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) < ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... >

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,21:43    Quote (swbarnes2 @ Oct. 31 2007,20:05) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2007,19:08) So not only is the myth of "junk DNA" being systematically shattered, I'm curious...do you honestly think that the authors who wrote this paper think that they have shattered major parts of the theory of evolution, as you think this paper has? If not, why do you think that we should take your grossly ignorant opnion over theirs? In addition, why aren't these discoveries being made by ID proponents...like, um, at the Discovery Institute? Why aren't discoveries like these motivating people like you to start careers in science? You know you're desperately spinning this, and you don't even believe your own spin.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,22:08    I'd think having a specific goal would probably produce less diversity than what we see on this planet. As it is, the effective goal of the members of a population is to out produce their relatives in their current environment - and the environment is different for every species, since every species is part of the environment of all their neighbors. I'd also think that much of the complexity is a result of dealing with the neighbors (i.e., predators, prey, competitors, or pests that arne't in those other categories), and needing lots of different strategies to do that. Henry

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,02:59    Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2007,22:08) I'd think having a specific goal would probably produce less diversity than what we see on this planet. As it is, the effective goal of the members of a population is to out produce their relatives in their current environment - and the environment is different for every species, since every species is part of the environment of all their neighbors. I'd also think that much of the complexity is a result of dealing with the neighbors (i.e., predators, prey, competitors, or pests that arne't in those other categories), and needing lots of different strategies to do that. Henry I suppose it was Gould who noticed that higher intelligence must have had liking in beetles because there are so many beetles species. Anyway the same argument can be used for "natural selection" -  Natural selection must have had liking in forming beetles because there are so many species. Obviously even greatest darwinian  fantasy could not explain some weird creatures like Bocydium, Sphongorus - species, Cyphonia . No wonder that "natural selection" make wrong conclusions as to the nature of many cases of mimicry as discussed elsewhere. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,03:49    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,02:59) Obviously even greatest darwinian  fantasy could not explain some weird creatures like Bocydium, Sphongorus - species, Cyphonia . No wonder that "natural selection" make wrong conclusions as to the nature of many cases of mimicry as discussed elsewhere. That's a very astute observation VMartin. I don't suppose you'd care to note the "correct" conclusion in this case if "natural selection" is not the answer? I'm surprised you don't have your own lab already VMartin, and a research team. Your cutting insights sure leave these poor darwinists gasping for words. Your forward looking thinking puts Dawkins, Gould etc to shame. I can't wait to read your book, your first book that is, as no doubt your eventual output will rival Dawkins etc. I look forward to your receiving the Nobel, when they recognize your so-far hidden genius. You deserve it. -------------- 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

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,19:29    Quote (JAM @ Oct. 31 2007,19:17) It's biology. You delete a gene with an essential function. You replace it with random sequence. You go through cycles of genetic variation (random wrt fitness) and selection (only reproduction). You end up with a functional sequence that is nothing like the designed/evolved one that it replaced. How do you explain that? Be more specific.  Show me the paper that describes this experiment.  I will no longer answer your questions unless you provide complete explanations with references. -------------- "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

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,19:37    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2007,19:29) Quote (JAM @ Oct. 31 2007,19:17) It's biology. You delete a gene with an essential function. You replace it with random sequence. You go through cycles of genetic variation (random wrt fitness) and selection (only reproduction). You end up with a functional sequence that is nothing like the designed/evolved one that it replaced. How do you explain that? Be more specific.  Show me the paper that describes this experiment.  I will no longer answer your questions unless you provide complete explanations with references. Your petulant demand is pretty damn funny, coming from a guy who claims that a paper in which the authors explicitly told him that they weren't looking at repeated sequences has something global to say about junk DNA. Moreover, you don't have the integrity to address that problem when I pointed it out to you. OK, I'll give in to your whining, but you have to answer a question first. What level reduction do you consider to represent lack of function? For example, if your heart rate was reduced a million-fold, to ~1 beat every 10 days, you'd be dead. Would you agree that your heart failed to function--that it was not meeting design criteria, so to speak?

