Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I hope everyone realizes that this is not about Newton at all. It's about seeing if Aron has the ability to do what he demands of creationists.

he_who_is_nobody, I want to keep this thread to discussion on the debate. I will get more involved in other areas of the site soon, I promise!

 

[australopithecus]

So if you think about it from that perspective, you can see why Bob would want to open with this.

How about I think about it from the perspective of the agreed debate was phylogeny, not Newton, and certainly not Bob's childish attempt at one-upmanship? If Bob had wanted to open with this, and given you were liaising with him to create the debate thread here, you should have stipulated it. As it stands neither of you did, ergo Newton isn't up for debate.

I hope everyone realizes that this is not about Newton at all. It's about seeing if Aron has the ability to do what he demands of creationists.

Fantastic, so then Aron can ignore everything Bob posted about Newton, and continue with the agreed debate of phylogeny. Once that's done Bob can make a new thread all about Newton and continue that line of debate then and there.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I hope everyone realizes that this is not about Newton at all. It's about seeing if Aron has the ability to do what he demands of creationists.

At what point do the ends justify the means? I'm going to start to call you two Machiavellian if this keeps up.

I'm thinking that the ACLU might have something to say about the length a single group of people is willing to rape the rights of an individual (Just an aside, like the one you have been presenting in the debate thus far).......

Just remember, dotting I's and crossing T's is a somewhat more lengthy process than sending hoards of little minions.

 

[australopithecus]

**Mod Note**

As stated, I have split of the discussion of light in the Bible into it's own thread as to not detract from any discussion of the actual debate between AronRa and Bob.

That thread can be found here.

**Mod Note**

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Case in point, I cited statistics showing that 99.86% of geologists and biologists (zoologists, embryologists, geneticists, etc) accept evolution. This shouldn't be surprising since those are the most relevant fields. I made this statement to counter the age-old creationist lie that scientists are allegedly abandoning evolution,when the opposite has obviously been the case for centuries. However Bob attempted to counter this by claiming that some unspecified number of medical doctors don't accept evolution. Even if Bob was right about that,which he isn't- it wouldn't matter as his list are not authorities in that field.

AronRa, you need to ask BobEnyart to place this on his errata list as well. It has been pointed out by Dragan Glas, Laurens, and yourself that BobEnyart was incorrect with his figures.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

My own personal view is that the issue of phylogeny will actually be the end of evolution. I think as we learn more about genetics, we will see that everything we thought was related, is actually not.

Then you obviously haven't read the thread that your man is now trying to avoid.

AronRa, name the thread thread someone is trying to avoid, and more importantly state your evidence for making this claim.

How subtle do you believe your technique of digging and jabbing is when it appears to be your trademark?

Has it ever occurred to your counterintuitive mind that even when Richard Dawkins one day goes to his grave and his millions of pounds get fought over by family in court he might have affected .000001 of the all people Jesus Christ has affected? And what podium will you stand upon? Will your name be etched right beside Darwin, Mendel, Sagan, Dawkins? Does a YouTube award exist for what you do?

Will your own self imposed intellectual ascension one day land you on the same plateau of the affable Richard Dawkins who has now resorted to writing a book to children to spread his poison on the least intelligent and aware on such topics as origins? Oh, never mind, I just noticed you've been asked to stop posting here.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

I hope everyone realizes that this is not about Newton at all. It's about seeing if Aron has the ability to do what he demands of creationists.

At what point do the ends justify the means? I'm going to start to call you two Machiavellian if this keeps up.

I'm thinking that the ACLU might have something to say about the length a single group of people is willing to rape the rights of an individual (Just an aside, like the one you have been presenting in the debate thus far).......

Just remember, dotting I's and crossing T's is a somewhat more lengthy process than sending hoards of little minions.

The ACLU? Are you serious? I think I have something to say about the length a single group of people, namely the ACLU, is willing to go to rape the rights of individuals, or groups of individuals. Lawyers beget lawyers. Power begets power. One case the almighty ACLU constantly argues in court but has never won and that is freedom of speech. Enlighten yourself with that little dose of reality.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

The curious gene in me was begging to research more about the history of phylogeny rather than what the debaters will posit about it. Odd, but an early discovery was that phylogeny is a "notion". (tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/whatisphylogeny.html)

By definition, a notion is an opinion, view, or belief. Is that what is being debated here? Smells more like philosophy, or dare I say, religion?

So, Moses wrote about a "Tree of Life" and modern science writes about a "Tree of Life". Did Moses and now modern science somehow relate to a very similar tree? Or is modern science using an old, outdated concept, form an old, outdated book to convince the world it's opinions, views and beliefs are better than that of Moses?

 

[australopithecus]

The curious gene in me was begging to research more about the history of phylogeny rather than what the debaters will posit about it. Odd, but an early discovery was that phylogeny is a "notion". (tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/whatisphylogeny.html)

So basically your research consisted on clicking on the first external link on the Wikipedia page on phylogenetics (curiously ignoring all the information and references on that page) and stopping when you found the first opportunity to play silly little semantic games by questioning a whole field of biology based on a single word that one website uses?

By definition, a notion is an opinion, view, or belief. Is that what is being debated here? Smells more like philosophy, or dare I say, religion?

No, smells like your dishonesty.

</COLOR>

In biology, phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relatedness among groups of organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

Phylogenetic systematics is the formal name for the field within biology that reconstructs evolutionary history and studies the patterns of relationships among organisms.

<COLOR color="#FFFF00">
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_01

Phylogenetics is not a notion, nor is it a philosophy, it is a field of study. If Phylogenetics is a philosophy or notion then so are other fields of study. I doubt you would accuse Epidemiology of being "a notion", or Paleoanthropology of being "a philosophy". Actually, I'm pretty sure you'd call eating a banana either of those things if you thought it would promote your agenda of disseminating your own ignorance of the subjects you're seemingly trying to refute.

So, Moses wrote about a "Tree of Life" and modern science writes about a "Tree of Life". Did Moses and now modern science somehow relate to a very similar tree?

Evidence for Moses writing about a tree of life? Cite your sources.

Or is modern science using an old, outdated concept, form an old, outdated book to convince the world it's opinions, views and beliefs are better than that of Moses?

I think this is the third time I've said this to you, because every time you post it needs to be said: You don't know what science is.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The ACLU? Are you serious? I think I have something to say about the length a single group of people, namely the ACLU, is willing to go to rape the rights of individuals, or groups of individuals. Lawyers beget lawyers. Power begets power. One case the almighty ACLU constantly argues in court but has never won and that is freedom of speech. Enlighten yourself with that little dose of reality.

Orly? The ACLU constantly argues for Freedom of Speech, given that it is not allowed to overlap that of other forms of speech or given special promotion. When I was a kid, I wore my Wiccan T-Shirt to school that said "Yule's The Reason For the Season" and when I was told that I was suspended for an indefinite amount of time until I went home and removed it, the ACLU reamed the school for not allowing full religious expression of a Holiday Season and showing favoritism towards Christianity in the regard. And that's only MY story.

So, no.
The ACLU doesn't try to crush freedom of speech. It cruses state-sponsored favoritism.
You only despise the ACLU because they happen to be challenging your own viewpoint's supremacy, and you ignore all the POSITIVES that it has done for free speech and equality for the rest of the population.

The ACLU has defended Christian Free Speech as well, and has stood at the boarder defending the rights of even Westboro Baptist's freedoms - though as despicable as it may be. Just because a group says that no special treatment should be lent to a viewpoint that YOU support doesn't mean they are stifling your free speech. It's just that your free speech shouldn't be given special treatment over my own.

I'd be happy if you checked your facts instead of regurgitating Bill O'Reilly, please. It's bad enough that he makes his living yelling and presenting yellow news journalism without the thought of someone believing his nonsense.
Give me a single legitimate case where the ACLU has argued against the Freedom of Speech and expression in everyday circumstances, and I will delete my account right now.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

AronRa, name the thread thread someone is trying to avoid, and more importantly state your evidence for making this claim.

Have you not read anything in this thread? The second post on this thread is from me quoting from the thread AronRa speaks of and I provide a link to said quote. I have linked to the other thread many times because I wanted it to be easy for people to find it.

Furthermore, I have asked YesYouNeedJesus several times if he has read said thread, yet have received no answer. It is not and admission of not reading it, but the silence is telling.

 

[Gnug215]

Has it ever occurred to your counterintuitive mind that even when Richard Dawkins one day goes to his grave and his millions of pounds get fought over by family in court he might have affected .000001 of the all people Jesus Christ has affected? And what podium will you stand upon? Will your name be etched right beside Darwin, Mendel, Sagan, Dawkins? Does a YouTube award exist for what you do?

