501. Comment #149454 by Goldy on March 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm

This is How God created all the animals on purpose with their specific duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_leprae
Nice God you worship there! Strange how he made this specific bacterium and then made sure there were laws to ostracise all the sufferers...

Other Comments by Goldy

502. Comment #149455 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm

The mistakes with your grammar, they are too perfect to not be deliberate. Surely a parody? Are you clearmind?

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

503. Comment #149456 by Diacanu on March 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Push, clearmind, push!! Get all those chili dookies out of your rumbling colon!! You can doo eeet!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

504. Comment #149459 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Please are you a parody?

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

505. Comment #149465 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I think its sooo interesting to just focus on the likelyhood (or not) of god's existence.

The fact(as Dawkins eloquently explains) is that positing an intelligence is not helpful when what we're trying to exlain is intelligence in the first place.

I really like reading Bonzai's posts because he takes the 'devil's advocate' position quite well. lol He instantly makes me want to erupt and comabat! lol (figuratively of course)

Other Comments by robotaholic

506. Comment #149524 by Jon_Sociologist on March 25, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Comment #149436 by clearmind:
[Please give us a link to the post where I said that planets "created" the organic chemicals.


294. Comment #139439 by Jon_Sociologist on March 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm

You're an idiot. I ask you where I said that planets created organic chemicals and you point to a post where I said that stars did it. For anyone else who would like to understand just how much of an idiot clearmind/wooter is, here's a link to the post he just referred to: Comment 139439 by Jon_Sociologist on the Salamander thread.

Comment #149436 by clearmind:
MANIPULATION, OR DEFINATION AND MTATION TYPO OR YOU CANNOTEXPLAIN eVOLUTION BY LOGIC SO YOU ARE MAKING A U TURN? i GUESS IT IS QUITE CLEAR.

That's what you count as a victory? You are even more stupid and pathetic than I thought. You think that my use of the word 'created' as a descriptive for the process of synthesis involved in nuclear fusion implies that your creationist garbage convinces me? Someone 'created' my house by putting a bunch of wood together. Stars 'create' helium by fusing two hydrogen atoms together. You think this is some great propaganda victory for you? Are you trying to demonstrate just how pathetic creationists can get? Or are you just trying to bait me by insulting me again? U-turn my ass.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

507. Comment #149527 by Jon_Sociologist on March 25, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Comment #149445 by clearmind:
God's creation cannot be deemed with the worldy conceptions and understanding.

In other words you cannot provide any mechanism for how you think god did any of these things. Funny, I seem to recall answering the sense of smell question:

Comment #136361 by Jon_Sociologist on The Salamander's Tale thread:

Chemistry is what genes do best; a chemical receptor would be a simple cell for DNA to come up with. Having a chemical receptor that allows an organism to smell something poisonous, and thus avoid that danger would give a clear advantage in terms of natural selection. Once you have one it becomes easy for a random mutation to duplicate that receptor, thereby sharpening the sense of smell. A sharper sense of smell again confers an advantage for natural selection. Once you have more than one receptor it becomes easy for a random mutation to cause some of the receptors to be sensitive to different things, allowing an organism to avoid a wider variety of threats, with obvious natural selection benefits. With this sense of smell it is also easy to see how a random mutation could cause certain scents to be attractive rather than repulsive, natural selection would then favour those organisms that were attracted to food sources. Of course it may have happened in the reverse order with attraction to food coming first, and avoidance of poison coming later

So to recap: I can answer how we developed a sense of smell, you can't but you think everyone should believe you anyway.

Comment #149445 by clearmind:
This is so funny that with your limited understanding and perception, you are asking how god did it.

Oh so cute, little clearmind is throwing a tantrum because he can't explain how god could make noses. You gonna cry witch burner.

Comment #149445 by clearmind:
God created all the animals and still creating and will create in the lab of the world

You can't even keep your story straight. You were telling us earlier that god created all species in their present form simultaneously. How does that mesh with god still working in the lab creating new species?

Comment #149445 by clearmind:
still you are asking childish questions to cover the logical fallacies in evolution?

You surprise me. I didn't expect you to state the unspoken commandment of your religion: Thou shalt not question. What logical fallacies in evolution?

Comment #149445 by clearmind:
This is barely deciving yourself or burying your logic into sand? Give up jon. The more you write like that tne more people believe that evolution is a hoax

Offensive, funny, and pathetic at the same time: you actually think you're winning. Keep getting in the ring and saying that you're winning, and I'll keep knocking you out.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

508. Comment #149530 by Diacanu on March 25, 2008 at 8:51 pm

I see Clearmind's spasmotic colon is finally done spraying the walls for now.

Time to get out the sponge mops, and clean up for next time....

Other Comments by Diacanu

509. Comment #149540 by Jon_Sociologist on March 25, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Comment #149449 by clearmind:
How and why do the beavers build dams? You cannot explain any animals's God dreiven intution by evolution? No You can't

We can't? Oh no what ever shall we do!? Hey wait a second, you're just lying again, seeing as I've already answered this one:

Comment #135126 by Jon_Sociologist on The Salamander's Tale thread:
With the rise of multi-cellular organisms it became possible for cells to specialize into the various rolls that a living organism requires to survive. Thus we have the various structures such as nerves, muscles, and etc. that we see in complex organisms.

Once organisms developed brains, complex behaviour began to have an impact on the course of evolution. Hormones and other bio-chemical reactions have been clearly demonstrated to have a major impact on behaviour (picture a woman with PMS, or a man with "roid rage"). The structure of the brain also influences behaviour.

Some animal behaviour is actually learned as well.

Comment #149449 by clearmind:
This is How God created all the animals on purpose with their specific duties.

What do you mean this is how god did it? You didn't say anything.

Comment #149453 by clearmind:

Comment #149372 by Jon_Sociologist:
Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that someone has to program an animated show about DNA proves that DNA in nature must have such a programmer? The depths of your stupidity never cease to amaze me.

If you cannot connect the logic between
animated DNA show requires the design and correct order to show the audience how DNA is built IN ORDER TO SHOW HOW THEY ARE BUILT IN REAL LIFE SITUATION, THEN, I AM AFRAID THE STUPIDITY BELONGS THE PERSON WHO SAY IT.

You are saying that because an animation of DNA needs a programmer then actual DNA must need a programmer. Wow. . . you really have that begging the question thing firmly implanted in your mind don't you? Assuming that DNA is like a computer program is assuming what you are supposed to be proving. You cannot just assume that DNA must need a programmer, and think that this constitutes proof.

Comment #149461 by clearmind:
Neither beavers nor bees can fit into evolution idea or TREE.

Actually they do. The Reverend Dark answered you on the beavers:

Comment #149297 by The Reverend Dark:
Funny that evolution has given us an excellent picture of the history of the beaver.

Paramys - among the earliest of rodents
Paleocastor - a burrowing pre-aquatic beaver
Castorocauda Lutrasimilis from the Jurasic some 145-200 million years ago (The emergence of that most lovely of creatures, the wet beaver)
The more recent Repenomanus Giganticus from about 130 Millions years ago (A beaver of such prodigious size that you would end up wearing the bear trapper's hat)
Even more recent Castorides Ohioensis (10,000 years ago) If I am not mistaken We have one of these in our Nature Museum. (I like big beavers and I can't deny)

As for bees, we have a long evolutionary history for them as well. Funny you should mention 'Bee Movie' as I just watched it with my kids. A part that seems relevant since you brought it up is where they mention repeatedly that bees have been around for 27 million years. Notably this predates 10,000 years ago, when you said that all species were created, by about 26.99 million years. Notably this is well short of the at least 100 million years bees have been around according to Wikipedia. This might be considered a cautionary tale about trying to learn about science by watching cartoons. Bee evolution is not extremely well understood, but it is clear that modern Bees evolved from ancient Wasps. The resemblance between bees and Yellow Jacket Wasps is striking (bees look like furry Yellow Jackets). The critical role bees play in pollination is not hard to understand in terms of evolution. Bees were not the first pollinators to evolve; however bees have specialized in it. This occurred largely because pollinating flowers that took advantage of insect driven pollination were able to out compete plants that did not in their ecological niches. In turn bees that specialized in pollination thrived and carved out a specialized ecological niche for themselves.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

510. Comment #149561 by alovrin on March 25, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Then watch Bee movie

Was Tom Hanks voice talent in that too Wooter?

Other Comments by alovrin

511. Comment #149676 by The Reverend Dark on March 26, 2008 at 5:22 am

Oh Wooter, I would compare your memory to that of a goldfish, but despite searching, I cannot find a goldfish quite that thick. I find them with your gape-jawed, goggle-eyed demeanor, but they, I regret to say, have far more on the ball than you do.

We have allready gone over Bees in the Group Delusion thread.

Wooter quoting someone with an actual command of the language.

Ultraviolet signals in flowers attract bees; these ultraviolet signals have no purpose for the current life of the current flower itself; they only have purpose for the bees, to draw the bees to the flower, so the bees can produce honey -- coincidentally, bees pick up flower pollen, distributing it to other flowers during the gathering of the honey ingredients. "Unthinking' flowers and bees "think ahead" and embed ultraviolet signals in flowers to draw bees to pick up honey ingredients and as a mere after thought, sprinkle pollen along the way to other flowers so future, unborn flowers might live?

Your above quote starts with a bullshit statement concerning the use of ultraviolet signals. They do serve a very important purpose for the current life of the current flower. Pollination. This drives reproduction, and through it, the survival of the particular flower series. Flowering plants expend energy to attract bees - as attracting bees caused greater instance of pollination and through the increased rate of reproduction selected those particular genes. This is an example of a mututalistic relationship; co-evolution between a plant and its partner - in this case between bees and angiosperms. Bees use flowers for food; flowers use bees for pollination. This is not 'thinking ahead' as these traits developed over time.
You can start here; it is fairly simple and has some pretty pictures.
http://www.raci.org.au/chemaust/docs/pdf/2004/CiA March2004p4.pdf
It also should be noted that the relationship between bees and angiosperms is not perfect. There are some angiosperms that expend less energy by mimicking the mating pheromones of bee species. The males copulate with the flowers, thinking them to be females of the species. In this case the bee expends energy for the benefit of the plant; engages in pollination for the benefit of the plant, but does not get a reciprocol benefit in pollen or nectar.

I am very pleased to hear that you get your information from 'The Bee Movie' it explains quite a bit about your piss poor grasp of apiary arts. Perhaps you also get your in depth knowledge of horse evolution from 'My Little Pony' and your deep understanding of all things Rana from Michigan J. Frog.

Once more you make every attempt to drown yourself in the drool filled baptismal pool of ignorance, performing a gratuitous act of contortion that allows you to keep your own foot pressing your face under the black and stinking waters.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

512. Comment #149802 by alan baylis on March 26, 2008 at 8:37 am

Comment #149459 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

* Please are you a parody? *

wooter may be in a class of his own for smugness and self satisfaction, but I now think that he is in deadly earnest. Although his English is poor, his ideas and beliefs are no loonier than any other of these creationists.


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/miseducation_by_the_creationis.php

If this link doesn't work, it is worth searching Pharyngula for, because this clip is quite shocking!

Other Comments by alan baylis

513. Comment #150228 by alan baylis on March 26, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Wooter,

Millions of intelligent theists, and this includes some scientists, fully accept the many facts that have been discovered by science concerning biological evolution, geology, cosmology, and physics. Yet these very same people retain a strong belief in God. A good example is the Head of the Human genome project*, who has actually become a theist. Despite doing this, to my knowledge, he has never rejected any scientific facts. What are your thoughts about such people? Are they deluded? Are they heretics? Does God condemn them? I would be genuinely interested to know what you think on this.

Now, this question has been asked in a forthright and honest way. Please try to answer it in the same spirit.
Kind regards,
Alan


*Francis Collins

Other Comments by alan baylis

514. Comment #150492 by Jon_Sociologist on March 27, 2008 at 2:10 am

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
How evolution taught beavers to build up dam?

Natural selection, which can notably work on behaviours by manipulating things like the structures of the brain or the neurochemicals such as neuropeptides. It should also be noted that some behaviours are learned, and natural selection can influence this sort of thing by favouring creatures with an increased capacity for learning (which is also influenced by the structures of the brain and its neurochemicals). Whether dam building is learned or instinctive behaviour, no god is necessary or implied, as there is a natural mechanism for the development of either (instinctive or learned).

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
(he can't explain how god could make noses)
Do I have to?

Yes, if you hope to provide a convincing argument for creationism regarding noses.

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
I already smell thousand kinds of smell and if evolution cannot explain it how, then do I have to explain?

If you're going to tell us that creationism explains things, then obviously you must. And I have already shown how evolution explains noses:

Comment #136361 by Jon_Sociologist on The Salamander's Tale thread:

Chemistry is what genes do best; a chemical receptor would be a simple cell for DNA to come up with. Having a chemical receptor that allows an organism to smell something poisonous, and thus avoid that danger would give a clear advantage in terms of natural selection. Once you have one it becomes easy for a random mutation to duplicate that receptor, thereby sharpening the sense of smell. A sharper sense of smell again confers an advantage for natural selection. Once you have more than one receptor it becomes easy for a random mutation to cause some of the receptors to be sensitive to different things, allowing an organism to avoid a wider variety of threats, with obvious natural selection benefits. With this sense of smell it is also easy to see how a random mutation could cause certain scents to be attractive rather than repulsive, natural selection would then favour those organisms that were attracted to food sources. Of course it may have happened in the reverse order with attraction to food coming first, and avoidance of poison coming later

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
God's creation is self-explaining and self-proving since it is based on science and logic.

You can ejaculate as many unsupported assertions, as you like. The fact remains that you haven't answered the question. Creationism is neither self-explaining nor self-proving, and it also isn't based upon science or logic. Creationism relies upon ignoring the overwhelming mounds of evidence stacked against it and appealing to religious dogma.

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
You cannot win a battle against logic.

Very true, so I should be pretty safe arguing with you as you steer well clear of any actual use of logic.

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
If Animated DNA program needs a program to show how DNA is designed, then, in real life situation, DNAs need to be designed. What part of this is really confusing you? It is very simple logic. Don't play the words to be evasive.

Firstly, with the exception of a few designer viruses in several labs, DNA is not designed. Secondly, this is just the painting analogy revisited: animations require programmers in order to be produced; DNA reproduces itself. The reproduction is imperfect leading to mutations, natural selection acts upon these mutations favouring those that increase fitness.

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
So how did evolution design bees to protect the balance on the earth by teaching them a sophisticated job, making honey?

I've already answered this: natural selection.

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
(You're an idiot. I ask you where I said that planets created organic chemicals and you point to a post where I said that stars did it.)

(Stars 'create' helium by fusing two hydrogen atoms together. You think this is some great propaganda victory for you? )

Jon, now you are saying that again;
Stars cannot create chemicals but they can create helium and planets can create organic chemicals but they cannot create helium.

How stupid can one person get? I just pointed out that the posts you referred to, say that 'stars not planets "created" organic chemicals and helium' and you come back and try to tell me that I'm saying that planets create organic chemicals. I'll try again to get this through your thick skull: all elements within our solar system except hydrogen and some helium were 'created' by nuclear fusion in the cores of stars and supernovae (except for relatively tiny amounts created in laboratory experiments and various nuclear bombs and reactors). Planets do not create elements (including helium).

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
Creation is the word that evolins never used because creation points out creator.

Unfortunately for you, in this case the "creator" is non-intelligent nuclear fusion.

Comment #150440 by clearmind:
Newton, Einstein and other are all believers that there is a creator.

So what if they were? Are you going to spew some appeal to authority logical fallacy at us? And while Newton probably was a believer, Einstein was certainly not, in the sense that you mean it. Einstein was a Pantheist, which in this case is an Atheist that got poetic and called the universe and its laws "god".

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

515. Comment #150498 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #150440 by clearmind

I have been in Cambridge this week. One of the places I took the parents of my daughter's boyfriend around was Trinity college.

As you wander around you can see pictures and statues of some of their famous alumni, Newton being the most well known. Others include Francis Bacon, J.J. Thompson, Eddington, Clerk Maxwell, Rayleigh, Frisch, Kapitsa, de Morgan, Ramunjan, Betrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, James Frazer, Tennyson, Byron, Vaughn-Williams and many more, including a total of 32 Nobel Prize winners.

All of these have added to human understanding and enjoyment in fields as far apart as mathematics and music, anthropology and physics.

I then come back to the inane witterings of wooter who seems to have read nothing and intends to avoid reading anything that might trouble his beliefs.

To quote a poet who went to both Oxford and Cambridge:

"The University is a Paradise, Rivers of Knowledge are there, Arts and Sciences flow from thence. Counsell Tables are Horti conclusi (as it is said in the Canticles) Gardens that are walled in, and they are Fontes signati, Wells that are sealed up; bottomless depths of unsearchable Counsels there."

For goodness sake wooter, abandon the bigotry and quest for ignorance. Go read a book (apart from the bible), you might like it.

Other Comments by epeeist

516. Comment #150568 by The Reverend Dark on March 27, 2008 at 5:56 am

How evolution taught beavers to build up dam? Your answer does not constitute any logic? Reverend if you can, just watch any beaver documentary objectively. It is really amazing. You will see yourself.

Snort. Objectification is one of the arguments raised against beaver movies.

(I suspect this joke will fly past Wooter.)

As tool users and builders, Homo Sapiens are very wont to admire that trait in other mammals. The otter floating on his back and doing cute little things with his hands, the termite creating huge, intricate mounds, and the noble beaver putting gob to wood and getting very busy indeed. Beaver building behavior has become instinctual; and developed over a long period of time as beavers evolved from an arboreal existence to that of a semi-aquatic mammal. The key to understanding the evolution of their building is environment. Beavers in areas with large bodies of relatively still water do not build dams. It is only when they are subject to a specific stimulus (running water at a particular volume) that they get dam busy and start piling things on top of the stimulus until it quiets down (Beaver researchers have had their equipment buried more times that you could imagine.)

We can place the evolution of beavers rather elegantly in the tree of life and explain their behavior. No god needed here.

Now I am going to expand on Jon's discussion of smell for the edification of your tiny fucking mind.

Our sense of smell evolved over time, from simple the very complex. The first 'nose' as it were (and in some cases still is) is a collection of genes that allow the detection of chemical traces at the molecular level. We can observe this in the hagfish and other primitive fish. A single nostril leading to a small sac located in the skull - liquid is drawn in and scents noted. In bony fishes the cavity is expanded and traverses the mouth, allowing liquid flow; a much more efficient system allowing greater use of smell. Of course the genes for the sense of smell in bony fish here highly adapted to picking up scents in water. Then something funny happened during the trip to land. These genes were less useful, and over time, mutated (and split) with natural selection choosing the genes better suited to picking up scents in air. Now, if you compare the 'smelling' genes of humans to those of hagfish, you will see much the same gene pattern; only in greater numbers and with mutation.

Finally, in the genes associated with smelling about 300 of the thousand or so we (and other mammals) have are not non-functional due to mutation - they do not work any more. My dog smells better than I do (insert appropriate joke here). Of those thousand genes, he still has the use of many that are non-functional in my nose. Take another mammalian group - the cetceaans - whose smelling genes - all 1,000 or so - are no longer active - but still present. A further eloquent proof that whales and dolphins evolved from land animals.**

Sniff. Sniff.

Do you know what I smell Wooter? I smell your stinking cloud of ignorance, wafting across the internet like a pungent, sphincter burning fart after a meal of broccoli and... what is that other part?

Sniff.. Sniff..

Aha! Got it.

Crow.

As each of you piss-poor assertions is shot down you do end up eating a lot of crow, don't you Wooter.

You ignorant prat.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

** Mad nose shout outs to Neil Shubin's book Your Inner Fish ISBN 978-0-375-42447-2, whose chapter eight I made excellent use of in crafting this reply.

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

517. Comment #150890 by alan baylis on March 27, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Wooter,
I too am laughing heartily at "Expelled" but not for the same reason as you.

I was amazed that you say I exaggerate the number of "intelligent theists". All these people would, I expect, believe that their God created the universe. This is partly what defines them as theists. Being intelligent though, they would not accept the Bronze Age myths of Genesis. Their sense of "logic" compels them to accept the huge number of known facts that stand as proof against it. To ignore these facts is just willful ignorance.
I wonder what all these intelligent believers think of you, Wooter?

Others have dealt with your comments about Einstein and Newton, but let me add this-
If these two great men could return, they would be utterly appalled by the ignorance and "fear of knowledge," which is apparent in people like you. They would also see that this is happening in an age where, like no other before it, information and knowledge are so easy to access! They would weep!


Comment #150440 by clearmind

"No I am intelligence. Are you clear?"

Wooter, you are getting very puffed up. You should remember that they only tolerate you here because you are a figure of fun. The stuff you write is useful for the people here, if only in helping them to hone their skills for the broader war on ignorance. The most important consequence of your using this very popular website though, is the effect that your stupid ideas and willful ignorance have in the discrediting of creationist beliefs.

Regards,
Alan.

Other Comments by alan baylis

518. Comment #150987 by GordonYKWong on March 28, 2008 at 12:00 am

Hi Clearmind,

Thanks for answering my post.

RE: 502. Comment #147597 by clearmind on March 21, 2008 at 12:13 am

Next is Gordon

What does it means that dogs are created separate from wolves? Does it mean one is a servant of man and one is a servant of the wilderness?
How can a person tell if a creature is a dog or if it is a wolf?

Look Gordon, wolves are wolves and dogs are dogs... I explained it many times that biologically, scientifically and logically INTERBREEDING OR EVOLVING FROM ONE KIND TO A SIMILAR KIND IS IMPOSSIBLE. All kinds of animal breed with their own kind.

Though I am still a little confused by your answers, could you help me understand your God a bit better?

I think what you are saying is that God created dogs and wolves separately. And you are also saying that God created dogs and wolves to be in the same kind.

Could you be so kind as to clear up your explanation by answering these simple questions:

1. God created dogs and wolves separately. True or False?


2. Dogs and wolves are in the same "kind" as well. True or False?


3. Dogs and wolves can interbreed. True or False?
   

Thanks,
Gord

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

519. Comment #152426 by Quetzalcoatl on March 31, 2008 at 2:19 am

Clearmind-

Self entertaining is another way to deceive yourself

I thought "self entertaining" was supposed to be a sin?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

520. Comment #152430 by Steve Zara on March 31, 2008 at 2:27 am

Comment #152426 by Quetzalcoatl

At least the posts are getting shorter.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

521. Comment #152721 by Jon_Sociologist on March 31, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Comment #152424 by clearmind:
Attempts to wipe out the influence of Expellded all ovet the world will not go beyond being expelled from logic land. The movie Expelled cannot be expelled from minds of people since it defends the creation which is based on logic.

