Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alethios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually the real thing was originally a radio series, and Adams wrote the books afterwards. I agree with you about the film, but unfortunately he wasn’t alive to oversee it…

And since we can’t mention Hitchhiker’s guide without quoting something or two:

“Humans are not proud of their ancestors, and rarely invite them round to dinner.”

“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”

Alec
evolutionpages.com
:rotfl:
 
“neural connections…” “intentionality, freedom and creativity are derived”? You have got to be kidding. Can you cite one peer reviewed study that confirms that?
Sure - at least with regard to freedom and intentionality:
Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009)

Alec
 
Sure - at least with regard to freedom and intentionality:
Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009)

Alec
This time around, I had better luck locating an article. Though I will credit your past explanation regarding references. Thank you. Nonetheless, we may have to negotiate about references in the future.

By reading only the abstract, it looks to me like Desmurget et al, used electrical stimulation in seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery. Unfortunately, access to full text is restricted and I don’t meet qualifications.

On same website is the following summary. Unfortunately, access to full text is again restricted

"Neuroscience:
The Sources of Human Volition

**"Patrick Haggard **

Every day we make actions that seem to depend on our “free will” rather than on any obvious external stimulus. This capacity not only differentiates humans from other animals, but also gives us the clear sense of controlling our bodies and lives. It therefore forms a key element of our personal identity. However, such voluntary actions are a puzzle for modern neuroscience. Where do they come from? A study by Desmurget et al. (1) on page 811 of this issue reveals how the brain may produce our experience of initiating voluntary action. Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK. "

Eventually, I will get to our community college to check out their library. I did like the above summary since it points to a difference between humans and other animals.
I find that free will is misunderstood on some threads.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.
 
Be glad to:

*** ***

http://www.zillmer.com/index2.htm

www.omniology.com

There are also four books, the last being by Aaron Judkins in the spring of 2009 entitled, "

The Global Phenomenon of Human Fossil Footprints in Rock by …
The Global Phenomenon of Human Fossil Footprints in Rock by Aaron Judkins $29.95 . This content requires Adobe Flash Player version 8.0.0 or greater. …

Moses does indeed sizzle while Darwin fizzles:)
Thank you, Hugh. I appreciate it.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2

I recommend reading this.
Thank you, Michaelo. I have read too many other articles that clearly show that man saw living creatures that we now call dinosaurs. The post by reggieM that shows modern bird prints in ancient rock indicates that the dating methods are inaccurate.

Peace,
Ed
 
So now you’re a young earth creationist?
I strongly dislike labels of any kind. I am a Christian but I refuse to associate any adjective with that declaration. It usually leads to error.

YEC is a bad term because it used as a political staement. I do not associate myself with it. Fortunately, I have spent many years studying anomolous history. And many years studying media and media history. My conclusion is this: everything is knowingly and unknowingly used to engineer consent from the people. The fact is, some people do not have the time or the inclination to investigate claims on their own. They rely on and put their trust in others, unfortunately, especially over the last 40 years, an abuse of trust has led to the propagation of errors, distortions and bold, outright falsehoods in the Christian community and the world at large.

Peace,
Ed
 
I strongly dislike labels of any kind. I am a Christian but I refuse to associate any adjective with that declaration. It usually leads to error.
The implication of believing that dinosaurs and man inhabited the earth at the same time is that you accept YEC. I have a feeling that you don’t want to identify yourself as such because you are also aware of the other absurdities that this position entails.
 
The implication of believing that dinosaurs and man inhabited the earth at the same time is that you accept YEC. I have a feeling that you don’t want to identify yourself as such because you are also aware of the other absurdities that this position entails.
Much like the nonexistent Federal Guidelines to Political Correctness for all United States Citizens, which must exist because everyone seems to know all of the PC terminology, there is apparently a list of YEC claims somewhere, but I’m certainly not aware of it. But that does not matter.

Here is where I stand:

The dating methods are not yielding results consistent with findings made, and, in particular, as they relate to claims of certain animals living millions of years ago. Modern tools and other objects, clearly man made, have been found in rock and coal.

You seem to be ignoring the very good example posted by reggieM. Modern birds tracks in ancient rock.

There is a depiction on an ancient Greek vase of a dinosaur.

I could list others, but my point is: something is not right with the dates.

Recent investigations into non-distance related red shift phenomena are yielding data showing that red shifts are not distance related. I learned this after talking to a friend who is acquainted with scientists who work in the field. He agrees that there is a problem there as well.

Peace,
Ed
 
The dating methods are not yielding results consistent with findings made, and, in particular, as they relate to claims of certain animals living millions of years ago. Modern tools and other objects, clearly man made, have been found in rock and coal.
Can you offer some specific examples? These might clear some things up:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC130.html
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC131.html
You seem to be ignoring the very good example posted by reggieM. Modern birds tracks in ancient rock.
From Nature:
The study of fossilized footprints and tracks of dinosaurs and other vertebrates has provided insight into the origin, evolution and extinction of several major groups and their behaviour; it has also been an important complement to their body fossil record1, 2, 3, 4. The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx5, whereas the coelurosaurian ancestors of the birds date back to the Early Jurassic6. The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds7. Previous references to suggested Late Triassic to Early Jurassic bird-like footprints have been reinterpreted as produced by non-avian dinosaurs having a high angle between digits II and IV8, 9 and in all cases their avian affinities have been challenged10. Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina11, 12, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds. These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters.
nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/nature00818.html
There is a depiction on an ancient Greek vase of a dinosaur.
That’s hardly reliable evidence.
Recent investigations into non-distance related red shift phenomena are yielding data showing that red shifts are not distance related. I learned this after talking to a friend who is acquainted with scientists who work in the field. He agrees that there is a problem there as well.
I suggest you express your specifics concerns about red shifts to hecd2, who appears to be familiar with these subjects.
 
Thank you for your reply. I am certain that the inconsistencies are as described. I have seen a photo of the Greek vase and accept it at face value along with the other artifacts.

Peace,
Ed
 
Thank you for your reply. I am certain that the inconsistencies are as described. I have seen a photo of the Greek vase and accept it at face value along with the other artifacts.
So then logically all other creatures depicted on ancient pottery coexisted with the humans responsible for the art?

It just seems like these are all more examples of people grasping at straws and trying to conform the evidence to their preconceived notions of reality.
 
So then logically all other creatures depicted on ancient pottery coexisted with the humans responsible for the art?

It just seems like these are all more examples of people grasping at straws and trying to conform the evidence to their preconceived notions of reality.
As I pointed out, there are other examples. I am certain that there are fundamental problems with dating.

Peace,
Ed
 
Yes, that article supports what I posted because it comes from the scientists I quoted.
The part you quoted was refuted by the authors.:confused: Some claimed that the footprints were “non-avian” but the authors argue otherwise.

Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina …

There are “clearly avian characters” found in “Late Triassic rock”. That is prior to the evolution of “avians”.

From the beginning of the article – which you failed to copy and paste:

The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx …

Obviously, there are “modern looking” bird footprints in rocks as old as Archaeopteryx.

If the best you can do is totally misunderstand and confuse the very story I posted, then this item stands up quite well indeed.
 
Bacteria do indeed have latent abilities that can lie dormant for thousands of years and used only when needed.
Interesting… Do you have a technical reference?
… ID has its own lab, the Biologic Institute and it has its own journal, PCID. Why isn’t ID doing its own research into this?
No one wants to fund objective research… they don’t know what it is.
How about a donation to ID - put those stimulus bucks to work!
33,000 generations were raised in the same environment and this trait didn’t show itself. Then they unfroze ancestor strains of these bacteria and raised them in the same environment to see if this trait would appear in them as well. It didn’t.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the code was already there? If the code was already there, what triggered it?
How can the absence of genetic change reveal hidden code? This quote logically fits stasis, not evolution.

Look at it this way: Why can brown-eyed parents have a blue-eyed child?
Because the blue allele is recessive, both parents must carry it. Blue eyes won’t be expressed until then, perhaps after many generations.

Now consider a recessive human gene to grow wings that has been latent for 300 generations(6000 years).

It finally finds the trigger in the genome of 2 modern parents to express it.
What do the evols conclude? That…
  • humans have evolved the ability to fly and are a new ‘species’
  • this occurred by the slow single point mutation of bases over 6000 years.
  • all the mutations never were visible or fatal to the 300 generations.
  • all this happened twice, in both maternal and paternal lines(else the flying human won’t reproduce)
Can you think of a better test protocol to test if the code is already there?
What’s relevant is macro-evolution , the production of new ‘species’ by mutation. The Lenski test only tests micro-evolution/breeding/racism

A proposed protocol to demonstrate the construction of a new protein-forming gene via neoDarwinism:

    • genome map each bacterial generation until a new non-bacterial organism is produced
    • transfer of genes between bacteria must be prevented!
    • show that the new organism differs from the bacteria, using the 4 definitions of species now proposed
    • show that 90% of micro-biologists agree that the new organism is not a bacterium
    • using the genome history of each generation,
      1. identify the new gene(s) that evolved from the original bacterial strain.
      2. show that the new gene code(s) were not in the introns of the original bacterial strain.
      3. show that point mutations of the original bacterial genome serially changed into the new genes of the new species.
      Who collected the [dino] samples?
      We did.
      How were the samples handled?
      Very carefully
      Where were the samples collected?
      Montana
      Did the laboratory have any comment on the samples?
      Which one?
      Link to the published data?
      Here
      What other radiometric techniques were used to confirm the dates?
      Radiometry is a bogus dating system, unless you believe that the last eruption of Mt. St. Helens was 2,800,000 years ago.
      C14 is the only chronometer for dating life forms.
      Dinosaurs were life forms.

      Has Google gone out of business?
      Are you part of the “we” that I asked about?
      We are one body, brother - one body in Christ.
      Posting a bunch of data does nothing without the background info. A link to the published paper is sorely needed.
      The thread rules of evidence here require evidence that’s credible, not necessarily published. We presented a preprint of the data for 9 dino ages , we expected gratitude, not the implied lack of trust and third degree questioning.

      What is sorely needed is the answer to this one question -

      **Where are the DATA, published or un-published, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested? **
      Lotsa questions here, brother, but no answers forthcoming.

      AMDG
 
This time around, I had better luck locating an article…

By reading only the abstract, it looks to me like Desmurget et al, used electrical stimulation in seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery.
That is indeed so. He points out that the philosophical/religious idea that intention arises in some non-physical spiritual domain and uses the physical brain as a tool to realise the action has been increasingly challenged by the evidence:
“A central question in the study of human behavior concerns the origin of willed actions. Where in the brain are intentions formed? How do we become aware of these intentions? According to the dualist philosophy (1), our encephalon is just the recipient of conscious intentions formed elsewhere in a nonphysical realm. This implies that conscious intention comes first, as the leading cause of our actions. Although appealing from a spiritual point of view, this hypothesis was progressively challenged by a large set of studies (2–4). Results showing that the decision to move did not precede, but instead lagged, the onset of brain activity signaling motor preparedness were especially convincing (5–7). Thus, researchers suggested that conscious intention of a movement emerged as a consequence of increased neural activity in a premotor-parietal circuit, which elaborates motor plans before action.”

The problem then becomes identifying the specific neural circuit which gives rise to the experience of free-will and intention, which he addresses in this paper. To cut a long story short, stimulation of specific regions of the pre-motor regions causes movement without the experience of an intention to move (or indeed an awareness of movement), while stimulation of specific regions of the inferior parietal regions created an intention to move and with a higher intensity of stimulation, a belief that movement had occurred, even if it hadn’t. Their conclusion:

“Our study suggests that motor intention and awareness are emerging consequences of increased parietal activity before movement execution. The subjective (and potentially illusory) feeling that we are executing a movement does not arise from movement itself, but it is generated by prior conscious intention and its predicted consequences.”

See also: “The Volitional Brain; Towards a neuroscience of free will”, ed Libet et al, Imprint Academic, ISBN 1355 8250 (1999).

Also, the Journal of Consciousness Studies (which sponsored the above book) is a very prestigious journal covering physics, biology, neurobiology, philosophical and social aspects of the study of human consciousness. See, for example Haggard and Johnson, Experiences of Voluntary Action, J Consciousness Studies 10, 72 - 84 (2003)

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Well then please post them when possible.
Hugh Miller provided this not that many posts ago:

youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA&feature=related

As I see it, all that is happening here is a battle of worldviews:

Worldview A: Whatever we can see or sense is real. Period. End of story.

Worldview B: Whatever we can see or sense is real and just as real as apparitions of the Virgin Mary and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Biology textbook is inadequate to provide knowledge and information that can therefore be applied to get answers to certain other questions. The human person must not only understand his physical makeup but his non-physical makeup. Biology can acquire certain pieces of information but without the crucial linkage to the other information, it is truly incomplete in a practical way.

Peace,
Ed
 
The video Hugh provided is not the only piece of information out there. I am certain the dates for ancient times are wrong. I had already picked up enough information years ago to draw that conclusion.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top