What on earth does this have to do with anything? What kind of appeal to emotion is this, and what does it have to do with anything?

Will your own self imposed intellectual ascension one day land you on the same plateau of the affable Richard Dawkins who has now resorted to writing a book to children to spread his poison on the least intelligent and aware on such topics as origins? Oh, never mind, I just noticed you've been asked to stop posting here.

Dawkins spreading poison? You mean religious organizations, preachers, etc. never teach children anything? What's Sunday School again? It's been a few years for me.

But let me guess, it's ok for them because they're preaching "the truth"?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

For posterity's sake:
I would rather have my name etched with a quote of Carl Sagan's Cosmos than any portion of the Bible.

Why?

Carl Sagan's Cosmos revealed more about the Universe we lived in and taught me more about the wonders of Science and the future than any smidgen of prophetical and apologetic "truth" etched in the Bible.

 

[Inferno]

Also, in my opening post above, I addressed the first issue you listed elsewhere claiming that I was incorrect (about Newton being a creationist).

Aron never claimed that. He specifically said that others had said so, but that he didn't know about the subject and that it ultimately didn't matter.

I don't know if Enyart can show that Newton ever denied any natural explanation in favor of an inexplicable miracle. Neither do I think he can show where Newton wrote 'extensively' about this, not that it would be necessarily relevant to either of our positions. I haven't read Newton myself, but Niel deGrasse Tyson says that Newton never evoked God to explain anything until he came to a point when there were no scientific explanations he could yet conceive.

A large percent of U.S. doctors reject strict Darwinism including 34% who prefer intelligent design

Well first of all, that study is entirely irrelevant, it's doctors and not biologists who claim that. Who cares? I could have the most controversial opinions on astrophysics, but unless I show that I actually understand the matter at hand, my views are irrelevant.
Second, how is "more than half accept evolution" the same as "a large percent of U.S. doctors reject strict Darwinism"? It's a twisting of words to give more credence to ID. Also, what exactly is "strict Darwinism"? If you mean "Evolution without God" then of course we'd expect the large majority to disagree and in fact I'd be surprised the poll fared as well as it did. So while I agree that an irrelevant 34% accept ID, I can't find any evidence of "reject strict Darwinism".

this error is so widely repeated by evolutionists

To be fair Bob, that Newsweek article overestimates the number of scientists who "doubt Darwinism". Wikipedia is your friend! Aron was actually doing you a favour by not waving around things like the "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" signatures and Project Steve.

So Aron, 0.14% would be surprisingly low, as expected also by identifying the nature of the error in your statistical methodology, and so your claim of 0.14% is invalid, and should be corrected.

True, let's trim it down to the 0.054% that are actually far more valid.

North Carolina State University paleontologist Mary Schweitzer discovered original biological tissue from a T. rex thighbone excavated in Montana, with transparent and pliable blood vessels containing what looks like red blood cells.

No, this is wrong. I have no further knowledge on the issue and don't have the time to research this right now, though I will check the original papers in a few hours, but TalkOrigins has the response.

BE-Question #2, TRUSTWORTHY STATISTICS: Aron, since I was referring to the same study you were, which study affirmed my statement that a large percent of U.S. doctors reject strict Darwinism including 34% who prefer intelligent design, will you now agree to withdraw that particular criticism of yours against me?

No, because what you said was at best irrelevant and at worst, though I won't claim that, a dishonest spin on words.

BE-Question #3, DENYING DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE: Aron, will you agree that my presentation to you on the radio of the soft-tissue dinosaur finds was valid, and that your claim that I was wrong about this was a result of you being out-of-date with the latest science, and that therefore I was correct when I asserted that there have been multiple published findings of original dinosaur (and dinosaur era) biological tissue, and that you wrongly denied what now is widely-reported and peer-reviewed objective science on dinosaur tissue?

Not having had time to look into all of them, no. At least one of them is wrong and I very much doubt the others will hold up to scrutiny.


I do enjoy this debate though, it's better than others I've read so far.

 

[scalyblue]

I have original biological material from a dinosaur too!

How can bob cite peer reviewed articles that support evolution and draw such...wrong conclusions out of them.

Scientists: I believe that it's possible for tiny fragments of proteins to survive inside fossils of bones given specific and extraordinary circumstnaces. After my studies, I must have isolated a few molecules because my spectroscope indicates such and I can get an in situ reaction from an enzyme. This will likely strengthen the position of birds in the dinosaurae clade.

