Discussion thread for dandan/Inferno debate

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

In answer to dandan's latest repeat of his erroneous claims, I can only repeat my earlier answer to his erroneous claims.

Kindest regards,

James

To be honest, I think Inferno’s next post should just consist of quotes from his old posts that show exactly why dandan is wrong. There is no point in Inferno wasting time rewriting what he has already said.

 

[Mugnuts]

I'm confused.

Is dandan trying to use a study that agrees with his 200 sites as a victory for his position and stating that there is no model of that process. And to top it off the paper also provides the data to show the model that he is asking for Inferno to show, yet he asked for it anyway? ???

Too much to read right now (I will later), just wondering if there was a quick answer at hand.

 

[Inferno]

I know I have no business in this thread and the post is very old (page 2), but ablecainsbrother is just hilarious:

I have actually studied other religious texts before in the past because I used to debate them and I know the differences

1. Jesus is the only God that rose from the dead.

Yeah, apart from Osiris, Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Dionysus, Isthar, Persephone and Bari. To name but a few.
Source

Also don't forget that Lazarus was resurrected and the Daughter of Jairus was dead as well!
And don't forget the death of Jesus in, for example, Matthew 27:52ff: "...and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead."

 

[sigen8]

I know I have no business in this thread and the post is very old (page 2), but ablecainsbrother is just hilarious:

I have actually studied other religious texts before in the past because I used to debate them and I know the differences

1. Jesus is the only God that rose from the dead.

Yeah, apart from Osiris, Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Dionysus, Isthar, Persephone and Bari. To name but a few.
Source

Also don't forget that Lazarus was resurrected and the Daughter of Jairus was dead as well!
And don't forget the death of Jesus in, for example, Matthew 27:52ff: "...and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead."

Let's see, next answer to infero will be that only Jesus is qualified to be described as a God ? These guys are so predictables :roll:

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I was hoping Inferno would have just quoted this again:

Inferno[/url]"]How is that a "minor detail"? I explicitly showed that you're wrong about "exact same genes", which was the crux of your argument. I was able to show that the similarities occur in the amino acid sequences, something that's perfectly understandable. I think I even explained at some point that "identical amino acids" in no way mean "identical nucleotide sequences". Do you even understand the difference between the two?

Codons code for amino acids, meaning three nucleotides in a row. Take the amino acid Leucine: TTA, TTG, CTT, CTA, CTG, CTC all code for it. If we have the amino acid sequence LLLLLL, we may have any of the six codons coding for them. Suppose that bats and dolphins both have the same amino acid sequence "LLLLLL". The bats may have the codon sequence CTCCTCCTCCTCCTCCTC, while dolphins may have the sequence TTATTATTATTATTATTA. Both code for the same amino acid sequence (LLLLLL), but they're not identical, would you agree? It would therefore be idiotic to claim that the two could only arise by the exact same mutations, would you agree?

That alone exposes the flaw in dandan’s argument. That is my only quarrel with Inferno’s last post, thus moving on to dandan.

dandan[/url]"]Up to this point you haven’t presented any equations or model that shows that the discordances that we observe are predicted, explainable and/or statistically insignificant. It seems to me that no matter how many discordance we find you will always say “evolution did it” you don´t seem to have any objective metric that allows you to determine if a given scenario would be problematic.

You have not provided anything that needs to be explained with a model, you have only displayed your ignorance of genetics. Your insistence that Inferno provide you with something not needed further exposes this ignorance.

dandan[/url]"]Talking specifically about the 200 discordances described in the paper about echolocation, you haven´t provide any model or equation that shows that these 200 discordances are insignificant. What if instead of 200, scientists would have found 300 or 400, or 1,000 or 1,000,000? At what point would you say that evolution is in trouble? At what point would you consider these discordances valid objections against the evolutionary model?

:facepalm:

On July 19th Inferno[/url]"]In the exact way Dr. Whittington explained that the amino acids converged in platypus and snakes, meaning the protein sequence, so also do the protein sequences in bats and toothed whales. This is what you get wrong and that's why your example is not valid. Let me make this absolutely clear: When comparing the gene or nucleotide sequence, bats and toothed whales are correctly classified. If the protein sequence is compared, bats are classified with toothed whales. That's the whole deal. The gene sequences are not the same. This is made absolutely clear in a paragraph I quoted earlier:

Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins (2010)[/url]"]To test whether convergent changes in bat Prestin genes have also occurred in echolocating whales, we sequenced the entire gene in a range of echolocating toothed whales and non-echolocating baleen whales, as well as additional bats (see Table S1 in the Supplemental Data available on-line with this issue). Trees based on nucleotide alignments from this larger dataset strongly supported the accepted species tree topology, albeit with the clustering of echolocating bats reported earlier [3]. However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats (node posterior probability = 0.99 or 0.94 depending on the analysis), members of which emit Doppler-sensitive signals dominated by a constant frequency (CF) component [6] ( Figure 1A). Intriguingly, the addition of the sperm whale, which appears to echolocate at much lower frequencies [7], was seen to decrease support for this convergent signal, leading to the cetaceans and bats both forming monophyletic groups. The extent of sequence convergence between bats and whales was thus not sufficient to unite these clades when non-dolphin odontocetes were included in the analysis.

Do you understand your mistake, can we move on?

It's even more fun that you accuse me of not reading the article when you make a grave mistake:

However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats.

You quote the passage that disproves what you claim, yet you fail to register that. Reading comprehension fail if ever there was one.

Now as I said, you can have the same amino acid sequence even if the underlying genetic code is different (I even showed that using the BLASTed sequences) and you can have very similar amino acids forming basically identical proteins, which is what they found. Don't let the pop-science articles cloud your judgement on this.

You were wrong about your argument than, and you are still wrong about it now. Repeating it ad nauseam adds no weight to it. It only exposes your dogmatic refusal to accept facts when they do not jive with your preconceived notions.

dandan[/url]"]Ok so instead of explaining what you think I understand explain what the papers actually reports, for example explain objectively the 200 discordances found in the echolocation paper. ¿how can darwinain mechanisms account for genetic similarities in echolocation among distant relatives? With genetic similarities I mean what the papers describes as 200 loci.

This was already done, see what was quoted above. Your inability to understand this or accept it is not a failing of Inferno’s. That failing is yours alone.

dandan[/url]"]I never said that dolphins and bats have identical genes, I said that there are portions in the dolphin genome that are more “bat-like” (far relative) than whale-like (close relative) what you have to show is that these discordances are not problematic for evolution, which is why you most provide an OBJECTIVE model.

Once again, this was already done back on 19 July (see above quote). No model is required when you are asking a nonsense question; all that needs to be done is show exactly why your question is wrong.

dandan[/url]"]Form an evolutionary point of view this would imply that bats and dolphins suffered from the same mutation independently, so prove MATHEMATICALLY that it is possible for 2 independent clades to suffer from the mutations.
I apologize for using the term “suffer” but I honestly don´t know what other term to use.

We know that you do not know that correct term to use, because you do not know the first thing about what you are talking about. As one can see from what was quoted above, bats and dolphins did not have to have the same mutations to produce similar proteins. Your whole argument is flawed and was corrected back on July 19, yet you refuse to accept this and continue making the same flawed argument.

dandan[/url]"]

This is also why both Isotelus and I explained that we're looking for multiple and consistent discordance. You've given two examples, one of which the author herself showed to actually agree with what I said and the other where both others and I have repeatedly shown you to be wrong

Ok so what do you mean with “multiple” and consistent? If 200 loci doesn’t count as multiple, then how much is needed in order for you to call it “multiple” and even more important how do you know it?

To be honest, if what you were arguing was correct, you would have a point. I doubt it would even take 200. However, as I have pointed out several times in this post alone (and Inferno did throughout this whole debate), your whole argument is based off your flawed understanding of genetics. Thus, you have no argument.

On July 3rd he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

dandan[/url]"]That is not true, platypuses and snakes have the same proteins (same genes) for venom, but that is irrelevant you will still invoke convergent evolution as you did with the sonar in whales and bats.

:facepalm:

Having the same proteins does not mean one has the same genes (as if we needed any more examples of your lack of knowledge when it comes to biology). Essentially, DNA (genes) make up codons, which make proteins. Any high school biology student knows that most genes are redundant and create the same codons, thus we can have different genes and the same proteins (which is exactly what we see with platypus and snake venom). I highly doubt dandan knew this before reading it here. Again, nothing more than trolling at this point.

Your basic lack of knowledge about genetics, and biology in general, was amusing at first, but at this point, it has grown quite pathetic.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Inferno[/url]"]Finally, I'd like some feedback:
1) Were there any arguments you thought I didn't address well enough? Any that I missed out? Was there any additional information that I could or should have posted? Worse yet, were there grave mistakes I made?

I did not see any grave mistakes, but I have to say that the best argument you made should have been repeated in every post:

Inferno[/url]"]How is that a "minor detail"? I explicitly showed that you're wrong about "exact same genes", which was the crux of your argument. I was able to show that the similarities occur in the amino acid sequences, something that's perfectly understandable. I think I even explained at some point that "identical amino acids" in no way mean "identical nucleotide sequences". Do you even understand the difference between the two?

Codons code for amino acids, meaning three nucleotides in a row. Take the amino acid Leucine: TTA, TTG, CTT, CTA, CTG, CTC all code for it. If we have the amino acid sequence LLLLLL, we may have any of the six codons coding for them. Suppose that bats and dolphins both have the same amino acid sequence "LLLLLL". The bats may have the codon sequence CTCCTCCTCCTCCTCCTC, while dolphins may have the sequence TTATTATTATTATTATTA. Both code for the same amino acid sequence (LLLLLL), but they're not identical, would you agree? It would therefore be idiotic to claim that the two could only arise by the exact same mutations, would you agree?

That post alone addresses everything wrong with dandan’s non-argument. Every time dandan brought up his 200 loci, the above should have been posted right under it. It explains just how wrong dandan’s understanding of genetics truly is.

2) Which style of posts did you like best? The one where I quoted Dandan or the one where I made three structured arguments while quoting as little as possible? Or is there an entirely different format I should adopt?

To be honest, I am always in favor of quoting your opponent and addressing what (s)he was saying directly. However, since dandan kept repeating the same debunked argument, quoting very little of him and constructing a general argument against his position was a nice change in this debate.

3) Overall, how did I compare? Did I achieve my goals (as set out above) or did I fail miserably? Was I cordial and nice or could I use a refresher there?

I am surprised that this debate went the ten posts, because dandan simply refused to move forward from his mistakes. However, I believe you came off cordial, with a few small outbursts (which always made me laugh). You handled yourself better then most people I see when they engage with creationists. I also believe that one is able to catch more flies with honey, thus if any of dandan’s creationists friends (or any creationists for that matter) were reading this debate, I doubt any of them would think dandan came out of this the winner. The fact that you were able to keep your cool means that most creationists will read this whole debate to its end and see just how ignorant and dogmatic dandan is when it comes to science.

 

[Isotelus]

Since Inferno offered to allow dandan one more post, I'll wait a couple more days. If not, I'll get onto my judging and post the winner as soon as I am able. Feel free to offer your own assessments as hwin did above.

Thank you Inferno and dandan!

 

[Inferno]

Well, Dandan answered so I feel I can now write here without violating the rules. It's fairly annoying that after ten posts, he still repeats his bogus maths. Ah well...

HWIN, thanks for the flowers.
Yes, I probably should have led with that part and repeated it, but I PM'd him about it twice (well, he PM'd me and I explained it) and he didn't get it then, so I though "what the hell, try something new".

 

[Prolescum]

The debate is now closed and has been moved to the debates archive section.

Thanks to both participants.

 

[Isotelus]

Alright then, I'll try to have my judgement of doom posted here on the weekend, but don't be surprised if it takes longer. I've been trying to keep track of the arguments as the debate progressed, but I have to put it all together.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

dandan[/url]"]2 I say that these discordances are statistically significant relevant and impossible to explain by Darwinian mechanisms

You never demonstrated that to be the case. You only displayed a gross ignorant of how genetics works and an utter inability to use math.

dandan[/url]"]3 I tried to prove my point with an equation, and I am happy to report that aside for all the misunderstandings that you finely understood my equation.

Very well, let's substitute the numbers.

Your original claim with a population size of Ps=1 was
((100)(1)/3,000,0000,000)) x (1/2)
The result is 1.666 x 10^-8 or 1/60.000.000

The new one with a population size of Ps=1.000.000 is
((100)(1,000,000)/3,000,000,000)) x (1/2,000,000)
The result is 1.666 x 10^-8 or 1/60.000.000

Isn't that odd? Well no, any mathematically literate person could have spotted that immediately: The addition of two millions simply cancel each other out, so your result is exactly the same. It does not matter whether you use a population of 1 or 1.000.000, aat least not when using your incorrect mathematics. That's completely contrary to your claim that a larger population size means longer time. (That claim is correct, by the way, you're just using bogus maths to prove it.)

So from my equation we can say that the chances of having a single discordance is 1/60,000,000, in the echolocation example I presented a case with 200 discordances, 12,000,000,000 you don´t have enough probabilistic resources to acount for this counsidence.

(Emphisis added.)

:docpalm:

Once again, we have a reading comprehension fail on dandan’s part; this is why creationists are laughed at. Beyond this, dandan still does not seem to understand the difference between DNA, codons, and proteins; otherwise, he would not still be repeating his debunked “200 loci” claim.

dandan[/url]"]4 Since the beginning of these debate I´ve been asking you for an equation, mathematical model, or some sort of objective metric that would allow us to determine if a given discordance is statistically relevant, and you failed to do so. You will disagree with this and you will quote from previous post where you supposedly provided such objective metric, I will simply let neutral observers to decide if you provided a satisfactory answer.

:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]You have not provided anything that needs to be explained with a model, you have only displayed your ignorance of genetics. Your insistence that Inferno provide you with something not needed further exposes this ignorance.

dandan[/url]"]5 You keep repeating that my arguments are based on my misunderstanding of the paper, that is wrong and irrelevant, the objective model that you are supposed to presents has to explain what the paper reports concerning the 200 loci, you where expected to provide a model that explains objectively why isn’t this discordance relevant nor problematic for evolution. In other words you are suppose to explain what the author reports, no my understanding of the paper.

:facepalm:

Inferno[/url]"]How is that a "minor detail"? I explicitly showed that you're wrong about "exact same genes", which was the crux of your argument. I was able to show that the similarities occur in the amino acid sequences, something that's perfectly understandable. I think I even explained at some point that "identical amino acids" in no way mean "identical nucleotide sequences". Do you even understand the difference between the two?

Codons code for amino acids, meaning three nucleotides in a row. Take the amino acid Leucine: TTA, TTG, CTT, CTA, CTG, CTC all code for it. If we have the amino acid sequence LLLLLL, we may have any of the six codons coding for them. Suppose that bats and dolphins both have the same amino acid sequence "LLLLLL". The bats may have the codon sequence CTCCTCCTCCTCCTCCTC, while dolphins may have the sequence TTATTATTATTATTATTA. Both code for the same amino acid sequence (LLLLLL), but they're not identical, would you agree? It would therefore be idiotic to claim that the two could only arise by the exact same mutations, would you agree?

dandan[/url]"]Evolutionists say thinks like “we share 99% of our genes with chimps” “we shared a common ancestor 5 Million years ago” but they fail to notice that a 1% difference represents around 30,000,000 base pairs, 5 million years is not enough time to evolve 30,000,000 bais pairs, if so we would expect to to see a “speed of evolution” of 6 base pairs per year.

*this means 6 mutations that become selected fixed and dominant in a population per year, (or 120 per generation)

Is this claim based on your dubious math? Twice, you have made similar claims and twice your math skills were shown to be very poor.

dandan[/url]"]You say things like “convergent evolution” at a genotypic level, but you fail to understand that the idea of 2 clades having the same mutations independently is nearly impossible.

:facepalm:

Inferno[/url]"]How is that a "minor detail"? I explicitly showed that you're wrong about "exact same genes", which was the crux of your argument. I was able to show that the similarities occur in the amino acid sequences, something that's perfectly understandable. I think I even explained at some point that "identical amino acids" in no way mean "identical nucleotide sequences". Do you even understand the difference between the two?

Codons code for amino acids, meaning three nucleotides in a row. Take the amino acid Leucine: TTA, TTG, CTT, CTA, CTG, CTC all code for it. If we have the amino acid sequence LLLLLL, we may have any of the six codons coding for them. Suppose that bats and dolphins both have the same amino acid sequence "LLLLLL". The bats may have the codon sequence CTCCTCCTCCTCCTCCTC, while dolphins may have the sequence TTATTATTATTATTATTA. Both code for the same amino acid sequence (LLLLLL), but they're not identical, would you agree? It would therefore be idiotic to claim that the two could only arise by the exact same mutations, would you agree?

Just because you keep repeating debunked argument does not make the argument any stronger. It only exposes your reluctance to accept facts, while clinging to your preconceived notions.

dandan[/url]"]At best evolutionists find small cracks in this type of arguments, they say things like “maybe things were different in the past” but they fail to provide any sort of objective model that proves objectively that none of this represents a problem.

:lol:

What arguments? This whole debate constituted you making a false claim about animals in different clades having the same mutations and giving us incorrect equations that do not calculate anything relevant. Those are not cracks; those are exposing just how wrong your arguments are at their heart. Essentially, you are making a counterfactual conditional when you claimed there are 200 loci between two different clades. You are correct, if we found something like that, it would be a problem for evolutionary theory, however, as Inferno stated months ago (and I quoted twice in this response alone) that is not what we find. Your whole argument is based off your ignorance of how genetics works and it is as simple as that.

Yes, I probably should have led with that part and repeated it, but I PM'd him about it twice (well, he PM'd me and I explained it) and he didn't get it then, so I though "what the hell, try something new".

I think that is a problem as well. You should have never talked to him in PM and should have only responded by asking him to bring it up in the debate. My understanding in having a public debate like this is to keep everything public. Sharing ideas with your opponent outside of the debate seems to run a fowl of that. Thus, as I understand it now, two PMs exchanges should go along with this debate.

 

[Dustnite]

Did Isotelus ever post his decision somewhere?

 

[Inferno]

Did Isotelus ever post his decision somewhere?

Her, but no she didn't. She's currently busy with work.

 

[Isotelus]

I'm about half way through rereading the debate. I needed a recap and I wanted to make it clear why I'm making the decisions that I am. It will be up eventually. Sorry

 

[Dustnite]

I wasn't judging. i just thought I was retarded and missed a link somewhere

Take all the time you need!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Did Isotelus ever post his decision somewhere?

[sarcasm]In my honest opinion, it is a coin toss between dandan and Inferno. Dandan brought up some great points against evolutionary theory that I had never thought of before. Dandan could have won this whole thing.[/sarcasm]

 

[Dustnite]

[sarcasm]In my honest opinion, it is a coin toss between dandan and Inferno. Dandan brought up some great points against evolutionary theory that I had never thought of before. Dandan could have won this whole thing.[/sarcasm]

Debate question: Do phylogenetic relationships hold up to the evidence?

Yes

/debate

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I know I have no business in this thread and the post is very old (page 2), but ablecainsbrother is just hilarious:

I have actually studied other religious texts before in the past because I used to debate them and I know the differences

1. Jesus is the only God that rose from the dead.

Yeah, apart from Osiris, Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Dionysus, Isthar, Persephone and Bari. To name but a few.
Source

Also don't forget that Lazarus was resurrected and the Daughter of Jairus was dead as well!
And don't forget the death of Jesus in, for example, Matthew 27:52ff: "...and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead."

It is funny that you use god's nobody believes in anymore but they do believe in Jesus today.It is also funny to think jews would borrow from false religions and make it up Jesus rose from the dead,go out preaching and be killed for it,all because they made it up from past false god's? What you're trying to push is the fairy-tale.Yes we know about the miracles Jesus did.

 

[Inferno]

It is funny that you use god's nobody believes in anymore but they do believe in Jesus today.It is also funny to think jews would borrow from false religions and make it up Jesus rose from the dead,go out preaching and be killed for it,all because they made it up from past false god's? What you're trying to push is the fairy-tale.Yes we know about the miracles Jesus did.

1) You made a statement, I showed it was wrong. It doesn't matter how old the gods are we're talking about, one day your god will belong to them as well. It is also wrong that these gods are not prayed to today: A friend of mine is a weird mix of Wiccan and Norse worshipper but whatever, I think all religions are weird...

2) What is a "false religion", what is a "true religion"? Such inane babble can only come from a believer of a religion currently in use.

3) People getting killed for their gods is nothing unusual. You would probably agree that Islam is a false religion. Then how can you explain these people getting killed for it?
You would probably agree that Hinduism is a false religion. Then how can you explain these people getting killed for it?
You would probably agree that Sikhism is a false religion. Then how do you explain Guru Arjan, Bhai Dayala and others?

Your religion is nothing special, everything it does has been done and will be done by other religions in the future. Your religion is a mix of different religions, copying where it suited it and discarding practices it didn't want. Your religion is a disgusting cult.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It is funny that you use god's nobody believes in anymore but they do believe in Jesus today.It is also funny to think jews would borrow from false religions and make it up Jesus rose from the dead,go out preaching and be killed for it,all because they made it up from past false god's? What you're trying to push is the fairy-tale.Yes we know about the miracles Jesus did.

1) You made a statement, I showed it was wrong. It doesn't matter how old the gods are we're talking about, one day your god will belong to them as well. It is also wrong that these gods are not prayed to today: A friend of mine is a weird mix of Wiccan and Norse worshipper but whatever, I think all religions are weird...

2) What is a "false religion", what is a "true religion"? Such inane babble can only come from a believer of a religion currently in use.

3) People getting killed for their gods is nothing unusual. You would probably agree that Islam is a false religion. Then how can you explain these people getting killed for it?
You would probably agree that Hinduism is a false religion. Then how can you explain these people getting killed for it?
You would probably agree that Sikhism is a false religion. Then how do you explain Guru Arjan, Bhai Dayala and others?

Your religion is nothing special, everything it does has been done and will be done by other religions in the future. Your religion is a mix of different religions, copying where it suited it and discarding practices it didn't want. Your religion is a disgusting cult.

I also have had witches as friends also I used to know a druid and a wiccan and I beat both of them in debates and discussions I had with them.I prophesied something that was going to happen years later to the wiccan and it came to pass just like I said.The druid lived in the woods within nature and was in training with his spell book,etc.

To answer your question if you use the same criteria for Christianity you use for them false religions then it proves Jesus rose from the dead like his followers preached about after it happened,you see people don't die for lies or made up myths,they die for what they believe is true.

So let's compare an Islamic terrorist flies planes into the world trade center because he believes he will be rewarded with virgins in heaven.

Well Jesus disciples went out preaching that Jesus rose from the dead and were all killed except for 1 nobody could stop them because they saw it with their own eyes,they saw Jesus be killed on a cross then rise from the dead three days later like he said would happen.Nobody dies for lies,they die for what they believe is true.

Would you die for atheism if a Muslim threatened you?I would die for Jesus because the same power that raised Jesus from the dead is on the inside of me right now and I'd just go to heaven.