Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


France Muslims were in d...
Today at 11:02 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 05:01 PM

Kashmir endgame
Yesterday at 04:46 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 09:49 AM

What music are you listen...
Yesterday at 03:46 AM

Nostalgia, nostalgia...
Yesterday at 03:33 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2021, 06:25 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
January 16, 2021, 10:56 PM

Reading stabbings
January 15, 2021, 10:32 PM

Coronavirus crisis
January 15, 2021, 12:20 PM

Hello
January 09, 2021, 07:46 AM

Paris murder
January 08, 2021, 07:50 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments

 (Read 10966 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     OP - July 10, 2010, 12:07 PM

    popcorn


    ETA:  The actual debate thread is here http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=11244.0

    "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

    Baloney Detection Kit
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #1 - July 10, 2010, 12:59 PM

    Thanks Rationaliser, that's added greatly to my interest and education. I'll follow up some of this work. It will add to what I've just been learning in 'The Origins of The British' by Stephen Oppenheimer, pub. Robinson, London. ISBN 978-1-84529-482-3.
     thnkyu

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #2 - July 10, 2010, 01:12 PM

    Get "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne. Very good read. Haven't finished it yet though.

    German ex-Muslim forumMy YouTubeList of Ex-Muslims
    Wikis: en de fr ar tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #3 - July 10, 2010, 01:41 PM

    ow!.. now this is one of my favourite threads.. can't wait to see the reply.... move over aziz.. SHARE THE POPCORN!!  popcorn
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #4 - July 10, 2010, 01:41 PM

    Get "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne. Very good read. Haven't finished it yet though.


    I need to read that, I've seen it recommended many times.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #5 - July 10, 2010, 02:27 PM

    I'm sure there is no point of this vs because in the end remember MRasheed is only here to convert us, he doesn't care about what us infidels say because it is the word of the shitan


    maybe i'm wrong , maybe there is hope !

    [13:36] <Fimbles> anything above 7 inches
    [13:37] <Fimbles> is wacko
    [13:37] <Fimbles> see
    [13:37] <Fimbles> you think i'd enjoy anything above 7 inches up my arse?
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #6 - July 10, 2010, 03:40 PM

    He can believe in something without facts if he likes, I don't like people to deny facts though, that's delusional.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #7 - July 12, 2010, 11:39 PM

    I'm sure there is no point of this vs because in the end remember MRasheed is only here to convert us, he doesn't care about what us infidels say because it is the word of the shitan


    maybe i'm wrong , maybe there is hope !


    I'm not here to convert you, Blinky.

  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #8 - July 13, 2010, 12:00 AM

    He is not here to tell us to join them.
    He is here to tell us that if we do not join them, then "accidents" might happen to us in the afterlife.

    That's an offer we just cannot refuse. ^_^

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #9 - July 13, 2010, 05:00 AM

    Ok, nice start by TR with the ERV's. They are rather nifty. TR's post ends with "I look forward to seeing your rebuttal of these independently observed facts". MRasheed's post contains nothing approaching a rebuttal. Yes, I do realise this is an opening post in which opponents are laying out what they see as their strongest arguments and therefore a complete dissection of TR's post should not be expected immediately. I have to wonder if a rebuttal is even possible though. It will be interesting to see what follows.

    MRasheed's post is nothing in his own words and a simple copy/paste quotation from an unnamed source that is not linked to. Slack effort. Come on Rasheed, you can do better than that. Argument by copy/paste from dubious sources is standard operating procedure for many creationists. At the very least, even if you can't or wont put your debate posts in your own words, you should provide a link to your source.


    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #10 - July 13, 2010, 06:27 AM

    We share 50% of our DNA with a cabbage.  Most of this commonly shared DNA no longer codes for proteins in humans but in a cabbage obviously a lot more of that DNA does code for proteins otherwise there would be no cabbage.

    To say that we expect coding DNA to have patterns but non-coding DNA not to have patterns is simply erroneous.  The DNA which is currently non-coding in humans is inherited DNA from ancestors which used to code proteins, therefore we would expect to see "meaningful patterns" in both coding and non-coding DNA as non-coding DNA is merely a remnant of DNA that used to code.  Just as you'd expect to see patterns of letters forming words in pages of a book that has been ripped up and no longer tells a complete story.

    Would have to do a bit of checking up but I'm not sure this is quite correct. I'd be willing to bet that a fair bit of junk DNA is just junk that has always been junk. Given that replication is imperfect and that benign but useless DNA does not seem to be selected against (because lots of genomes have stacks of it) I can't see any reason why some of it couldn't have just accumulated without ever having had a useful function anywhere.

    You could check junk DNA for protein coding as the codes for the common proteins are well known already. If you find stretches that don't contain these codes you may have found some "genuine junk that always was junk".


    Quote
    As for language it is possible to trace languages just like it is DNA.  I don't recall the name of the study but I read about it in a book called "The Language of the Genes".  It was possible to identify derivatives of languages such as accents, an extension of that being some regions using different/new words, all the way up to completely different languages.  The study examined languages for similarities and by analysing the closest related and mapping them to geographic locations guess what it showed?  It showed a pattern of human movement throughout the world over time, as if we had spread out to populate the planet, so it proves neither evolution or the Quran which both suggest human migration.  What it does show however is that it is not the case that some God one day at the tower of Babel suddenly made us all speak different languages (or whatever it is you are suggesting - you didn't actually make a point.)

    These languages influenced each other over time (such as in English speaking countries where they use the odd French word such as "Restaurant").  So overall one would expect languages to have similarities in them and also most common words such as

    One, Happy, Sad, Sun, etc.

    True for some languages but there are completely unrelated languages where this does not apply. However given that we all share the same basic brains it is quite likely that there is one fundamental "coding" underlying all human language. The actual words chosen wouldn't affect this as they are basically an arbitrary facade put on top of the basic coding.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #11 - July 13, 2010, 06:36 AM

    I didn't mean to imply that ALL non-coding DNA used to code, I shall alter it to make that clear.

    As for language.  Having words like "One" and "Sun" with a certain frequency is not surprising at all.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #12 - July 13, 2010, 06:40 AM

    Would have to do a bit of checking up but I'm not sure this is quite correct. I'd be willing to bet that a fair bit of junk DNA is just junk that has always been junk. Given that replication is imperfect and that benign but useless DNA does not seem to be selected against (because lots of genomes have stacks of it) I can't see any reason why some of it couldn't have just accumulated without ever having had a useful function anywhere.

    You could check junk DNA for protein coding as the codes for the common proteins are well known already. If you find stretches that don't contain these codes you may have found some "genuine junk that always was junk".

    True for some languages but there are completely unrelated languages where this does not apply. However given that we all share the same basic brains it is quite likely that there is one fundamental "coding" underlying all human language. The actual words chosen wouldn't affect this as they are basically an arbitrary facade put on top of the basic coding.


    I have made the point more clear now I believe.  What do you think?

    And yes, the phonemes we use are simply an interpretation of the underlying brain process.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #13 - July 13, 2010, 06:41 AM

    I didn't mean to imply that ALL non-coding DNA used to code, I shall alter it to make that clear.

    As for language.  Having words like "One" and "Sun" with a certain frequency is not surprising at all.

    Tahi. That's Maori for one. Wink It's not related to the Indo-European language group, or at least not any more related than a lot of other languages, assuming that they are all somehow related simply because we are human. Etymology is fascinating stuff though. I remember reading some of Pinker's stuff which mentioned the vowel changes, etc that have been traced through the ages and gave examples.

    What is even more interesting are places like New Guinea, where you have lots of small tribes and hundreds of languages, many of which are not even related to the languages in the neighbouring valleys or any other languages anywhere else in the world.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #14 - July 13, 2010, 06:51 AM

    I have made the point more clear now I believe.  What do you think?

    Just for the record, I was commenting on the debate, not offering coaching on the debate. Wink

    Anyway, since you ask, I'd call your opening remarks an unsupported assertion.

    We share 50% of our DNA with a cabbage.  Most of this commonly shared DNA no longer codes for proteins in humans but in a cabbage obviously a lot more of that DNA does code for proteins otherwise there would be no cabbage.

    That's an assertion because the claim of what is obvious is about something that is not obvious at all. I've seen no compelling evidence that any human junk DNA had a practical application in cabbages. I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find evidence for that.



    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #15 - July 13, 2010, 07:40 AM

    Just for the record, I was commenting on the debate, not offering coaching on the debate. Wink


    Well, I'm not always 100% clear in what I mean and I do like to be.


    Anyway, since you ask, I'd call your opening remarks an unsupported assertion.
    That's an assertion because the claim of what is obvious is about something that is not obvious at all. I've seen no compelling evidence that any human junk DNA had a practical application in cabbages. I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find evidence for that.


    You see this is where I am not being clear.  We do know that when DNA mutates we get coding genes turn on/off so that they switch between coding and non-coding.

    This is the importance of being clear Smiley

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #16 - July 13, 2010, 07:56 AM

    Yep I agree that coding sections can be switched on and off. That happens all the time, even within the one organism during its development. Having some junk DNA that is the result of coding sections being "disconnected due to lack of interest" certainly makes sense. We can even find that in human DNA in the form of the GULO gene that would otherwise enable us to synthesise our own vitamin C. It has, because of one simple mutation, been effectively turned into junk DNA, although I don't think it is usually classified as such since that term tends to be reserved for ostensibly functionless stretches rather than for DNA that has known but broken functionality. That particular gene is another piece of very good evidence for common descent.

    Anyway I think that if such a study could be done you would find that due to the huge distance between us and cabbages (at least in the case of most people) our genomes would contain a fair whack of junk DNA that accumulated since our last common ancestor and therefore aint got nothing cabbagey about it. It'd be hard to pin down to any other lifeforms too. I can't see why a lot of junk DNA couldn't be spontaneously generated due to mutations.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #17 - July 13, 2010, 08:05 AM

    I had a non-supernatural revelation (also known as a "realisation") on the way to dropping my son off to school.  I've altered the statement to consist only of fundamentally what I was trying to say.  Basically I dropped the "how it happened" and stuck to the overview of "what happened".

    I'd like to think that I'll spend much more time mulling over my next response rather than rattling it off without preparation 5 minutes after I get out of bed, but experience tells me otherwise Smiley


    I can't see why a lot of junk DNA couldn't be spontaneously generated due to mutations.


    Of course junk DNA gets spontaneously generated .  When chunks of DNA are duplicated the non-coding/junk DNA gets duplicated with it, the process doesn't perform any kind of housecleaning during the accidental duplication Smiley

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #18 - July 13, 2010, 08:09 AM

     grin12 Well honestly I think MRasheed is going to have so much trouble with this debate that you can afford to have a few holes pickled in your posts.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #19 - July 13, 2010, 08:11 AM

    Of course junk DNA gets spontaneously generated .  When chunks of DNA are duplicated the non-coding/junk DNA gets duplicated with it, the process doesn't perform any kind of housecleaning during the accidental duplication Smiley

    Sure, but what I meant was new junk DNA being spontaneously generated, not just extra copies of existing junk DNA. Imperfect replication is likely to generate new fuckups at any time without relying on making new fuckups out of old fuckups.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #20 - July 13, 2010, 08:14 AM

    grin12 Well honestly I think MRasheed is going to have so much trouble with this debate that you can afford to have a few holes pickled in your posts.


    It's a pride thing, I like to be right.  That doesn't mean I don't like being wrong, in fact I enjoy being wrong because realising you WERE wrong makes you MORE right Smiley

    I like to follow the truth wherever it might lead me, accuracy is an important part of truth.


    Sure, but what I meant was new junk DNA being spontaneously generated, not just extra copies of existing junk DNA. Imperfect replication is likely to generate new fuckups at any time without relying on making new fuckups out of old fuckups.


    Sure, an inaccurate copy of existing data can cause junk DNA.  A frameshift mutation can screw up a massive chunk of duplicate DNA whilst not necessarily endangering the host organism because it still possesses a working copy of the original chunk of DNA but it's still mostly based on the original DNA (the input affects the output.)


    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #21 - July 13, 2010, 08:19 AM

    Well frameshifts can even be beneficial mutations (although you'd probably never get a creationist to admit that).

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #22 - July 13, 2010, 08:24 AM

    Well frameshifts can even be beneficial mutations (although you'd probably never get a creationist to admit that).


    *cough* nylonase *cough*  Smiley

    Mutations in duplicate DNA are a big candidate for creating successful mutations - especially as the duplicate can happen in one generation and then get passed on to numerous offspring without harm allowing the duplication to mutate in various ways and have nature destroy the least successful.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #23 - July 13, 2010, 01:22 PM

    *cough* What? *ahem*  grin12

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #24 - July 13, 2010, 01:30 PM

    I didn't read the copy/paste reply of MRasheed (how lame LOL.) Did he actually understand the evidence presented by TR?

    German ex-Muslim forumMy YouTubeList of Ex-Muslims
    Wikis: en de fr ar tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #25 - July 13, 2010, 01:32 PM

    Probably not. Smiley Anyway this was both guys setting out what they saw as their strongest opening arguments so I hope we'll get more content later.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #26 - July 13, 2010, 02:00 PM

    I'm not here to convert you, Blinky.

    Oh yes you a-are.  But if not, you're either a credo-spammer or else the obvious inference is that you've got lingering doubts about your religion that you can't shake off.
    Why else would you want (as you put it) to test yourself. If your faith was as firm as you say it is, you wouldn't need to test it, now would you.

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #27 - July 13, 2010, 02:10 PM

    He's doing what the evangelical Christians call "witnessing". IOW, the important thing is to stand up to the heathens and make a big noise but yes, a large part of it is the drowning out of self-doubt. If you make enough noise you can't hear the little voices inside your head. Wink

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #28 - July 13, 2010, 03:02 PM

    The problem is that the questions you all have about God/faith/religion have never been my kind of doubt questions.  All of my doubts involve the 'patient perseverance' issue and not freaking out over stuff and trusting God when things don't (seem) to go my way.


  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Comments
     Reply #29 - July 13, 2010, 03:09 PM

    The problem is that the questions you all have about God/faith/religion have never been my kind of doubt questions.  All of my doubts involve the 'patient perseverance' issue and not freaking out over stuff and trusting God when things don't (seem) to go my way.


    The discussion is supposed to be
    1: I show you the facts of evolution - you show me why they are wrong.
    2: You show me the evidence that the Quran was sent by a divine supernatural being - I show you why you are wrong.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »