Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,13:50    Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 25 2007,00:00) Back to Schindewolf! I am not sure why a hypothesis that has been essentially dead for 50 years holds so much fascination for you. However, given that it does perhaps you could explain how the information to constrain an organism's evolutionary pathway is held. What conceivable mechanism could stop evolution from taking place, or enable parts to evolve before they became useful? I am also curious about the saltational events. Do you see these as creating a new genus, order, phylum or what? What actually occurs during a saltational event? How does the DNA get changed and how does it know what to become, as I gather it is preparing for the next few million years of evolution and changing conditions? When did the last saltational event take place? I don't even know if the proposal is that one day a dinosaur chick hatched that had feathers and wings or if the process was spread over many generations, which might make it little different from the rapid evolution phase of punctuated equilibrium. I'm looking forward to your answers. I don't know. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,14:36    Quote I never said there was only one possible solution to the nylon problem. And I never said you claimed that.  Why are you lying about what I said? Your posts are perfectly easy to look up.   You said:   Quote anytime a colony of Acromobacter guttatus Sp. K172 is subjected to an environment where it must consume nylon to survive, the same frame shift will occur within some members of that colony, resulting in Flavobacterium Sp. KI72. It means what it says.  You predict that a replica experiment will result in every colony re-establishing itself on the nylon plate because every colony will have a member with that frameshift. I'm sorry if your prediction is stupid, but that's your responsibility.  You write it.   Quote I merely said that I would expect the same frame shift to occur more often and more rapidly than random mutations could account for. No, you said what I quoted above.   Every colony exposed gets the frameshift. We understand, believe me, we do. You have already concluded that evolution is wrong because you don't like it, so you are "predicting" that the evidence will show that it doesn't happen. But you don't honetly care about the content of your predictions.  They aren't relevant.  That's why you can't keep them straight over the course of two days. This is really one of those cases where you are better off with the truth, because lies are too hard to keep straight. People who care about the evidence look it up first, and then draw their conclusions.  Do you honestly think that anyone reading this board would call you a "look at the data first" kind of person? So embrace the truth about yourself.  You like your Creationism for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence (since you don't know what any of it is). Then you can stop making posts that make you look like a braindead moron, or a pathetic liar.

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,17:44    Denial Smith, CG, FTK....they all never remember what they said but, will be the first to tell you that you have misquoted them. -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,20:56    Quote (swbarnes2 @ Oct. 25 2007,14:36)         Quote I never said there was only one possible solution to the nylon problem. And I never said you claimed that.  Why are you lying about what I said? I was referring to this:         Quote (swbarnes2 @ Oct. 22 2007,20:55) Now, claiming that all of the survivors (because, you suppose, there is only a single possible evolutionary solution to the problem, which is ridiculous) would have the exact same mutation, that's at least imaginable. Now that I re-read it, I can see that you weren't really saying that I supposed there to be "only a single possible evolutionary solution to the problem" (although it came across that way when I first read it).  So I misinterpreted. Sorry I'm such a "liar".         Quote Your posts are perfectly easy to look up.   You said:             Quote anytime a colony of Acromobacter guttatus Sp. K172 is subjected to an environment where it must consume nylon to survive, the same frame shift will occur within some members of that colony, resulting in Flavobacterium Sp. KI72. It means what it says.  You predict that a replica experiment will result in every colony re-establishing itself on the nylon plate because every colony will have a member with that frameshift. I'm sorry if your prediction is stupid, but that's your responsibility.  You write it. You got me there.  I guess I'll have to stick with the prediction until it's proven wrong.         Quote             Quote I merely said that I would expect the same frame shift to occur more often and more rapidly than random mutations could account for. No, you said what I quoted above.   Here's the full context of that quote:         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2007,10:20) Speaking of predictions, I have another one for you: It's my hypothesis that random mutations are only neutral or deleterious - never advantageous.  All advantageous mutations are non-random and are therefore experimentally repeatable and will occurr too rapidly to be random. Therefore, I predict that anytime Acromobacter guttatus Sp. K172 is subjected to an environment where it must consume nylon to survive, the same frame shift will occur, resulting in Flavobacterium Sp. KI72. (emphasis added) So, as you can see, I actually said both things.         Quote Every colony exposed gets the frameshift. We understand, believe me, we do. You have already concluded that evolution is wrong because you don't like it, so you are "predicting" that the evidence will show that it doesn't happen. I have concluded that the currently held theory of evolution is wrong because I have yet to see any convincing evidence of it's mechanism.         Quote But you don't honetly care about the content of your predictions.  They aren't relevant.  That's why you can't keep them straight over the course of two days. This is really one of those cases where you are better off with the truth, because lies are too hard to keep straight. People who care about the evidence look it up first, and then draw their conclusions. Is that what you did? Quote  Do you honestly think that anyone reading this board would call you a "look at the data first" kind of person? Maybe not.  I don't really care what the readers of this board think of me.  The truth is, I was invited here.  I was supposed to come here and discuss Berg and Schindewolf, but I was immediately told that the fossil record doesn't matter because molecular evidence outweighs it.  I was then challenged to produce a hypothesis and predictions - so I did.  I probably shouldn't have jumped in so quickly, but oh well.  Now that we're here, let's see how it turns out.  Of all the predictions I've made, how many have been shown false?         Quote So embrace the truth about yourself.  You like your Creationism for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence (since you don't know what any of it is). I'll admit that my belief in God greatly weighs against any belief in random causes.  In fact what I'm actually advocating is Natural Theology - the belief that the study of nature reveals the mind and qualities of God.  I don't try to hide that.  I started this journey as a young earth creationist, but I've changed much about what I believe because of the evidence.  I refuse, however, to be an unthinking, uncritical lemming.  I will not blindly accept a theory for which there is very little in the way of true evidence.  Much of what I've seen of the case for the theory of evolution is circular.  It presupposes it's conclusion.  In fact the conclusion is a foregone one.  It's very hard sometimes to sift through the evidence without being caught up in the tautology in which it is interpreted.     Quote Then you can stop making posts that make you look like a braindead moron, or a pathetic liar. Thanks. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,21:06    And, another thing: If I were really only interested in reaffirming my own ideas with no concerns for opposing data or evidence, why on earth would I come here?!?! -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,22:57    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2007,03:06) And, another thing: If I were really only interested in reaffirming my own ideas with no concerns for opposing data or evidence, why on earth would I come here?!?! 1. I don't recall anyone saying you were here to reaffirm your beliefs, they said you were rock steady in them. 2. In order to convince us you are right, because you subconsciously think this will work, since you clearly think that they trump absolutely anything we can throw at them. Whenever someone gets an idea they believe is totally impervious to attack they immediately want to test it on the opposition because they expect them to fall on their knees and shield their eyes from it's brilliance. It's that simple, if you seriously think that your idea is absolutely, no matter what right, then you think deep down we will, eventually succumb to it. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,02:50    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 25 2007,20:56) In fact what I'm actually advocating is Natural Theology - the belief that the study of nature reveals the mind and qualities of God. And what have you found out so far? You've presumably been studying nature for a while now. What has Natural Theology revealed so far about the mind and qualities of God? Anything? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,11:17    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 26 2007,02:50) What has Natural Theology revealed so far about the mind and qualities of God? A fondness for beetles?

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:48    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 26 2007,02:50)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 25 2007,20:56) In fact what I'm actually advocating is Natural Theology - the belief that the study of nature reveals the mind and qualities of God. And what have you found out so far? You've presumably been studying nature for a while now. What has Natural Theology revealed so far about the mind and qualities of God? Anything? I've learned that God is an infinitely brilliant chemist, physisict and engineer. I still might not know much about how or why he did what he did (who does?), but I can surely see the elegance of it. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:50    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2007,19:48) I've learned that God is an infinitely brilliant chemist... I call bullshit! Since the synthesis of azadirachtin I think we can conclude that Steve Ley is an infinitely brilliant chemist! Louis -------------- Bye.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:51    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 25 2007,22:57)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2007,03:06) And, another thing: If I were really only interested in reaffirming my own ideas with no concerns for opposing data or evidence, why on earth would I come here?!?! 1. I don't recall anyone saying you were here to reaffirm your beliefs, they said you were rock steady in them. 2. In order to convince us you are right, because you subconsciously think this will work, since you clearly think that they trump absolutely anything we can throw at them. Whenever someone gets an idea they believe is totally impervious to attack they immediately want to test it on the opposition because they expect them to fall on their knees and shield their eyes from it's brilliance. It's that simple, if you seriously think that your idea is absolutely, no matter what right, then you think deep down we will, eventually succumb to it. There might be some truth to #2. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:56    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,13:50) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2007,19:48) I've learned that God is an infinitely brilliant chemist... I call bullshit! Since the synthesis of azadirachtin I think we can conclude that Steve Ley is an infinitely brilliant chemist! Louis Where did he get the idea for azadirachtin? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:59    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2007,13:56) Where did he get the idea for azadirachtin? From pixies. Prove that he didn't! -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,14:11    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2007,19:59) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2007,13:56) Where did he get the idea for azadirachtin? From pixies. Prove that he didn't! WAS NOT! It was leprechauns. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!! (All science so far) Louis -------------- Bye.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,14:27    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,14:11) WAS NOT! It was leprechauns. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!! (All science so far) Louis Had to be pixies; leprechauns don't live in south Asia so they don't have a clue (or even a gut feeling) about azadirachtin. Ha!  I've run rings around you logically. Now you must fall down and weep over the total collapse of your world view. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,14:44    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2007,20:27) Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,14:11) WAS NOT! It was leprechauns. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!! (All science so far) Louis Had to be pixies; leprechauns don't live in south Asia so they don't have a clue (or even a gut feeling) about azadirachtin. Ha!  I've run rings around you logically. Now you must fall down and weep over the total collapse of your world view. {Looks briefly like being about to fall down and weep, but then...} AH! But the leprechauns were on an exchange holiday with the pixies and thus had a MASSIVE grounding in what azadirachtin is and then they went to Cambridge to see Steve Ley where they did all the lab work (hmmm that's frighteningly close to reality!). Anyway, my leprechauns don;t have to match your pixetic level of detail. Go Leprechauns! Louis -------------- Bye.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,15:49    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,14:44) {Looks briefly like being about to fall down and weep, but then...} AH! But the leprechauns were on an exchange holiday with the pixies and thus had a MASSIVE grounding in what azadirachtin is and then they went to Cambridge to see Steve Ley where they did all the lab work (hmmm that's frighteningly close to reality!). Anyway, my leprechauns don;t have to match your pixetic level of detail. Go Leprechauns! Louis I’m going to try to ignore everything I’ve read and go with my gut, because there have been so many debates between Behe/Miller pixies and leprechauns, and articles written on this issue that it borders on insanity.  It doesn’t seem to me that there is any kind of consensus as to who is right and who is wrong. On the basis of this incredibly brilliant logic and non-evidence based thinking, I declare pixies the winner!!!one 1110 I will now post all of this (minus the illogical bits, of course) on YoungCosmos, where Sal will certainly understand that pixiesdidit, and he will tell his mom about it while she irons his shirts and balances his equations. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,15:52    [quote=Daniel Smith,Oct. 25 2007,20:56] Quote Now that I re-read it, I can see that you weren't really saying that I supposed there to be "only a single possible evolutionary solution to the problem" (although it came across that way when I first read it).  So I misinterpreted. Sorry I'm such a "liar". Oh no. If your behavior on this board had been such that you had demonstrated honesty, others would be much more willing to atribute an occasional wrong step to accident. But you have chosen to be dishonest on this board time and time again, so you don't get to claims "oops, you all are mean for thinking that my innocent mistake was malicious". You made your bed here, now you have to lie in it. Quote You got me there.  I guess I'll have to stick with the prediction until it's proven wrong. So you admit you wer telling untruths about your position. Wonderful.  At last, a little progress.  Thought if you'd said so at the start, there wouldn't be a whole sub-thread about how stupid/dishonest you are.  But that's the way you wanted it, so I suppose you are happy with the outcome. Your "prediction" has already been proved false.  If you do a replica plate of anything onto a hostile medium, you will not get survivors from every colony, as you predict.  Even if survival can be gained with only a single point mutation, as oppsoed to a frame-shift, you won't see every single colony containing a survivor. Quote I'll admit that my belief in God greatly weighs against any belief in random causes. We know that.   Just like a belief in God weighs in for many agaisnt beleiving that the planet is billions of years old. Or round. You are no different. Quote In fact what I'm actually advocating is Natural Theology - the belief that the study of nature reveals the mind and qualities of God. So you believe that the persistant adaptiveness of parasites that kill a hundred thousand children a year reveals...what, exactly about God? Please, be specific. Or, you can say nothing, and we'll all understand why. You want to believe that you are special, and that someone powerful loves you.  So you will rationalize that however you can, and if you can pretend that biology provesit, then you are satisfied. You are starting with the conclusion you want (god is looking out for me), and rationalizing afterwards. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support your cherished desire.  You can deal with reality, or you can continue to look like a liar/moron as your pathetic arguments get ripped to shreds. Quote I started this journey as a young earth creationist, but I've changed much about what I believe because of the evidence. But your core belief, that a Big Sky Daddy loves you and is looking out for you, you won't question.  So you keep straining to prove to the rest of us that it's so, when the evidence just doesn't support it. And again, if you really cared about the evidence, you would have consulted it before you made your stupid predictions.  You didn't therefore, you don't. Quote I refuse, however, to be an unthinking, uncritical lemming. Your ignorance of biology makes it impossible for you to be anything but. Learn some things, then you can start thinking and criticizing. Quote I will not blindly accept a theory for which there is very little in the way of true evidence. But you don't know the evidence. Quote It presupposes its conclusion. No, it doesn't.  You say that becuase you wish it were true  (because if evolution is false, then your Big Sky Daddy must love you), and because you don't know what the evidence is. And you will never learn, because you are too busy making up stupid predictions and lying about them later, and announcing that the evidence is all circular, without bothering to know what it is. I have a question for you...do you think that anyone on this board could honestly lay out what you perceive the evidence against evolution to be?  I'm pretty sure lots of people can. Do you honestly believe that you are capable of explaining what other people on this board believe to be the evidence in favor of evolution? Because I and everyone else on this board know that you can't, but I'm curious to know if you think so.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,13:08    I'm going to ignore most of your post because it is laced with personal insults which have little or nothing to do with the subject.  You have attempted to make this thread about me, when it should be about the evidence.  Something you have devoted almost no time to discussing.  For instance, you say that my prediction about Acromobacter guttatus Sp. K172 has been falsified, but where is the cited study?  What specific parameters were used?  How many plates were used?  Were all the bacteria on each plate Acromobacter guttatus Sp. K172?  In short, where is your evidence?   Quote (swbarnes2 @ Oct. 26 2007,15:52) So you believe that the persistant adaptiveness of parasites that kill a hundred thousand children a year reveals...what, exactly about God? Please, be specific. Or, you can say nothing, and we'll all understand why. I will address this one thing you brought up, because it keeps getting asked (in one form or another - "Why HIV/AIDS ?", etc.). The standard theological answer as to why there is disease and death, is due to the "Curse".  I don't know if you're familiar with Christian doctrine or not, but disease and death are expected from this theological perspective. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,13:10    What is your explanation as to why disease and death continue? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,13:20    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,14:11)     Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2007,19:59)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2007,13:56) Where did he get the idea for azadirachtin? From pixies. Prove that he didn't! WAS NOT! It was leprechauns. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!! (All science so far) Louis I'd argue that he got the idea from azadirachtin. Arguing that Steve Ley is an "infinitely brilliant chemist", because he figured out how to synthesize something that already exists in a natural form, is like arguing that a cover band is brilliant because they can play someone else's music.  They might be great musicians, but they have not shown any creativity or originality by merely copying someone else's work.  They (and he) surely have not shown "infinite brilliance"! -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,15:22    Back to another prediction I made:     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,15:32) The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought. Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought. In researching the phenomena of overlapping genes, I found that their initial discovery in bacteriophages was followed by speculation that perhaps they evolved due to a lack of informational space in small genomes.  Their subsequent discovery in viruses  seemed to confirm this hypothesis.   They were then discovered in mammalian mitochondrial DNA (example) - which led to speculation that they might be more common than previously thought. They are.  I found this article. which shows that not only are overlapping genes fairly common in mammalian genomes, but there are even triple and quadruple overlaps! (Table of triple overlaps for human and mouse genomes) And:     Quote In the human genome we also found a segment with four exon overlapping genes: LOC338549, IDI2, HT009, and IDI1. So it would seem, from a cursory browsing of the scientific literature, that my prediction is holding true so far.  Of course, one could argue that this data was already available when I made the prediction - so my prediction was dishonest.  Of course such an accusation would fly in the face of your collective observation regarding my complete lack of knowledge on the subjects of which I speak!  So either I'm much more cunning and aware than I let on, or my prediction is (for the time being at least) a good one. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,16:16    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 28 2007,15:22) Back to another prediction I made:         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,15:32) The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought. Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought. In researching the phenomena of overlapping genes, I found that their initial discovery in bacteriophages was followed by speculation that perhaps they evolved due to a lack of informational space in small genomes.  Their subsequent discovery in viruses  seemed to confirm this hypothesis.   They were then discovered in mammalian mitochondrial DNA (example) - which led to speculation that they might be more common than previously thought. They are.  I found this article. which shows that not only are overlapping genes fairly common in mammalian genomes, but there are even triple and quadruple overlaps! (Table of triple overlaps for human and mouse genomes) And:       Quote In the human genome we also found a segment with four exon overlapping genes: LOC338549, IDI2, HT009, and IDI1. So it would seem, from a cursory browsing of the scientific literature, that my prediction is holding true so far.  Of course, one could argue that this data was already available when I made the prediction - so my prediction was dishonest.  Of course such an accusation would fly in the face of your collective observation regarding my complete lack of knowledge on the subjects of which I speak!  So either I'm much more cunning and aware than I let on, or my prediction is (for the time being at least) a good one. Not really. It's like saying "there is more to find out" and when more is found out, it confirms your prediction. Make a specific prediction, and then maybe crow about it when it comes true. I don't see the word "overlapping" in there. The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought. The daleks will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought. And look, they are! Prediction came true. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,16:58    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 28 2007,15:22) Back to another prediction I made:       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,15:32) The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought. Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought. In researching the phenomena of overlapping genes, I found that their initial discovery in bacteriophages was followed by speculation that perhaps they evolved due to a lack of informational space in small genomes.  Their subsequent discovery in viruses  seemed to confirm this hypothesis.   They were then discovered in mammalian mitochondrial DNA (example) - which led to speculation that they might be more common than previously thought. So your predictions, in addition to being horseshit because they aren't about anything in particular, have no ability to distinguish between evolutionary theory and whatever it is you think. What do any of the data have to do with the genetic code, which really isn't very complex? What's so complex about coding for 20 amino acids, start, and stop in 64 codons? Or were you just using "genetic code" in a profoundly ignorant way? If not, would you mind commenting on the intelligence of having the same codon that starts protein synthesis also encoding the amino acid methionine? I ask because it seems really, really stupid to me; I can improve the design with my measly human intelligence. Does that therefore make me smarter than God? Why would one want to worship an unintelligent God? Do you see how the ID movement is bad theology slathered onto nonexistent science? Since your hypothesis about noncoding DNA was dead wrong, what's your revised hypothesis?

Mark Iosim Posts: 27 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,18:35    I am puzzled with random mutation, because it reminds me the protein folding paradox that states: if a protein were to fold by randomly sampling of all possible conformations, it would take about 10E10 years to finish folding. Can any body help me to find a source of information that explains how random mutation able to produce adaptive changes. What kind of statistical calculations supports this theory? Thanks

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2007,19:40    Empirical observation shows it, as does Genetic Algorithms ability to solve seemingly intractable problems. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,00:10    Quote (Mark Iosim @ Oct. 28 2007,18:35) I am puzzled with random mutation, because it reminds me the protein folding paradox that states: if a protein were to fold by randomly sampling of all possible conformations, it would take about 10E10 years to finish folding. Can any body help me to find a source of information that explains how random mutation able to produce adaptive changes. What kind of statistical calculations supports this theory? Thanks Random mutation doesn't do it by itself. You've bought into the lie that evolution is random, just because a part of it (mutation) is random only in a very limited way (wrt fitness). Why would you buy into such an obvious lie? Also, the amount of time it takes a protein to fold is irrelevant to your question, as is the computational time required to predict it. It folds. How do you explain the fact that starting with a random sequence, we can use mutation and selection to evolve a function in real time?

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,13:52    Quote You have attempted to make this thread about me, when it should be about the evidence. But the point is that you are immune to the evidence, because you aren't reasoning from evidence to conclusion. You are starting with your conclusion, and looking for evidence to fit your conclusion, which is that a powerful God is looking out for you. That is the key divide between yourself and the other people on this board, and until you see that, no oe can convince you of anything. You already demonstrated that, when you looked at a presentation of the raw data, which showed that coding DNA was much more conserved than non-coding DNA, and you concluded that it showed the opposite. There's just no point showing you evidence when your unacknowledged bias prevents you from seeing it properly.   Quote For instance, you say that my prediction about Acromobacter guttatus Sp. K172 has been falsified, but where is the cited study? Why the hell can't you look it up yourself?  Why is everyone but yourself responsible for the accuracy of your claims?   Quote The standard theological answer as to why there is disease and death, is due to the "Curse". Oh no. You are lying again. You said that nature reveals things about God, not about something else. If you meant to say "100,000 dead children per year tell me that my god created world that was guarenteed to get horrible broken, and he refuses to lift a finger to help innocent children suffer and die becuase of that", then you should have been honest enough to say that. Or if you meant "the great adaptability of the malaria parasite tells me that God thought it was a good idea to supernaturally aid the evolution of an organism that kills 100,000 children a year", you should have written that. But saying that "I look at nature to tell me about God, and I conclude that this unpleasent bit of nature tells me nothing about God, but only confirms the story I already believe about a curse" is dishonest. And I'm sorry that you object to that label, but all you have to do is stop posting dishonestly. For starters, if you really, really think that the evolution of malaria, both in its ability to evade the human immune system, and its ability to resist drug treatments, both of which allow it to kill 1000,000 children a year tells you something about God, then tell us exactly what that something is.  (Hint: it has to start with "This tells me that God..." and that '...' has to be something other than "is so inscrutable that I refuse to conclude anything")

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,14:07    Quote (Mark Iosim @ Oct. 28 2007,18:35) I am puzzled with random mutation, because it reminds me the protein folding paradox that states: if a protein were to fold by randomly sampling of all possible conformations, it would take about 10E10 years to finish folding. First of all, who told you that was true?  Does the source have any idea what they are talking about? What you are saying is something like saying there's no way for the Colorado River to flow, because the water would have to test every single possible path from its source to the sea, and that would take longer thatn the earth has existed. Well, first, the Colorado River does flow.  So saying that it can't without supernatural help is just crazy.  Second, the river flows the path it does because water goes downhill.  No supernatural influence necessary. Proteins fold mostly the same way.  They fold in the way that their amnio acids naturally want to be arranged.     Quote Can any body help me to find a source of information that explains how random mutation able to produce adaptive changes. DNA changes happen.  That's empirical fact.  Some of them help their bearers survive better.  That's also empirical fact.  Do you want papers where these empirical facts were observed?   Quote What kind of statistical calculations supports this theory? Rather than asking everyone here to re-invent the wheel for you, why don't you find a paper on this topic in PubMed, and come back here with any particular points which you feel are inadequately supported in that paper. PLOS, or PNAS, or some other publically available journal would be best, of course.  But I'm sure that somone here will have a subscription to whatever peer-reviewed journal you choose to consult.

Mark Iosim Posts: 27 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,19:57    Quote JAM: “Random mutation doesn't do it by itself. You've bought into the lie that evolution is random, just because a part of it (mutation) is random only in a very limited way (wrt fitness). Why would you buy into such an obvious lie?” It could be that inadvertently I was brainwashed or misunderstood the following passage from Wikipedia about adaptation:   “Although the vast majority of genetic variants arising from errors of DNA replication or recombination do not confer any advantage to an individual organism, the multitude of variation contained within the collective genomes of a species provides much material for natural selection to work upon allowing many adaptations to be manifest.” If  “errors of DNA replication or recombination” are not random, the only option remains is that mutation of DNA is directed by some mechanisms that I am not aware of. Do you know anything about these mechanisms? Quote JAM: “Also, the amount of time it takes a protein to fold is irrelevant to your question, as is the computational time required to predict it. It folds.” It is very relevant, because Levinthal paradox simply serves as reminder that purely random search may not succeed. Later were indeed found the specialized proteins, called chaperones, whose functions are to aid in the folding of other proteins. Quote JAM: “How do you explain the fact that starting with a random sequence, we can use mutation and selection to evolve a function in real time?” I don't know. Do you? Quote swbarnes2: “What you are saying is something like saying there's no way for the Colorado River to flow, because the water would have to test every single possible path from its source to the sea, and that would take longer that the earth has existed. Well, first, the Colorado River does flow.  So saying that it can't without supernatural help is just crazy.  Second, the river flows the path it does because water goes downhill.  No supernatural influence necessary. Proteins fold mostly the same way.  They fold in the way that their amnio acids naturally want to be arranged.” Interesting point. I have an answer, but it is long and  irrelevant to the topic of this thread as well as your question. P.S. For the record, I have no problem with Darwin and his theory. For his time it was an enormous achievement.  I just have a problem that some scientists do not admit that the mechanism of biological evolution is still a mystery. And it remains a  mystery not only because we are separated from it by a million years; it remains a mystery even we are staring at a colony of microorganism adapting to harmful conditions created in a laboratory. Also about one comment about dishonesty. From Wikipedia: “There are three basic mechanisms of evolutionary change: natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. Natural selection favors genes that improve capacity for survival and reproduction.” The authors of this articles forgot to include the main mechanism of evolutionary change that is called UNKNOWN. And absence of this admission is a very relevant to subject of dishonesty.

Pages: (58) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard