(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I would like to dedicate this post to Luckie, since she loves long posts.

-SW

I read the whole thing!!!!
Do I get a cookie?

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(February 7, 2014 at 4:23 am)pocaracas Wrote: Ah, the debate... personal attacks, moi?

Not so much you, but sadly you’re the exception.

I always get that.... "you need to be more aggressive", they say...

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Actually, it was indeed you... and it was a paper you referenced yourself! I almost forgot about that! look at our exchange back then:

*looking*

---

(May 23, 2013 at 9:55 am)pocaracas Wrote: Interesting paper...
Didn't read the whole thing, but I did read some particular bits:
- mutations arise primarily from the father zygote, given that the father produces millions of sperm per day, the odds of some error are greater than on the mother's side, who produced all the zygotes before birth... this checks out with something I read recently that stated that there are more autistic kids from older fathers than from younger ones. IF you're over 35, you have a higher tendency to produce an autistic child than if you're 20.
- Deleterious mutations are removed from the population in about 80 generations.
- On the other hand, there's this gem "In [...] people, recessive mutations may persist for thousands of generations. "

Thousands of generations.... and yet you claimed that "Humans have been around for fewer than 250 generations "... Another piece of your story that doesn't add up. Care to produce some evidence for this 250 number?
Or should I just take your word for it?

---

I had forgotten about this, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am not sure it is possible to claim that mutations are filtered out in 80 generations in higher organisms since that is over 2,400 years and we simply cannot observe that to be the case. I’d be interested to see how he’s arriving at that since it sounds like a rescue mechanism to me.

Well... dogs, cats and quite a lot of mammals can breed at one year of age... do those count as "higher organisms", to you?
Mice can breed after a few weeks making them perfectly suitable for a lot of experimenting.
But that 2400 year number comes from humans and a historically high estimate for the age at which people have kids.... 30.

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sanford’s research indicates that in higher organisms 90 percent of all deleterious mutations are not significant enough to be filtered out. As for the thousands of generations remark, just because Crow has his data correct does not mean he has his implications correct.

Quote: 3-5% per generation?
Are you seriously considering this?
10 generations and you could get 50% degeneration..... 20 generations and total chaos... Tell me, do you accept that humans existed 20 generation ago?... That's about (1 generation every 30 years [high estimate, I know]) ~600 years ago!

It’s not up to me to arbitrarily accept or reject the figure. That’s the empirically measured rate per Lynch in 2010. Crow puts the rate at 1-2%, which is what Sanford agrees more with. Either way, these rates are very friendly to the Biblical timeline and view of history.

I haven't gone back to read the study and it is possible that he measured it well...
But did he take into account the self-correcting mechanism on the genes that became faulty over the last generation?
1% of the genetic makeup may degenerate every generation (ughh... bad word choice), but what is degenerated in one generation gets corrected over the course of the next few generations... if it is indeed deleterious.

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: You also said this just yesterday "90% of all deleterious mutations would be un-selectable."... why?
If a mutation is deleterious, it has an impact on the individual's ability to function and survive.

Yes, but not always enough to be selected against. Take for instance color blindness. It’s a fairly significant condition caused by several different mutations and yet it was never filtered out of the population.

Indeed... and also more prevalent in men.
In hunter-gatherers, telling the colors would be required when picking berries and some fruits... but not so for hunting... so, if women did the berry picking and men the hunting, then color-blindness would have had little impact on the person's ability to survive and, subsequently, to breed.
But if that condition arose in a woman, it could be fatal.
That's why it hasn't filtered out of the male population... no pressure.

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: There are some that only show up at a late stage of life and can be easily passed on, like Parkinson's... but 90%? I'm curious to know where you got that number.

I got that number from Sanford’s work; it’s also a number that is supported by Ohta who is the world’s most renowned expert on near-neutral deleterious mutations and their linear preservation.

Ah.... all your numbers pertain to "near-neutral deleterious mutations... ah... that makes more sense.
Why were you making a case for deleterious mutations as a whole when your source pertains only (or mostly) to "near-neutral" ones?


Now, to mildly address all the other replies to everyone else:
Why do you think that the bible is "the word of god"? The god which is infallible?
It seems to be a collection of texts written by men who believed in the existence of some sort of god... sometimes it even sounds like they believed there could be more than one.
If the contents of the bible were written by men, is it not to be expected that some parts are as fallible as any other text?
If it was written by men, and the Vedas were also written by men, and the Buddhavacana were written by men, and many other accounts claimed to be from some greater spiritual entity were written by men.... how do come to the conclusion that the bible is correct, while the others must be incorrect? What is your criterion?
Surely, I've asked this before.... I just can't remember the answer, right now...

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(February 7, 2014 at 7:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: You know, where real scientists base their conclusions on the evidence.
As opposed to creation"science" where the evidence is twisted, distorted and generally fucked up by mentally diminutive cretinist morons who've had their chromosomes painted on in order to conform to a Stone Age fairy tale written by goat fucking savages that thought bats were birds. So that they can attempt to give credence to their delusion that the creator of the infinite universe is their special friend.(and incidentally, fleece the gullible masses of even more money in the process)

That objective science.

That’s interesting because I’ve never seen the term objective science used in that way before in scientific literature (which leads me to believe you just made that definition up). What makes someone a real scientist? You do realize that it is logically fallacious to redefine a term in a self-serving manner right? I am feeling very charitable and wanted to give you a little heads up before you answered this question.

That's fine Stat, don't bother addressing my point about about creation scientists being two faced liars for jesus.

(February 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Did Ham mention instant light speed or is even he not stupid enough for that?

Quote:That’s the position AIG adheres to. It’s not a stupid position at all if you know a thing or two about relativity; which obviously you do not.

No Statler, it is a fucking stupid position, and anyone with real knowledge of relativity knows that.
AIGs position is based on a pathetic need to make their fairytale appear real, nothing else.

I don't know why Bill Nye wasted his time debating people like Ken Ham, indeed any creationist for that matter.

The best way of dealing with creationists is not take their views seriously and whenever possible ignore them. That is how flat earthers and geocentrists are treated by everybody else.

The point was likely because this is one of the few ways you can reach out to an audience that may not be as fundie as people like Ken. People like me who just needed to hear things from outside my bubble to get me going towards a more truthful path.

(February 14, 2014 at 11:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Jesus. What a Waldorf Salad. 35 pages of case-by-case "I believe what I want to believe because the bible told me it has all the answers: I don't care to critically examine it, no I don't."

That’s it? Well I am perfectly fine with you allowing my points to go un-refuted.

Quote: Also, lol@ "speciation is part of the current Creationist Model." Give it up, stop selectively adopting valid theories to convince the uneducated "a magician made the universe, the world, and us" is a valid Scientific theory.

Laughing at something does nothing to refute it; unfortunately it seems to be all you have left. It is astonishing the level of ignorance you possess when it comes to what your opponents believe. You really did not know that creationists believe in speciation? I think you are more just frustrated because you have nothing besides speciation to point to, and since that supports both models you now have no justification for ascribing to your model over the other.

(February 14, 2014 at 11:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

---

Yeah, we know. 2500 year old bullshit. You are right about one thing. It was wrong then and it will never improve which simplifies things for the simple minded.

---

Jesse Ventura calling other people weak-minded? That’s ironic.

There's nothing to refute: All you've provided are a bunch of unbacked assertions.

It may satisfy your already convinced mind, but the only thing you've convinced anyone of is that you have no argument to begin with.

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I would like to dedicate this post to Luckie, since she loves long posts.

-SW

<snipped>

Waldorf word salad of the year. Congratulations.

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(February 7, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Regulation of a practice by any authority is an indication of acceptance or approval by the authority of the practice.

Really? So the fact that we have laws regulating and pertaining to adultery means we morally accept adultery?

We have laws regulating adultery? Really? Like, you can cheat with certain people but not others and, by staying within these rules, not end up violating our marital contract? You see, I always thought that committing adultery was grounds for divorce and your estranged spouse could use that against you in legal proceedings but obviously I was mistaken.

Quote:I’ll even one-up you, not only did Yahweh regulate polygamy but he ordained that it would happen, and yet it was still evil for men to do it. How do you like that?

Well, I'd like it better if you'd explain the paradox. Was Yahweh unable to make his desires known? Was he able to lay down many detailed rules about sex, from when a woman is "clean" after her menstrual cycles to "don't have sex with your wife's sister" but not something as simple as "one per customer"? Was he powerless to go against the culture of his "chosen people"?

Quote:I’ll need a verse. I get paranoid whenever you try to tell me what the Bible says.

You should know me better.

Quote:1 Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

The Lord loved David as a nearly perfect man, who's sole sin was his moment of weakness when he had Uriah killed and had sex with his wife. The Bible does NOT say, "...and also the fact that David took more than one wife, a practice that ran against the Lord's rules on strict monogamy in marriage".

Quote:Matthew 19:3-8 makes it clear that God regulating something does not mean God approves of it (i.e. divorce).

Which contradicts Mark 10:11 which says divorce is never allowed but let's keep this discussion to the OT when polygamy was practiced. By the time of the NT, Greeco-Roman civilization had introduced monogamy to Judea.

Quote:One man and one woman is part of the created ordinance in Genesis 1.

Where?

Please do better than...

Quote:Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This passage is saying "don't be a mama's boy". It doesn't preclude cleaving unto more than one woman and the ancient Hebrews certainly didn't.

Quote:Deuteronomy 17 says taking multiple wives will lead a man’s heart astray.

The context of the chapter is about remaining true to the worship of Yahweh and there is some concern in the OT about foreign wives leading men astray, to worship other gods. It also forbids the accumulation of great wealth, as this will also corrupt the hearts of men.

Read a couple chapters later and Deut 21 discusses what to do if you like one wife more than another or even hate one wife, how shall you treat your children with them.

The Wholly Babble Wrote:Deut 21:15-17 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Quote:Mark 10 explicitly says marriage is made to be between one man and one woman and that it was that way since creation.

...or it was that way since Judea's culture changed under pagan influences and subsequently the nature of their god changed to fit the new culture.

Let's see if Waldork's head explodes....which would be bad. There would be shit all over the carpet and walls.

Quote:The origins of marriage
The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/ori...age-50901/

"Mark" seems like an anachronism in this context, eh? But the fucking bible is full of those.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:26 pm)Justtristo Wrote: I don't know why Bill Nye wasted his time debating people like Ken Ham, indeed any creationist for that matter.

"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."
~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis


Creationism has flourished in the shadows, taking over low level government positions on school boards and city councils because nobody perceived them as a threat there.... until they started cleansing the classroom of good science and substituting "fair and balanced" treatment.

Bill Nye is the perfect person to have such a debate, as his name recognition drew out people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered.

(February 15, 2014 at 10:33 pm)Chad32 Wrote: The point was likely because this is one of the few ways you can reach out to an audience that may not be as fundie as people like Ken. People like me who just needed to hear things from outside my bubble to get me going towards a more truthful path.

Forgive me I am not from the bible belt of the USA, indeed where I live (Australia) is the total opposite of that part of the world.