organisms could not be easily mapped on a phylogenetic tree. LUCA lived after the genetic code and at least some rudimentary early form of molecular proofreading had already evolved. It was not the very first cell, but rather, the one whose descendants survived beyond the very early stages of microbial evolution.

More recently than that, and more relevant to this discussion- somewhere, there was a carnivorous little beastie who existed on land, and from that little creature evolved two distinct lineages, the cat-like and the dog-like. For reference, these lineages are so broad that the dog-like category includes skunks, seals, otters, and bears, while the cat-like is similarly overarching.

Just because the lineage is still a mystery doesn't mean you can throw everything out. It just means we haven't discovered the mystery. However, i can state with fair assurance based on all past discoveries that have been determined to be natural and not supernatural, this will most likely mirror those conclusions.

Bro, do you science? You must have missed the class session where we have three common ancestors these days... the LUCA is going the way of the dinosaur, pun intended. Gasp

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 08:59 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Wow, you guys. I simply chose not to engage with him at all, once he implied I didn't get what the Creationist meant by "cats don't give birth to dogs".

Of course I understood what it meant. It's just such an obvious example of a ridiculous non-issue that it wasn't worth engaging, either with the Creationists who said this to my face or with the one online.

I replied "I'll inform the scientific community immediately", then as now, because it was presented as if it was some conundrum that science was either unaware of or was unable to solve in order to make evolution by natural selection from a common ancestry a viable theory/model. In the words of Monty Python, "Stop that! It's just Silly."

The biochemical mechanisms of genetic inheritance are so well-understood that we can search for markers of common inheritance in the DNA among parts of the DNA that have nothing to do with phenotype (phenotype = the outcome of how exons/genes express as "animal bits", from hemoglobin to fur to dopamine to bone structure to developmental timing... we cannot use phenotype-making genes/DNA for these studies because they are shaped and changed by environment, etc, via Natural Selection, and thus don't provide a basis for pattern-seeking in the biochemical sense) to determine not only whether groups *must* share a common ancestor, but how long ago this must have been based on rates of change within the genome by random mutation (which turns out, surprisingly, to be a measurable and steady figure), in the *exact same way we determine paternity in tests used in court*. There's a lot more to this, but I suspect you've already stopped reading because you're not interested in biochemistry or, well, fact.

Suffice to say, we already understand how DNA and inheritance work to a *REALLY HIGH DEGREE*, and for someone to come up and say "cats don't birth dogs", or any variation thereupon, is to essentially proclaim that this person grasps how biochemical evolution and genetic inheritance works better than ... you know, geneticists.

Stop that, it's just Silly!

I have now wasted the amount of time it took me to type this, since I am certain to a fairly high degree of confidence that Q has no interest in learning why saying something like that to a scientist is so ridiculous, and not an argument but in fact a red herring bordering on nonsense--as is the whole "created kinds" argument, really--roughly akin to walking up to my face and screaming, "Breelawarkbwarfnarf! Breelawarkbwarfnarf!!!!" and then wondering why I find them unworthy of a genuine response.

Here's a simple test for you, Q. When you can (should take less than 100 words) explain what the formula for genetic inheritance is, which is small and easily comprehensible to anyone who graduated highschool algebra, and tell me how it operates to explain why and how evolution operates from generation to generation, I will discuss with you why it explains the ridiculousness of the "Created Kinds" argument, and why I not only am not being harsh in my above assessment of such claims, but am indeed being incredibly kind and gentle about it, compared to the derision such a suggestion deserves, like if someone came up to you and said that the Gospels never claim Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." Would you have a discussion of theology with a person who made such an incredible misstatement, or would you tell them what to go look up and then wait for them to do the research first, to provide the necessary foundation for any further discussion?

Certainly! Such an assertion would deserve only scorn and derision, because you have seen the words for yourself. Well, likewise, I know the very simple formula and I know how evolutionary genetics operate... but until you show me you've "read the Gospels", so to speak, we can't have a discussion.

(Edit to add: I said the above about phenotype because arguing over "Kinds" is arguing over phenotype, what the animals appear to be, while purporting to be an argument over common ancestry, which is really an argument about genetics. If you try to use phenotype to discuss genotype, you're in for a headache and a lot of nonsense. Yes, they're related issues, obviously, but not related discussions.)

Yes, you did waste your time if you're only going to make rhetorical arguments rather than discuss the issues. In high school, you and I both learned about the inheritable probabilities for the children of parents with brown and blue eyes. The Bible is saying, however, that over a very, very long period of time, cats will not become dogs or vice versa. They can become new species, even in our lifetimes, but not other kinds of animals. You of course will disagree. That's fine. A lot of very learned people would disagree.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 10:46 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 10:16 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 12:19 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  Bro, do you even science?

All animals, including humans, share a common ancestry with something; from bacteria to plants to mammals. If you go way, way back, you're looking at the LUCA - the Last Universal Common Ancestor, a pre-bacterial species. At the beginnings of life, ancestry was not as linear as it is today because the genetic code took time to evolve. Before high fidelity replication, organisms could not be easily mapped on a phylogenetic tree. LUCA lived after the genetic code and at least some rudimentary early form of molecular proofreading had already evolved. It was not the very first cell, but rather, the one whose descendants survived beyond the very early stages of microbial evolution.

More recently than that, and more relevant to this discussion- somewhere, there was a carnivorous little beastie who existed on land, and from that little creature evolved two distinct lineages, the cat-like and the dog-like. For reference, these lineages are so broad that the dog-like category includes skunks, seals, otters, and bears, while the cat-like is similarly overarching.

Just because the lineage is still a mystery doesn't mean you can throw everything out. It just means we haven't discovered the mystery. However, i can state with fair assurance based on all past discoveries that have been determined to be natural and not supernatural, this will most likely mirror those conclusions.

Bro, do you science? You must have missed the class session where we have three common ancestors these days... the LUCA is going the way of the dinosaur, pun intended. Gasp

I am well aware of the three branches Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryota. And yes, I am aware of the gene swapping that some people think will throw LUCA by the wayside. However, it is far from obvious that all genes are equally swappable. Some, like genes for antibiotic resistance, are the gene equivalent of gypsies:

-when there is antibiotic present, they provide a bacterium with resistance
-once the antibiotic disappears, they too are often lost

Researchers are reconstructing LUCA. Carl Woese has even suggested that LUCA was also into gene swapping, and on a much larger scale than what we observe in modern bacteria gene swapping was once more important than inheritance from parent to offspring, and that early archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes each emerged independently from a ‘sea’ of gene transfer.

It’s not clear how his claims could be tested, but they are certainly food for thought

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tonechaser77's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: