Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[quip]

Originally posted by Freak

Can chair be anything but chair. Look at the structure of the word itself. It is absolute.

Maybe maybe not. read my prior post and explain to us how you can be so certain.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
Certainly that's true. But it seems like if all the multiplicity of cats with all their adaptions evolved in just 6,000 years, the genome would have incontrovertible evidence for an agressive rate of change, no?

Maybe. We'll know when they're done sequencing the cat genome.

I'm particularly interested in the mechanisms that allowed such dramatic change in such a short time,

Know anything about genetics? You can't pass on traits you don't have. I have blue eyes. If I marry a blue-eyed girl, there is no way we can have a brown-eyed child, because neither one of us has the genes for brown eyes.

the checks that prevented speciation beyond the "kind",

Again -- genetic limits. It's the same thing over and over with you guys.

and the mechanics of the ruthless culling that ejected genes from the pool as the animals took on their forms and adaptions.

Do you not know anything about adaptation and natural selection?

Unless you're implying that all cats still have the ability to become lions/tigers/servals/housecats/cheetahs/snowleopards/mountainlions etc etc...

Not at all.

Basically, I'm thinking your genome would bear little resemblance to what we actually see.

We'll see when it's done, won't we?

I'm also thinking that any species genome would clearly and incontrovertibly point to being only 6,000 years in existence.

If it does, you'll just dismiss it out of hand.

I also don't see why all cats wouldn't hold the genetic potential to become tigers/lions/cheetahs without even requiring selective pressure.

What are you talking about? I never said there was no selective pressure involved. That's how you get adaptation.

Will we be able to switch on these primordial genes to restart the 6,000 year speciation mechanism?

In what? These genes are spread willy-nilly throughout all the different cat-kinds now. This question doesn't make any sense.

The cheetahs likely genetically bottlenecked towards the end of the ice age, 10,000 years ago. What happened to this extraordinary evolutionary mechanism you propose?

Speciation? It happens all the time.

After all, the entire diversity of cat-kind evolved from, what, a single pair in just 6,000 years? What happened in the interim?

What do you mean?

Luckily, answers may be in the offing. Dr Stephen O'Brien at the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Cancer Institute is sequencing the domestic cat genome (he's also the guy who IDed the genetic similarity between all surviving cheetah - apparently they're closer genetically than human identical twins which I didn't know).

You're gonna have to sequence more than just cheetahs and housecats to get the entire cat genome.

http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/comparative_genome/catgenome/whythecat.asp

I look forward to his discovery of the 6,000 year old genome and these genetic mechanisms you are surely proposing.

You're trying to put words in my mouth. I haven't proposed any genetic mechanisms that haven't already been discovered.

I'm surprised they haven't found them already, as you are suggesting a much more aggressive rate of genetic section (presumably no mutation, as all the available info would be in the genome, right) than even the most optimistic evolutionist.

How long do you think it took us to breed chihuahuas from wolves? Millions of years?

I'm just interested to know how you would explain all this in just 6,000 years.

Speciation (which is an example of micro-evolution) doesn't take millions of years -- it can happen quite rapidly compared to macro-evolution. I think that's where you're getting confused.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Eireann
They lived together in the Triassic?

According to evolutionists. I goofed on birds though -- they didn't appear until the Jurassic (I went back and edited my post). They still existed alongside dinosaurs and mammals though.

Now you have me confused. I thought you were one of those arguing for a 6000-year-old earth?

I am.

If the earth is 6000 years old, there wouldn't have been a Triassic.

Exactly, but unless I use terms they're familiar with, they won't know what I'm talking about.

It is placed approximately 250 million years ago.

I know when the Triassic was.

Humans didn't appear until the Quaternary Period (the Tertiary, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods all fall between the Quaternary and Triassic periods).

I know that.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by quip
Maybe maybe not. read my prior post and explain to us how you can be so certain.

Be so certain that a "chair" is a "chair"????

:doh:

 

[Scrimshaw]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The origin of the universe is a physical event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by PureX
The universe itself is a physical phenomena, as we perceive it, but it's origin is a mystery.

Well, if the universe is physical then it's origin is a physical event. I am talking about the EVENT itself, not the *cause* of the event.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Therefore, the origin of the universe, most *likely* had a cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It follows that we would expect a cause. It does not follow that it necessarily has one.

And by the same token, our knowledge indicates that one would expect there to be no moons made of cheese. It does not follow that there "necessarily" *aren't* moons made of cheese.........but what is the rational conclusion?


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The universe represents all physical reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have no way of knowing how much of reality the universe as we grasp it can represent, physical or otherwise.

My statement was regarding the *observed* universe.....and it so happens that the *observed* universe has been confirmed only as physical, thus, my above statement is accurate.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) All or nearly all causes are *separate* from their effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think this is an accurate statement. The universe is a single even that is still happening. The delineations between "this" and "that" and the relationships (causes and effects) between them are imposed on the whole event by our own consciousness. They don't actually exist in the event itself.

If my statement is inaccurate, show me an effect that is it's own cause. Otherwise, we can safely assume my statement is accurate.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Therefore, the cause of the universe was most likely *separate* from the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have led yourself to this conclusion. The separation you're basing this conclusion on exists only in your mind, as it does with all of us. But the human mind doesn't define reality, it merely perceives it, and then only in it's own limited way.

Be that as it may, the perception/conclusion represented by my above statement is congruent with all *observed* reality. Therefore, my argument is sound.

 

[quip]

Originally posted by Soulman
This has already been mentioned, but how do we argue against something if the something doesn’t exist? In other words, if there was no a priori concept of God in the first place, there would be no concept of God to deny or argue against.

Such a statement is an a priori truth if and only if God exists. Athiest argue that the "God" concept is an a posteriori truth and is simply contrived and infered from what is known about our universe, thus explaining the varying and sometimes conflicting interpretaions of what exactly constitutes "God".

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Soulman I guess I’m not sure how the word “absolute” is being used. It seems like every time I’ve use it, you’ve objected. For the sake of discussion, absolute and “real” are synonymous. I’ll treat them as non-equivalents if it creates less confusion. Atheists are relativists, and relativists hate absolutes.

I undertood that this is how you meant it, but in my Webster's it says this about the word "absolute": 1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete. 2. Not mixed; pure; unadultrated. 3a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional. b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total. 4. Not limited by constitutional provisions or other restraints. 5. Unrelated to and independant of anything else. 6. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive; certain.

I'd say the picture being painted here is pretty independant and unconditional, wheras reality is essentally all inter-related and conditional. Every aspect of reality is dependant upon some other aspect of reality, and every form is fluid and finite. So I don't see how all this dynamic inter-relation could possibly be considered absolute.

Originally posted by Soulman Regardless of space, time, and circumstance, which are relevant, I think the point is that whatever form the chair takes, the form is REAL. Energy to raw material to chair to raw material and back to energy again are all SOMEthing, all states of being, so if you’re saying that nothing is “absolute” because nothing exists in an infinite form, then of course you’d be right, as far as it goes. IF that’s what you mean by “absolute,” and IF nothing exists in an infinite form.

Yes, that is pretty much what I meant.

Originally posted by Soulman I can’t speak for all theists. I can’t even speak for other Christians. (The word “Christianity” has become too broad. I shudder every time I hear the words, “Christians believe…”) The God of the Bible as understood is, as an infinite form, “absolute,” even, I think, by your definition. The absolute, infinite God of the Bible is the fixed, unchanging standard by which the “stuff” of reality is conceived, and perceived.

Yes, and this is why people choose to believe in this God. Reality is none of these things, and we long for them, so we choose to believe that there is an absolute that overrides the ever-changing, uncertain, and finite universe in which we live.

Originally posted by Soulman If reality was a movie, God would be the screen on which the movie was projected. Take away the screen -- in this case the absolute standard and “background” of reality -- all you’ll be doing is shining a flashlight in a vacuum. There is nothing to “perceive” in this vacuum, until the stuff of reality is “held up to” and “perceived” against the “screen” or background of the infinite form. Without some concept of an overriding infinite form (theistic or non-theistic), I don’t see how the differentiation and order of the universe could be explained, or even possible.

I understand how you feel. And I have known lots of folks who feel that same way. They just can't conceive of living without this "absolute" giving order to everything they see, think and do.

But believe it or not, it is possible to live in the world without having to rely on this presumed absolute. And doing so doesn't make anyone immoral, or stupid, or shiftless, or whatever other insulting characteristics some theists like to call those who choose live without the illusion of an absolute. What I think is true, though, is that "believers" really can't imagine life without their beliefs. And those who have accepted relativism can't really unknow what they have learned, either. And so the debate continues, usually without anyone changing their views. I'm not sure we are even able to change them.

 

[quip]

Originally posted by Freak
Be so certain that a "chair" is a "chair"????

:doh:

No Freak!! ( are you dense?!?) Justify to me how your claim A CHAIR IS AN ABSOLUTE is absolutely true!!

 

[quip]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
No duh. It is an extrapolation alright - an extrapolation that is logically superior to the naturalistic "extrapolations" of uncaused universes popping into existence out of nothing. Get with the program. :thumb:

As opposed to a deity that pops into existence out of nowhere.
We both ultimately claim that "something" can come from "nothing" . Seems the "program" leaves us at an impasse, hence the very debate.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by quip
As opposed to a deity that pops into existence out of nowhere.

Whose deity does that?

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by quip
As opposed to a deity that pops into existence out of nowhere.
We both ultimately claim that "something" can come from "nothing" . Seems the "program" leaves us at an impasse, hence the very debate.

Your limited grasp of theology is rearing it's head. Deities are generally not defined has having an origin in the first place. Asking "where God came from" is an invalid question because you're asking about the origin of an entity, that by definition, does not have one. It would be like asking where the "headless" horsemen's head came from. It's a false question.

The universe is a different story because we live in it, and can observe evidences that indicate it *DID* have an origin.

 

[AROTO]

Originally posted by Knight
ROTFL... thats great stuff!

If one isn't following the thread these comments must seem awfully strange!

Your not kidding, I had to read back like two pages to keep up, now I get it :doh:

 

[quip]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Whose deity does that?

The Christian God.

 

[quip]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Your limited grasp of theology is rearing it's head. Deities are generally not defined has having an origin in the first place. Asking "where God came from" is an invalid question because you're asking about the origin of an entity, that by definition, does not have one. It would be like asking where the "headless" horsemen's head came from. It's a false question.

The universe is a different story because we live in it, and can observe evidences that indicate it *DID* have an origin.

No, I am stating that the concept of God claims causa sui (check spelling on that )

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by quip
The Christian God.

You're not very familiar with Christianity, are you? God has always existed, and He always will.

 

[quip]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You're not very familiar with Christianity, are you? God has always existed, and He always will.

Spoken like a true Christian!!:thumb:

 

[Flipper]

OEJ:

You're gonna have to sequence more than just cheetahs and housecats to get the entire cat genome.

Not hardly because, according to you, each cat should have some evidence of the cat genome after just 6,000 years.

Do you not know anything about adaptation and natural selection?

Yup. But I also know that natural selection couldn't account for the variance of change in the cat population in just 6,000 years. I'm interested to learn what adaptive mechanisms you're suggesting could account for all the different kinds of cat from a single pair in, lest we forget, 6,000 years.

Know anything about genetics? You can't pass on traits you don't have.

This new learning amazes me, Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

So, let's summarize what you've said about the ur-cat genome.

1) All traits that are currently possessed by the genetically varied old and new world cats were contained within a single genome.

2) The variance of the species was driven by selective pressures through different environments.

3) This all happened in 6,000 years.

4) This rate of change has now stopped.

5) Mutation played no part in this diversity. I'm surmizing this because if mutation and natural selection were the main impellers of this change, why then would you not see "macroevolution" and why can't we track these dramatic mutations today?

6) All the extinct forms of cat were also at one time part of this rash of speciation.

7) The ancestral cats migrated from Mount Ararat and their moved to their old and new world stations, speciating frantically along the way and leaving new populations that soon became genetically divergent.

Is that about fair? Please correct any misapprehensions i may have.

You're trying to put words in my mouth. I haven't proposed any genetic mechanisms that haven't already been discovered.

Yes, but I know of no one outside the creationist field proposing a rate of change anything like the one you're proposing. I'm still interested to know why we don't see this rate of change today.

Speciation (which is an example of micro-evolution) doesn't take millions of years -- it can happen quite rapidly compared to macro-evolution. I think that's where you're getting confused.

I'm not the one postulating a ludicrous rate of genetic change - you are. Speciation, as I'm sure you know, doesn't have to be genetic. The rapid kinds generally are not. Significant genetic differences take longer (more on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years for the higher species).

The most rapid case of speciation that I'm aware of are the rift valley chiclids, for which I have heard a rate of >7,000 years for some species. Of course, their speciation is exceptionally pressured because of their territorialism and the importance of coloration in mate selection by most females. Genetically, there's not nearly so much variance.

I think you credit yourself too much. I'm fully aware of the differences involved. You may try and paint me as ignorant if you wish, but my view point is not at variance with the majority of biologists. Yours is.

Know anything about genetics? You can't pass on traits you don't have.

I'm not the one avocating impossible rates of change. I am fully confident that the sequencing of cat genomes will utterly refute your strange suggestions.

You're gonna have to sequence more than just cheetahs and housecats to get the entire cat genome.

I thought you said

You can't pass on traits you don't have.

So does mutation play a part in your evolution of the cat, or doesn't it? If it doesn't, then there should be the entire genome of your early cats right there.

the genome would have incontrovertible evidence for an agressive rate of change, no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe. We'll know when they're done sequencing the cat genome.

Except that they're done sequencing about 120 genomes so far, and no one has yet volunteered any evidence for what you're proposing. Or is it only cats?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm also thinking that any species genome would clearly and incontrovertibly point to being only 6,000 years in existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If it does, you'll just dismiss it out of hand.

Not if it comes from a credible scientific source and is upheld by at least some peers. I will if it comes from some fringe group that barracks other people's research and proposes nothing in return.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by quip
No, I am stating that the concept of God claims causa sui (check spelling on that )

No, you stated that god "popped into existence". To "pop into existence" entails an origin, a beginning. The Christian God has never been defined as having an origin or beginning. The Christian God has always been defined as ETERNAL, which is also the definition of most other gods.

You made a boo boo while trying to make a clever comment. Get over and move on. We forgive you.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
Not hardly because, according to you, each cat should have some evidence of the cat genome after just 6,000 years.

I'm sure they will. They are cats, after all.

Yup. But I also know that natural selection couldn't account for the variance of change in the cat population in just 6,000 years.

But you don't know that.

I'm interested to learn what adaptive mechanisms you're suggesting could account for all the different kinds of cat from a single pair in, lest we forget, 6,000 years.

I've already told you -- natural selection.

This new learning amazes me, Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

???

So, let's summarize what you've said about the ur-cat genome.

1) All traits that are currently possessed by the genetically varied old and new world cats were contained within a single genome.

Not necessarily all of them, but most of them.

2) The variance of the species was driven by selective pressures through different environments.

3) This all happened in 6,000 years.

Actually less than that.

4) This rate of change has now stopped.

I never said that, although it looks like it has for the cheetah.

5) Mutation played no part in this diversity. I'm surmizing this because if mutation and natural selection were the main impellers of this change, why then would you not see "macroevolution" and why can't we track these dramatic mutations today?

I never said that either. I suspect the cheetah's claws are non-retractable due to a mutation.

6) All the extinct forms of cat were also at one time part of this rash of speciation.

I never said that, but I won't necessarily disagree with it either.

7) The ancestral cats migrated from Mount Ararat and their moved to their old and new world stations, speciating frantically along the way and leaving new populations that soon became genetically divergent.

Something like that.

Is that about fair? Please correct any misapprehensions i may have.

That's more or less right.

Yes, but I know of no one outside the creationist field proposing a rate of change anything like the one you're proposing. I'm still interested to know why we don't see this rate of change today.

Fifty years ago Persian cats didn't have flat faces -- now they do. Granted this is due to artificial selection rather than natural selection, but the point is it can happen. And besides, it's not like the members of the cat family are all that different. Most of them can readily interbreed with one another.

I'm not the one postulating a ludicrous rate of genetic change - you are.

No, I'm not. When you get right down to it, they're not all that different from a genetic standpoint. It doesn't take that long to speciate when conditions are right.

Speciation, as I'm sure you know, doesn't have to be genetic. The rapid kinds generally are not.

Which goes right along with what I'm trying to tell you.

Significant genetic differences take longer (more on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years for the higher species).

Significant is such a relative term. I wouldn't necessarily consider the genetic differences between the members of the cat family to be especially significant.

The most rapid case of speciation that I'm aware of are the rift valley chiclids, for which I have heard a rate of >7,000 years for some species. Of course, their speciation is exceptionally pressured because of their territorialism and the importance of coloration in mate selection by most females. Genetically, there's not nearly so much variance.

And they're all still chiclids too, right?

I think you credit yourself too much.

You can think what you want.

I'm fully aware of the differences involved.

What are they?

You may try and paint me as ignorant if you wish, but my view point is not at variance with the majority of biologists. Yours is.

Argumentum ad populum.

I'm not the one avocating impossible rates of change.

Neither am I. Witness the changes in Persian kitties in the last century.

I am fully confident that the sequencing of cat genomes will utterly refute your strange suggestions.

We'll see...

So does mutation play a part in your evolution of the cat, or doesn't it?

To some degree, but not nearly as much as evolutionists would like to think. And I wouldn't call it evolution either -- they're still cats.

If it doesn't, then there should be the entire genome of your early cats right there.

It does play some part -- remember what I said about the cheetah's claws? It's the only cat that doesn't have retractable claws. I think that was probably due to a mutation. It's likely that mutation is also why the manx doesn't have a tail.

Except that they're done sequencing about 120 genomes so far, and no one has yet volunteered any evidence for what you're proposing.

Are you sure they've completed that many, or does that include the ones they're currently working on as well?

Or is it only cats?

I'm not sure what you're asking? Is what only cats?

Not if it comes from a credible scientific source and is upheld by at least some peers. I will if it comes from some fringe group that barracks other people's research and proposes nothing in return.

Hey -- it's your guy that's doing it.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Most scientists do not contend that the number of variety of cats comes from anything other than selective breeding. That is why plants, and particularly animals that are historically used as pets have exponentially higher variety within a species than animals typically not domesticated. Mendel’s work in this area (particularly with the varieties of pea) is still the regarded standard as far as I know.

To suggest that it arrives at any other means other than selective breeding (even natural selection) is basically unfounded. (There is a quantum in biology today when dealing with animals like anteaters -the giant in South and Latin America verses the Australian variety - for they appear to be almost identical in features but are completely different in DNA makeup.)