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,19:48    Quote (JAM @ Oct. 31 2007,19:26)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2007,19:08) More confirmation: Of what? Did you read this? Yes I did.   Quote     Quote By combining chromatin immunoprecipitation and high-density oligonucleotide arrays interrogating the [bold]nonrepeat[/bold] genomic sequences of chromosomes 21 and 22 at 35 base pair (bp) resolution (Kapranov et al., 2002), the positions of binding for three human transcription factors (TFs), cMyc, Sp1, and p53, were determined within two cell lines (cMyc and Sp1 in Jurkat, p53 in HCT1116). What does "nonrepeat" mean, Daniel? Just what it says.   Quote What proportion of "junk" is repeat, and what proportion is nonrepeat (unique)? There is no junk   Quote     Quote So not only is the myth of "junk DNA" being systematically shattered, but they are also finding evidence that coding and non-coding sequences not only overlap each other, but also share regulatory factors. How much DNA was reclassified as something other than the provisional classification of "junk" in this case? They didn't specifically mention "junk".   Quote What proportion of the genome? Be precise and systematic. Since they didn't refer to any portion of the genome as junk, I cannot answer that.   Quote What proportion of the genome did they throw out when they only looked at "nonrepeat" sequences? Be precise and systematic. I could not find that information in the paper.   Are you equating repeat sequences with "junk"?   Quote You lie like a rug, Daniel. The fact that you're lying to yourself doesn't excuse your behavior. I know: "Liar, liar - pants on fire!" What are we - in 3rd grade here? You may be a smart, educated guy - but you're socially retarded. -------------- "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: Nov. 01 2007,19:50    Quote (JAM @ Nov. 01 2007,19:37)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2007,19:29)     Quote (JAM @ Oct. 31 2007,19:17) It's biology. You delete a gene with an essential function. You replace it with random sequence. You go through cycles of genetic variation (random wrt fitness) and selection (only reproduction). You end up with a functional sequence that is nothing like the designed/evolved one that it replaced. How do you explain that? Be more specific.  Show me the paper that describes this experiment.  I will no longer answer your questions unless you provide complete explanations with references. Your petulant demand is pretty damn funny, coming from a guy who claims that a paper in which the authors explicitly told him that they weren't looking at repeated sequences has something global to say about junk DNA. Moreover, you don't have the integrity to address that problem when I pointed it out to you. OK, I'll give in to your whining, but you have to answer a question first. What level reduction do you consider to represent lack of function? For example, if your heart rate was reduced a million-fold, to ~1 beat every 10 days, you'd be dead. Would you agree that your heart failed to function--that it was not meeting design criteria, so to speak? No more games.  Show me the paper. -------------- "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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,19:54    Vicky It was Haldane.  You know even less than you think. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,20:02    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2007,19:48)     Quote (JAM @ Oct. 31 2007,19:26)  What proportion of "junk" is repeat, and what proportion is nonrepeat (unique)? There is no junk I'm sorry, but I don't understand your sentence fragment.   Quote   Quote Quote So not only is the myth of "junk DNA" being systematically shattered, but they are also finding evidence that coding and non-coding sequences not only overlap each other, but also share regulatory factors. How much DNA was reclassified as something other than the provisional classification of "junk" in this case? They didn't specifically mention "junk". Of course not! YOU did, and you said that THIS PAPER was the evidence. Which one of us is the tard here?   Quote   Quote What proportion of the genome? Be precise and systematic. Since they didn't refer to any portion of the genome as junk, I cannot answer that. The answer isn't in the paper. You'd have to know the answer before concluding that this was evidence supporting your claim that "junk DNA" was: 1) a myth, and 2) being "systematically shattered." You're just lying, Daniel. Hell, the VISTA output showed you what proportion is made up of repeats, so you've already been shown the relevant evidence in detail, but as usual, you ignore it in favor of wishful thinking and rank dishonesty.        Quote   Quote What proportion of the genome did they throw out when they only looked at "nonrepeat" sequences? Be precise and systematic. I could not find that information in the paper. I didn't say it was in the paper. Having that information is a prerequisite for your claim, though, if you thought that this was evidence supporting it. Wishful thinking doesn't excuse lying.   Quote Are you equating repeat sequences with "junk"? No, obviously, I'm not. This paper explicitly dealt with nonrepeat sequences. If I ask you the simple question, "How much of what is classified as "junk DNA" is made up of repeats?" it's pretty damn obvious to anyone who isn't socially retarded that I am very well aware that some is made up of repeats, and some isn't. For you to use this as evidence for your fantasy hypothesis, you need to know the proportions. Not only don't you know, you are afraid to learn.      Quote   Quote You lie like a rug, Daniel. The fact that you're lying to yourself doesn't excuse your behavior. I know: "Liar, liar - pants on fire!" No, you already falsely accused me of namecalling. I am accusing you of specific lies. For all I know, you might be a paragon of honesty, but I doubt it. What does the Bible say about bearing false witness? What does it say about judging on the basis of mere hearsay?   Quote What are we - in 3rd grade here? No, I'd say you're at about 6th grade in terms of biology.   Quote You may be a smart, educated guy - but you're socially retarded. Does that make you feel better? How would it excuse your relentless lying?

