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 >  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,06:46   

This thread is for Southstar/Martina.

She has "some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory."

Over to you Southstar/Martina.

I, Woodbine, am in no way responsible for how this thread turns out. I just opened it. It's not mine. In fact it has nothing to do with me. Quick look over there - a shiny thing!

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:05   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,06:46)
This thread is for Southstar/Martina.

She has "some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory."

Over to you Southstar/Martina.

I, Woodbine, am in no way responsible for how this thread turns out. I just opened it. It's not mine. In fact it has nothing to do with me. Quick look over there - a shiny thing!

Thanks

My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.

So I wrote up in one of their forums on evolution and began shining some light on their very dim wits. It was all fine and dandy and I was about to prove that their whole idea was rubish when the called in their version of Darth Maul.

Now see I'm not a biologist and my knowlege of genetics is very superficial.

That said:
I had posted a study regarding mutation rates in humans. The study quoted in the talkorigins archive (Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304). was a bit outdated a new study Roach JC, Glusman G, Smit AFA, Huff CD, Hubley R, Shannon PT, Rowen L, Pant KP, Goodman N, Bamshad M, et al. 2010. Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole-Genome Sequencing. Science [Internet] 328:636–639. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126....186802) finds that the amount of mutations is about half of the previous study. This new study does create quite an imbaresment for the evolution theory, and creates havok in the timeline.

Any ideas on how I could get out of this

I have other questions but let's take one at a time

Thanks for your help!!
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:39   

I'm afraid I can't help you.

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:46   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,07:39)
I'm afraid I can't help you.

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.

While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.

Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:50   

A foreign language is hardly the barrier it once was I'm sure you'll agree.

Please post the link.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:53   

Your DOI isn't found.  

Without the article, then I can't help too much, but I can say a few general things.

The mutation rates in different parts of the genome vary wildly.  For example, the membrane proteins in mitochondria would rarely mutate, because any mutation that changed the function would probably kill the organism.

On the other hand, the mutation rate in the immune system, at certain times, is exceptionally high, while the system randomly tries to find a way to latch onto your latest flu.

So, I would take any of these kinds of studies with a serious grain of salt.  What genes were they studying?

One thing to remember when arguing with creationists is not to get into the trap of answering every single detail that they bring up.  You will run into something no one knows about yet and then they will say "Yeah, see".

What you also need to do is demand that they provide the same level of detail that they demand of you for their own notions.

For example, in terms of genetics, you could ask exactly how (i.e. what mechanism did the designer use) to create the 673 HLA-A alleles from a maximum of 10 alleles (Noah, his wife, and the daughter-in-laws) in less than 6000 years.  That would require a mutation rate so high that the entire population would be one big tumor.

Of course, they will explain it away with magic, but the more you require them to explain things away with magic, the more that others will see its really not an explanation.

The point is, don't let them set the pace.  Evolution is a very, very powerful tool and it simply works.  Industry uses principles of evolution to make a profit... not creationism.  Businesses from financial markets to factories use evolutionary principles every day... not creationist principles.  Evolutionary principles have developed processes and products that humans could not have, even (in at least one case) a product that humans still don't know how it actually works... yet it does.  (Neatly avoiding the potential attack of 'frontloading'.)

Evolution is used to predict where to find cancer treatments and improve agriculture.  Evolutionary principles have saved millions of lives.  Creationism has not (at least in any actual double blind studies).

They can say all they want, it doesn't change reality.  

Hope that helps.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:01   

http://www.sciencemag.org/content....636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:03   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,07:39)
I'm afraid I can't help you.

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.

While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.

Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

First, I would say that there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution.

In reality, we shouldn't expect to see macroevolution actually happening.  There is a study that showed a plant mutation resulting the offspring being in an entirely new genus.  I'll have to get back to the house, it's on my drive there.

But, again, only creationists demand something like this that is just not a requirement of evolution.

It all comes down to the artificial system of taxonomy that we use today.

It can take millions of years for a population to change at the level of the species.  For example, in spite of the massive morphology changes in dogs, they are all still dogs.  And we've only been breeding them for a few thousand years.  When will they become 'not dogs'?

Who knows?

This post might help a little: Post on orders in forestaro's thread

I've also got a series of blog articles that you might find useful: Cassandra's Tears

They are mainly written for the high school level student, but there are generally a lot of references.  I've also specifically talked about macroevolution a couple of times.  You might also read the chapter summaries from Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish which is all about how we know that common ancestry does exist.  It's quite enlightening and should serve you well.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:05   

Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:07   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Quote
Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.


--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:18   

Obvious troll is obvious, why waste your time?  I've seen this act a hundred times on this board alone.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:19   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 08 2011,09:18)
Obvious troll is obvious, why waste your time?  I've seen this act a hundred times on this board alone.

birds of a feather, and all that

--------------
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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:27   

Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?

Siete ritardati?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:33   

Two chew toys!?!?!?  Wow, this is awesome.

Sorry, I'm a very trusting person.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:51   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,05:46)
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

"Macro-evolution" really boils down the emergence of new species from old ones.

The answer is "YES."

I have compiled a list of dozens of speciation events that is handy when creationists claim that there are none.

"Emergence of new species."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:00   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:07)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Quote
Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.

As described here:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog....10.html

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:08   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,06:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

This is the "money quote" on mutation rates from the cited article;

Quote

Although both the observed transition-to-transversion ratio and the proportion of CpG mutations in our data match predictions, our estimated human mutation rate is lower than previous estimates, the most widely cited of which is 2.5 × 10^-8 per generation (10) based on three parameters: a human-chimpanzee nucleotide divergence per site (Kt) of 0.013, a species divergence time of 5 million years ago, and an ancestral effective population size of 10,000. More recent estimates indicate a nucleotide divergence of 0.012 (9), species divergence time between 6 and 7 million years ago (11–15), and ancestral effective population size between 40,000 and 148,000 (16–19). With these parameter ranges and a generation length of 15 to 25 years, the mutation rate estimate is between 7.6 × 10^-9 and 2.2 × 10^-8 per generation, which is consistent with our intergenerational estimate of 1.1 × 10^-8. Our estimate is within 1 SD of an earlier estimate of 1.7 × 10^-8 (SD of 9 × 10^-9) based on 20 disease-causing loci (20). The rate we report is for autosomes and should be substantially lower than that of the Y chromosome because in the male germ line, more cell divisions occur per generation. Although our rate differs approximately as expected from the recently reported estimate of 3.0 × 10^-8 (95% CI, 8.9 × 10^-9 to 7.0 × 10^-8) for the Y chromosome, this difference is not significant (21).
.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 08 2011,07:11

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:07)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

 
Quote
Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.

As described here:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog.....10.html

Thanks
Marty

1) I have no clue, as far as I'm aware, the fossil record of chimpanzees is very, very spotty.

2) It doesn't matter, it's still longer than the creationist timeline anyway.  Remember, if your arguing with creationists, your job shouldn't be to defend science.  It should be to show them how wrong they are in every particular.  

Of course science can be wrong.  On the other hand, science corrects itself and (to my knowledge) no creationist has ever corrected mistaken science.  All the great hoaxes that creationists point to... corrected by science, not creationists.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:24   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:27)
Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?

Siete ritardati?

As I explained,
1) i was drawing from talk origins site
2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard
3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.

Cheers
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:38   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,15:24)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:27)
Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?

Siete ritardati?

As I explained,
1) i was drawing from talk origins site
2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard
3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.

Cheers
Marty

Let me explain.

You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.

I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)

If you are legitimate you have my apologies.

One question, though; how did you find AtBC?

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:40   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:46   

Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,09:40)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

It's common stripe of creationist.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:50   

I think 'dispensa' is their version of Batsh^t77.
 
Quote
The Piltdown Chicken: The Archaeopteryx

Which, to be fair, is quite funny .

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:51   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,09:46)
Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,09:40)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

It's common stripe of creationist.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.

Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,10:02   

maybe ioseb-whatsis is GoP too

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,10:08   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position.  That is all.  Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that."  Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is.  Ask what their research program is.  Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,10:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:08)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position.  That is all.  Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that."  Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is.  Ask what their research program is.  Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

I've always liked that approach.

"The Beagle went down with all hands, two days out of port. No survivors. Origins was never published. There's no scientific theory of speciation. Your go, but remember: it has to explain all the data, be testable and repeatable by anyone, anywhere, and make verifiable predictions, backed by positive evidence."

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,11:39   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,08:51)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,05:46)
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

"Macro-evolution" really boils down the emergence of new species from old ones.

The answer is "YES."

I have compiled a list of dozens of speciation events that is handy when creationists claim that there are none.

"Emergence of new species."

Hi,

Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.

To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?

I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?

This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,11:59   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,10:08)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position.  That is all.  Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that."  Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is.  Ask what their research program is.  Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

Hi,

Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:10   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,09:38)
Let me explain.

You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.

I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)

If you are legitimate you have my apologies.

One question, though; how did you find AtBC?

Hi,

Well as I explained I was using the Talkorigins.org website as the major inspirational tool. But Alas, some things weren't very clear, (I stopped taking Biology in standard 7).  So the postes I made came increasingly under attack by some that were apparently at least more knowelgble than I. So I needed some help. There is a link on the site to a forum Panda's thumb. From there I got here. :)

Cheers
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:13   

Well the entire "molecular clock" notion is always going to be merely supplemental to real fossils, and real geology.

I am either amused, or irritated (depending on the weather =  fishing conditions) when people treat these genetic "ages" as if they were real.

To quote Lewis Black to creationists,

"We have the fossils!"

Here is another fun one;

Dara O'Brian

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:19   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,11:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,10:08)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position.  That is all.  Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that."  Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is.  Ask what their research program is.  Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

Hi,

Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.

Marty

Just remember... offense is the best defense.

The science is decided.  There are no legitimate scientists on the other side of the fence.  Not really.

Demand that they give you all the details you are demanding from them.

HLA-A alleles are a good start. Read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....-A

If everyone says, "That's OK, that's just microevolution."  Then introduce them to the concept of clines (ring species): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....species

Brief summary:  A ring species (or cline) is when you have a series of very closely related species that share some (usually geographical) thing between only two members of the ring.

Say moving from North to South, you have

A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H

Now A and B can interbreed.  A and C can interbreed.  B can interbreed with A, C, and D.  C can interbreed with A,B,D and E.

But none of A, B, or C can interbreed with G or H.  Yet H can interbreed with F, which can interbreed with D, which can interbreed with B.

The entire point is that A and H are totally not the same species.  Without B--G, then A and H might even be different genuses.  But with B--G, where can we draw the line between species?

We can't, in a simple and easy manner, which is about all the creationists can handle.

Life is squishy.  It's not cut and dried like physics or chemistry.  And a lot of the things that we hold to be true are just made up artifacts and do not always correctly represent reality.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.

To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?

I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?

This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.

Thanks
Marty

Why should hybrids be excluded?  They are merely a way of combining genes, and gene variants. When this results in a self reproducing population with restricted out-breeding, it is 'macroevolution."

If creationshits start redefining "species," "evolution," and what ever else shows them to be fools, just bust them on their inconsistency.

But, there were dozens of other examples, use them if you prefer.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:58   

One could also point out that the validity of the theory doesn't depend on direct observation of speciation. As I understand it, that's usually a slow process, in which as two populations diverge the ability to interbreed declines, perhaps slowly.

But, the theory does imply patterns that should be consistently observed if it's correct (or at least a close approximation), but that would not be expected in combination otherwise. The main pattern here is the the matching nested hierarchies constructed from multiple traits or DNA segments. (Ironically, hybridization causes an exception to the nested hierarchy thing.)

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,13:41   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:13)
Dara O'Brian

Hi,

God I could stop laughing at this, I sat all during supper gigeling like an idiot!

Thanks
It was worth it just for this!

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,14:05   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,13:41)

Okay,

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil.
Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on this
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,15:01   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,13:41][/quote]
Okay,

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil.
Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on this
Marty

Well, you can't say that the fossil was once an ancestor of a modern species.  That's impossible, but it's also not required for science.  The creationists often demand this because they know it's impossible (or they actually think it's required).

That's not what transitional means.  Transitional means it has some characters of past species and some characters of future species.

No one thinks that Archeopteryx was the ancestor of all birds.  Nor does it exist between dinosaurs and birds.  But (using talk.origins archives) when you compare characters, the Archeopteryx has mostly dinosaur characters and only a few bird characters.

Like, read about Tiktaalik.  In this case Shubin knew what he wanted to find.  He knew the characteristics it had to have... which defines in what environment is had to live.  He also had a time range in which it should have existed.  He was able to look for rock layers of the appropriate age and type and in only a few years found Tiktaalik.

The creationists might say that Tiktaalik is not transitional because it's the wrong age.  That is incorrect.  Transitional is about characters (location of holes in bones, numbers of bones, kinds of teeth, even patterns in shells) not time or direct ancestry.

Your dad is transitional between you and your grandparents.  But also, your dad is transitional between you and your uncle.  Your grandfather is transitional between you and your cousins.  Transitional has nothing to do with time.  You can look up the definitions of transitional and post those if they think otherwise.

You might also take a look at the evolution of whales on wiki and the testimony of Kevin Paidan in the Kitzmiller trial (on talk.origins).  He describes in pretty good detail about the transitionals.  It's not just the nose, or the forelimbs, or the hind limbs, or the vertebrae, it's all of them taken together.

That's the one thing that creationists also can't deal with.  The volume of information on science.  They can't grasp that we aren't just making these supposed links between fossils based on one thing.  For whales, for example, we have hundreds of fossils, we have genetic studies, we have biogeographical studies, chemistry (the Oxygen isotope ratio in bones is different for marine creatures than land creatures).  So their explanation has to deal with all of that.

Keep asking.  "Well, explain how you think it happened.  Why do you think so?  What evidence supports your opinion?"

As far as the teeth.  It's all about expertise.  You can't just hand a tooth to anyone and they can say, "that's a new species".  The people who are making these determinations are experts in their field.  They have been studying their chosen subject for decades.  I can watch a movie and tell you the make, model number, number of rounds, and range of about any firearm in the movie, just from a glance.  I've been studying firearms for decades.  I can't look at a shark tooth and tell you what kind it is from, but I know that there are people that can.

That's all it is.  When the scientists propose a new species, it undergoes some intense scrutiny.  It's not "Hey, I found a new species."  It's "I think I found a new species and here's my evidence why.  What do you think?"

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,15:22   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:05)
My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.
Well, evolution is "just a theory". The thing is, saying that evolution is "just a theory" is kind of like saying that Bill Gates is "just a multibillionaire" -- it's nothing more than a rhetorical flourish intended to cast unwarranted doubt upon its subject. Creationists who say evolution is "just a theory" are counting on their listeners to understand that statement as using the common vernacular meaning of 'theory', which is basically 'a wild guess', never mind the fact that in the context of science, a 'theory' is a well-tested idea that successfully explains a whole lot of data.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46)
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.
What's going to stop 'microevolution' from leading to 'macroevolution'? Arguing that the former doesn't lead to the latter, is very much like saying that yes, you can walk 5 steps, but it's clearly impossible to walk 5,000,000 steps. Demand details. Where's the barrier that prevents microevolution from leading to macroevolution? How does this alleged barrier prevent new mutations from occuring?
Also: Since this is a Creationist question, ask your Creationist 'friends' to define 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. It's a damn good bet that 'microevolution (as defined by Creationists)' cannot lead to 'macroevolution (as defined by Creationists)' -- but unless they're defining those terms the same way real scientists do, they're refuting a caricature of evolutionary theory, and a refutation of a caricature is a caricature of a refutation.
So ask your Creationist 'friends' what they mean by 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. Be sure to point out how and where their definitions differ from the definitions used by real scientists. And if their definitions contain vague/undefined terms, demand that they define those vague terms. If they say "macroevolution is a change from one kind to another", ask them what a 'kind' is, and how the heck you can even tell which 'kind' an arbitrary critter belongs to.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05)
One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. ... The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.
If that's what they're saying about fossils, point them at the Comparison of all skulls page, a collection of Creationist "human or ape?" pronouncements about six different fossil specimens -- and the amusing bit is, Creationists themselves can't make up their minds which fossils are human and which are apes! This is very curious indeed. Because if the difference between 100% human!!1! and 100% ape!11! actually was as obvious/evident as Creationists assert it to be, shouldn't Creationist judgments about these specimens be 100% consistent? Alas (for Creationists...), those judgments aren't 100% consistent.
For maximum hilarity, look at the cases where a Creationist has changed their mind about whether or not any given Specimen X is human or ape. PS Taylor, in a 1992 publication, asserted that both Java Man and Peking Man were 100% apes -- but he declared them both to be 100% human in a 1996 publication. Similarly, Duane Gish declared the KNM-ER 1470 (Homo habilis) specimen to be 100% human in a 1979 publication, but a 1985 Gish publication declared that specimen to be 100% ape.
So... if a Creationist says "Neanderthal human, everything else ape", point out that Duane Gish says Java Man was an ape, and ask them what they know that Duane freaking Gish doesn't?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,16:54   

BTW: Southstar,

I don't want you to get your hopes up.  Creationists are wedded to their beliefs.  They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,04:45   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.

To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?

I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?

This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.

Thanks
Marty

Why should hybrids be excluded?  They are merely a way of combining genes, and gene variants. When this results in a self reproducing population with restricted out-breeding, it is 'macroevolution."

If creationshits start redefining "species," "evolution," and what ever else shows them to be fools, just bust them on their inconsistency.

But, there were dozens of other examples, use them if you prefer.

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe.  These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes.  In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less).  Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it.  What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,06:26   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,16:54)
BTW: Southstar,

I don't want you to get your hopes up.  Creationists are wedded to their beliefs.  They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.

Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, ‘stranger than fiction’ expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".

Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...

Cheers
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,06:39   

Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,04:45)
[quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 08 2011,12:23]   [quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,09:39]Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe.  These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes.  In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less).  Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it.  What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,06:58   

Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,17:40)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

MAYBE THEY DEGREASED HIS COMENTS?

oops .....caps lock error

Holy crap where do these twits come from?

One living Creo and a thousand under the woodpile.

Nature in action.

Science inaction.

TARDZ.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,07:12   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:26)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,16:54)
BTW: Southstar,

I don't want you to get your hopes up.  Creationists are wedded to their beliefs.  They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.

Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, ‘stranger than fiction’ expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".

Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...

Cheers
Marty

Ah, quotemining at it's finest (or weakest).

Congratulations and thank you for standing up to them.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,07:55   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:39)
[quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,04:45][quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 08 2011,12:23]  
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe.  These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes.  In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less).  Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it.  What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 should work.  If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,08:01   

Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,07:55)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 09 2011,06:39][quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,04:45]
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe.  These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes.  In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less).  Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it.  What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 should work.  If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Hi,

I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."

They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.

Thanks anyway
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,10:59   

Hi Marty,

I have always found the honest opinion of YEC creationist Kurt Wise  very illuminating.  

You will find it  here. Scroll down to footnotes, or search for "Kurt Wise is".

But of course, the whole document is well worth reading. And the talkorigins archive is a great source of info.

The best of luck with your 'plight'.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,12:18   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 09 2011,10:59)

Okay,

I have a question for me ;)

It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't

At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,12:38   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,12:18)
[quote=Quack,Nov. 09 2011,10:59][/quote]
Okay,

I have a question for me ;)

It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't

At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

Thanks
Marty

That's a REALLY good question and it all depends on how you define species.  

To give you an example of the huge inconstancy in this regard, you might be familiar with Escherichia coli.  It is a massively diverse species of bacteria.  In fact, it's so diverse that only 20% of the DNA is common between all strains of it. {Lukjancenko, O.; Wassenaar, T.M.; Ussery, D.W. (2010). "Comparison of 61 sequenced Escherichia coli genomes". Microb Ecol. 60 (4): 708–720. doi:10.1007/s00248-010-9717-3. PMC 2974192. PMID 20623278.}

When you get to vertebrates, you could go with something like reproductive isolation, but you have to get pretty specific.  Lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) are obviously different species, yet they can interbreed and produce reproductively capable offspring, which by most indicators would suggest they are the same species.

In short, life is squishy.  Humans want everything to be in a category and those categories to have meaning.  They don't, not really.

Wolves, dogs, and coyotes interbreed all the time.  Three different species.  Is the hybrid a wolf-dog or a dog-wolf?  

I maintain (and I may be almost alone here), that absent the medium sized dogs, the toy dogs and working dogs should be different species.  In fact, there's more diversity within dogs, than there is in all of Carnivora combined.  On the other hand, most of that diversity is in a very small amount of DNA {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2919785/}

So, really, who knows.  I doubt anyone will ever be able to say, "look, this dog really isn't a dog".  What will be more likely is something like "Hey, 12,000 years ago, in 1995 was the first divergence of this new species of pet from what used to be called 'dogs'."

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,13:05   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,12:18)
Okay,
I have a question for me ;)
It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't
At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

Not a stupid question at all. "At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?" includes, as an unstated premise, the notion that you can distinguish Dog from Not-Dog. More generally, your query hints at the larger question of how the heck one goes about distinguishing a member-of-species-X from a not-member-of-species-X. And (as the link to Wikipedia indicates) this is not an easy question!
Since we're talking about dogs in particular, I'd say that the BSC (Biological Species Concept) -- i.e., can the critter successfully interbreed with dogs? -- is about as good a distinguishing criterion as you're likely to find. The BSC doesn't work for all living things (like those which reproduce asexually, for instance), but it's pretty good for 'standard' animals like dogs and horses and such.

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,15:11   

[quote=Southstar,Nov. 09 2011,08:01][quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,07:55]
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:39)
 
Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,04:45)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23)
     
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe.  These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes.  In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less).  Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it.  What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 should work.  If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Hi,

I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."

They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.

Thanks anyway
Marty

I understand and it's unfortunate for your purposes that he prefaces the abstract with those words.  For what it's worth, there's a lot of "critical review" before he gets to the personal opinions.  His review is a good summary of the methods used and issues involved in plant speciation.  Very accessible to the non-molecular specialist, like me.

It also illustrates one of the reasons why the biological species concept is less useful when applied to plants than vertebrates.  Another reason is the presence within some species of reproductive barriers that serve to promote outcrossing.  For example, primroses have flowers in two forms, pin and thrum, differentiated by relative length of stamens and styles.  Plants with pin flowers pollinate those with thrum flowers or vice versa.  Pin to pin or thrum to thrum generally doesn't work.  Are primroses one species or two under the biological species concept?

Edited for more caveatness.

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,19:01   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,13:41][/quote]
Okay,

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil.
Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on this
Marty

Yes,  there is a protocol which involves using comparative material. In paleontology and paleoanthropology scientists are required to show how a proposed new species is different from other related material.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,12:18   

Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 09 2011,19:01)

Hi,

Here is a question that was posted on the site. Which I have a little of a hard time answering.

After mentioning speciation which caused wide spread panic. Obvioulsy a few of them started changing the goal post and started asking for exapmles of new families forming. I answered that you will only see them formed after they are formed and looking back you'll say well at about this time the dog became a ciuaua (which to me classifies as a different spiecis ;) )

Some asked for proof of fish turning into mice, which is great cause it would be proof against evolution if ever it was found.

But then the usual chap comes up with this:

To verify up to what point speciation can lead to macro changes you need to see how much "weight" these changes have in genetic and especially molecular terms. This you need to do in terms of measuring the amount of information that has been modified but more importantly how much information has been added.

I would answer this way: Well if it's a new species, there's got to be different information, probably non much different information but a little different it would get more different the farther away you were from the speciation event. It's the added part that I can't get..

Any ideas?
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,12:20   

Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

--------------
"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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,12:36   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,10:20)
Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

I agree. I would insist that the information content of a gene be calculated, and then show us how this varied between species.

The creationist demand seems to be rebutted if they cannot give a cut-off value. This reminds me of Duane Gish's bullshit about protein sequences.

What evolutionary science does instead is to show that molecular, and fossil data generate the same hierarchical trees. Some references I have at hand on whale evolution include;

Thomas A. DEMERE,  Michael R. MCGOWEN, Annalisa BERTA, John GATESY
2008 “Morphological and Molecular Evidence for a Stepwise Evolutionary Transition from Teeth to Baleen in Mysticete Whales” Systematic biology, vol. 57, no1, pp. 15-37

Robert W. Meredith, John Gatesy, Joyce Cheng and Mark S. Springer
2011 “Pseudogenization of the tooth gene enamelysin (MMP20) in the common ancestor of extant baleen whales”  Proc. R. Soc. B 7 April  vol. 278 no. 1708: 993-1002
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....bstract

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,13:08   

Thirded.

Ask them for an exact measurement process.  What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics.

Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.  

My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in.  Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well.  I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

It's in the creationist playbook.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,13:10   

As I understand it, speciation just means that the two populations will then accumulate changes independent of each other, i.e., evolve in different "directions".

For two subpopulations to cease regular interbreeding doesn't appear to me to require any great amount of change, and certainly doesn't require that one of them become more complex (whatever that means) than it was.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,22:27   

Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of not-insane people saying "Ask your Creationist buddies how they measure this 'information' stuff". You might even go further than that, by asking them to determine which of two different nucleotide sequences has more 'information' in it. Or even a series of such questions...
First, a pair of arbitrary nucleotide sequences. Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 1a: aca acg gaa ttc agc acc acc cca cca tga ctg cag gtc gcg atg acc ccc tgt cgt ttg tcg atc cgt tat tgg
Nucleotide sequence 1b: cga act gtc cgg tca acg ccg gga gca aac ggt taa cac tag aca gaa gca gac att cgt tgt tat tca tca tag

Second, an arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence plus a one-codon insertion (the inserted codon being underlined in the second sequence here; you needn't preserve the underlining if you present this pair of sequences elsewhere). Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 2a: ctc gac gca cat ata acg ata aag tcg cag ctg tag cac aag gca gtt tac act tgg aaa tct ctg gca taa gcg
Nucleotide sequence 2b: ctc gac gca cat ata acg ata aag tcg cag ctg tag cca cac aag gca gtt tac act tgg aaa tct ctg gca taa gcg

Third: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon deleted from it (the deleted codon is underlined in the first sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 3a: gca agg cta atg ggg gta gtg cca ttg ccc atc taa gaa caa ttt cca agt aaa gag gct ccc gta tag att gcc
Nucleotide sequence 3b: gca agg cta atg gta gtg cca ttg ccc atc taa gaa caa ttt cca agt aaa gag gct ccc gta tag att gcc

Fourth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide inserted into it (inserted nucleotide underlined in the 2nd sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 4a: att aag tgc aaa cat gcc gaa cac aag tga atc gaa tcc gcg caa tct ata agt cgg gct atc tca aac cct aat
Nucleotide sequence 4b: att aca gtg caa aca tgc cga aca caa gtg aat cga atc cgc gca atc tat aag tcg ggc tat ctc aaa ccc taa t

Fifth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide deleted from it (deleted nucleotide underlined in the 1st sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 5a: tac aac cgt ctt gtt taa cag ggt tga atg ttg gat agg taa aaa ctg atc atg atg acc att cgt gcc gcc atc
Nucleotide sequence 5b: taa acc gtc ttg ttt aac agg gtt gaa tgt tgg ata ggt aaa aac tga tca tga tga cca ttc gtg ccg cca tc

Sixth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon replaced by some different codon entirely (the relevant codons are underlined in both sequences). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 6a: aaa cgc gag cgc gct cag ccc aga tca gct gcc caa gac gtc gtt acc aca atc gtt acc acc gcg ata tta ttt tga
Nucleotide sequence 6b: aaa cgc gag tga gct cag ccc aga tca gct gcc caa gac gtc gtt acc aca atc gtt acc acc gcg ata tta ttt

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,23:27   

Insufficient data to respond to those questions!

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,06:27   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27)

Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,07:06   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27)
[quote=Henry J,Nov. 10 2011,23:27][/quote]
Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

Thanks
Marty

Here you are assuming that there is some 'goal' for evolution.

Why should a species or population change if it is already satisfied?  i.e. for its environment, it is fit, it has sufficient diversity to resist major changes in the environment, etc.

Basically, what you are asking here is "Why are my grandparents still alive?"  Which on the face of it, is pretty silly.

On the other hand, you are exactly correct.  Evolution always happens to living things.  The Coelocanths that were discovered off the coast of South Africa, while 'living fossils' are as distinct from fossil coelocanths as modern humans are distinct from Homo habilis.

So, on one hand, speciation doesn't need to occur.  On the other evolution always does.   Two subtly different questions.

You might take a look at the different types of speciation.  Once you see what PART of a population is speciating, then you will see why the question is meaningless.

BTW: One other tact for your creationist buddies to deal with about information is to take cubist's stuff and then add one more question to it.  Provide them with a strand of DNA that codes for a protein and one that is totally random of the same length (Excel is good for creating this).  Then require that the use creationist (ID) principles to determine which is which.  If they can't do that (and, even in theory, they can't, I'm pretty sure it is mathematically impossible), then how can they tell designed from evolved?

Note that when I say mathematically impossible, the only tool that IDists have ever said they needed was math.  There are some clues in the sequence itself, but they are very subtle and require pretty good knowledge of DNA... which is using science, not creationism.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,07:33   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27)
[quote=Henry J,Nov. 10 2011,23:27][/quote]
Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

Thanks
Marty

In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,08:56   

Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 11 2011,07:33)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27)

Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

Thanks
Marty

In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question

Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.

But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.

Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug.
Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,09:08   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56)
Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?
Marty

Define "new bug"!

--------------
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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,09:18   

Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 11 2011,07:33)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27)

Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

Thanks
Marty

In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question

There's also another misunderstanding presented in Southstar's question - it's basically a rewording of "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys."

The answer of course, which is beautifully illustrated by ring species, is that while some members of a given species may gain some beneficial or neutral mutation, many members still do not. If the non-mutated parental stock - the original species-remains competitive in its environment and/or has sufficient flexibility to adapt to some other environment, it will continue to exist along with it's daughter and cousin relatives.

Evolution is not all of some parental species morphing into some other species, yet this is what many creationists think evolution is. Similarly, evolution does not require all members of some species to die off/disappear when some portion of that species gain some genetic variation.

A third misconception embedded in the question is that evolution implies that newer organisms with more changes and complexity are "better" than older, simpler organisms. This is not what evolution states or implies. Evolution as a theory merely notes that change occurs and how; there's no implication about change being "good" for organisms in general. Further, if one really understands evolution as an explanation of a process, one also understands the concept of adaption. Mutations and genetic drift are considered "beneficial" if a group of organisms can use the change to help them adapt to given environmental conditions and thus produce more offspring than its competition/predation rates. If an organism group without said change can adapt to given environmental changes such that they produce more offspring than their competition/predation rates, guess what? They'll survive too.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,09:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56)
Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.

But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.

Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug.
Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?
Marty

Do we?

No one has done these experiments for thousands of years.  Yet, we do know that speciation can occur within one generation.

We also have Lenski's data of E. coli research over the last 25 years.  http://myxo.css.msu.edu/

Now, look at what happened in Lenski's lab.  One of the defining characteristics of E. coli is that inability to metabolize citrate.  That character is how researchers determine the difference between E. coli and (IIRC) Salmonella.

Yet, Lenski, through natural selection and random mutation has discovered a E. coli strain that can utilize citrate.  If this had occurred in non-bacterial species, it would probably be sufficient for it to be declared a new species.  Bacteria... meh.

Likewise, it also depends on how you define "something different".  Are dachshunds exactly the same thing as wolfhounds?  No, are the different species?  Honestly, that question is pretty meaningless.

Dachshunds and wolfhounds can interbreed and have grandchildren (i.e. the F1s are not sterile), but so can domestic cats and servals, so can lions and tigers, and we 'know' those are different species.

Species aren't nearly as static or fixed or separate as most people would think.  So the question is really moot.  Yes, they might still be fruit flies, but the only way to determine if they could interbreed with fruit flies of a 1000 years ago would be to (somehow) get some fruit flies from a 1000 years ago and try it.

Which leads me to a really good question to all.

Could an organism (say human or dog) successfully interbreed with a member of the same species from a thousand or 6000 years ago?

For example Diplodocus has a known time range of almost 4 million years.  Do you think that the later members would be sufficiently different from the earlier members to prevent breeding (which is one definition of species, which IMHO is sorely lacking as evidenced above).

Things are not just cut and dried in Biology, no matter how much some people wish or claim that they are.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,09:39   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,09:23)
Which leads me to a really good question to all.

Could an organism (say human or dog) successfully interbreed with a member of the same species from a thousand or 6000 years ago?

.

I would say that based on ecological research and personal anecdotes, it depends on the given species' sexual behaviors. For example, mallards are well known to have sex with (or attempt to have sex with) nearly all other duck-like waterfowl, including many species of geese. In other words, mallards have very lax sexual boundaries. Green-eyed Tree Frogs, otoh, are notoriously picky about who they mate with.

We humans are definitely NOT picky about our sexual partners as species go, and I'm more than willing to lay down my net worth on the bet that we as a species would definitely mate (and produce offspring) with our ancestors from 10,000 years ago. Heck, there's evidence we interbred with Neaderthals...how picky could we really be?

Dogs...hmmm...I'm aware of some breeds that will mate with just about any other dog-like animal, so I'm willing to lay a similar bet on them as well.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:09   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 11 2011,09:08)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56)
Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?
Marty

Define "new bug"!

Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug.

Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA.

The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years.

What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:12   

Quote
Define "new bug"!

Volkswagen's have changed over the years.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:17   

Whether something is labelled as a new family or genus depends on whether that would help in keeping track of species relationships or not. It's not an intrinsic property of the species itself.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:42   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2011,10:12)
Quote
Define "new bug"!

Volkswagen's have changed over the years.

ba-dum-tish! :P

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:48   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,10:09)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 11 2011,09:08)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56)
Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?
Marty

Define "new bug"!

Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug.

Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA.

The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years.

What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.

Again, this is very, very general.

Some areas of the genome can barely mutate at all or the organism (and therefore that mutation) will die.  Other areas can have massive amounts of mutations with little or no affect on the organism at all.

In terms of speciation, I still think you are thinking too narrowly.  Go back to the clines (ring species).  If you define species in terms of mating, then where do you draw the line?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:50   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2011,10:17)
Whether something is labelled as a new family or genus depends on whether that would help in keeping track of species relationships or not. It's not an intrinsic property of the species itself.

This!

It seems creationists have a hard time grasping the fact that our biological taxonomy system is a tool we use to try to organize the biological world into categories for our convenience. It doesn't cleanly reflect reality.

ETA:

An interesting article that notes the difficulty in categorizing the natural world.

So, which better demonstrates a species change: Great Dane vs Jack Russel Terrier, Plains zebra vs Mountain Zebra, or Siberian Tiger vs lion? If you answer, explain why you chose one over the others.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:55   

Yes, Ring species really are worth looking into in some detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species

Quote
Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."

Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.


--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,11:24   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,13:08)
Thirded.

Ask them for an exact measurement process.  What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics.

Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.  

My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in.  Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well.  I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

It's in the creationist playbook.

Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical

Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....om_walk

He sites the following research as a base for his further arguments:
http://www.tbiomed.com/content....47

I have no idea where he is headed with this stuff...

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,11:26   

I hope you'll pardon me for jumping into an ongoing discussion.

 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56)
Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.

But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.


Actually, no. You'd just be changing the selective pressures, because you've altered the environment. Any genotype/phenotype that gave a fly an advantage in this new lab environment would still be selectable (and selected). You could argue that it's artificial (human-caused) selection instead of natural selection, but that's really just semantics.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,10:09)
What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.


Yes. It's called genetic drift. Even when there's no selective pressure at all, a certain fraction of new mutations will get fixed in a population over a given period of time. Depends on breeding population size and mutation rate.

  
Starbuck



Posts: 26
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,11:28   

Regarding the last link to Kirk K Durston's paper, you might want to point him to this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ons.php

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,12:12   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,13:08)
Thirded.

Ask them for an exact measurement process.  What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics.

Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.  

My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in.  Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well.  I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

It's in the creationist playbook.

Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical

Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk

He sites the following research as a base for his further arguments:
http://www.tbiomed.com/content....t....47

I have no idea where he is headed with this stuff...

Marty

So it's basically a non-answer.  About what I suspected.  They are refusing to define the concepts in any way that can actually be challenged.

This quote is from the first link
Quote
There is no consensus about the status of these ideas, and the result has been a growing foundational discussion within biology and the philosophy of biology. Some have hailed the employment of informational concepts as a crucial advance (Williams 1992). Others have seen almost every biological application of informational concepts as a serious error, one that distorts our understanding and contributes to lingering genetic determinism (Francis 2003).


There are at least four methods of thinking about information in biological organisms listed in this same article.

You're best bet is to reply thus:

"So, you have no concrete standards for applying or using information systems in biological systems.  Until you do so, then the entire conversation is a moot point.

Information has a variety of very specific definitions and related equations depending on what you are doing.  Until you define exactly what information is being measured, how it is being measured, and how it can be utilized, then there can be no further discussion on this topic."

A really fun game you can play on them was given here by Eric.  Ask them which of the following contains more information: A) a 30 minute speech by Winston Churchill or B) 30 minutes of white noise.

If they are truly conversant in information theory, then they will answer B.  If they answer A, then they are confusing 'information' with the 'meaning' given by that information.  The two are NOT the same thing and this can be easily shown.  For example, if you type in a snippet of machine code, they can easily break it down into information (it's just hexidecimal letters and numbers), but they must know how to translate that into meaning to understand what it is.  The information content is completely separate from the meaning.  This is the purpose of cryptology, to hide the meaning and still be able to send the information.

Anyway, I predict that they will complain that you aren't really interested in hearing about it or that it is too difficult to follow unless you have studied information theory (which none of them have either).

I will personally make you a deal... I have, sitting one row of cubes over from me, 10 mathematicians, 3 with Masters degrees, and 1 Ph.D. candidate in math.  I also have access to an even dozen psychometricians (all with Ph.D.s in statistics and/or statistical analysis).  You are free to tell them that you have access to these people as well.

All the creationists have to do is type up their mathematical processes and then you post it here and we can take care of the analysis.  I promise you, in over 5 years of dealing with this, not a single creationist has ever taken me up on the offer.  

BTW: I just remembered, here's a challenge I put on my blog for the information detailed creationists... http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011.......allenge

Edit to add: Here are some good questions that no ID/creationist has ever answered: http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011....signers

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,13:47   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,12:12)
I will personally make you a deal... I have, sitting one row of cubes over from me, 10 mathematicians, 3 with Masters degrees, and 1 Ph.D. candidate in math.  I also have access to an even dozen psychometricians (all with Ph.D.s in statistics and/or statistical analysis).  You are free to tell them that you have access to these people as well.

All the creationists have to do is type up their mathematical processes and then you post it here and we can take care of the analysis.  I promise you, in over 5 years of dealing with this, not a single creationist has ever taken me up on the offer.  

Lol okay I've sent the challenge let's see what happens :)

Thanks!!
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,13:51   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,09:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical

Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk

He sites the following research as a base for his further arguments:
http://www.tbiomed.com/content....t....47

I have no idea where he is headed with this stuff...

Marty

As a rhetorical step, ask him what these links have to do with biology, or how he has used these links to calculate the "information" of a species.

Links are bullshite.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 11 2011,11:53

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,13:58   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:20)
Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

...and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

--------------
"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

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,16:52   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,16:58   

It's the famous "So, why are there still monkey's question!!!1111

Answer:  becasue there are still creationists, silly!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,19:42   

Bravo "cubist."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,20:56   

Durston et al.:

Quote

For example, if we find that the Ribosomal S12 protein family has a Fit value of 379, we can use the equations presented thus far to predict that there are about 1049 different 121-residue sequences that could fall into the Ribsomal S12 family of proteins, resulting in an evolutionary search target of approximately 10^-106 percent of 121-residue sequence space.


Durston has a habit of thinking that what is in the protein databases comprises the universe of functional proteins. To get the sort of number he wants, he'd have to do an exhaustive assay to validate it. Instead, he "predicts" exactly the sort of tiny numbers he wants, and seems to be satisfied that he has demonstrated something. It's conceptually no better than the "cost of search" thing Dembski and Marks came up with a few years ago.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,22:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2011,20:56)
Durston et al.:

Quote

For example, if we find that the Ribosomal S12 protein family has a Fit value of 379, we can use the equations presented thus far to predict that there are about 1049 different 121-residue sequences that could fall into the Ribsomal S12 family of proteins, resulting in an evolutionary search target of approximately 10^-106 percent of 121-residue sequence space.


Durston has a habit of thinking that what is in the protein databases comprises the universe of functional proteins. To get the sort of number he wants, he'd have to do an exhaustive assay to validate it. Instead, he "predicts" exactly the sort of tiny numbers he wants, and seems to be satisfied that he has demonstrated something. It's conceptually no better than the "cost of search" thing Dembski and Marks came up with a few years ago.

Luisi has an interesting comment on that.  He says that there are roughly 10^54 possible proteins (not counting a large number that cannot be produced due to energy reasons).

Yet life on Earth only uses 10^13 - 10^15 proteins.

Doesn't really help anything, but I found that interesting and hadn't considered it before.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,09:38   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,22:25)

Goodness even Italians are churning out books

Take a look at what they threw at me here:
http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2....nge.php

Marty

PS Still waiting for them to give us a definition of information and how to measure it in biology ;)

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,09:55   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 12 2011,09:38)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 11 2011,22:25][/quote]
Goodness even Italians are churning out books

Take a look at what they threw at me here:
http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2.....nge.php

Marty

PS Still waiting for them to give us a definition of information and how to measure it in biology ;)

If this is about "WHat Darwin Got Wrong", then you wouldn't get any arguments from anyone.  Darwin worked over 150 years ago.  The level of knowledge we now share and know would boggle his mind, but I doubt he would disagree with any of it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Starbuck



Posts: 26
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,11:28   

His thesis is that two distinct traits are coextensive if and only if whatever has one has both. For polar bears, the traits `being white' and `matching the environment' are clearly different traits; grasshoppers have the second but not the first. Since all polar bears have  both, a theory of `selection for` has to decide which of these traits were selected for in polar bears; which, he says the Darwinian account of adaptation can't do. So there must be something wrong with the Darwinian account of adaptation. Except for being succinct, this is just a standard case of free-riding: either being white free-rides on matching the environment or matching the environment free-rides on being white. Which does the adaptationist prefer; and what is his argument for preferring it?

<a href="http://wfsc.tamu.edu/faculty/tdewitt/WFSC622/Arnold%20chapter.pdf">Lande and Arnold </a> would certainly argue that that is possible, and indeed, one of the uses that they support for G-matrix multiple regression analysis is to find out on what traits selection was "directly" working versus what traits are changing because of correlational effects.

But this use, demands that one know that G is stable through the changes in the population.  And that is not only not known, but known to be unlikely in natural populations.

Of course, if one has additional information about the population -- especially the kinds of 'hands on' information that provides useful clues to the biological pathways involved -- then these kinds of G-based analyses can provide some additional insights.  And that, is how I think that e.g., Steve Arnold really uses G-matrices when he uses them to study natural populations.  Much of that field-based understanding of the systems in questions gets hidden in the written work, but it is what makes him confident that his results make sense.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,12:28   

Quote (Starbuck @ Nov. 12 2011,11:28)
For polar bears, the traits `being white' and `matching the environment' are clearly different traits;

What?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,12:32   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2011,13:58)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:20)
Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

...and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

First, ask IDers why we should even care about "information" in evolutionary biology.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,12:51   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 11 2011,10:55)
Yes, Ring species really are worth looking into in some detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species

 
Quote
Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."

Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

I'd take this opportunity to present my own kind of ring species, which actually isn't a ring in a geographical sense, but it presents a continuum between intraspecific and interspecific differentiation:
The pea aphid complex.

(sorry for the multiple posts, I'm late to the party).

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,13:46   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 12 2011,12:32)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2011,13:58)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:20)
Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

...and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

First, ask IDers why we should even care about "information" in evolutionary biology.

If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology. Of course, if that were the case, then the IDiots' position would be based on fact rather than unshakable religious dogma, and they would be able to answer questions like 'which nucleotide sequence has more information in it?"

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,14:03   

Quote (Starbuck @ Nov. 12 2011,11:28)
His thesis is that two distinct traits are coextensive if and only if whatever has one has both. For polar bears, the traits `being white' and `matching the environment' are clearly different traits; grasshoppers have the second but not the first. Since all polar bears have  both, a theory of `selection for` has to decide which of these traits were selected for in polar bears; which, he says the Darwinian account of adaptation can't do. So there must be something wrong with the Darwinian account of adaptation. Except for being succinct, this is just a standard case of free-riding: either being white free-rides on matching the environment or matching the environment free-rides on being white. Which does the adaptationist prefer; and what is his argument for preferring it?

<a href="http://wfsc.tamu.edu/faculty/tdewitt/WFSC622/Arnold%20chapter.pdf">Lande and Arnold </a> would certainly argue that that is possible, and indeed, one of the uses that they support for G-matrix multiple regression analysis is to find out on what traits selection was "directly" working versus what traits are changing because of correlational effects.

But this use, demands that one know that G is stable through the changes in the population.  And that is not only not known, but known to be unlikely in natural populations.

Of course, if one has additional information about the population -- especially the kinds of 'hands on' information that provides useful clues to the biological pathways involved -- then these kinds of G-based analyses can provide some additional insights.  And that, is how I think that e.g., Steve Arnold really uses G-matrices when he uses them to study natural populations.  Much of that field-based understanding of the systems in questions gets hidden in the written work, but it is what makes him confident that his results make sense.

So this guy redefines 'traits' for us.  I see.

A trait is a distinct variant of a phenotypic character of an organism that may be inherited, environmentally determined or be a combination of the two.[1] For example, eye color is a character or abstraction of an attribute, while blue, brown and hazel are traits.

[1] = Lawrence, Eleanor (2005) Henderson's Dictionary of Biology. Pearson, Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-127384-1

"Matching the environment" is NOT a trait.  It is a consequence of a trait.  For example, the an Arctic fox, in its winter coat would match the environment in winter, but would not do so in the summer.  

Since his entire basis is wrong, then everything he says after that (i.e. Darwinian evolution can't do something) is wrong too.  Not because Darwinian evolution can do what he wants, but because what he wants is nonsensical.

This is exactly like the requirement that creationists often use to say, "We must have a complete fossil record."  Knowing that it is impossible AND not required for anyone except them.

Again, you can argue all the math, facts, requirements, etc you want to.  If your initial claim or assumption is nonsense, then everything after that is a complete waste of time.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,16:31   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 12 2011,13:46)
If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology.

It's not obvious at all to me. Even if a defined measure of information content in the genome cannot increase by means of mutation and natural selection, why should be care? The postulates of natural selection say nothing about "information".
Mutations produce alleles controlling different heritable phenotypes, we know that. All phenotypes, hence the alleles, don't have equal reproductive success in a given environment. We know that too. That's all that's needed.

To me all this information stuff is just as bogus as the argument based on the SLoT.

About the polar bear example...  Starbuck's post isn't only bogus, it came out of nowhere, beginning with a "His" that refers to god knows who. Not sure what to make of this.

  
Starbuck



Posts: 26
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,17:52   

I was responding to Southstar's link. By "His" I meant Jerry Fodor.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:59   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 12 2011,16:31)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 12 2011,13:46)
If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology.

It's not obvious at all to me. Even if a defined measure of information content in the genome cannot increase by means of mutation and natural selection, why should we care?

Because when an IDiot/Creationist makes noise about what can or cannot be done by mutations, they are necessarily (albeit by implication, rather than by explicit declaration) talking about what sorts of mutations are or are not possible. For instance, take the claim "mutations cannot create information". This is equivalent to the claim "no mutation can transform a genetic sequence with X amount of information into a different genetic sequence with (X+N) amount of information". And that claim, if true, puts restrictions on what sort of mutation-induced changes in genetic sequence are possible! We could determine whether or not a particular case of cancer was due to genetic mutation by sequencing the patient's own DNA, then sequencing the DNA from one of the patient's tumors, and finally measuring the information content of DNA from both sources. We could make genetically-modified organisms which are all but completely immune to mutation, because we constructed their DNA to contain the lowest amount of information consistent with being a functioning life-form...
Now do you see why we ought to care about IDiot/Creationist claims re: 'information' and evolutionary biology, if those claims actually were true?
Quote
To me all this information stuff is just as bogus as the argument based on the SLoT.

Hey, I agree with you 100%! I just like to play with counterfactuals; in this case, take an IDiot/Creationist claim at face value, and see what the consequences of that claim are.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2011,02:26   

Well that's my point. IDiots should just point to the specific mutations that are supposedly impossible and drop that nonsense about "information".

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,03:32   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 13 2011,02:26)

Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,05:49   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,03:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 13 2011,02:26)

Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

If you hold that science has not progressed with regard to the OOL since that paper was published, then yes, your assumption would appear to be valid.

If, however, there's been more research done since 1976 then perhaps not.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/focus-g....of-life

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,07:26   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2011,05:49)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,03:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 13 2011,02:26)

Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

If you hold that science has not progressed with regard to the OOL since that paper was published, then yes, your assumption would appear to be valid.

If, however, there's been more research done since 1976 then perhaps not.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/focus-g....of-life

Damn, sorry I forgot to check the date :(

Sorry
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,07:30   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:26)

Okay so here is a new article out regarding problems with evolution this time from oxford:

http://www.biosignaling.com/content....-30.pdf

What are you're thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,11:02   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:30)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:26)

Okay so here is a new article out regarding problems with evolution this time from oxford:

http://www.biosignaling.com/content....-30.pdf

What are you're thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

Write this down.

We don't know everything there is to know about evolution.

There are many many unanswered questions.

However for all the millions of questions that have been answered not a single answer has turned out to be "intelligent design".

So, while a good scientist will not, cannot, rule out "ID" as a possible explanation as yet there is no actual evidence for ID at all and so no reason to consider it as an explanation for anything at all.

Sure, some people believe that evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life we see around us, but they are unable to provide an alternative with *any* explanatory power whatsoever.

So the question asked in that paper is:

Quote
How does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype?


Yet it seems that ID does not even get close to a look in
Quote
The evidence for evolution itself is robust as it comes from  the  three  independent  lines that each tells the
same story: history (fossil record and isotope dating),
morphology (taxonomic relationship and comparative
embryology in living organisms - evolutionary change
starts off as developmental  change ) and molecular
sequence relationships.


So whatever the evolutionary synthesis becomes in order to be able to answer these questions satisfactory I'd not bet that ID would have anything to do with it, no matter how long you wait.

Does that help?

--------------
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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,12:42   

I've not read this review (yet), but the abstract already bothers me.
Quote
The evolutionary synthesis, the standard 20th century view of how evolutionary change occurs, is based on selection, heritable phenotypic variation and a very simple view of genes. It is therefore unable to incorporate two key aspects of modern molecular knowledge

How does that follow? The evolutionary synthesis doesn't make any assumption on the simplicity of genes and their link to phenotypes, and even what's the source of the variation (mutation, methylation). Quantitative genetics is a solid discipline. There is heritable phenotypic variation and non-heritable variation, with epistasis, dominance, maternal effects... all being complex, but factored in the equations. Only heritability (narrow sense) is subject to natural selection. Simple as that.
So the neo-lamarkians should show how the newly discovered mechanisms (methylation, etc) integrate into the equations, before claiming that they overturn the current theory.
So far, I haven't seen how epigenetic is supposed to affect evolution. Has anyone got a good review?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,15:50   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,03:32)
[quote=jeannot,Nov. 13 2011,02:26][/quote]
Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

Go to my blog  ogremk5.wordpress.com

and click on the abiogenesis link in the right hand column under 'categories'.

I enjoy studying abiogenesis and there are literally 100s of new articles published every year.  I've got many links, reviews, etc.

One thing about abiogenesis, it is simple to falsify.  All someone has to do is show that a required chemical reaction cannot happen.  In the 40+ years abiogenesis research has been going on, no one has been able to say, 'x reaction cannot happen therefore abiogenesis is impossible'.

There's a fair bit of research indicating that comets have a high level of organic compounds and it very well might be that a comet strike dumped a couple of tons of concentrated organic chemicals which got life on Earth really cooking.  We will never know how it happened.

The fact that we can know it is possible and that it did happen and there is nothing (so far) that requires divine intervention is enough.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,17:16   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2011,09:02)
So the question asked in that paper is:

 
Quote
How does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype?

Again I recommend "The Probability of Life" by Kirschner and Gerhart. While the first 1/3 of it or so is kinda nebulous, the later chapters go into some fascinating explorations of this very question.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,19:02   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,05:30)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:26)

Okay so here is a new article out regarding problems with evolution this time from oxford:

http://www.biosignaling.com/content....-30.pdf

What are you're thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

Very odd that this fellow doesn't know much about Lamark. I ended reading the reviews thinking that books could easily be better than the reviewer.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 14 2011,17:03

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,19:07   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2011,13:50)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,03:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 13 2011,02:26)

Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

Go to my blog  ogremk5.wordpress.com

and click on the abiogenesis link in the right hand column under 'categories'.

I enjoy studying abiogenesis and there are literally 100s of new articles published every year.  I've got many links, reviews, etc.

One thing about abiogenesis, it is simple to falsify.  All someone has to do is show that a required chemical reaction cannot happen.  In the 40+ years abiogenesis research has been going on, no one has been able to say, 'x reaction cannot happen therefore abiogenesis is impossible'.

There's a fair bit of research indicating that comets have a high level of organic compounds and it very well might be that a comet strike dumped a couple of tons of concentrated organic chemicals which got life on Earth really cooking.  We will never know how it happened.

The fact that we can know it is possible and that it did happen and there is nothing (so far) that requires divine intervention is enough.

Ah HA! I say Ah HA!

You could also see my Short Outline of the Origin of Life because it is short.

It is also in need of updating.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,20:14   

I was confused by this passage from the penultimate paragraph of Bard's review:

Quote
Complex systems have properties that cannot be pre- dicted, albeit that they can be understood with hindsight, and it may well be that the network for some trait (e.g. bone growth or pigmentation pattern) in the offspring has quantitative properties that are very different from those of the parents, not because of new mutations but because the novel mix of the rate constants will yield a trait that is an outlier of the normal distribution (known as a sport in breeding circles). As a result, the offspring may be able to colonise a novel environment far better than its peers. Equally important, this variant will naturally be heritable because it derives from the kinetics of the network (minor variation) rather than additions or losses to the proteins that comprise them.

I understand and agree that a novel combination of existing alleles could result in the offspring having a novel phenotype due to particular network interactions. But how would that novel phenotype be heritable? If it depends on an unlikely combination of alleles, it's not likely to recur in the subsequent generation.

And even if it did result in selective fixation of the relevant combination of alleles, how does that go beyond existing evolutionary theory?

I feel like I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,01:14   

Like I said, the reviewer apparently doesn't know much about quantitative genetics, nor the fact that epistasis genetic variance is factored in the equation, but is not subject to selection.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,12:21   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
 
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?
2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong?
3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?
4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right?
5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?
6) Aside from the one link supplied do you have other links that would help debunk durston?
7) If you have other fav sites (asides from talkorigins that in some things is a little outdated) that debunk Idiots in general let me know.  
Thanks for all your help!
Marty

Ps Some info on the Breed of Idiots that I have picked a fight with:
1) A few are hard core nuts, most are just ordinary street people who know next to nothing about anything except tomorrow nights reality show. So alot of the stuff that I explain needs to be explained in simple terms. Giving basic examples and giving complete but information without overdoing it.
2) Aside from the information theory thing. They do not supply their version. They seem to be following tactic: Show that whatever scientific theory is not certain and has problems (do this by throwing everything including the kitchen sink at them), proceed in showing that therefore scientist base their theories on faith. But since the theory is off, their faith is misplaced and esentially relies on errors. The real faith is about ecc... I'll spare you the rest. Is there a name for this spiecies of Idiot?
3) Given the above you'd say well you must have something better to do "go to a party or something". But I feel it's wrong, ordinary people are getting sucked up by this, I mean if it weren't lies it would be be okay, I mean if it makes you happy fine. But it's lies and this bothers me.
4) When they run out of arguments they start insulting and saying that I don't understand and change the subject. But they can do this only a limited number of times already some ordinaries in the forum have started to show signs of saying hey she's got a point.

You guys are probaby really used to all this stuff. And my post is way to long.

Thanks... really thanks :)

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,12:33   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 15 2011,12:21)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
 
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?
2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong?
3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?
4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right?
5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?
6) Aside from the one link supplied do you have other links that would help debunk durston?
7) If you have other fav sites (asides from talkorigins that in some things is a little outdated) that debunk Idiots in general let me know.  
Thanks for all your help!
Marty

Ps Some info on the Breed of Idiots that I have picked a fight with:
1) A few are hard core nuts, most are just ordinary street people who know next to nothing about anything except tomorrow nights reality show. So alot of the stuff that I explain needs to be explained in simple terms. Giving basic examples and giving complete but information without overdoing it.
2) Aside from the information theory thing. They do not supply their version. They seem to be following tactic: Show that whatever scientific theory is not certain and has problems (do this by throwing everything including the kitchen sink at them), proceed in showing that therefore scientist base their theories on faith. But since the theory is off, their faith is misplaced and esentially relies on errors. The real faith is about ecc... I'll spare you the rest. Is there a name for this spiecies of Idiot?
3) Given the above you'd say well you must have something better to do "go to a party or something". But I feel it's wrong, ordinary people are getting sucked up by this, I mean if it weren't lies it would be be okay, I mean if it makes you happy fine. But it's lies and this bothers me.
4) When they run out of arguments they start insulting and saying that I don't understand and change the subject. But they can do this only a limited number of times already some ordinaries in the forum have started to show signs of saying hey she's got a point.

You guys are probaby really used to all this stuff. And my post is way to long.