Let me see if I have this all straight: Logic is your imaginary friend who is a hermaphrodite and came up with creationism, and Logic owns some land somewhere, that people who oppose the movie 'Expelled' will be expelled from? That's pretty imaginative. . . for a three-year-old.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

522. Comment #153272 by jwherrmann on April 1, 2008 at 10:31 am

I haven't got my hands on a copy of Berlinski's new book, The Devil's Delusion, yet, but the brief excerpt in the April editon of Harper's reveals at least a dozen misunderstandings of current science and provides a real howler as well. Berlinski "proves" that it is science, not God, that does not exist. (He uses the circumlocution "Nothing [in italics] answers to the name of science.")

Other Comments by jwherrmann

523. Comment #154119 by Calilasseia on April 2, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Oh dear, look who is emptying his soiled intellectual nappies all over the front pages again ...

1. How did god make our sense of smell?

First of all, no one has ever provided any substantive evidence that your purported god even exists. Therefore the above question is meaningless.

As for how the sense of smell arose, well there are numerous scientific papers extant on the subject. First one I found was:

Evolution of Vertebrate Olfactory Systems by H.L. Eisthen, Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, 50(4): 222-233 (1997).

The abstract reads as follows:

The general features of the olfactory system are remarkably consistent across vertebrates. A phylogenetic analysis of central olfactory projections indicates that at least three distinct olfactory subsystems may be broadly present in vertebrates and that a fourth, the accessory olfactory or vomeronasal system, arose in tetrapods. The origin and function of the vomeronasal system have been the subject of much controversy, but some conclusions can be drawn. The vomeronasal system did not arise as an adaptation to terrestrial life, as indicated by the presence of a vomeronasal system in modern aquatic amphibians and the increasing paleontological evidence that the last common ancestor of amphibians and amniotes was aquatic. The vomeronasal system is involved in both foraging and reproductive behaviors in reptiles and has been shown to be involved in some pheromonally mediated behaviors in mammals. However, among mammals, some pheromonal responses are not mediated by the vomeronasal system, and the possible involvement of the vomeronasal system in other type of behaviors has not yet been investigated. Thus, the relative functions of the olfactory and vomeronasal systems of tetrapods remain unclear. Other hypotheses that features of the olfactory system are specialized for aquatic chemoreception or for pheromone detection are similarly insupportable. For example, the suggestion that members of the olfactory receptor family can be separated into two groups that function for transduction of air-borne or water-borne odorants is contradicted by the presence of both groups in aquatic amphibians and by a phylogenetic analysis of the sequences for these genes. Interestingly, the putative odorant receptors from the vomeronasal epithelium share little sequence similarity with those from the olfactory epithelium, indicating that these receptors may have been independently co-opted from the larger family of seven transmembrane domain receptors for use in odor transduction. A phylogenetic analysis of the distribution of olfactory receptor cell types indicates that microvillar olfactory receptor cells are widespread among vertebrates and are not restricted to aquatic animals or to the vomeronasal epithelium of tetrapods. Previous suggestions that all microvillar receptor cells are specialized for the detection of pheromones are not tenable. Attempts to recognize features of the olfactory system that are common to all vertebrates and might be specialized for the detection of pheromones vs. more general odorants, or for the detection of water-borne vs. air-borne odorants, are not supported by current evidence.

Then there is this paper:

Sequence, Structure and Evolution of a Complete Human Olfactory Receptor Gene Cluster by Gustavo Glusmana, Alona Sosinskya, Edna Ben-Ashera, Nili Avidana, Dina Sonkina, Anita Bahara, André Rosenthalb, Sandra Cliftonc, Bruce Roec, Concepción Ferrazd, Jacques Demailled and Doron Lanceta, Genomics, 63(2) 227-245 (15 Jan 2000).

The abstract for this reads:

The olfactory receptor (OR) gene cluster on human chromosome 17p13.3 was subjected to mixed shotgun automated DNA sequencing. The resulting 412 kb of genomic sequence include 17 OR coding regions, 6 of which are pseudogenes. Six of the coding regions were discovered only upon genomic sequencing, while the others were previously reported as partial sequences. A comparison of DNA sequences in the vicinity of the OR coding regions revealed a common gene structure with an intronless coding region and at least one upstream noncoding exon. Potential gene control regions including specific pyrimidine:purine tracts and Olf-1 sites have been identified. One of the pseudogenes apparently has evolved into a CpG island. Four extensive CpG islands can be discerned within the cluster, not coupled to specific OR genes. The cluster is flanked at its telomeric end by an unidentified open reading frame (C17orf2) with no significant similarity to any known protein. A high proportion of the cluster sequence (about 60%) belongs to various families of interspersed repetitive elements, with a clear predominance of LINE repeats. The OR genes in the cluster belong to two families and seven subfamilies, which show a relatively high degree of intermixing along the cluster, in seemingly random orientations. This genomic organization may be best accounted for by a complex series of evolutionary events.

So, that's two papers I was able to find in 15 seconds on olfactory evolution. Other papers include:

Primate evolution of an olfactory receptor cluster: diversification by gene conversion and recent emergence of pseudogenes by D Sharon, G Glusman,Y Pilpel, M Khen, F Gruetzner, T Haaf, D Lancet, Genomics, 61(1) 24-36 (1 Oct 1999)

Evolution of Olfactory Receptor Genes in the Human Genome by Yoshihito Niimua and Masatoshi Nei, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 100(21) 12235-12240 (14 October 2003) (this one downloadable from here for those who wish to read the full paper)

Organisation and Evolution of Olfactory Receptor Genes on Human Chromosome 11 by J.A. Buettner, G. Glusman, N. Ben-Arie, P. Ramos, D. Lancet and G.A. Evans, Genomics 53(1): 56-58 (1 Oct 1998)

The Human Olfactory Subgenome: From Sequence To Structure To Evolution by Tania Fuchs, Gustavo Glasman, Shirley Horn-Saban, Doron Lancet and Yitzhak Pilpel, Human Genetics, 108: 1-13 (3 January 2001) (this one downloadable from here)

The Evolution of Mammalian Olfactory Genes by L. Issel-Tarver & J. Rine, Genetics, 145(1): 185-195 (January 1997) (again, dowloadable from here for those who want the full paper).

That's just a small percentage of the available literature on olfactory evolution. So, what have you got in comparison to this Wooter?

We went to the lab again?

A lot of REAL SCIENTISTS did. The above is just a small fraction of what they produced when they asked the basic question "what is reality telling us?" instead of engaging in masturbatory wibbling over a useless doctrine based upon the inane dribblings of a 3,000 year old book that is such a fetish with reality denialists.

God's creation cannot be deemed with the worldy conceptions and understanding.

The above list of scientific papers just rendered your blind assertion absurd.

This is so funny that with your limited understanding and perception, you are asking how god did it.

Actually, no superfluous supernatural entities were required. We have the evidence for this. See above. Always assuming of course that your reading comprehension has graduated beyond crayon.

I want to see God doing it in the lab?

Observational reality doesn't give a toss what you or any other reality-denial fetishist for a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine wants. It gives you whatever it's going to give you. Perhaps that's why you keep summarily dismissing evidence for the real world and continue instead to propagandise for an assertion-laden, evidence-free, scientifically illiterate and completely worthless doctrine that is nothing more than a masturbation fantasy.

while God created all the animals

There is no substantive evidence supporting the assertion that your purported god even exists. And "special creation" is a pathetic joke that was refuted 150 years ago.

and still creating

Care to show us which new species your purported god is supposed to have magically poofed into existence recently?

Strange how all the evidence points to their having evolved. I seem to remember listing other scientific papers to this effect a while back.

and will create in the lab of the world

So where are these totally new creatures, unrelated to anything else, that your purported god has magically poofed into existence again? Got any to show us? Thought not.

still you are asking childish questions to cover the logical fallacies in evolution?

The only one exhibiting puerile behaviour here is you. As for "logical fallacies in evolution", you've had your ass handed to you on a silver platter braised in Hollandaise sauce repeatedly with respect to your own droolingly encephaltic eructations.

This is barely deciving yourself or burying your logic into sand?

The only one deceiving themselves here is you. Because you're the one propagandising for a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine that is flatly contradicted by the evidence from the real world.

Give up jon. The more you write like that tne more people believe that evolution is a hoax.

I see no one here regarding you as anything other than an object of scorn and derision. Jon, on the other hand, is being listened to because, unlike you, he paid attention in science class.

Other Comments by Calilasseia

524. Comment #154261 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 2:11 am

Comment #154119 by Calilasseia:
The abstract reads as follows:

[snip]
the increasing paleontological evidence that the last common ancestor of amphibians and amniotes was aquatic.

Do you know much about this? Are the morphological similarities between Salamander's (amphibians) and Geckos (reptiles) the result of convergent evolution? I was under the impression that the evidence from the fossil record made it pretty clear that the earliest reptiles evolved from amphibians similar to salamanders. Did reptiles and amphibians each evolve separately from lungfish, and then, in some cases, evolve convergently towards similar body plans? Or was the common ancestor even further back? Or is the article taking a minority view on reptile/amphibian evolution? These are honest questions as it is the first time I have heard it suggested that reptiles did not evolve directly from amphibians (inane creationist drivel aside).

Comment #154119 by Calilasseia:
Always assuming of course that your reading comprehension has graduated beyond crayon.

I'm pretty sure selfishmind hasn't graduated from eating crayons let alone beyond them entirely.

Comment #154119 by Calilasseia:
Jon, on the other hand, is being listened to because, unlike you, he paid attention in science class.

Thanks Calilasseia, it's always nice to get compliments like that from a professional. I also have to say it's nice to be on the same side as the heavy artillery of your in-depth well-cited academic articles (counting as articles both the posts you have written, and the articles you have cited in said posts).

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

525. Comment #154638 by Calilasseia on April 3, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Hello Jon,

Apparently even the Tree of Life web project has the amphbians and the amniotes as divergent clades from a common ancestor. See http://www.tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952 for more details.

The Tetrapoda apparently gave rise to two branches, the Amphibia proper, and the Reptiliomorpha. The Reptiliomorpha gave rise to the Amniota. I suppose a trawl of the requisite papers could turn up something substantive on the molecular phylogeny thereof, but my specialities tend to be further down the Tree of Life - fishes and insects! :)

However, a quick search has just turned up a nice paper:

Taxonomic Congruence Versus Total Evidence, and Amniote Phylogeny Inferred from Fossils, Molecules and Morphology by Douglas J. Eernisse and Arnold G. Kluge, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 10(6): 1170-1195 (1993)

That paper concentrates upon higher amniotes (reptiles to mammals) but illustrates the methods that would be used further down the phylogenetic tree.

Another paper of interest would be:

Tetrapod Phylogeny Inferred from 18S and 28S Ribosomal RNA Sequences, and a Review of the Evidence for Amniote Relationships by S. Blair Hedges, Kirk D. Moberg and Linda R. Maxson, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 7(6): 607-633 (1990) which again can be downloaded from http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/6/607. Be advised that there is a published erratum for that paper which is to be found in a 1991 edition of the journal, the correction (a minor one) is downloadble from http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/8/3/398.

Incidentally, most of the papers in that journal appear to be freely downloadable. So if you can find an evolutionary topic in there, such as "molecular phylogeny of amniotes", chances are you could download a brace of papers on the subject. The journal is part of the Oxford Journals subsidiary of Oxford University Press, and is owned by the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution (home page is http://www.smbe.org/) and is a part of the University of Chicago Press.

Other Comments by Calilasseia

526. Comment #154660 by Philip1978 on April 3, 2008 at 2:47 pm

i WAS BUSY THE WATCHING iMAX THE BEAVER;S SHOW

Bloody hell, have you been at the porn again Wooter?

:)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

527. Comment #154718 by Jon_Sociologist on April 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Thanks Calilasseia. It appears that this is an area where science is currently in flux. Most science articles on the subject directed at laymen still seem to say that reptiles evolved from an ancestor similar to some modern amphibians. Looking into it by looking up your articles, and Googling some things turns up a somewhat different picture. Near as I can tell, the consensus emerging has it that both reptiles and amphibians evolved form something like the largely aquatic Acanthostega (which seemed to have evolved for life in swampy areas, with leg like fins for navigating weed choked areas, and lungs to avoid suffocation in the stagnant water) or the similar Tiktaalik (which possibly evolved to allow it to move around for short periods on land in a fashion vaguely similar to a modern seal) both Acanthostega and Tiktaalik appear intermediate between fish and reptiles, between fish and amphibians, and between reptiles and amphibians (which doesn't take much as Salamanders look very much like wet lizards).

It's so interesting how when we go back and look at how modern animals evolved, the phylogenetic classifications we use are so clearly based upon phylogeny as it exists in animals today. This phylogeny often breaks down when we look at ancient ancestors, who were a continuum of transitionary forms rather than the nice neat phylogenetic classes that we see today (as long as we don't look too closely).

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

528. Comment #156218 by The Reverend Dark on April 7, 2008 at 6:07 am

What do you know...

Celebrating a Wooter-free week.

The World's collective IQ just nudged higher.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

529. Comment #156219 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 6:10 am

The Reverend Dark-

do not speak the creature's name, or it will return with new inanity.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

530. Comment #156227 by The Reverend Dark on April 7, 2008 at 6:24 am

Speak it thrice.
Wooter
Wooter
Wooter

Fillet of ET he forsake - in gene soup becomes a hake
Eye of new and great big frog - created in genetic bog
Darwin's tongue and Mona's tits,
all require creator's wits
Can see now ET in trouble,
Call on wooter on the double,
Logic break and logic trouble
Call on wooter on the double.

With apologies to the culinary masterpieces of Shakespeare's three witches from Macbeth.

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

531. Comment #156300 by Quetzalcoatl on April 7, 2008 at 9:26 am

The Reverend Dark-

I TOLD you not to speak his name, but you just wouldn't listen, would you? Now he has returned on the "Expelled Overview" thread.

I hope you're happy.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

532. Comment #160226 by moderndaythomas on April 13, 2008 at 8:32 pm

I'm reminded of the many Christian evidence seminars that I have attended. It took me no time to come to the conclusion that there is little by way of education with these groups.
They are the target audience for such books and they're ripe with ignorance and drunk on self righteousness.
From boulders tumbling to a stop at the foot of a mountain in the shape of a Volkswaggan, to 747's sponteaneously emerging from junk yards, the drivel just keeps on coming. I can't imagine what's next.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

533. Comment #160791 by JohnQ on April 14, 2008 at 11:48 am

Prof Dawkins, Please be careful of these fleas. Comical as they are, one of them could become the new bible. I envision Scientology's "phrophet", in 2000 years, will be revered as "EL Ron the Hub". Crazier things have been believed as we know.

Other Comments by JohnQ

534. Comment #169833 by TonyA on April 26, 2008 at 11:08 pm

JohnQ,

Good point. I hope a "Perfect World Church of Wooter" never reaches critical mass anywhere in this Universe.

p.s. Oops, I slipped and hit the "offensive" button on your post. Clearly it isn't.

Other Comments by TonyA

535. Comment #175864 by King of NH on May 6, 2008 at 7:02 am

I think science has proven that god(s) does not exist to a much better extent than it has proven a table is a table (my table is variably a table, a chair, a bench, a desk, a stool, a shelf, etc.). Secularism has proven to be a force for good (compare Europe circa 1808 to Europe 2008). Dawkins showed quite wonderfully how rational thought is better than religion in moral value. I guess the most infuriating thing with theists is the head-ache caused as the IQ is ripped forcably from one's head in trying to understand them. Just reading those titles above has given me a nose-bleed!

Other Comments by King of NH

536. Comment #175872 by MPhil on May 6, 2008 at 7:20 am

King of NH,

Sorry - this: "I think science has proven that god(s) does not exist to a much better extent than it has proven a table is a table (my table is variably a table, a chair, a bench, a desk, a stool, a shelf, etc.)"

is just not true. "A table is a table" is true a priori. "A is A" is logically true, no matter what.

If on some alternate earth the word "table" would mean what we mean by "cow", "a table is a table" would still be true.

"Table" is a functional definition. When you use your table as as a ramp, it is also a ramp... but as long as it can potentially fully fulfil the function of a table, it is also a table.

But the sentence "A table is a table" is still true no matter what the world is like. It is a logical tautology.

