Originally posted by PsychoPawnI agree, it's not worth disagreeing over.
I think I see your point and I think what I would say you are suggesting is basically that an ad hom is appropriate when it's an accurate description of the person.
I am just defining an ad hom as being an insult on the person, that's all.
I don't disagree with you that there are those on this forum that they do appear to be appropriate descriptor ...[text shortened]... rguing about what the definition of an ad hom is though so I'll agree to disagree really 🙂
But basically, I think you have me. I only think it's an ad hom when it's an undeserved attack. When it's a true statement of fact, it cannot, in my opinion, be considered an ad hom.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou are both wrong. An Ad Hominem is a fallacious argument that takes as a premise some typically insulting claim about another and uses this as putative evidence that the claim of another is false. As in:
I agree, it's not worth disagreeing over.
But basically, I think you have me. I only think it's an ad hom when it's an undeserved attack. When it's a true statement of fact, it cannot, in my opinion, be considered an ad hom.
X claims P is true.
But, X is an idiot.
Hence, P is false.
Insulting an opponent during a debate is not an Ad Hominem, regardless of whether the insult is accurate. It is only when the insult is used to establish some other conclusion that it counts as an Ad Hominem, and this is so even when the insult is accurate.
Originally posted by bbarrOkay, you got me partner!
You are both wrong. An Ad Hominem is a fallacious argument that takes as a premise some typically insulting claim about another and uses this as putative evidence that the claim of another is false. As in:
X claims P is true.
But, X is an idiot.
Hence, P is false.
Insulting an opponent during a debate is not an Ad Hominem, regardless of whether the i ...[text shortened]... her conclusion that it counts as an Ad Hominem, and this is so even when the insult is accurate.
I guess though, an undeserved attack would seek merely to weaken an opponents arguement (a deserved one might do that too).
Originally posted by JirakonI am curious. Where did you get this information:
That seems like a somewhat subjective question. If you can show that it's obviously wrong to any reasonably intelligent person, and I've been believing it's right, then I've been living without even having reasonable intelligence, so I couldn't judge whether you're right or not. But if it logically follows that my point is wrong based on your evidence ...[text shortened]... ), then at least I might be able to follow that, and I'll be happy to concede the point.
.. but there are no mutations of addition.
Do you realize just how big that claim is? If it were true it would render the whole field of Biology terribly misguided.
You know, the two possibilities you gave me (ignorance or deceit) are very much the same as those for evolutionists, from a creationists standpoint. In fact, if you simply replace "your pastor" with "evolutionary scientists" in the first point, it basically sums up what a creationist believes about an evolutionist.
Actually your claim about no mutations of addition would mean you would have to put "biologist" in there too. It should be impossible to get a degree in biology without knowing that mutations of addition do take place.
Do you truly believe all of your claims?
Yes.
Originally posted by JirakonWe've got this thing called "empirical evidence". You don't.
You know, the two possibilities you gave me (ignorance or deceit) are very much the same as those for evolutionists, from a creationists standpoint. In fact, if you simply replace "your pastor" with "evolutionary scientists" in the first point, it basically sums up what a creationist believes about an evolutionist.
Reproduction's easy. RNA can catalyze it's own reproduction, and phospholipid vesicles can break in two.
Reproduction can hardly be considered easy. In the case of RNA, it would have to form and learn to reproduce in the same generation. It would have to arise naturally as complete RNA, already able to catlyze its reproduction. A single RNA strand, even in an early earth, would probably not have lived very long, let alone learned to reproduce on its own.
Who claims {natural selection explains new traits}
You'd be surprised.
Yes there are {mutations of addition}
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "addition". Sometimes when organisms reproduce, part of a strand of DNA is deleted. Other times, part of the strand is reordered. Still other times, part of the strand is repeated. But never does a strand gain a new part that was not originally in the parents' DNA; where would it have come from? Even birth defects affected by the environment (nuclear radiation, etc.) are not caused by the environment adding new pieces to DNA strands. If there is a mutation that does this, then I'm not aware of it. Enlighten me.
Either sperm or egg could evolve without the other; a sperm is just a haploid cell with propulsion; an egg is just a big haploid cell with mitochondria.
But why? What possible purpose could they serve to benefit members of a population? If one type of haploid cell can really evolve without the other, why would they become useless without each other (at least in terms of reproduction)? One can't just claim that since haploids can form independently, then they might as well. There needs to be a reason they would both survive, find each other, then become dependent on one another for reproduction.
Life is not a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system.
The universe is a closed system, unless of course there is a supernatural being that transcends it. And just to clarify, I am not claiming that each of those laws on its own suggests that both life and the universe couldn't arise naturally, but combined, they suggest both.
How do causality or cell theory "show that neither the universe nor life could arise by natural laws of science"?
Law of Causality: Every effect must have a cause. If the universe came into existence, there must have been a cause. What could possibly cause the universe to come into existence except something that transcends it?
Cell Theory: Cells are the fundamental structures of life. New cells can only come from other cells. According to this theory, an initial cell cannot arise naturally.
The "Law of Biogenesis" (all life comes from an egg) is not a Law in the same sense that the Law of Universal Gravitation is a Law. It's simply a model that describes the observations that have been made with respect to life in this oxidizing atmosphere with self-replicating life everywhere.
Fair enough. However, since science can only observe and make claims based on the processes occuring now, there's no reason to doubt that the Law of Biogenesis has always applied. But, admittedly, this does not mean it couldn't have been violated earlier.
Bacteria don't need 11 systems to live or procreate.
We're not bacteria, and we do need 11 systems to live and procreate. The idea that bacteria are not like us does not reveal anything as to how at least 10 of our systems became functional and dependent on one another.
Yes there are. Didn't you know velociraptors had feathers?
That does not mean they are a transitional state. They are not even classified as half-dinosaur, half-bird. They are fully dinosaur. Its biological status is clearly that of a dinosaur. Having feathers doesn't mean they turned into birds. It just means they had feathers.
How about Lucy the Australopithecus?
23% of (allegedly) a single organism whose bones were found several miles apart? The attributes given to Lucy, which you mentioned, match the attributes of a bonobo, which is still alive today. It's widely accepted, even among evolutionists, that none of the australopithecines later evolved into humans.
What about the pakicetids, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, Squalodon?
Like Lucy, Pakicetus was reconstructed from some fragments of bones. A few cheek teeth, and a bit of the skull and lower jaw. In the few bones that led to the reconstruction of Ambulocetus, the pelvic girdle is not even preserved. How can one conclude any connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton? As for the other three, I haven't heard of them prior to this post. I will try to research them and see if any of them convincingly supports a link between whales and land animals. If you know of a good source for this information (preferably online, but it doesn't have to be), it would be much appreciated.
I'd like to suggest that if one is going to believe in claims about extinct species based solely on fossils, one should really consider the amount and quality of the actual fossils used in their reconstruction.
Originally posted by JirakonI am curious. Where did you get that 'Law' and 'Theory' from? They are certainly not standard science. Before you can use one idea to support another you must establish that the first idea is sound (and agreed upon).
Law of Causality: Every effect must have a cause. If the universe came into existence, there must have been a cause. What could possibly cause the universe to come into existence except something that transcends it?
Cell Theory: Cells are the fundamental structures of life. New cells can only come from other cells. According to this theory, an initial cell cannot arise naturally.
I dispute both your 'Law of Causality' and 'Cell Theory' so your conclusions remain unconvincing until you can support your initial 'Law' and 'Theory'.
Originally posted by JirakonYou have already admitted to the existence of mutations and the possibility of copying. So if a piece of DNA is copied then mutated (changed) then it constitutes an addition. In this particular case it has not come from the environment so that is not a necessary requirement as you seem to be claiming.