Bob: Soft tissue can't survive that long, therefore wizards!

Scientists: Sir I believe that you aren't understanding the scope of-

Bob: WIZARDS! You are all LIARS!

Scientists: Did you even understand what we did here?

Bob: I don't need to understand, a wizard did it.

Scientists: Sir, I believe you should enroll yourself in middle school biology.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm sure you agree with me that it's an honor to have folks take time out of their lives to follow our debate here and to comment on it. Regarding that, I'll ask you for a favor. If any of our readers attack me:
- for not addressing all of your challenges in this single post, or
- for not yet getting to Phylogeny, or
- for including my own examples of what I believe your errors were (limiting these to topics covered on our radio shows), I'd like to ask you to defend me in such matters and to ask them to focus on the substance of the points being contested. Thanks!

The only reason anyone attacked you was that YesYouNeedJesus claimed the debate was going to be about this:

YesYouNeedJesus[/url]"]The first topic will be Aron's claim that "Everything we see in nature consistently adheres to everything we would expect of a chain of inherited variations carried down through flowering lines of descent." And that "the phylogenetic tree of life is plainly evident from the bottom up to any objective observer who dares compare the anatomy of different sets of collective life forms. But it can be just as objectively confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically."

Then went on to say this:

YesYouNeedJesus[/url]"]This thread is to discuss the discussion between AronRa and Bob Enyart on Phylogeny.

Thus, everyone thought you were obfuscating the debate. Now that we all know the actual topic of the debate, there should not be any attacking of you going on.

ARON CLAIMS BOB IS UNTRUSTWORTHY WITH HIS STATISTICS:

Dragan Glas and Laurens have already exposed the errors you made with this claim. This needs to be added to your errata and not cited as evidence.

150 Million: AND NOW THIS, Soft Tissue in an Allegedly "150-Million" Year Old Archaeopteryx: One would think that these soft-tissue dinosaur finds would be trumpeted as the scientific discovery of our age. But so many evolutionists whom we talk to at RSF:
1) have never even heard of these developments
2) initially deny them
3) assume that it must be creationists who claim to have found them, and
4) repeat, as Aron and PZ Myers did, the repeatedly debunked claims that these are not dinosaur tissue but contamination.

So now, from the mother lode of evolutionary dogma, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, comes this report that scientists have found various types of original biological material in archaeopteryx feathers and bones, biological material that allegedly has survived for 150 million years, including proof their feathers were colored "black" from the still extant melanosomes that produced melanin).

:lol:

BobEnyart, have you even taken the time to read Bergmann et al. (2009)? Nowhere in that paper do they say they found soft tissue. What they do say they found are fossilized and chemical remains of what was once soft tissue. BobEnyart, you have either never read this paper and are just parroting this mistake from another creationist source, read the paper and did not understand it, or read the paper and tried to spin it in a way to suit your needs. I have already pointed out to YesYouNeedJesus that I believe this was do to your poor reading comprehension, but please do tell us how you were able to draw the wrong conclusion you have from that paper. This needs to go on your errata as well.

BE-Question #1, NEWTON THE CREATIONIST: AronRa, learning of Newton's belief that God created the world as revealed in Scripture about 4,000 years before Christ, and having read in my first post above Newton's words of commitment to divine origins and his principled rejection of naturalistic origins, I'm asking you to agree that you were wrong to devise a definition of a "creationist" to try and justify your claim that Newton was not a creationist, and so to agree that if you are going to list scientists by their claims on origins, that you will list Isaac Newton among the literal creationists. Agreed?

:facepalm:

I did not "refuse to admit" whether Newton was a strict creationist -as Bob accuses. Where adequate explanation was required, Bob simply failed to provide one. Remember that Bob also thinks it is possible to contribute to science by rejecting scientific methodology, and that to say otherwise is a 'circular argument'. Bob still has not shown Newton to have been that intellectually dishonest. He may have believed gravity to be insufficient on its own to explain planetary patterns, but that doesn't mean he rejected all natural explanations simply because they are natural. However if Wikipedia is accurate, then Newton pleaded for a literal interpretation of Genesis as the "word of God", which he said he would not deny. So he did admit to the doctrinal Obligation I complained about earlier. He is also said to have believed himself to be one of select few chosen by God to receive special revelation regarding the scriptures. That is easily irrational enough to qualify as a creationist even by the strictest definition! Amusingly it also seems that Newton agreed with me by rejecting the trinity and considering the worship of Jesus to be damnable idolatry. I would love to read that piece of work. I would also like to see how Bob would challenge Newton's claim to have a divinely enhanced and thus superior understanding of scripture than Bob has.