Now, to the more important point:

Since god is supposed to be nonphysical, science cannot prove that god doesn't exist. Logic can - through the arguments from logical impossibility of god. But science cannot. Neither can science disprove the existence of universals, or any metaphysical entities. Science in practice could not even disprove a statement about an empirical matter of fact like "10 million light-years away, there is a tiny spherical object of composition x"


What science can do and does is tell us that the natural phenomena to which "god" was forwarded as an explanation have other, real explanations, or that we are about to develop theories to explain certain phenomena.

Philosophy can (in my opinion) show that god is impossible.
Science and philosophy can show that even if that weren't the case, there is far too little epistemic justification for belief in god. The epistemic probability of god is so incredibly low that there is no justification for that belief at all.

But science disproving god, with "disproving" in the scientific sense? Not really.

Other Comments by MPhil

537. Comment #176772 by King of NH on May 8, 2008 at 2:09 am

MPhil,

Yes, I am quite aware of the logical neccesity of a=a, table=table. Please forgive my facetious Descartism. My intent was humor, not logical soundness.

I disagree with your idea that science is poorly equipped to handle the concept of god(s) and dispute such a concept. Rather, I think it is the only sound thinking method that can provide any answer. You mention logic, but logic by itself has been proven impotent time and time again, especially in this realm. I can make thousands of logical arguments for god(s), but none would hold true to the truths we know from real world experience. There must be observations of the real world as well. Observation plus logical reasoning equals science. You also mention philosophy, which I must agree with, but only because science is a philosophy.

Other Comments by King of NH

538. Comment #176782 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 2:54 am

Well, I disagree, King of NH,...

Science can per definition only study the natural.

If god is defined as supernatural, then science cannot prove or disprove the existence of that entity. Science can disprove supposed effects that this supposed deity is sad to have caused in the natural world, but that doesn't disprove god as a supernatural being.

The Definitionsraum of science, the class of things which are so that empirical science can make statements about it, is - per definition - pairwise disjoint from the supernatural. It can make no statements about that - nor can any statements about that be inferred from this. (There is more to this, but I won't get into it now)

I have studied philosophy of religion, logical arguments for and against for about 8 years now, I have also formally studied philosophy of science, logic and philosophy. That is to say I have substantial knowledge of what I'm talking about (I don't want to be arrogant at all - just establish that I know what I'm talking about :)

Logic has not proved incompetent at all (it is at the basis of all rational endeavors, thinking, observing, doing science, communicating. If you accept it there, you have to accept it everywhere, otherwise you are inconsistent)... you could only claim this if you do what the creationists do, namely say "Well, if it doesn't manage to do x, then it fails"... in the creationists case it's proving god or proving that belief in god is rational, in your case it would be the opposite - but have to follow logic and evidence wherever they lead.

Science can (in principle, not necessarily in practice) disprove all those and only those claims about states-of-affairs in the natural world - per definition.

You might want to look up "methodological naturalism".

Also, by the accepted demarcation criteria, all accepted theories and sentences of empirical science are provisional, which means accepted as the best explanation, not as known to be true with 100% probability.
You might want to look up falsification and the problem of induction. No amount of data and science can tell us that the next test of a theory won't tell us that there's something wrong with it.

Logic is still the gold-standard when it comes to proofs and disproofs, because they are not thus limited.

But that is only marginally interesting, because - per definition of science as investiagtion of the natural world and God as being supernatural, science cannot make statements about that, nor can such statements be inferred solely from statements of empirical science.

Suppose a religion states that "God has put the moon exactly 500 million kilometres away from earth". Science can show that it is not the case that the earth has that distance to the moon, but that would not disprove god, only the claim that that a god had done that - and not even in virtue of being done by god, but in virtue of the state-of-affairs not obtaining.

Btw, I have read Victor Stenger's book on how "science" disproves god. He fails to establish his premise. All those things in the book which actually approach that are philosophical statements, and all the statements about physics and the incompatibility between what it shows and what people think god has done do not establish that god does not exist, but at most that god has not done these things.

It is logic that has proved extremely competentin this matter: Every supposed ontological proof of god has been logically refuted, and philosophy has produced a substantial amount of actual, logical disproofs of the existence of anything that conforms to various specific concepts of god because of the logical contradictions in the concepts.

New arguments for theism are developed, and they in turn are refuted. It is not a failure of logic or philosophy - it is simply the nature of arguments properly pertaining to non-empirical matters.

That is to say, philosophy has produced logical arguments that disprove the existence of entities conforming to various specific concepts of deities to the same degree of certainty that logic disproves "There exists an entity which is at the same time entirely cubical and entirely spherical".

Furthermore - any argument for epistemic improbability of god's existence is itself philosophy, not empirical science.

For further reference, I strongly recommend these books:

-"The Miracle of Theism" by the late, eminent John Leslie Mackie (general discussion of arguments for and against theism...far more depth and rigor than The God Delusion or similar books)

-"The impossibility of God" by Michael Martin (Ed.) and Sobel's "Logic and Theism" on the logical arguments against theism.

and
-"The improbability of God" by Michael Martin (Ed.) for the a posteriori arguments against god's existence.


Very good books!

-Michael

Other Comments by MPhil

539. Comment #177973 by King of NH on May 10, 2008 at 5:00 am

MPhil:

I think you have, quite well, summed up your doubt on the inability of science to analyze god. I disagree with your supernatural explanation, though. My largest disagreement with the existence of god is in the existence of any supernatural entity at all. I firmly believe that all is natural. I have seen no evidence that a supernatural realm exists in which any god can hide from science. I would claim that only religion proposes such a realm, and it is synonymous with "god."

That being said, I will suspend further argument until I have read some of your suggestions. Mostly because "The improbability of God" was already on my reading list, so I am only looking forward to it all the more. While I am quite confident in my stand (I, too, am a well traveled scholar), I have argued far too many points into a heated argument only to realize there was never a disagreement, but simply a confusion of method.

Other Comments by King of NH