Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko

[Inferno]

Just being pedantic - of course, there's a difference between being logically and physically impossible (not to mention technologically impossible).

My points are logically possible - even physically (scientifically) possible - just that they're, as we appear to agree, highly improbable.

However, having queried my definition of "possible", you then apply similarly loose definitions in your response to CommonEnlightenment:

Do you think they're loosely defined? OK, I'll define "improbable to the point of being impossible". If the chances of something happening are so remote that in the time since the Universe started it hasn't occurred (but then I can't know that for sure, so I'll have to say "the mathematical likelihood is tantamount to zero") and the same is true for the next 14 billion years, then we can regard the whole thing as "impossible".

I of course made one spelling mistake when writing, which confuses the issue. I said "Although it is theoretically possible, it is not even remotely possible" when it should say "probable", but then you probably (hehe) all inferred that.

BTW, I'm still waiting on the "right conditions".

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Do you think they're loosely defined? OK, I'll define "improbable to the point of being impossible". If the chances of something happening are so remote that in the time since the Universe started it hasn't occurred (but then I can't know that for sure, so I'll have to say "the mathematical likelihood is tantamount to zero") and the same is true for the next 14 billion years, then we can regard the whole thing as "impossible".

I of course made one spelling mistake when writing, which confuses the issue. I said "Although it is theoretically possible, it is not even remotely possible" when it should say "probable", but then you probably (hehe) all inferred that.

My general point was that anything that's physically possible - ie, within the laws of Nature - can happen. And, as Chown and others have pointed out, "In a quantum universe, anything that can happen, will". One cannot use the term "impossible", only "improbable".

BTW, I'm still waiting on the "right conditions".[/quote]
The "right conditions" are the ones YesYouNeedJesus mentioned, "wind, rain and erosion over a long period of time".

After all, if evolution can happen over a long period of time, there's no reason why erosion couldn't do the same - if it worked in a particular way to reproduce the faces on the mountain, though - as I said - it's highly unlikely.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

Greetings,

Do you think they're loosely defined? OK, I'll define "improbable to the point of being impossible". If the chances of something happening are so remote that in the time since the Universe started it hasn't occurred (but then I can't know that for sure, so I'll have to say "the mathematical likelihood is tantamount to zero") and the same is true for the next 14 billion years, then we can regard the whole thing as "impossible".

I of course made one spelling mistake when writing, which confuses the issue. I said "Although it is theoretically possible, it is not even remotely possible" when it should say "probable", but then you probably (hehe) all inferred that.

My general point was that anything that's physically possible - ie, within the laws of Nature - can happen. And, as Chown and others have pointed out, "In a quantum universe, anything that can happen, will". One cannot use the term "impossible", only "improbable".

BTW, I'm still waiting on the "right conditions".

The "right conditions" are the ones YesYouNeedJesus mentioned, "wind, rain and erosion over a long period of time".

After all, if evolution can happen over a long period of time, there's no reason why erosion couldn't do the same - if it worked in a particular way to reproduce the faces on the mountain, though - as I said - it's highly unlikely.

Kindest regards,

James

In a quantum universe, i.e. a multiverse where every permutation is possible: Yes.
In our Universe: Ehhhh no.

There is no known force/law/process (natural) that would carve the faces.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

My general point was that anything that's physically possible - ie, within the laws of Nature - can happen. And, as Chown and others have pointed out, "In a quantum universe, anything that can happen, will". One cannot use the term "impossible", only "improbable".

The "right conditions" are the ones YesYouNeedJesus mentioned, "wind, rain and erosion over a long period of time".

After all, if evolution can happen over a long period of time, there's no reason why erosion couldn't do the same - if it worked in a particular way to reproduce the faces on the mountain, though - as I said - it's highly unlikely.

Kindest regards,

James

In a quantum universe, i.e. a multiverse where every permutation is possible: Yes.
In our Universe: Ehhhh no.

There is no known force/law/process (natural) that would carve the faces.

Are you saying that wind/rain could not erode stone so that it would resemble a face? Absolutely impossible??

I'd have to disagree if you do.

I could only go so far as say that it's "highly improbable" that you'd end up with any, let alone all, of the presidents' faces.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[gilbo12345]

It would depend on the amount of resemblance, a low degree of resemblance would be possible, as the degree of resemblance increases so too does the degree of impossibilitiy, till you reach Mt Rushmore which is impossible to conceive as coming from erosion.

 

[Inferno]

Greetings,

...


Are you saying that wind/rain could not erode stone so that it would resemble a face? Absolutely impossible??

I'd have to disagree if you do.

I could only go so far as say that it's "highly improbable" that you'd end up with any, let alone all, of the presidents' faces.

Kindest regards,

James

James, I'll repeat what I said above with a slight modification:
In my four years of studying Geography (and with it that comes geology, meteorology and so on) I have not once heard of a process by which stone becomes so smooth (afaik that only happens in rivers or where a lot of water occurs), nor one which affects an area of only 18m in height (and how much in breadth?) but not the rest, nor one which carves granite at such a rate and so on.
Again, point out the specific process (like acid rain combined with winds of such and such nature plus sandstorms or whatever) and I might change my mind.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Inferno, I merely point out that natural forces can result in human-like shapes and faces.

One is unlikely to get an exact human face - but I can't rule that possibility out: it's physically possible, though highly unlikely.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

Inferno, I merely point out that natural forces can result in human-like shapes and faces.

Pareidolia. 'Nuff said.

 

[Inferno]

Nor is this one: link. Schweitzer again reached the same conclusions that I mentioned before. Regardless, the predictions are based off morphological evidence, which you apparently take issue with. Considering that there are a host of features that are unique to birds and theropod dinosaurs, and that the clade called Avialae shows increasing derivation throughout the fossil record that eventually leads to anatomically modern birds, I see no evidence of any contradictions.

Took me ages to dig through that paper. Excellent find, as always.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Sorry guys, I've been slammed. I tried getting on every day and respond to everything one at a time, but it gets too overwhelming. This is my biggest complaint about visiting atheist sites. They gang up on you 10-1. I'm not too concerned with the ratio, as I am with the time it then takes to respond to everyone.

Anyway, I just read an article which does exactly what I've been saying evolutionists do. I'm not sure if I've received an answer yet. But it sure appears that the various ways evolutionists say that we can tell who is related are all completely contradictory.

Here is the article: http://www.livescience.com/25656-pygmy-whales-living-fossils.html

And here is the quote from the article:

DNA analysis suggested pygmy right whales diverged from modern baleen whales such as the blue whale and the humpback whale between 17 million and 25 million years ago. However, the pygmy whales' snouts suggested they were more closely related to the family of whales that includes the bowhead whale. Yet there were no studies of fossils showing how the pygmy whale had evolved, Marx said.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Sorry guys, I've been slammed. I tried getting on every day and respond to everything one at a time, but it gets too overwhelming. This is my biggest complaint about visiting atheist sites. They gang up on you 10-1. I'm not too concerned with the ratio, as I am with the time it then takes to respond to everyone.

I understand what you mean, perhaps we should adapt a new format, one that is easier to follow, having people say more with less text and not make points someone else made. It is a bit dificult to contain everyone, everyone has its own way to see things and everyone things that their way is the best way to run the point home.
It also doesn't help in conversations about evolution and science that creationists don't understand about evolution or science, you can thank that to the US educational system *cough* and ID proponents *cough*.

 

[Inferno]

Anyway, I just read an article which does exactly what I've been saying evolutionists do. I'm not sure if I've received an answer yet. But it sure appears that the various ways evolutionists say that we can tell who is related are all completely contradictory.

Here is the article: http://www.livescience.com/25656-pygmy-whales-living-fossils.html

And here is the quote from the article:

DNA analysis suggested pygmy right whales diverged from modern baleen whales such as the blue whale and the humpback whale between 17 million and 25 million years ago. However, the pygmy whales' snouts suggested they were more closely related to the family of whales that includes the bowhead whale. Yet there were no studies of fossils showing how the pygmy whale had evolved, Marx said.

I'll get the actual paper tomorrow (library problems again) but I don't think that's at all surprising. Fossil evidence can only get us so far, it's based on observation, which might not always be 100% reliable. DNA analysis however is much more exact. AronRa made a video going into great detail explaining just that.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I understand what you mean, perhaps we should adapt a new format, one that is easier to follow, having people say more with less text and not make points someone else made. It is a bit dificult to contain everyone, everyone has its own way to see things and everyone things that their way is the best way to run the point home.
It also doesn't help in conversations about evolution and science that creationists don't understand about evolution or science, you can thank that to the US educational system *cough* and ID proponents *cough*.

Thanks for understanding.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

It also appears analysis of the skull leads to a third interpretation of the ancestry.

The pygmy whale's skull most closely resembled that of an ancient family of whales called cetotheres that were thought to have gone extinct around 2 million years ago, the researchers found. Cetotheres emerged about 15 million years ago and once occupied oceans across the globe.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I'll get the actual paper tomorrow (library problems again) but I don't think that's at all surprising. Fossil evidence can only get us so far, it's based on observation, which might not always be 100% reliable. DNA analysis however is much more exact. AronRa made a video going into great detail explaining just that.

That's where I have a problem. The evolutionists have been so adamant that when you look at the physical characteristics (the skull for example) it is blatantly obvious what evolved from what. A guy on a video I have called people idiots for not believing the whale evolution exhibit at the University of Michigan.

And the interesting thing is that the DNA is really throwing quite a wrench into things. For example, horse DNA is closer to bats than cows.

 

[Inferno]

I'll get the actual paper tomorrow (library problems again) but I don't think that's at all surprising. Fossil evidence can only get us so far, it's based on observation, which might not always be 100% reliable. DNA analysis however is much more exact. AronRa made a video going into great detail explaining just that.

That's where I have a problem. The evolutionists have been so adamant that when you look at the physical characteristics (the skull for example) it is blatantly obvious what evolved from what. A guy on a video I have called people idiots for not believing the whale evolution exhibit at the University of Michigan.

And the interesting thing is that the DNA is really throwing quite a wrench into things. For example, horse DNA is closer to bats than cows.

I'll take a look at the paper tomorrow, but your second claim (about horse/bat/cow DNA) is dead wrong. Isotelus and I explained that in great detail, here.

 

[Isotelus]

Inferno, I hope you don't mind me taking this one on, but seeing as you had an issue accessing it, I thought I may as well. I would however invite you to read it as well and add onto to my comments here, if you see fit. Annoyingly, the news article doesn't provide the name of the paper, so here it is: Thar she blows.

Oh, and I'm glad you managed to get through Schweitzer's paper.

Anyway, I just read an article which does exactly what I've been saying evolutionists do. I'm not sure if I've received an answer yet. But it sure appears that the various ways evolutionists say that we can tell who is related are all completely contradictory.

Here is the article: http://www.livescience.com/25656-pygmy-whales-living-fossils.html

And here is the quote from the article:

DNA analysis suggested pygmy right whales diverged from modern baleen whales such as the blue whale and the humpback whale between 17 million and 25 million years ago. However, the pygmy whales' snouts suggested they were more closely related to the family of whales that includes the bowhead whale. Yet there were no studies of fossils showing how the pygmy whale had evolved, Marx said.

The pygmy whale's skull most closely resembled that of an ancient family of whales called cetotheres that were thought to have gone extinct around 2 million years ago, the researchers found. Cetotheres emerged about 15 million years ago and once occupied oceans across the globe.

There's something you have to understand here. This paper is dealing with cladistics at a family level. Both Balaenopteridae (blue whales, humpbacks) and Balaenidae (right whales, bowheads) are closely related families within the suborder Mysticeti, and the pygmy right whale, Caperea, does indeed share morphological similarities with both. It is this mix of characteristics that caused confusion, and the paper mentions other anatomical studies that allied Caperea with one or the other of the two families. Caperea also has features that are not similar to either, and instead resembles fossil material that was absent in the earlier analyses. The authors also pointed out some errors made in earlier interpretations of Caperea anatomy.
Following this, the paper placed the pygmy right whale in the family Cetotheriidae. Nevertheless, the skull of Caperea was confirmed to be similar in some respects to those of Balaenids, and this was attributed to feeding strategies that likely differ from the other fossil Cetotheriids. Note that Cetotheriidae shares a common ancestor with the superfamily Balaenopteroidea. This means Caperea is indeed most closely allied with Balaenopteridae, which best supports the DNA evidence.
I find it funny that one person may see only contradiction, while another sees concordance. The paper itself states in its conclusion that its results are a reconciliation of the molecular and morphological evidence. The fundamental difference stems from an understanding of both the scientific method and cladistics. The earlier morphological papers were not being contradictory by suggesting the pygmy whale was a Baelinid, especially considering how alike their skulls are (also note most of these were published prior to the molecular studies). Their analyses were based off the material that was currently available. This new paper shows precisely what science does, as it was able to add onto all the current research and come to a more accurate conclusion.

 

[Inferno]

Inferno, I hope you don't mind me taking this one on, but seeing as you had an issue accessing it, I thought I may as well. I would however invite you to read it as well and add onto to my comments here, if you see fit. Annoyingly, the news article doesn't provide the name of the paper, so here it is: Thar she blows.

Oh, and I'm glad you managed to get through Schweitzer's paper.

I'm still not able to access it, I think the guys at the library don't want us to work so close to the holidays. Weird.
As for you taking over: I love it, I love it, I love it.

Yeah, it was a bit harder to read than the rest, especially with my poor understanding of genetics and Mass Spectrometry.

 

[Isotelus]

I'm still not able to access it, I think the guys at the library don't want us to work so close to the holidays. Weird.
As for you taking over: I love it, I love it, I love it.

Yeah, it was a bit harder to read than the rest, especially with my poor understanding of genetics and Mass Spectrometry.

That is a bit strange. I guess you'll just have to wait. It's an easier read than the Schweitzer paper, apart from the materials/methods section. I don't know how well you know skeletal anatomy, because it gets very in depth.

And yay. I'm always hesitant to butt in, but I suppose in this case it was the best thing for it.

 

[Inferno]

And yay. I'm always hesitant to butt in, but I suppose in this case it was the best thing for it.

Always do. Your posts = always worth reading.