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "addition". Sometimes when organisms reproduce, part of a strand of DNA is deleted. Other times, part of the strand is reordered. Still other times, part of the strand is repeated. But never does a strand gain a new part that was not originally in the parents' DNA; where would it have come from? Even birth defects affe ...[text shortened]... DNA strands. If there is a mutation that does this, then I'm not aware of it. Enlighten me.
Also there are many processes by which DNA is introduced by the environment including from virus' - thats how virus' reproduce. So either you are wrong or virus' don't exist. Which is it? I believe that GMOs are produced that way which means you have eaten the direct results of something you don't believe in.
Consider yourself enlightened.
Now please tell us where you got the information that mutations of addition do not take place. You talk about DNA with some authority as if you have read up on the subject yet your conclusions show a remarkable level of ignorance. So where did you read up on the subject?
Originally posted by bbarrYou're right. I stand corrected.
You are both wrong. An Ad Hominem is a fallacious argument that takes as a premise some typically insulting claim about another and uses this as putative evidence that the claim of another is false. As in:
X claims P is true.
But, X is an idiot.
Hence, P is false.
Insulting an opponent during a debate is not an Ad Hominem, regardless of whether the i ...[text shortened]... her conclusion that it counts as an Ad Hominem, and this is so even when the insult is accurate.
I do tend to think that insults, whether deserved or not, distract from having a civil and real discussion and usually ends up being the point where there is no more chance of either person convincing the other of anything.
Then again, it's extremely rare for someone on an internet forum to change their mind in my experience.
So if a piece of DNA is copied then mutated (changed) then it constitutes an addition
Copy + change (of either deletion or swapping) = more of the same =/= addition.
Virus don't add anything that isn't already in either the virus or the thing it inhabits. If all life came from a single cell, how could any life add any new structures that didn't previously exist?
Originally posted by JirakonWell, considering the genome gets larger it WOULD be an addition. Anyhow, there are plenty of instances where beneficial mutations have added genes to the geneome. How about heavy metal tolerance in grasses growing under power cables, or near old wells? They have genes which don't exist in the general population. How do you suppose they got there?
So if a piece of DNA is copied then mutated (changed) then it constitutes an addition
Copy + change (of either deletion or swapping) = more of the same =/= addition.
Virus don't add anything that isn't already in either the virus or the thing it inhabits. If all life came from a single cell, how could any life add any new structures that didn't previously exist?
Oh, and by the way, you're wrong about Lucy. The skeleton was 40% complete, and found in a localised area. The skeletal part found a couple of KM away was actually from a different skeleton. Lucy was AL 288-1 and the other skeleton AL129-1, from memory are their "names". Look up the wiki page if you don't believe me. "Australopithecus" should be your search.
Oh, and by the way, you're wrong about Lucy.
Partially true. After examining the Wiki page (and other sites), I see I was mistaken about the percentage of the skeleton found. But regardless of how much was found (or how close), it was enough to determine that Lucy was mostly a knuckle-walker, though it did walk upright some of the time. So does the Bonobo. There's nothing in Lucy to suggest a closer resemblance to a human than a lower primate.
How about heavy metal tolerance in grasses growing under power cables, or near old wells?
You'll have to fill me in on this one. I can't find any sources online. I'd like to see the research leading to these discoveries. Can you give me a source to consult? As I said earlier, if there are any mutations that increase the genome, I am not aware of them.
Originally posted by JirakonLucy's hips are those of a biped.
Oh, and by the way, you're wrong about Lucy.
Partially true. After examining the Wiki page (and other sites), I see I was mistaken about the percentage of the skeleton found. But regardless of how much was found (or how close), it was enough to determine that Lucy was mostly a knuckle-walker, though it did walk upright some of the time. So does the ...[text shortened]... said earlier, if there are any mutations that increase the genome, I am not aware of them.