|
Replies: 64
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Intelligent Design is peer reviewed
Apr 23, 2016, 3:16 PM
|
|
"As may be seen from our newly updated page listing Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design, the ID movement has developed a diverse research program bearing fruit in the form of more than 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers. Beyond doubt, ID proponents have published a significant body of legitimate peer-reviewed research."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/intelligent_des056221.html
The article also shows how good science doesn't have to be peer reviewed. Somebody been lying up in here.....
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Intelligent Design is peer reviewed
Apr 23, 2016, 3:46 PM
|
|
Someone's been lying, and it's been you the whole time.
http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/claims-peer-review-intelligent-design-examined
Here's an analysis of the list in the article you posted. None of the items in it are legitimate.
Also, peer review is an essential part of the scientific method - again, if you were educated in science, you'd know why. I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS isn't within its jurisdiction in claiming that "good science doesn't need peer review."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Intelligent Design is peer reviewed
Apr 23, 2016, 4:05 PM
|
|
So we should believe "Dave" from Skeptical Science over an article from "evolution news" by a guy with a masters in earth science who "studied evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19919]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7798
Joined: 10/12/08
|
Saying evolutionnews.org is a scientific website
Apr 23, 2016, 4:58 PM
[ in reply to Re: Intelligent Design is peer reviewed ] |
|
is like saying theonion.com is a site about produce.
It's the same genre as icr.org.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 4:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: Intelligent Design is peer reviewed ] |
|
Then again, it's not just Dave we're "believing", he cites his sources and thoroughly debunks each and every one of these peer-reviewed claims.
Troll harder please. Lest we start a question on if people should trust us vs. JHop83...who clearly had no credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 5:13 PM
|
|
He actually doesn't cite his sources LIAR....he applies his own "filter" and then lists the remaining papers with a bullet list of why each are not legit...no sources are ever listed....
Can't say the same about my article which lists 33 sources....
Seriously is there some kind of inside joke going on against me on here? There's absolutely no way all of you are this blind and delusional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
What a narrow minded little individual you are.***
Apr 23, 2016, 5:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: What a narrow minded little individual you are.***
Apr 23, 2016, 5:16 PM
|
|
Show me the sources then since you say he lists them.....
TIA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Sure, since this is so difficult for you (narrow minded)
Apr 23, 2016, 5:29 PM
|
|
There are 29 papers that pass his "filter" and guess how many he refutes with a source?
A grand total of SIX....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
By all means, please provide counters to his statements.***
Apr 23, 2016, 5:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: By all means, please provide counters to his statements.***
Apr 23, 2016, 5:37 PM
|
|
Ok....
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/intelligent_des056221.html
Here's the authors credentials....now let's see Dave's.....
Casey Luskin is an attorney with graduate degrees in science and law, giving him expertise in both the scientific and legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. He earned his B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. His law degree is from the University of San Diego, where he focused his studies on First Amendment law, education law, and environmental law. He conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography (1997-2002).
Mr. Luskin formerly worked at Discovery Institute from 2005 - 2015 as Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs (2005-2010) and then Research Coordinator (2011-2015). In these roles he assisted and defended scientists, educators, and students seeking to freely study, research, and teach about the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. As explained here, as of December 31, 2015 Mr. Luskin no longer works as a staff member at Discovery Institute as he is pursuing the goal of furthering his studies.
Luskin is co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, a non-profit helping students to investigate evolution by starting "IDEA Clubs" on college and high school campuses worldwide.
Mr. Luskin has lectured and written frequently on the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. He has lectured widely on ID on university campuses and at conferences around the country, and coauthored or contributed to multiple books. In 2006, he coauthored, Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision, a comprehensive critique of the first court ruling to assess the constitutionality of teaching ID in public schools. In 2012 he coauthored Science and Human Origins, contributing chapters discussing fossil and genetic evidence which challenges human/ape common ancestry. He is also coauthor of Discovering Intelligent Design, the first comprehensive introductory intelligent design curriculum. Luskin has also contributed to the volumes Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues, The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States, Signature of Controversy, More than Myth, The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos, Debating Darwin’s Doubt and the award-winning God and Evolution.
Mr. Luskin has also published in both technical law and science journals and other scholarly journals, including Journal of Church and State; Montana Law Review; Geochemistry, Geophysics, and Geosystems (G3); Hamline Law Review; Liberty University Law Review; Christian Research Journal; University of St. Thomas Journal of Law & Public Policy; and Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design.
A senior editor at Salvo Magazine, Luskin has published in a variety of print and online popular media. He has commented on the debate over evolution in hundreds of radio, TV, and other media sources -- too numerous to list. However, some noteworthy examples include: The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Nature, Science, U.S. News & World Report, Chicago Tribune, Washington D.C. Examiner, Human Events, The Blaze, CNS News, The College Fix, Christian Post, The Stream, Christianity Today, BeliefNet, Touchstone, World Magazine, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, Alan Colmes Show, Thom Hartmann Show, Bible Answer Man (Hank Hanegraaff) Show, Eric Metaxas Show, Hugh Hewitt Show, Michael Medved Show, MSNBC, ABC News, Reuters, Associated Press, The New Yorker, USA Today, Washington Post, BBC, NPR, CNN.com, C-SPAN, and Foxnews. Luskin has contributed numerous articles to Evolution News & Views and podcasts to ID the Future.
Casey’s special interests include geology, science education, biological origins, and environmental protection. He and his wife enjoy hiking, camping, kayaking, sailing, and other outdoor activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
That's what I thought, you have nothing because
Apr 23, 2016, 5:38 PM
|
|
Dave is clearly correct. Daves credentials have nothing to do with the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: That's what I thought, you have nothing because
Apr 23, 2016, 5:44 PM
|
|
Credentials have nothing to do with whether or not you trust someone's input on a particular subject?
Ok....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: That's what I thought, you have nothing because
Apr 23, 2016, 5:45 PM
|
|
Go look in the mirror and ask yourself that same question. Literally hundreds of "evolutionists" have the same type credentials, yet you don't believe them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Do you need reading comprehension lessons?
Apr 23, 2016, 5:50 PM
[ in reply to Re: That's what I thought, you have nothing because ] |
|
Dave's credentials aren't needed because he's not using expertise to base his claims. Again I ask you to refute anything he stated. The fact is, you cannot, because he's correct in that the giant list your super credited guy listed (suddenly because he listed them his credentials mattered? Lol.) is bogus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Do you need reading comprehension lessons?
Apr 23, 2016, 6:00 PM
|
|
And he also lists sources....
So his claims are bogus and some random Dave guy's are not......why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Troll harder please.
Apr 23, 2016, 6:02 PM
|
|
Refute a single thing in the article. Prove that one of the list from your greatly credentialed guy is actually a peer reviewed paper on Intelligent Design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: That's what I thought, you have nothing because
Apr 23, 2016, 5:48 PM
[ in reply to That's what I thought, you have nothing because ] |
|
"Casey’s special interests include geology, science education, biological origins, and environmental protection. He and his wife enjoy hiking, camping, kayaking, sailing, and other outdoor activities."
Well, my special interests line up with his except change out weather with biological origins. I guess that makes me some type expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 5:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: Quite simply, yes. ] |
|
> He actually doesn't cite his sources LIAR....he
> applies his own "filter" and then lists the remaining
> papers with a bullet list of why each are not
> legit...no sources are ever listed....
>
> Can't say the same about my article which lists 33
> sources....
>
> Seriously is there some kind of inside joke going on
> against me on here? There's absolutely no way all of
> you are this blind and delusional.
You call soccerkrzy a liar and claim the sources aren't cited, then you say there are 6 sources. Which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 5:41 PM
|
|
He listed a few that I didn't see....
But not many.
Out of the 29 papers he disputes he only lists sources for a few...
This is becoming quite humorous....an article by someone with years of study and experience is written off because some random writer named Dave disputes it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 5:42 PM
|
|
Yet you called soccerkrzy a liar and stated no sources were given. But, soccerkrzy wasn't lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 5:43 PM
[ in reply to Re: Quite simply, yes. ] |
|
The sources Dave gives backs him up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 5:46 PM
|
|
And the sources Casey Luskin, the guy with a masters in earth science and years of studying evolution and the debate between creationists and evolutioists, back him up....
So where does that leave us?
It leaves in the same spot we've been for two weeks.....you saying evolution is fact and me showing you yet another link refuting it in favor of Intelligent Design....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 5:50 PM
|
|
Except I haven't said ID isn't true. As we've discussed over and over, I don't think evolution disproves a God. God could have still been behind the design.
Why some Christians have a hard time with evolution, I don't understand it. It's happening even now. Take trips around the world and you'll see the differences even among us humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Exactly.***
Apr 23, 2016, 5:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 5:57 PM
[ in reply to Re: Quite simply, yes. ] |
|
It's happening now but living fossils are the same as they are found in the fossil layer with the dinosaurs....
How is that possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 6:07 PM
|
|
1. Our teeth are different compared to people in other countries. Why?
Our food sources. We even evolve based on our diets. People also evolve based on climate/environment, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Quite simply, yes.
Apr 23, 2016, 6:25 PM
|
|
That's your rebuttal to the fact that fossils of pretty much every modern species was found with the dinosaurs unchanged?
Again I'll ask, how are we constantly evolving if that's the case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Oh, you mean where you changed the subject to the next
Apr 23, 2016, 6:29 PM
|
|
talking point of your little cult?
Living fossils only bear a superficial physical resemblance, they are not the same. Not to mention, it isn't remotely close to "pretty much every modern species", I know you're trying to change up the copy and paste text you use, but let's not try to embellish that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Lol, can you actually read that and think you've proven a
Apr 23, 2016, 6:51 PM
|
|
Point? But keep trolling, I'm excited for your future here, I'm ready for you to move to another topic that's equally wrong, like claiming the earth is flat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Lol, can you actually read that and think you've proven a
Apr 23, 2016, 7:11 PM
|
|
We can see that the earth is round....
We can't see a monkey....excuse me primate turn into a man though and we have tons of questions surrounding that theory....
So it's not a fact like the earth is round....
You can at least agree with me there right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Lol, can you actually read that and think you've proven a
Apr 25, 2016, 10:03 PM
|
|
> You can at least agree with me there right?
We can't one species turn into another in front of our eyes if that's what you mean, but we can certainly see the evidence for it. Just like we can see the earth is round.
> and we have tons of questions surrounding that theory...
You do know that a scientific theory is literally an interpretation of facts right? You don't go "higher" than theory in science. I'm really not sure what your confusion about that is?
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
Do you disagree with what a scientific theory even is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Oh, you mean where you changed the subject to the next
Apr 23, 2016, 11:28 PM
|
|
You're a dork....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Guess The Vatican is wrong now? Lol.***
Apr 23, 2016, 5:59 PM
|
|
The pope said muslims and christians were the same....I couldn't care less what the catholic church has to say about anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47103
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Lol. No, no he didn't.***
Apr 23, 2016, 6:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Guess The Vatican is wrong now? Lol.***
Apr 25, 2016, 10:04 PM
[ in reply to Re: Guess The Vatican is wrong now? Lol.*** ] |
|
Wait so let me get this straight... Protestantism branched off of Catholicism and yet Catholics aren't christians?
Just lol... you don't even know the history of what you believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Guess The Vatican is wrong now? Lol.***
Apr 26, 2016, 6:22 AM
|
|
Where did I say Catholics weren't Christian?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Guess The Vatican is wrong now? Lol.***
Apr 26, 2016, 8:06 AM
|
|
Ok well maybe I misinterpreted your comment then. You seemed to imply the catholic church's opinion doesn't matter. I find that a bit weird since your religion branched off of theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95391
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Why do you get personal with him.
Apr 24, 2016, 5:10 PM
|
|
I've told him before. Stop lying and I'll stop calling him a liar. I'm not the only one who sees how dishonest he is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Why do you get personal with him.
Apr 24, 2016, 6:07 PM
|
|
The only people on this board who are dishonest are those that try to pass off evolution as a fact.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Why do you get personal with him.
Apr 24, 2016, 7:04 PM
|
|
You sure it's not the preacher asking for money every week? Hmm... oh and btw, you should just have "faith" in what he says, no evidence required!
But ya, you're probably right, there is a world-wide scientific conspiracy going on where most scientists colluded to disprove god or something.
Just wow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Why do you get personal with him.
Apr 24, 2016, 7:54 PM
|
|
The preacher doesn't ask for money....he quotes from the Bible which says to give 10% to the church....