What more needs to be said?

BE-Question #2, TRUSTWORTHY STATISTICS: Aron, since I was referring to the same study you were, which study affirmed my statement that a large percent of U.S. doctors reject strict Darwinism including 34% who prefer intelligent design, will you now agree to withdraw that particular criticism of yours against me?

You are the one in error here, as has been pointed out before.

BE-Question #3, DENYING DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE: Aron, will you agree that my presentation to you on the radio of the soft-tissue dinosaur finds was valid, and that your claim that I was wrong about this was a result of you being out-of-date with the latest science, and that therefore I was correct when I asserted that there have been multiple published findings of original dinosaur (and dinosaur era) biological tissue, and that you wrongly denied what now is widely-reported and peer-reviewed objective science on dinosaur tissue?

I have already pointed out that you are mistaken or flat out lying about the Archaeopteryx paper. Inferno has provided a link, which does the same for your first claim. Thus, I think both of these should be added to your errata and I highly doubt that the other two claims you have provided will be any different.

 

[Laurens]

Uh-oh looks like Bob's pulled a motherfuckin' Gish gallop...

 

[Isotelus]

70 Million: ANOTHER BIG FIND, Iron-clad "Dinosaur-era" tissue from an Allegedly "70-million year old" Mosasaur: See soft-tissue images including the one above in Science Daily and consider this PLoS peer-reviewed report by researchers including from Lund University in Sweden and Southern Methodist University in Dallas with scientists confirming another, allegedly dinosaur-era, biological tissue discovery using sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, bio-film, etc., concluding that original biological collagen exists in a small bone from an extinct marine reptile called a Mosasaur. Yet according to a report in Science Magazine as it relates to the discoveries of dinosaur tissue, scientists calculate the maximum survival time of collagen not in millions but in thousands of years. (And of course tests so far show that there's plenty of Carbon-14 in these dinosaur specimens, and what would your guess be about whether the left-handedness of the amino acids present have yet returned to their non-living ratio of 50/50 handedness?)

Actually reading the PLoS article, it says they concluded that there could be collagen OR its breakdown products. There also wasn't plenty of C-14; it was in very small amounts and is attributed to bacteria on the outer surface of the bone, as well as cyanobacteria colonies that managed to penetrate the sample.

It's almost like he thinks that these scientists are cracking open bones and lo and behold! Soft tissue! Look this blood vessel is still stretchy! Wee! But that's not the case. It clearly states in the T-rex, Mosasaur and Brachylophosaurus papers that the samples were demineralized prior to study. That means that they were placed in solution, and only then could the tissues become fibrous or pliable.

So now, from the mother lode of evolutionary dogma, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, comes this report that scientists have found various types of original biological material in archaeopteryx feathers and bones, biological material that allegedly has survived for 150 million years, including proof their feathers were colored "black" from the still extant melanosomes that produced melanin).

The study actually sampled from the single covert found in 1861. This doesn't mean all of its feathers were black. But more importantly, the melanosomes were not "original biological material"; they were impressions that have preserved their morphology.

I'm also curious as to why Bob brought up one study from one feather, but didn't mention the studies for Anchiornis or Sinosauropteryx? Anchiornis especially, since it's colouration is almost completely mapped.

 

[brettpalmer]

It's almost like he thinks that these scientists are cracking open bones and lo and behold! Soft tissue! Look this blood vessel is still stretchy! Wee!

That's EXACTLY what he says. If you want to hear him, listen to Pastor Bob Enyart and Software Engineer Fred Williams on their Real Science Friday Show, broadcast on one Denver-area radio station every Friday afternoon at 3pm Mountain time and available for free download on kov.org. (Sorry...I was listening to Bob beg for donations today on his radio program...)

Hear it for yourself: http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/bel/2012/20120120-BEL015.mp3

Bob refers to the soft tissue in the clip above at the 3:06 - 3:20 minute marks as looking as if it just came from a "butcher shop!"

 

[Frenger]

I am personally looking forward to digging up dinosaur bones and throwing it straight on a BBQ. :facepalm: