RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cubist



Posts: 333
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:13   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,03:20)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 13 2011,22:24)

 
Quote
Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.


I believe they would say sequence the DNA of the original lizard population then sequence the DNA of the "evolved" lizard if there is extra stuff for creating cecal valves then that's new material.

That's nice. If they want their yammering about "novel genetic material" to be taken seriously, they simply must have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel". Don't let them get away with leaving "novel genetic material" undefined, and don't let them get away with vague handwaving in place of a usable protocol for distinguishing "novel" genetic material from non-"novel" genetic material.
Quote
Quote
If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.

Well they turn the argument the other way round, saying since you can't prove that there is new material how can you say it's an example of evolution, it's just the same lizard that has adapted to the new diet all the morphological features are due to epigenics. Nothing new has been added.

Insist on them laying out a usable protocol for determining whether or not a given chunk of genetic material really is "new", and if they can't do that, ask them how the hell they tell whether or not anything "new" has been added? Sorry, but "naah, it don't look 'novel' to me" just won't cut the mustard... and if they have no objective way to determine whether or not a given chunk of genetic material actually is 'novel', naah, it don't look 'novel' to me is all they've got!
Quote
Quote
Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"

They I assume they would reply: well you're the one who brought up the lizard in the first place as an example of evolution, but you have not shown that on a genetic level there is something new.

This word, 'new'. You keep using it, but if you don't have any way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material actually is 'new', you might as well be saying that you haven't shown that on a genetic level there is something zibbleblorf.
Quote
All that you have shown are morphological differences based on genetic plasticity. We don't deny this we're just saying that it's not an example of evolution, it's adaptation of already existing genetic material. Nothing new here, move along.

Again, do not let them get away with leaving their terms undefined. If they're going to make noise about how evolution requires 'new' genetic material, insist that they define what the fuck they mean by 'new' genetic material, and insist that they explain how the fuck they can tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is 'new'.
Quote
Also they have as yet not shown that they accept ID, that would leave them open to any sort of attack. They're just out to show the theory is wrong as according to them it can't be used to explain biodiversity as has been prooven in Behe's peer reviewed paper.

If they can't define 'new' genetic material, their assertion that evolution requires 'new' genetic material is no more meaningful than an assertion that evolution requires 'zibbleblorf' genetic material.

Keep on asking the IDiots to determine which bits of a nucleotide sequence are 'new', and make sure nobody can ignore the fact that they haven't even been able to tell which bits are or aren't 'new'.
Also: Work up some arbitrary pairs of sequences, with Sequence B of each pair being what happens when Sequence A of the pair gets hit with a particular kind of mutation. For each pair of sequences, does Sequence B contain any 'new' genetic material, and if so, which bits of Sequence B are the 'new' bits?

  
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]