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,20:08    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2007,19:50) Quote (JAM @ Nov. 01 2007,19:37)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2007,19:29)       Quote (JAM @ Oct. 31 2007,19:17) It's biology. You delete a gene with an essential function. You replace it with random sequence. You go through cycles of genetic variation (random wrt fitness) and selection (only reproduction). You end up with a functional sequence that is nothing like the designed/evolved one that it replaced. How do you explain that? Be more specific.  Show me the paper that describes this experiment.  I will no longer answer your questions unless you provide complete explanations with references. Your petulant demand is pretty damn funny, coming from a guy who claims that a paper in which the authors explicitly told him that they weren't looking at repeated sequences has something global to say about junk DNA. Moreover, you don't have the integrity to address that problem when I pointed it out to you. OK, I'll give in to your whining, but you have to answer a question first. What level reduction do you consider to represent lack of function? For example, if your heart rate was reduced a million-fold, to ~1 beat every 10 days, you'd be dead. Would you agree that your heart failed to function--that it was not meeting design criteria, so to speak? No more games.  Show me the paper. I'm not playing games. I'm anticipating your predictably dishonest and cowardly game, Daniel.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,05:08    Quote (JAM @ Oct. 31 2007,19:17) It's biology. You delete a gene with an essential function. You replace it with random sequence. You go through cycles of genetic variation (random wrt fitness) and selection (only reproduction). You end up with a functional sequence that is nothing like the designed/evolved one that it replaced. Hey JAM, I'm curious, too.  What's the reference for your claim? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,11:43    I believe I know of the paper JAM is referring to - it came up last month (hint: 10^6 is not the same as six-fold).  I haven't read it myself, though. I think we can safely assume that Daniel will maintain that even a million-fold reduction in function is still functional.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,20:24    Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Nov. 02 2007,11:43) I believe I know of the paper JAM is referring to - it came up last month (hint: 10^6 is not the same as six-fold).  I haven't read it myself, though. I think we can safely assume that Daniel will maintain that even a million-fold reduction in function is still functional. Yup. Even if it's his heart.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2007,16:05    Quote (JAM @ Nov. 02 2007,20:24) Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Nov. 02 2007,11:43) I believe I know of the paper JAM is referring to - it came up last month (hint: 10^6 is not the same as six-fold).  I haven't read it myself, though. I think we can safely assume that Daniel will maintain that even a million-fold reduction in function is still functional. Yup. Even if it's his heart. Still waiting... -------------- "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: Nov. 03 2007,16:47    Meanwhile, here's a graphic description of the overwhelming complexity within the multi-layered encoding within genomes:     Quote Figure 2. Transcriptional complexity of a gene. Hypothetical gene cluster with detailed zoom-in for highlighted gene demonstrates that a single gene can have multiple transcriptional start sites (TSSs) as well as many interleaved coding and noncoding transcripts. Exons are shown as red boxes and TSSs are green right-angled arrows. Known short RNAs such as snoRNAs and miRNAs can be processed from intronic sequences and novel species of short RNAs that cluster around the beginning and ends of genes have recently been discovered (see text). From the paper Origin of phenotypes: Genes and transcripts. Although this illustration is hypothetical, it represents what the author expects to find and indeed what the ENCODE scientists did find, in their recent groundbreaking research.  This prompted the author to make this statement:   Quote Thus, in light of this overlapping interleaved network of protein-coding and noncoding transcripts, it seems appropriate to reconsider the concept of gene in describing the relationship of a portion of a genome to a phenotype. -------------- "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