I just got home a little bit ago from a church cookout with 200 people there, all the food paid for by the church. That's actually what the money goes to among other things.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Why do you get personal with him.
Apr 24, 2016, 8:40 PM
|
|
I'm well aware, that's not the point though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19919]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7798
Joined: 10/12/08
|
Evolution is fact.
Apr 24, 2016, 7:41 PM
[ in reply to Re: Why do you get personal with him. ] |
|
Natural selection is fact. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.
You troll. You post comical links. And you yank the chains of several tneters.
But to say that the promotion of facts is dishonest...I hope you've reached your goal.
If you really believe all you post, I equate you to Sye Ten Bruggencate.
That may be your goal, but you argue just to argue with no consideration of logic. You disrespectfully respond to the most noble of believers. You say the same stupid stuff over and over.
If I were a believer, I would tell you to shut up.
But as an apostate, I feel sorry for you. You waste your time arguing and getting nowhere with nonbelievers. You would probably better benefit the kingdom by investing your time elsewhere. I'd say to him whom has ears...but you may be deaf as ####.
Just consider Ecc 5:2:
Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few.
Because when you open your mouth, you prove you are a moron.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Evolution is fact.
Apr 24, 2016, 7:50 PM
|
|
And they yank my chain as well....
But it's different when I do it.
I've seen dozens of absolute disgraceful posts on this board directed at Christiainty....didn't see you go on a little rant at those posters....
And the one time I "disrespected" another believer was when I called Prodigal a coot and it was clearly a joke.....
You're a joke and evolution is still not a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Evolution is fact.
Apr 24, 2016, 8:40 PM
|
|
Is creationism a fact?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Evolution is fact.
Apr 24, 2016, 8:49 PM
|
|
It's a fact to me....
It's certainly not a scientific fact and it never can be in this lifetime....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Evolution is fact.
Apr 24, 2016, 10:24 PM
|
|
Why couldn't it be?
If the evidence was well supported I would be inclined to call it fact.
I mean, if we radiometrically dated the earth and it lined up with timelines that made sense from what the bible says or if we didn't see transitional forms and all animals just appeared a few thousand years ago.
It would be pretty easy to support if true...
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1898]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3418
Joined: 11/7/01
|
Re: Evolution is fact.
Apr 24, 2016, 11:03 PM
|
|
Um... theories are not facts. Not yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Evolution is fact.
Apr 25, 2016, 9:03 AM
|
|
Are you referring to scientific theories? Because if so, yes they are.
Scientific theories don't become laws if that's what you are suggesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Evolution is fact.
Apr 24, 2016, 8:05 PM
[ in reply to Evolution is fact. ] |
|
5 of the last 7 threads have my name in the OP yet it I'm the one "pulling people's chains"...,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [180903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 94585
Joined: 12/5/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
Re: Intelligent Design is peer reviewed
Apr 23, 2016, 6:15 PM
|
|
|
|
My source is the Internet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [356]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 879
Joined: 6/3/08
|
Re: Intelligent Design is peer reviewed
Apr 25, 2016, 5:59 PM
|
|
So that wisdom tooth pic got me thinking...
JHop wants "living proof" or some sort of transitional fossil....Well, I had all my wisdom teeth pulled. All 3 (three) of them. Maybe I should try to find my old x-rays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
ah hahahahahaha
Apr 23, 2016, 10:20 PM
|
|
oh... you're serious?
oh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: ah hahahahahaha
Apr 23, 2016, 11:33 PM
|
|
At some point you're going to have to give up downplaying every source I link to....you're kind of wearing that one out....
I mean I don't know how many more times I can post articles from biologist, paleontologist, scientist directly refuting statements you have made, in this case being that there is no peer reviewed work from creationists....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: ah hahahahahaha
Apr 23, 2016, 11:44 PM
|
|
The only remaining thing to do is just laugh it off??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24695]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42369
Joined: 7/31/10
|
I'm still waiting for your selfie by the Godship... ;~)***
Apr 25, 2016, 10:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1482]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 2011
Joined: 3/4/11
|
Re: I'm still waiting for your selfie by the Godship... ;~)***
Apr 26, 2016, 7:40 AM
|
|
Lordy I'll humor the troll.
Luskin's "dismissal" is based mostly on his misuse of a what's already a half-done paper by Lynch and Conery, claiming that the rate of gene duplication is too small, but his use of the paper has several serious problems:
1. Lynch and Conery, by using whole genomes, have tried to empirically derive the rate of single gene duplications, and have done so excluding multi-gene families. Their study did not address whole genome duplication, partial or whole chromosomal duplication, or other kinds of segmental duplication. Luskin dismisses duplication as a means for generating biological novelty, but he fails to address the more potent mechanisms for the addition of genetic material, which are capable of adding hundreds or thousands of genes at a time.
2. Contrary to Luskin's contention that the rate of duplication reported is "pretty rare," it is actually considered quite high. Lynch and Conery state that "50% of all of the genes in a genome are expected to duplicate and increase to high frequency at least once on time scales of 35 to 350 million years. Thus, even in the absence of direct amplification of entire genomes ( polyploidization), gene duplication has the potential to generate substantial molecular substrate for the origin of evolutionary novelties."
3. Lynch and Conery's methodologies and conclusions were both heavily criticized in a Science "technical comments" piece by two separate sets of scientists, who are well regarded experts (see below). Among other things, the conclusion of the short half-life of gene duplicates and the rate of duplication were both questioned, and while Lynch and Conery defend their position, they admit that several assumptions bias their results and they revise some of their estimates. So the results of the study are at the very least highly questionable. Luskin should have either mentioned this controversy, or left out the study all together.
Even without these problems, Luskin still fails to adequately address the issue of duplication by relying on this study. The rate that Lynch and Conery present, even if correct, is an average rate of duplication. But various genes can deviate greatly from the norm. Furthermore, it is well known that rates of gene duplication are not uniform. For example, subsequent duplications are much more likely if a duplication has occurred previously, because the chances of unequal crossing over are greatly increased, This allows for the rapid expansion of gene families, which appears to be what happened in the case of the cone snail venoms. Lynch and Conery left gene families out of their study.
Read 'em all, Jhop. There will be a quiz. If you pass, then we can "debate."
1. Lynch, M. and J.S. Conery, The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science, 2000. 290(5494): p. 1151-5.
2. Long, M. and K. Thornton, Gene duplication and evolution. Science, 2001. 293(5535): p. 1551.
3. Zhang, L., B.S. Gaut, and T.J. Vision, Gene duplication and evolution. Science, 2001. 293(5535): p. 1551.
4. Patthy, L., Protein Evolution. 1 ed. 1999: Blackwell Science Inc. 91-103.
5. Massingham, T., L.J. Davies, and P. Lio, Analysing gene function after duplication. Bioessays, 2001. 23(10): p. 873-6.
6. Dermitzakis, E.T. and A.G. Clark, Differential selection after duplication in mammalian developmental genes. Mol Biol Evol, 2001. 18(4): p. 557-62.
7. Force, A., et al., Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. Genetics, 1999. 151(4): p. 1531- 45.
8. Lynch, M. and A. Force, The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization. Genetics, 2000. 154(1): p. 459- 73.
9. James, L.C. and D.S. Tawfik, Catalytic and binding poly- reactivities shared by two unrelated proteins: The potential role of promiscuity in enzyme evolution. Protein Sci, 2001. 10(12): p. 2600-7.
10. Serluca, F.C., et al., Partitioning of tissue expression accompanies multiple duplications of the Na+/K+ ATPase alpha subunit gene. Genome Res, 2001. 11(10): p. 1625-31.
11. Jelesko, J.G., et al., Rare germinal unequal crossing-over leading to recombinant gene formation and gene duplication in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1999. 96(18): p. 10302-7.
12. Brown, C.J., K.M. Todd, and R.F. Rosenzweig, Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol, 1998. 15(8): p. 931-42.
13. Cirera, S. and M. Aguade, Molecular evolution of a duplication: the sex-peptide (Acp70A) gene region of Drosophila subobscura and Drosophila madeirensis. Mol Biol Evol, 1998. 15(8): p. 988-96.
14. Espiritu, D.J., et al., Venomous cone snails: molecular phylogeny and the generation of toxin diversity. Toxicon, 2001. 39(12): p. 1899-916.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 64
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
