RE: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)

Ian -

First you said:
"Newton's second law also predicts that if you apply a steady force that the velocity will increase without limit."

Then you said:
"Constant acceleration means velocity increases linearly,
independently of time, hence without limit."

So the first time you said 'a steady force results in increasing velocity' (which makes no sense in physics I think), then you said a constant acceleration means velocity increases (which is obvious).

Then you conclude with:
"As we know, it's wrong as velocity approaches the speed of light."

And I agree with your point that it can't be extrapolated up to infinity. But what is your point? It appears that you are using that as an analogy against macroevolution, yet you said you accept macroevolution. So then I suppose it is an analogy against the DNA evidence I say is evidence of macroevolution, yet I don't see how that is analogous. Macroevolution, as a philosophy without facts, is subject to your analogy, but not macroevolution with the scientific facts of DNA supporting it. That's why I rejected macroevolution until I was faced with the data.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:26 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)

I don't know really why I'm bothering with you at all.

F = ma

Newton's second law. If F is constant, and m is constant then a is
constant. Constant acceleration means velocity increases linearly,
independently of time, hence without limit. That is the clear
prediction of Newton's second law. As we know, it's wrong as velocity
approaches the speed of light. My point was to illustrate the danger
of extrapolating from a few observations.

But if you're incapable of understanding elementary physics then I'm
clearly wasting my time.

Goodbye. I'm certainly not going to waste any more time on you.
Cameron decided to do this earlier. I decided I'd give you one more
chance. But since you steadfastly refuse to see the point, there is
no point in continuing. Arguing against you is exactly like arguing
with a YEC. They also, as I have found, steadfastly refuse to see the
point. You may have completely rejected YEC-ism, but you still argue
like one. Perhaps you'd like to take note of these observations of
mine, and take more care how you come over.

Iain

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> Ian said:
> "I don't believe in creation by poofing.  I accept evolution"
>
> Then why am I wasting my time trying to convince you of macroevolution when you already accept it?  Ok, I suppose you might disagree with me about the evidence for macroevolution, and accept macroevolution for other reasons- fine.  In that case, we don't need to discuss it anymore, because my goal is to get evolution deniers to see the evidence for macroevolution.  (In short- wiping out scientific ignorance amongst YEC's and OEC's.)
>
> Ian said:
> "Do you think that the evidence for Newton's second law of motion is conclusive evidence that we could travel faster than light simply by having a big enough fuel tank on the rocket?"
>
> I didn't understand what you meant when you said a constant force would result in ever increasing velocity.  That doesn't make sense to me- so you have to better explain that for me to see your point.
>
> And I also don't understand what your point is because I thought you were using it as an analogy to disprove macroevolution yet you just admitted that you accept macroevolution.  So if you accept macroevolution, what is the point you are getting at? Is it simply that I just have a bad argument for macroevolution because there are better arguments for macroevolution? If so, what are those better arguments, in your opinion?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:48 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)
>
> Really Bernie,
>
> That personal attack was completely unnecessary.  "I hope you're not
> like Cameron ... etc" disparaging us both.
>
> I don't believe in creation by poofing.  I accept evolution.  But I
> don't think you have an effective argument against creation by
> poofing.  Is that clear enough for you?  I really shouldn't have to be
> spelling things out like this.
>
> Now please answer my question.  Do you think that the evidence for
> Newton's second law of motion is conclusive evidence that we could
> travel faster than light simply by having a big enough fuel tank on
> the rocket?
>
> If you don't then what is the difference between that argument and
> yours that pseudogenes and the fusion of chromosome 2, both evidences
> of small micro-evolutionary steps, is conclusive evidence of
> macro-evolution?
>
> Please explain.
>
> Iain
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>> Ian said:
>> "And it seems (even from Wikipedia, not just creationist websites) that
>> pseudo-genes are increasingly being found to have some function, to do
>> with gene regulation."
>>
>> I think finding some functions for pseudogenes is irrelevant.  The point is that the gene is fully formed in lower animals, and retarded in other descended animals (truncated, etc.).  The enzyme for asorbic acid (vitamin c) doesn't work for us and apes, but does for lower lifeforms- and I don't think that retarded gene has any other use.  But even if it does something, it seems obvious the main function was to create vitamin C, and so we can't while lower lifeforms can.  (This was explained rather well in RTB's book "Who was Adam").  We eat vitamin c, so we don't get scurvy.
>>
>> Ian ssaid:
>> " Now you know I don't believe in creation by Poofing"
>>
>> If you don't believe that humans were created by poofing, then you must accept evolution (humans created from apelike creatures- which is macroevolution).  What other alternative is there? I don't get it- please explain.
>>
>> You have to get it straight- are you defending 'poofing' or not?
>>
>> I hope you're not like Cameron who argues both sides at the same time, IMO.
>>
>> Ask Cameron if he accepts DNA evidence for human evolution from apelike creature, and you won't get a clear answer.  If he says yes- he just accepted macroevolution. If he says no, he rejects the DNA evidence and he knows that it is wrong.  So he argues both, in long-essay form.
>>
>> Sorry- Cameron- just my impression of you...  And I know you won't comment to me, so I can get away with it ;-)
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:37 AM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>> Cc: asa
>> Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Ian-
>>>
>>> You said:
>>> "you're being self-contradictory here.  On one post you concede that the chromosome fusion is a micro-evolutionary step and in this one you claim that it conclusively demonstrates that macroevolution happened.  You can't
>>> have it both ways."
>>>
>>> Every evolutionary step is a microevolutionary step.  If a fusion happened at one point, that is a microevolutionary event.  Now when you say "prove macroevolution happened" I would say that the fused chromosome (and thousands of pseudogenes too) are obvious evidence of macroevolution from apelike creature to human.  These two DNA things show the path through lifeforms, disproving the idea that man was biologically made unique by 'poofing' things into existence. (The alternative hypothesis to evolution, common descent, is creation by poofing).
>>
>>
>> Now you were the one who said it "conclusively demonstrates macroevolution".
>>
>> I agree it's strong evidence.   And the pseudo-genes - I'll have to
>> think about that - it certainly adds to the evidence.  Does it
>> conclusively prove macro from a number of instances of micro?  And it
>> seems (even from Wikipedia, not just creationist websites) that
>> pseudo-genes are increasingly being found to have some function, to do
>> with gene regulation.  Now you know I don't believe in creation by
>> poofing, but I'm sure a creationist with more knowledge than me about
>> pseudogenes could  construct an argument for it, based on the notion
>> that they have a function.  What pseudogenes and chromosome fusion
>> show is evidence that is consistent with evolution, (evolution
>> predicts pseudogenes and fusions etc) but you can't necessarily turn
>> the arrow round the other way.
>>
>> Let's take another example.
>>
>> You know the equation    F = m .  d^2x/dt^2
>>
>> It's Newton's second law of motion.  It allows you to compute the
>> motion of an object of mass M through time.  It's a simple
>> differential equation that is easily solved.  It predicts that if you
>> start with a 1 Kg object at rest on a frictionless surface and apply a
>> force of 1 Newton to it for 1 second that it will move half a meter in
>> the time.  Just as failure to find evidence of chromosome fusion would
>> completely sink common ancestry of us and apes, so if you conduct the
>> above experiment and find the object moves three metres, then you will
>> have effectively disproved Newton's second law.
>>
>> But you carry out the experiment and the prediction of the equation is
>> verified.  In fact you can vary the masses and always verify that the
>> equation is true to within the limits of your measurement devices.
>> There is in fact a massive amount of evidence that Newton's second law
>> is true - you can observe it in the motion of a pendulum, the
>> elliptical orbits of planets, the motion of billiard balls and so on.
>>
>> Newton's second law also predicts that if you apply a steady force
>> that the velocity will increase without limit.
>>
>> Since your experiment has so conclusively demonstrated the predictive
>> power of Newton's second law, you've also conclusively demonstrated
>> that if a constant force is applied that the velocity of the object
>> will increase without limit, right?
>> It seems Kirk, Spock and co didn't need warp drive - just a
>> sufficiently powerful thruster would have eventually done the trick.
>>
>> Iain
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
> world domination
> -----------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
world domination
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.