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2007,20:17    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 03 2007,16:05)   Quote (JAM @ Nov. 02 2007,20:24)   Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Nov. 02 2007,11:43) I believe I know of the paper JAM is referring to - it came up last month (hint: 10^6 is not the same as six-fold).  I haven't read it myself, though. I think we can safely assume that Daniel will maintain that even a million-fold reduction in function is still functional. Yup. Even if it's his heart. Still waiting... Yes, I am too. Did you notice that Kevin predicted your weaseling perfectly? Quote Meanwhile, here's a graphic description of the overwhelming complexity within the multi-layered encoding within genomes: In what way is it "overwhelming" if it can be so concisely described? Is it more overwhelming than the fluidity and fuzziness of endocytic pathways, for example? Quote Quote Figure 2. Transcriptional complexity of a gene. And how is that more overwhelming than the complexity of the multitude of functions of the product of that gene? What about alternative splicing? And why were you lying and claiming that this says anything about junk DNA? Quote Although this illustration is hypothetical, it represents what the author expects to find... But the author isn't a creationist. Why didn't you find what YOU predicted you'd find? Why did you go off searching for something else to cherry-pick and misrepresent instead of revising or discarding your hypothesis about coding vs. noncoding conservation? Quote ... and indeed what the ENCODE scientists did find, in their recent groundbreaking research. But none of those scientists are creationists either, and no creationist or ID proponent predicted this, so your attempt to spin it after the fact is just plain dishonest. If you aren't predicting, it ain't science. Quote This prompted the author to make this statement: Quotes aren't data. You struck out when we dragged you kicking and screaming to the actual data. Quote Thus, in light of this overlapping interleaved network of protein-coding and noncoding transcripts, it seems appropriate to reconsider the concept of gene in describing the relationship of a portion of a genome to a phenotype. We've already reconsidered it (successfully) several times in my lifetime, every time in an evolutionary context, so I don't see this as helping you out. Can you offer more than platitudes about how overwhelming it is to you?

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,04:34    Sorry to break in guys, i'm just new here, but i've got a few questions for Daniel. First of all, what do you want Daniel? I don't get it, are you interested in reality of are you interested in confirming you're own thoughts? Because if it is the latter, that's not what science is about. I also read you were more interested in the scientists who were shunned by the scientific world, the one's who were laughed at etc etc. But also, that's not where it is about, it's pure about evidence. Hell, it doesn't matter if correct statements are brought by a light-blue, Satan worshipping fairy with daisy's sprouting out of it's head: evidence is evidence, no matter who brought it up. Persons do not matter, and so does your own thoughts about this subject. If you want to learn, let those things go. I don't have the idea you want to learn, but only want to confirm you're own thoughts, that there must be some form of design, designer or end-goal. I think you have emotionally attached yourself to your own idea about reality, i wonder why. This may be a lot for me to ask, because i'm new, but maybe you could give a little summary about what you think Daniel. Maybe this would help the discussion in general, it's getting a little out of hand because people start ignoring important parts of posts from eachother.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,12:50    Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 04 2007,04:34) Sorry to break in guys, i'm just new here, but i've got a few questions for Daniel. First of all, what do you want Daniel? I don't get it, are you interested in reality of are you interested in confirming you're own thoughts? Because if it is the latter, that's not what science is about. I also read you were more interested in the scientists who were shunned by the scientific world, the one's who were laughed at etc etc. But also, that's not where it is about, it's pure about evidence. Hell, it doesn't matter if correct statements are brought by a light-blue, Satan worshipping fairy with daisy's sprouting out of it's head: evidence is evidence, no matter who brought it up. Persons do not matter, and so does your own thoughts about this subject. If you want to learn, let those things go. I don't have the idea you want to learn, but only want to confirm you're own thoughts, that there must be some form of design, designer or end-goal. I think you have emotionally attached yourself to your own idea about reality, i wonder why. This may be a lot for me to ask, because i'm new, but maybe you could give a little summary about what you think Daniel. Maybe this would help the discussion in general, it's getting a little out of hand because people start ignoring important parts of posts from eachother. First of all, we all have preconceived ideas we are hoping to verify.  Many here have a preconceived notion that there is no God.  They are not even willing to consider that option.  In fact many will say that such an option is outside the realm of science.  So even if there really is a God, they are forced to find another explanation - no matter how ridiculous.  Is that "seeking the truth"? I think I've laid out my thoughts and goals pretty straightforwardly throughout the 18 pages of this thread.  I'm willing to let go of anything I believe - provided the evidence against it is convincing.  So far, I've seen nothing convincing here.  The fossil record and the molecular evidence are both consistent with a belief that God designed and implemented life on this planet. The fossil record shows "explosions" of lifeforms suddenly appearing and then diversifying. The molecular evidence shows an extremely complex, sophisticated, multi-layered coding system that defies any unguided evolutionary explanation.  If you notice, most of the more recent papers don't even bother to speculate anymore as to how such a system evolved.  It's beyond explanation. In fact, the more I learn, the more convinced I am of the infinite intelligence of the designing God. Now, I could take your questions and turn them around and ask them of you:  What is your goal?  What are your preconceived ideas?  Are you willing to let them go and consider the possibility of a designing God? -------------- "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

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:05    I agree that lots of people also have preconcieved ideas about a god. But there is also something else, it looks like you're emotionally attached to your preconcieved ideas. Note that the word "God" doesn't mean anything by itself, it's rather a coat rack (i hope i translate that correctly) on wich people put there own image of the word "God". The word "God" is thus worthless to science. Science can only work with certain images of the word "God". It's so easy to modify that image. Not even that long ago, and even today, people still beleive that God created and designed everything around us, but not in the way you would beleive it. The role of God has changed, it's like the God of the Gaps. Quote The fossil record and the molecular evidence are both consistent with a belief that God designed and implemented life on this planet. Explain yourself. Because i don't see why. I'm only seeing a certain interpretation of the available evidence so the evidence fits in your beleifs. But is that interpretation in agreement with reality? Ofcourse, you can ask the same with other interpretations. Quote The fossil record shows "explosions" of lifeforms suddenly appearing and then diversifying. You shouldn't take the world "explosion" too literally. It still took several millions of years, and that's VERY long and LOTS of generations fit into that. Quote The molecular evidence shows an extremely complex, sophisticated, multi-layered coding system that defies any unguided evolutionary explanation. No, it does not. It's complex in your eyes, nothing more. Hell, we may meet aliens who laugh at our simple planet with our simple lifeforms. It's simply not an argument to say it's complex compared what we can do. The fact that we don't get it, is no argument for design, it's only an argument for our limited knowledge. Quote Now, I could take your questions and turn them around and ask them of you:  What is your goal?  What are your preconceived ideas?  Are you willing to let them go and consider the possibility of a designing God? My goal? To learn more about reality. My preconcieved ideas? No idea, i don't give a ratsass if our planet was made by a God, erupted out of natural laws or made by aliens from starsystems thousands of lightyears away for an experiment. I just care about what's true. Ofcourse i consider the possibility of a designing God, but as i sad before there is no evidence or objective sign for such a being.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:05    Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 04 2007,04:34) I also read you were more interested in the scientists who were shunned by the scientific world, the one's who were laughed at etc etc. But also, that's not where it is about, it's pure about evidence. Hell, it doesn't matter if correct statements are brought by a light-blue, Satan worshipping fairy with daisy's sprouting out of it's head: evidence is evidence, no matter who brought it up. Let me also add; these scientists have theories that have never been falsified. Their ideas were ridiculed - because they did not fit the current paradigm, but I've seen no convincing evidence against them.  The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) of Dr. John Davison is a good example. (link) Many here and elsewhere have ridiculed Dr. Davison for his personal habits, grumpiness, lack of civility, etc., or they have ridiculed his hypothesis from afar, but how many have systematically and thoroughly reviewed it and presented convincing evidence against it?  I've not seen any. The same can be said about the theories of Berg and Schindewolf I've presented (albeit limitedly) here.  No one has presented any evidence against them.  Most of it was just preconceived suppositions that they must somehow be wrong because they didn't fit the current paradigm!  In fact there's been an almost complete lack of willingness to discuss their ideas - with some frantic subject-changing going on. So... Yes... I do look for those on the fringes who have presented differing ideas.  If their ideas have been shown wrong, I don't give them much weight, but if it's just that they were made fun of, that doesn't hold much sway with me. -------------- "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

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:12    I don't know if they're not falsified, so i'm asking other people now if they do know if they're falsified and if they can post links to papers and other stuff about it. (and please, no ad hominems on that :) )

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:25    Schindewolf's theories were devastated by particulate inheritance and the mathematical synthesis.   it makes no sense whatsoever to have reserve genetic material, in advance of adaptive radiations, sitting around in the genome. unless we now have a function for noncoding DNA?  not seen that advanced but it would still be a greatly different take from schindewolf. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:35    Thanks, do you have links to articles about that? Would be nice ;) (just here to learn :D)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:36    Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 04 2007,13:05) I agree that lots of people also have preconcieved ideas about a god. But there is also something else, it looks like you're emotionally attached to your preconcieved ideas. Note that the word "God" doesn't mean anything by itself, it's rather a coat rack (i hope i translate that correctly) on wich people put there own image of the word "God". The word "God" is thus worthless to science. Science can only work with certain images of the word "God". It's so easy to modify that image. Not even that long ago, and even today, people still beleive that God created and designed everything around us, but not in the way you would beleive it. The role of God has changed, it's like the God of the Gaps.           Quote The fossil record and the molecular evidence are both consistent with a belief that God designed and implemented life on this planet. Explain yourself. Because i don't see why. I'm only seeing a certain interpretation of the available evidence so the evidence fits in your beleifs. But is that interpretation in agreement with reality? Ofcourse, you can ask the same with other interpretations.           Quote The fossil record shows "explosions" of lifeforms suddenly appearing and then diversifying. You shouldn't take the world "explosion" too literally. It still took several millions of years, and that's VERY long and LOTS of generations fit into that.           Quote The molecular evidence shows an extremely complex, sophisticated, multi-layered coding system that defies any unguided evolutionary explanation. No, it does not. It's complex in your eyes, nothing more. Hell, we may meet aliens who laugh at our simple planet with our simple lifeforms. It's simply not an argument to say it's complex compared what we can do. The fact that we don't get it, is no argument for design, it's only an argument for our limited knowledge.           Quote Now, I could take your questions and turn them around and ask them of you:  What is your goal?  What are your preconceived ideas?  Are you willing to let them go and consider the possibility of a designing God? My goal? To learn more about reality. My preconcieved ideas? No idea, i don't give a ratsass if our planet was made by a God, erupted out of natural laws or made by aliens from starsystems thousands of lightyears away for an experiment. I just care about what's true. Ofcourse i consider the possibility of a designing God, but as i sad before there is no evidence or objective sign for such a being. You are right. I am emotionally attached to my preconceived ideas - and I will only let go of them when convinced otherwise. And (I've said this before), I am not advocating a "god of the gaps", I am advocating a "God of all that is".  I give him credit for everything - even those things that man thinks he has explained.  Just because we can explain something doesn't mean we have eliminated design from the argument.  I can explain many of the systems at work within my car, does that mean it wasn't designed?  Obviously not.  It only means I have gained an understanding of the designer's systems. So... my definition of God is that of an eternal, infinitely intelligent, cognitive agent that exists in a parallel dimension to our own. Thus, he is a being not bound by time and capable of doing anything.  Now, I realize that that last part seems like a cop-out, since someone who can do anything also explains everything, but let me also point out that - if life were created by a being of infinite intelligence - we would expect to find certain things within life. Let's use your aliens as an example.  If we were to find an object that we believed to be created by an alien race more intelligent than our own, we would expect to find technology superior to our own within that object. The fact that we find technology superior to our own within the mechanisms of life can be used as an argument that the designer of life was at least orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Now some will argue that the molecular mechanisms - in all their sophistication - are the result of natural processes, but then isn't it up to them to show that these natural processes can create such sophistication and elegance? So far, I've seen no convincing evidence that natural processes can produce complex, functional systems such as we have in life.  None. -------------- "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: Nov. 04 2007,13:40    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2007,13:25) Schindewolf's theories were devastated by particulate inheritance and the mathematical synthesis.   Yes, please provide links to those papers and please elaborate as to how these things "devastated" Schindewolf's theory. Quote it makes no sense whatsoever to have reserve genetic material, in advance of adaptive radiations, sitting around in the genome. It makes perfect sense from a front-loading perspective. Quote unless we now have a function for noncoding DNA?  not seen that advanced but it would still be a greatly different take from schindewolf. I have no idea what this sentence means. -------------- "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

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:43    And because you are emotionally attached to your views, you won't accept evidence. Before you would, you would first try to fit in that evidence in your own picture of reality. Also, you're giving your own images about reality too much credit: Face it: they're unimportant, the universe doesn't give a rats ass about your views and also about mine and any other human. But again, it's complex in YOUR eyes. Take for example sea urchins. We humans share 70% of our DNA with sea urchins. Now you can say 2 things: either sea urchins are VERY complex, proving your point, or you can say that we are VERY simple because we're still that similair with sea urchins. Now who is right? The choice is completly made on personal taste, and has nothing to do with science. It's simply not an argument. You're using all kinds of emotional words, like "elegance" and "sophistication" but those words mean nothing. They're all bound to your emotions, and your emotions are worthless here just like mine. I don't think you want to learn about reality, because you've already made up your mind on nothing more then personal preferences. What's left to discuss then?

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:53    Another thing, i do understand your point-of-view a bit. Because it's ages old. Hundreds of years ago people saw lightening, it made no sense to them, they were overwhelmed and simply didn't know what it was. The most reasonable thought: something greater then us is causing it. It's exactly the same as we're having with the developement from life on earth: we don't fully understand, and some people totally don't understand (again: evolution has a VERY big PR problem) because they don't understand the science behind it. I've got the same, when i watch at the stars at night (when the ratchet Dutch weather allows me) i find it so incredibly beautifull, but i know my personal feelings have nothing to do what's out there. I know what i'm watching it, nothing more then huge balls of gas billions of lightyears away. But that knowledge is making it more spectaculair for me, i'm realising that i'm watching light erupted thousands if not millions of years ago, a downright timemachine! I'm so amazed by what i'm watching, but again it has nothing to do with science. My personal feelings about the universe don't say anything about the universe itself. It's exactly the same as what you're having with life on earth.

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,14:01    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 04 2007,12:50) Many here have a preconceived notion that there is no God. No, many people here have concluded from the evidence that there is no evidence for God, and are operating under the perfectly reasonable paradigm that it is a bad idea to believe in things for which there is no evidence. For you to say what you said means that you are clueless, or a liar. Gee, why is it that almost everything you post here can easily be construed as a lie?   Quote They are not even willing to consider that option. Good grief, you are pathological.  There is a whole thread active right now about "What would you do if you discoverd that you were wrong about the existance/non-existance of God?" And guess who has declared that they are utterly incapable of even imagining that scenario?  It's not the atheists, its the theist.   And in your warped brain, this means that it is the atheists who are intractable. And I won't even start on the fact that you arguments aren't even convincing to theists.   Quote I think I've laid out my thoughts and goals pretty straightforwardly throughout the 18 pages of this thread. Lying is the farthest thing from straightforward.  And you have lied here.  You admitted it. And look, you just lied again. I honestly can't imagine it.  If I had been caught lying over and over again a message board, I would have died of embarassment.  But you integrity means nothing to you.  The fact that you keep posting lies here proves it.   Quote I'm willing to let go of anything I believe - provided the evidence against it is convincing. Your posts demonstrate that this is not true.  The VISTA data proves that you were wrong, and you insisted pretended that it justified your claims!  You made claims about the results of replica plating experiments, and those claims are wildly wrong, but you believe them still.   Quote The fossil record and the molecular evidence are both consistent with a belief that God designed and implemented life on this planet. See, again.  The goal of this board was for you to prove that this is true.  But you have failed. No one here is convinced.  But since you will not allow any evidence or argument to convince you that you are wrong, you you take the existance of 18 pages of 'unconvincing' counter-argumetn to mean that you are right. But you aren't.  The evidence simply doesn't support what you wish it did.   Quote If you notice, most of the more recent papers don't even bother to speculate anymore as to how such a system evolved.  It's beyond explanation. You are dreaming.   Quote In fact, the more I learn, the more convinced I am of the infinite intelligence of the designing God. So, why don't you tell us what the 100,000 children who die from malaria tell us about God? Oh, that's right, you can't.  You never will.     Quote Are you willing to let them go and consider the possibility of a designing God? Sure, if the evidence were there.  It just isn't. You showing a pretty picture of all the complex things that can go on around a coding transcript (when about 80% of the genome is intergenic) isn't evidence of a designing God.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,15:00    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 04 2007,12:50) First of all, we all have preconceived ideas we are hoping to verify. But scientists TEST their preconceived ideas. They try to falsify them. You don't do that. Quote Many here have a preconceived notion that there is no God. I'd say that NO ONE here had such a preconceived notion. More accurately, some here have decided that, AFTER looking at the evidence. BTW, I don't have that notion, so if you are referring to me, you're once again showing your utter contempt for the Ninth Commandment. Quote So even if there really is a God, they are forced to find another explanation - no matter how ridiculous.  Is that "seeking the truth"? Why don't you look in the mirror? To falsely claim that you've seen no evidence to refute your preconceptions, you've blatantly lied about the classification of noncoding sequences within genes (primarily introns). Not only that, but your lies contradict each other! 1) When looking at VISTA, you lied and claimed that noncoding sequences within genes were coding regions. 2) Just above, you lied again, claiming that noncoding sequences within genes were classified as "junk." 3) In reality, noncoding sequences within genes (promoters, 5' and 3' UTRs, and introns have NEVER been classified as "junk." Now, even if you refuse to believe #3, #1 and #2 are complete contradictions. Quote I think I've laid out my thoughts and goals pretty straightforwardly throughout the 18 pages of this thread.  I'm willing to let go of anything I believe - provided the evidence against it is convincing. That's a lie. You've chosen to lie about the evidence instead. Quote So far, I've seen nothing convincing here.  The fossil record and the molecular evidence are both consistent with a belief that God designed and implemented life on this planet. So how can introns be both coding sequences and junk sequences in your addled mind? Quote The molecular evidence shows an extremely complex, sophisticated, multi-layered coding system that defies any unguided evolutionary explanation. You're lying again. Quote If you notice, most of the more recent papers don't even bother to speculate anymore as to how such a system evolved.  It's beyond explanation. And again. Quote In fact, the more I learn, the more convinced I am of the infinite intelligence of the designing God. How does studying nonrepeat sequences within and near genes reclassify "junk" DNA, then? Quote Now, I could take your questions and turn them around and ask them of you:  What is your goal?  What are your preconceived ideas?  Are you willing to let them go and consider the possibility of a designing God? Absolutely. But I've looked at and produced far more evidence than you have, and the NATURE of the complexity (particularly related, but nonidentical parts with partially-overlapping functions) I see and grapple with every day doesn't even remotely suggest intelligent design. And, unlike you, I'm honest about the evidence. For example, if God designed your body, He clearly understands the concept of plumbing. Why is there nothing analogous within cells, then? Why do cells use a system analogous to throwing lipid water balloons full of food and sewage around (allowing them to fuse and ripping them apart) instead of having simple plumbing? Is your God stupid? Mine sure isn't.

Pages: (58) < ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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