Thanks... really thanks :)

If you can do a signature line at the bottom of each of your posts, then do something like this:

"Can you provide the same level of detail about your notion that you demand for science?"

Seriously, at the end of every post, ask them what their position is and list all the evidence that they have for it.  They won't answer, they can't answer and it really hammers home the fact that they are basing their notions on nothing.

Here's the deal with information... it is a verifiable, mathematical quantity.  It can be measured, observed, and worked with.

If they cannot provide a method for determining information (however that they wish to define it), then they are just making stuff up.  You can read about Shannon information on wikipedia.

They probably keep saying something like 'evolution can't add information'.  Ask them why.  By what basis do they make this claim?  What they are basically saying is that nothing can ever be inserted into a strand of DNA... which is demonstrably false.  

Remind them that information does not equal meaning.  Remind them to answer the question, which has more information 30 minutes of a churchill speech or 30 minutes of white noise.  

For all of their claims, they should be able to provide a demonstration of the concepts and be able to explain it to anyone.  If they cannot, then their ideas are pretty much useless.  Remind them that you have a battery of people ready to help you understand the mathematics.

You can also remind them that in any observation or determination of 'information content', that given a data set and a process, then everyone from an 8th grade student to a Muslim Ph.D. should get exactly the same result.  If only Christians get the correct result, then the process is biased and not valid.

Without an unbiased, repeatable test, then they are just babbling and trying to confuse the issue.  Do not let them off.

If there are people who are asking questions, then encourage them to read up on information and things like insertion mutations.

Take the claims of the creationist to the next level.  One thing that creationists really don't do well is think about the logical consequences of what they say.  Much like the example I gave above... if information in DNA cannot increase, then insertion mutations cannot happen... since insertion mutations do happen, then information increases.

I hope that helps.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,15:01   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 15 2011,12:21)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
     
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?

Because nucleotide sequences are the (figurative) book in which this 'genetic information' stuff is (figuratively) written. So if they can't apply their definition to nucleotide sequences, "information"-as-defined-by-them isn't important or relevant to evolution.
 
Quote
2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong?

Yes, there are a number of different definitions of 'information'. Generally speaking, it's just a good idea to specify which definition you're using in the first place, because it helps to avoid confusion. And in the context of the Creationism/evolution argument, it's really a good idea, because by some definitions of 'information', random changes can create new 'information'! So when a Creationist makes noise about how random mutations can't create new information, get them to nail down exactly which definition of 'information' they're using, because (a) it avoids confusion, and (b) if they're using one of the 'information'-definitions under which random mutations can create the stuff, you can nail their lying arse to the wall.
 
Quote
3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?

Yes, real scientists who work with information do need to be clear about which definition of 'information' they're using, and how they measure it. Fortunately, real scientists are clear about these things, so it's not a problem for real scientists.
 
Quote
4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right?

If that's what they claim to be using, yes. If they change their minds and decide "uh, no, the Durston thing isn't what we mean", then insist on their specifying what they do mean. Do not let them get away with vague, formless assertions; insist on specific details.
 
Quote
5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?

If they can tell you the method by which they're measuring information, you don't need to guess -- you can use that method to confirm their answer for yourself. And if they can't tell you the method by which they're measuring information, you get to pound on them for not knowing what the fuck they're talking about.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,00:41   

Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 14 2011,20:14)
I was confused by this passage from the penultimate paragraph of Bard's review:

 
Quote
Complex systems have properties that cannot be pre- dicted, albeit that they can be understood with hindsight, and it may well be that the network for some trait (e.g. bone growth or pigmentation pattern) in the offspring has quantitative properties that are very different from those of the parents, not because of new mutations but because the novel mix of the rate constants will yield a trait that is an outlier of the normal distribution (known as a sport in breeding circles). As a result, the offspring may be able to colonise a novel environment far better than its peers. Equally important, this variant will naturally be heritable because it derives from the kinetics of the network (minor variation) rather than additions or losses to the proteins that comprise them.

I understand and agree that a novel combination of existing alleles could result in the offspring having a novel phenotype due to particular network interactions. But how would that novel phenotype be heritable? If it depends on an unlikely combination of alleles, it's not likely to recur in the subsequent generation.

And even if it did result in selective fixation of the relevant combination of alleles, how does that go beyond existing evolutionary theory?

I feel like I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what.

I guess we should really answer this question:

how does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype? At least in some detail if we are to trash the book review

or am I missing something

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,01:33   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 14 2011,19:02)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,05:30)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:26)

Okay so here is a new article out regarding problems with evolution this time from oxford:

http://www.biosignaling.com/content....-30.pdf

What are you're thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

Very odd that this fellow doesn't know much about Lamark. I ended reading the reviews thinking that books could easily be better than the reviewer.

Yes I agree, here is a linki to shapiros work. I feel he is on to something interesting

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Ce....ol.html

The Idiots will not be happy

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,02:24   

Shapiro plays at  being L'enfant terrible, but he doesn't seem stupid enough to assert that variation anticipates need.

He seems to take an extreme position on evolvability and seems to assert that there are mechanisms to increase certain kinds of mutations as a response to stress.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,07:07   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 16 2011,00:24)
Shapiro plays at  being L'enfant terrible, but he doesn't seem stupid enough to assert that variation anticipates need.

He seems to take an extreme position on evolvability and seems to assert that there are mechanisms to increase certain kinds of mutations as a response to stress.

There are in bacteria. Under heat stress, or antibiotic attack, error checking during DNA replication is turned (nearly) off in bacteria (and archaea?) generating huge mutation rates.

This could be why bacteria are so successful. But, this approach would obviously destroy any metazoans.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 16 2011,05:09

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:26   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 16 2011,07:07)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 16 2011,00:24)
Shapiro plays at  being L'enfant terrible, but he doesn't seem stupid enough to assert that variation anticipates need.

He seems to take an extreme position on evolvability and seems to assert that there are mechanisms to increase certain kinds of mutations as a response to stress.

There are in bacteria. Under heat stress, or antibiotic attack, error checking during DNA replication is turned (nearly) off in bacteria (and archaea?) generating huge mutation rates.

This could be why bacteria are so successful. But, this approach would obviously destroy any metazoans.

There are certainly mechanisms that increase mutation rates under stress. But is there evidence that such increased mutation is actually adaptive? Or is it merely an unavoidable consequence of things like needing to relax proofreading in order to replicate damaged DNA?

Shapiro definitely thinks it's adaptive. He even goes so far as to claim that:

 
Quote
Large-scale genome-wide reorganizations occur rapidly (potentially within a single generation) following activation of natural genetic engineering systems in response to a major evolutionary challenge. The cellular regulation of natural genetic engineering automatically imposes a punctuated tempo on the process of evolutionary change.


This does seem to flirt with ideas like front loading and purposeful evolution. Perhaps he's merely being excessively metaphorical, but I don't see any sense in which individual organisms can be properly described as responding to evolutionary challenge.

He also ignores the seemingly insurmountable issue of how such mechanisms could apply to large organisms. Individual cells in our bodies might respond to stress in some of the ways Shapiro suggests, but there's no known mechanism to allow "successful" responses in a somatic cell to be transmitted to the germ cells.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,12:36   

I think Shapiro and Koonin assert that most "hard" evolution takes place in microbes. Things like invention of protein domains and new genes.

They also seem enamored of horizontal gene transfer.

And claim that most metazoan evolution is modification of regulatory networks rather than invention of new genes.

I believe both apply "Lamark" to some adaptations in microbes, but not to evolution in general. I wish I knew enough to be more specific.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,10:04   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 15 2011,15:01)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 15 2011,12:21]    
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
     
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi everyone,

here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:

------transcript starts here -----------

Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?

Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)

By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.

As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.

Please note that the modification of a nucleotide is an extremely rare event, 2 nucleotides are immensly rare, 3 are astronomicaly rare, 4 are next to impossible.

Seeing as that the smallest and most simple proteins are composed of 10's of aminoacids,("translated" from the comparison of the triplet codon / anticodon)  for example myoglobine has 153, which is about 459 nucliotide bases.

So we're talking about 1 or 2 nucleotide changes on 459, and in most cases the changes don't even cause a variation in the translated aminoacid (every aminoacid can be translated by more codons, therefore by more necleotide sequences).

See these are the measures I'm refering to with regards to the mutations, or at least the most probable one's that can arrise which lead to the adding of information under the form of new codifing sequences: I don't really cionsider the other mutations as they are deleterious, they have a wider applicability on the sequences and therefore the probability of adding codifing information is reduced.

In simple terms, one thing is to change a letter in one chapter of a book at random, and another is to change whole sentences or words.

Southstar said: Well even if your nucleotide is smaller, how did you go about determening a loss of information?

Isobe said: Well simple, just by the fact that the nucleotide sequence is no longer able to codify the same protiens, which then seize to function or at least function less.

Southstar said: Yes and in terms of evolution this is no problem we have a lot of species out there that have lost functions. See evolution dosen't have to have a direction.

Ioseb said: Well yes but it's still proof of a loss of information. Besides the point is that there is no way that you could go from bacteria to human by just changing randomly one or two nucleotides and even then you need to have these passed down to the following generation which is even rarer.

See your silly evolution rests on mutations which don't occur and natural selction which is essentially passive. Selection will never and can never add information, it could favour and organism on the basis of fisical circumstances, but in small it's totaly random and blind.

Southstar said: Still you have shown a loss of ability sooo what? Hamsters have lost their tails, dolphins went back to the sea and?

Isoeb said: Don't be stupid! You don't have the faintest idea of what it would take to do the kind of mutations that you have just mentioned. Your not a scientist like me. You're just a silly girl. What do you know about molecular biology?

Ah and by the way those silly studies that you posted regarding macroevolution well that was all microevolution. You know you don't have any proof of macroevolution so don't try pawning micro studies. Remember what carl sagan said: Great claims require great proof. You don't have any.

Southstar said: goodness Carl is shaking in his tomb and could visit you tonight. I'd watch my back.

---- end of transcript ----

To me it seems he's avoiding the difficult questions with technobable. But I would need some valid arguments to take him down. If I just reply that it's rubbish the fence sitting people will say "why do you say that"? So I need to show that it's rubbish.

Cheers
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,10:40   

Just refer them to the Evolution on a Chip article.  The end result was a 90-fold increase in efficiency and there were 4 mutations (some of which were multiple nucleotides) that resulted in this.

So, not only can it happen, it DOES happen and in a controlled environment in which no designer was found fiddling with the RNA sequence.

You can also refer them to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover ISD court transcript in which Michael Behe is toasted on the same subject.  

In short, let's say that there is a 1 in trillion trillion chance for the mutations to occur.  Unfortunately, the creationists forget that there is a trillion bacteria in a few grams of soil (for example) and there are many trillions of grams of soil in the world.

So, even a trillion trillion chance approaches 1 when one is discussing all life on the planet.

Sure, it's more difficult to deal with something like this in large animals and plants, but then (as the creationists remind us) large animal and plant populations change very slowly.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....am.html

I would encourage you to read the Kitzmiller trial testimony (at least the experts), it's a textbook list of modern creationist arguments.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,12:39   

Southstar,

Your friend Ioseb may claim to be a scientist, but he(?) doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. He mentions "Malaria or HIV plasmoid." No such things. Malaria is the disease caused by a parasite called Plasmodium. HIV is a virus. Neither one is a plasmid, which is a form of self-replicating DNA.

He says Sequence A produces Protein B through replication, transcription, and translation. Wrong! Replication is not involved in going from DNA sequence to protein. Replication of Sequence A just gives you more copies of Sequence A.

As for this:

 
Quote
Please note that the modification of a nucleotide is an extremely rare event, 2 nucleotides are immensly rare, 3 are astronomicaly rare, 4 are next to impossible.


The average human baby's DNA contains ~100 new mutations that weren't present in either of it's parents (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010.......on.html).

Plus he's still dodging your question of how to quantitatively measure information in a DNA sequence. He says it's based on the number of kilobase pairs and the number of mutations, but that's hand waving. Which has more information, in his opinion - sequence 1: AAAAAAAAAAAA, or sequence 2: ATGACCGACTAG? They're the same length, so do they have equal information? What if the first base of each is mutated to a C. How much has the information in each sequence changed? Just one A-to-C mutation in each, so it must be the same amount, right?

Sorry, but Ioseb is talking gibberish.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,13:02   

And at this point the lay audience switches off and goes away happy that "their" guy appears to be having a scientific argument and therefore there must be something in it or some controversy.

Which is exactly what the Creationists/IDers count on. Except they've also got a sophisticated (well) racket going on where they ask you to "buy their book" where the secret is fully revealed.

If, when asked, they cannot give a specific numerical value of "information" present in a given thing, despite claiming that they can, then how can they possibly claim that information has gone up or down at all? If they can't measure it how do they know it exists at all, never mind has it increased or decreased!

When pressed on this they typically say at UD: "It's so much it's obvious, it does not actually need to be measured".

KF for example claims there are billions of examples of FSCI out there on the internet, in the form of intelligible messages (I hope he's not counting his own in that...), but can't quite bring himself to do the calculation when asked, referring people to "Abel" et al. It can be done, according to him, but not by him.

Some organisms are fully sequenced. Which one has more information then another? Less? What's the actual figure for FSCI (or whatever units they are measuring it in, ask them that too) for the organism? Can they show that calculation?

Then, if they answer that, they can meet Mr Onion.

--------------
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

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:30   

[quote=Southstar,Nov. 17 2011,10:04]
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 15 2011,15:01)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 15 2011,12:21)
     
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
       
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
         
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi everyone,

here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:

------transcript starts here -----------

Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?

Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)

If your boy Ioseb really does measure 'information' by counting the nucleotides, he's already lost -- because by the number-of-nucleotides method for measuring information, any mutation which inserts extra nucleotides into a genetic sequence increases the information of that DNA! You should point this out. The lurkers will appreciate it.
Quote
By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.

This is bafflegab. It is most certainly not a clear answer to the question of "how do you measure information?"; at best, it's a vague assertion about a perhaps-hypothetical method which possibly could measure information. Give Ioseb a pair of nucleotide sequences, one of which is a minor modification of the other. Ask him which of the two sequences has more information in it -- and insist that he show his work. He won't be able to, so make his failure utterly crystal-clear in the minds of all readers.  No matter how impressive his sciencey-sounding verbiage is, his inability to actually determine how much information is in a nucleotide sequence will go a long way towards convincing people that Ioseb is full of shit.
Quote
As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.

The phrase "at least" suggests that there's more to his information-measuring method than just counting nucleotides. Ask what else is needed, besides just the number of nucleotides.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,00:54   

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,02:55   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 18 2011,00:54)
It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information.
He pointed out the following paper as important to his argument:
http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf

It's our well known friend Behe, but it's peer reviewed. Still reading through it I don't see anything that could be a visioned as anti-evolution. He does seem to lean towards evolution only subtracts though.

And I believe that his argument will be: see on a molecular level all that can happen is negative - loss of function / information. Therefore there is no way that you could have increased complexity through evolution. So your only option is things were "created" complex or through "divine" genetic intervention.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,04:00   

This might help:

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....in.html

--------------
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

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,04:48   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 18 2011,02:55)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 18 2011,00:54)
It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information.

Okay, fine -- give your 'friend' the two-sequence test. Provide pairs of nucleotide sequences; ask which sequence in each pair has the most information; insist that he show his work; and do not allow him to weasel out of either (a) providing answers to your "which sequence has more information?" questions, or (b) explaining how he came up with his answers.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,06:35   

If all mutations create negative information then why do some living things with high mutation rates and fast life cycles still exist?

Just stumbled on this: http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2006....-i.html

Might be relevant.

--------------
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: Nov. 18 2011,22:50   

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2011,01:17   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2011,22:50)
One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

Yes I often remind them that the absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Unfortunately for them they always have to agree to this cause all of there idea stands on this principle.

marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2011,01:43   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2011,22:50)
One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...
What did the Intelligent Designer do?
When did the Intelligent Designer do it?
What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?
What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?
Etc, etc...

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2011,02:47   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 19 2011,01:43)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2011,22:50)
One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...
What did the Intelligent Designer do?
When did the Intelligent Designer do it?
What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?
What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?
Etc, etc...

Oh come'on such easy questions to answer? ;)

What did the Intelligent Designer do?

Answer: look around

When did the Intelligent Designer do it?

1st Answer: It doesn't really matter...
2nd Answer: some (unspecified) records indicate it's around 6000 years ago.
3nd answer: The designer has never stopped doing whatever you think he might have done.

What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?

Answer: It doesn't really say how he did it besides it's not really our business to know.

What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?

Answer: That's not the question, the question we should ask is: (and then they ask another totally different question which they can answer!) - itallian polititians also use this way out often :D

Cheers
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2011,03:34   

Hi Marty, sorry to be late for the fun! Parlo un pochino italiano, se ai bisogno...

Quote
how does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype? At least in some detail if we are to trash the book review


I think to answer this, you might have to dwelve into Evo Devo. Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" has a very good section about it.

I am just a layman (by which I might mean a man who gets laid), so don't take my words as gospel (ahahah).

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2011,03:58   

Very topical on Listverse: 8 exemples of evolution in action. Not academical, mind you...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2011,04:59   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 19 2011,02:47)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 19 2011,01:43)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2011,22:50)
One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...
What did the Intelligent Designer do?
When did the Intelligent Designer do it?
What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?
What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?
Etc, etc...

Oh come'on such easy questions to answer? ;)

What did the Intelligent Designer do?

Answer: look around

My suggested response to this non-answer: Unless you're saying that the Intelligent Designer did absolutely everything, 'look around' isn't an answer. Are you saying the Intelligent Designer did ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING?
If they reply "Yep, I sure am saying that," you can follow up by reminding that that "absolutely everything" includes ebola, brown recluse spiders, etc etc etc, so they're saying the Intelligent Designer designed ebola. And It designed the bubonic plague. Ask them why the Intelligent Designer designed all this nasty stuff to kill humans. A reply of "no, the Designer didn't do that" indicates that they were lying when they claimed the Designer did everything, so hammer on them for their dishonesty.
If they reply "Uh, no, I'm not saying the Designer designed everything," follow up by pointing out that if the Intelligent Designer didn't do EVERYTHING, there must necessarily be some things It didn't do... so what things weren't designed by the Designer? Insist on specifics, and don't let anybody forget that the guys who are doing their damnedest to avoid answering this question, are the same people who had been yammering about how unanswered questions are a good reason to reject a scientific theory.
Quote
When did the Intelligent Designer do it?

1st Answer: It doesn't really matter...

Suggested reply: Hammer on them for their blatant hypocrasy. "Hold it. You were just making noise about how unanswered questions are a good reason to reject a theory! How come you're saying 'I don't care' here, and not 'Gosh, I don't have an answer, so that means I should give up on ID' ?"
Quote
2nd Answer: some (unspecified) records indicate it's around 6000 years ago.

Insist on them saying exactly which 'documents' those are. If it's the Bible, make it very clear to everybody that this is all well and good as a religious belief, and ask them if they have any science to support what they're saying. You don't need to sneer at religion, but do make it very clear that Religion Ain't Science, and if they're rejecting a scientific theory for religious reasons, they shouldn't claim they're rejecting it on scientific grounds, because that's a big, fat, hairy LIE. If they can't actually identify any of these 'documents' they mentioned, hammer on their hypocrasy -- what, unanswered questions only cast doubt on a scientific theory when it's a theory they don't happen to agree with? yeah, right, sure, you bet...
Quote
3nd answer: The designer has never stopped doing whatever you think he might have done.

Remind them that they don't have a good answer about what the Designer did. Ask them how the hell they know that the Designer is still at work, if they don't have a clue about what work that might have been.
Quote
What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?

Answer: It doesn't really say how he did it besides it's not really our business to know.

My suggested response to this: "Okay, so you don't really think unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory." Hammer on their hypocracy, yada yada yada.
Quote
What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?

Answer: That's not the question, the question we should ask is: (and then they ask another totally different question which they can answer!) - itallian polititians also use this way out often :D

Don't let them get away with changing the subject. "Yes, [verbiage they disgorged about irrelevant question] is all well and good, but it doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked. What did the Designer design?" Just keep at it, and make it very clear that anybody who thinks unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory, is the last person who should be making noise about "oh, that isn't the question".

tl:dr summary: Hammer on your Creationist buddies for their hypocrisy. Throw a harsh spotlight on all the bits of their position which would require them to reject that position, if they actually were serious about "unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory", and point out (for the lurkers) that the game your Creationist buddies are playing is called "heads I win, tails you lose" .

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,06:15   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 19 2011,04:59)

Hello everyone,

What do you think of this research?

http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/Journal....21o.pdf

I noticed it's from a known Idiot Wolf-ekkehard lonnig. However the article seems peer reviewed.

Here's a link to a rundown of this paper:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010....91.html

Any ideas how to throw this out the window?

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,06:29   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 20 2011,06:15)
Any ideas how to throw this out the window?

The whole thrust of the argument on EN+V is that X could not have done Y therefore Z must have done it instead.

Quote
However, there is another possibility, namely the scientific inclusion of intelligent design. In contrast to neo-Darwinism, Lönnig notes the ID-based view can "be falsified by proving (among other points) that the probability to form an ICS by purely natural processes is high, that specified complexity is low, and finally, by generating an ICS by random mutations in a species displaying none."


Sure, ID is a possibility. So are invisible Unicorns from Mars.

The point is that the ID based view does not need to be falsified as it is not supported to start with in the first place.

All we have is a gap "How did X form - we don't know" and ID does not get to fill that gap without some positive evidence of it's own. Which it does not have.

So all that paper points to is a gap in our understanding of a particular process and if that's evidence for ID then it can be said that every day the "evidence" for ID is getting smaller and smaller as we find new things out.

And every time we've found such an answer ID is never involved. Ever. So what are the chances that it'll be involved this particular time?

It's just ID of the gaps, nothing new here.

--------------
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

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,09:50   

I enjoyed these bits from Luskin's article:

Quote
If the trait evolved multiple times independently, then why do so many plants still lack such a "lantern" protective shelter?


Ah, yes. The old 'if evolution is true, how come humans haven't evolved wings' ruse. Just because a trait evolves and is selected for in some species doesn't mean it should be selected for in every species.

Quote
After noting that some proponents of neo-Darwinism make unfalsifiable appeals to unknown selective advantages, [Lonnig] concludes that neo-Darwinism is not making falsifiable predictions and finds that this "infinity of mostly non-testable explanations (often just-so-stories) itself may put the theory outside science."


So if a "Darwinist" appeals to unknown selective advantages, he's guilty of making unfalsifiable predictions and being unscientific. But it's totally fine for an IDist to appeal to an unknown designer, right? At least the Darwinist is appealing to a mechanism that's proven to exist.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,10:01   

Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 20 2011,09:50)
I enjoyed these bits from Luskin's article:

 
Quote
If the trait evolved multiple times independently, then why do so many plants still lack such a "lantern" protective shelter?


Ah, yes. The old 'if evolution is true, how come humans haven't evolved wings' ruse. Just because a trait evolves and is selected for in some species doesn't mean it should be selected for in every species.

 
Quote
After noting that some proponents of neo-Darwinism make unfalsifiable appeals to unknown selective advantages, [Lonnig] concludes that neo-Darwinism is not making falsifiable predictions and finds that this "infinity of mostly non-testable explanations (often just-so-stories) itself may put the theory outside science."


So if a "Darwinist" appeals to unknown selective advantages, he's guilty of making unfalsifiable predictions and being unscientific. But it's totally fine for an IDist to appeal to an unknown designer, right? At least the Darwinist is appealing to a mechanism that's proven to exist.

Intelligence is proven to exist, too, and to produce functional structures.

It's just that God's intelligence is very different, so you'd expect his designs to be very different as well.

So the analogy holds.  I mean, except for God's intelligence being so unlike any we've ever seen, and the functional structures being a great deal different from anything we've produced.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,10:21   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 18 2011,00:54)
It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Hello,

Finaly I forced Ioseb to give me some more information on what he considers as information and how he plans to measure it here is the transcript:

----------transcript starts here-------------


Southstar:    You measured what? As I have shown by the nucleotide sequences above you were not able to tell which had more information... case closed. Until you do so you're really going to need another argument.

Ioseb: Sorry you didn't prove anything with your little game.
I have already told you that we are not interested in measuring the information. The real question is whether information exists and if this information is specified and complex.

You've just run out of critisims haven't you that's why you keep asking for measurement.

Anyway here's how it's done let me explain it to you since you and your friends are stupid beyond belief. We look at the position of the nucleotied and/or the aminoacid within biological molecules these have always a precise physical, chemical and structural significance. These represent specific information, all that needs to be done is to count the nucleotides and the aminoacids in the sequence so as to determine the intrinsic complexity.
 
This is the measure of information I'm talking about.

For example the section of a ribosome of 1600 amminoacids and a nucleotide is obviously more complicated than a Myglobin of 153 aminoacids

But between the two molecules of 150 aminoacids i'm in no way interested in determening which has more information. But rather what information they hold. You know Information is commonly used in biology.

Regarding your stupid quiz let me show you and your ignorant friends how real biology is done.

Let's take three sequences the first two are your invented sequences. The third is a real sequence. (See scientists use real things not like the ones you make up).

Sequenza 1:AAAAAAAAAAAA
Sequenza 2:ATGACCGACTAG
Sequenza 3:AUGGUUAAGGGA

See now sequence 3 has the same probability of being genereated by chance as the other two, but it is a real RNA sequence starting with a codon (AUG) and the codons for translating amminoacids valinm lisin and glicin.

So if we make the assumption that this sequence codifies in the begining a protiene, it would not contain only information of the random sequence of letters but it would also contain information (contained in the example in the first triplet regarding) reagarding the amminoacid start, the same for each triplet which together contains a specific information which can be chemical/physical or structural. This is INDESPENSIBLE for the function of the protiens produced.  

Now my sequence is the only one of the three that permit the formation of a protiene,

if you change it from


AUGGUUAAGGGA

to

AGGGUUAAGGGA

all that simply happens is that the robosome will  not recognise the RNA and won't even start the translation process.

So what do we have protien non produced = loss of function = problems or death of the organism

Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.

Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example

sequence1: get me some cheese
Sequence2: eef hg thki loffr

See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.

So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen. You wouldn't get up to get the cheese with the second sequence would you.

Southstar Said: Well listen in the end of the game even if you are right you have just proved a loss of function sooo what this in no way disproves evolution. look here, here is a study that just goes to show gain of function http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085 - Biology on a chip.

Ioseb said: Thanks i rest my case! You brought a study which proves that without inteligence nothing happens. I'll be using this little jewel that you supplied to me many more times. But first I tell your decendent from monkey friends why:
Now let's see evolution requires processes that are by chance and that there is no divine intervention and what do you bring here. A study that proves that you can't get there unless you skew the chances and you interviene through intelligence. Wow
The scientists in this study have created a controlled enviorment , and skewed the program so as to give them the resault they wanted. THE PRESTIGE! This people is what the fake science is pawning you. Because they were not able to find proof in nature they fabricated it. just like the whole theory, it depends on pure fabrications.

Go home to your monkey friends and tell them thanks for further proof AGAINST evolution. If they wound stop playing videogames they might understand that nature is designed by God.


Southstar said: Okay so in the ndo you just proved a loss of function sooo what? Evolution doesn't have a direction. A lot of animals have lost functions so?

Ioseb said: well see you evolutionists suggest that we have passed form simple organisms to complex organisms. Read your silly theory. From bacteria to humans. So according to the theory we have moved from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. In accordance with this there must have been a increase in biological information humans have many more functions than bacteria. So we had to have new functions that had to develop naturally (not in your stupid PS2 game), new functions would have led to new organs and new life forms.  

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything...
Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase

See I have presented a peer reviewed study by an eminent scientist that proves that loss of function is almost the law. You have shown nothing!

To the readers of this forum: I think that we can rest assured that science, the real science has and will triumph over this blinded and evil idea.

--------- transcript ends here----------

I think it is obvious that he is now mixing up meaning with information. He would chose the churchil speech and say: That what counts is that it gives you extra information it makes you do something. Now he's not interested in counting the duration of the speech he's counting the extra quality what it makes you do.

Any idea on how to break this down?

Cheers
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,11:03   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 20 2011,10:01)
Intelligence is proven to exist, too, and to produce functional structures.

It's just that God's intelligence is very different, so you'd expect his designs to be very different as well.

So the analogy holds.  I mean, except for God's intelligence being so unlike any we've ever seen, and the functional structures being a great deal different from anything we've produced.

Glen Davidson

Intelligence is proven to exist, but an intelligent designer is not. Plus, which is worse - a scientist appealing to unknown selective advantages? Or an IDist appealing to the unknown/unknowable motives of an unknown/unknowable/undemonstrated designer?

Not that consistency in argument was ever Luskin's forte.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,11:51   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 20 2011,10:21)
Ioseb: Anyway here's how it's done let me explain it to you since you and your friends are stupid beyond belief. We look at the position of the nucleotied and/or the aminoacid within biological molecules these have always a precise physical, chemical and structural significance. These represent specific information, all that needs to be done is to count the nucleotides and the aminoacids in the sequence so as to determine the intrinsic complexity.

This is the measure of information I'm talking about.


Wrong. The vast majority of proteins include amino acids that are completely superfluous to their structure and function. They can be replaced with other amino acids or even deleted with no effect. So no, you can't just count amino acids, because number of amino acids doesn't directly correspond to function, complexity, information, meaning, or anything else he's suggesting.

 
Quote
Regarding your stupid quiz let me show you and your ignorant friends how real biology is done.

Let's take three sequences the first two are your invented sequences. The third is a real sequence. (See scientists use real things not like the ones you make up).

Sequenza 1:AAAAAAAAAAAA
Sequenza 2:ATGACCGACTAG
Sequenza 3:AUGGUUAAGGGA

See now sequence 3 has the same probability of being genereated by chance as the other two, but it is a real RNA sequence starting with a codon (AUG) and the codons for translating amminoacids valinm lisin and glicin.

So if we make the assumption that this sequence codifies in the begining a protiene, it would not contain only information of the random sequence of letters but it would also contain information (contained in the example in the first triplet regarding) reagarding the amminoacid start, the same for each triplet which together contains a specific information which can be chemical/physical or structural. This is INDESPENSIBLE for the function of the protiens produced.  

Now my sequence is the only one of the three that permit the formation of a protiene


Really? I guess Ioseb didn't notice that Sequence 2 is simply the DNA version of the following:

AUGACCGACUAG

Note that it also contains the AUG start codon (which codes for methionine), followed by codons for threonine (ACC) and aspartate (GAC). Even better, Sequence 2 includes a stop codon (UAG), with is also INDISPENSIBLE for function.

 
Quote
Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.


I understand it a lot better than Ioseb does. That's clear.

 
Quote
So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen.


Congratulations to Ioseb for "proving" what no one was disputing. We all agree that information exists. We even agree that it can be measured, as long as you're careful about precisely defining the kind of information you're measuring.

The issue is not whether information exists. The issue is Ioseb's (and others') claim that information can't be increased by evolution. To wit:

 
Quote
Ioseb said: well see you evolutionists suggest that we have passed form simple organisms to complex organisms. Read your silly theory. From bacteria to humans. So according to the theory we have moved from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. In accordance with this there must have been a increase in biological information humans have many more functions than bacteria. So we had to have new functions that had to develop naturally (not in your stupid PS2 game), new functions would have led to new organs and new life forms.  

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything...
Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase


Easy: Richard Lenski's demonstration that E. coli can spontaneously evolve the ability to use citrate as an energy source.

Of course, Ioseb may object that demonstrating evolution of such a relatively simple new function is a long way from demonstrating that fins can evolve into legs and wings. And it's true that we don't (yet) understand the details of how that could happen. But we haven't yet had the luxury of running controlled evolutionary experiments over the course of several million years. What we have done is proven that evolution really happens on observable scales, and that it's consistent with the reams of data from molecular phylogenies & the fossil & geological record going back billions of years.

What has Ioseb shown? Can he provide any shred of positive evidence for a designer (or whatever else he thinks accounts for biological complexity)?

Quote
To the readers of this forum: I think that we can rest assured that science, the real science has and will triumph over this blinded and evil idea.


And here we see a clue to Ioseb's real objection to evolution: it's "evil." And what makes it evil? Could it be because it contradicts Ioseb's religious beliefs? Naaah.

P.S. What's your interest in trying to "break this down?" If you're just trying to understand how Ioseb's arguments are flawed, or you're trying to convince others how he's wrong, fair enough. But if you're hoping to convince Ioseb that he's wrong, forget it. It's not gonna happen.

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,12:18   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 20 2011,10:21)
 
Quote (Ioseb @ ,)
Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example

sequence1: get me some cheese
Sequence2: eef hg thki loffr

See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.



Of course we have only Ioseb's word for it that "eef hg thki loffr" doesn't mean something in some obscure language.  

Sequence3: zhw n wjs rh rny
Sequence4: jmz nj nhy n snw

One of these is "bring me some wine" in ancient Egyptian (there's apparently no attested word for "cheese").  The other doesn't mean anything I know of; it's just a string of letters and spaces.  Which one has more information?

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,12:37   

As we all knew... the creationist is conflating 'meaning' with 'information'.

Did he ever answer the question about which has more information 30 minutes of white noise or 30 minutes of a Churchill speech?  

In terms of information, the white noise has more.

You could show him a fractal and ask him if that is a lot of information or a little bit of information.   If he says 'a lot' then he's an idiot (well, beyond what we already knew).

Darwinian Evolution on a Chip still proves him wrong.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,12:46   

One thing I don't get is why somebody would claim that proving sufficiency of natural processes would somehow disprove "some intelligent thing did it".

The hypothesis that something intelligent did something does not logically imply that natural processes couldn't do something equivalent; claiming otherwise is saying that an intelligence couldn't make use of natural processes even if it wanted to (which is something humans do all the time).

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,13:09   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2011,11:37)
You could show him a fractal and ask him if that is a lot of information or a little bit of information.   If he says 'a lot' then he's an idiot (well, beyond what we already knew).

If you're talking about the information needed to generate it, that would be a little. But what if you're talking about a list of the coordinates of the pixels to display it? ;)

Henry

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,13:57   

Quote
Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything...
Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase


There are several that occurred to me;

Under the category of "experimental evolution"

(All the way back to 1976)

Barry G. Hall
1976 "Experimental evolution of a new enzymatic function. Kinetic analysis of the ancestral (ebgo) and evolved (ebg+) enzymes" Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 107, Issue 1, 15 October 1976, Pages 71-84

(Lenski, et al, of course)

Richard E. Lenski; Michael R. Rose; Suzanne C. Simpson; Scott C. Tadler
1991 Long-Term Experimental Evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and Divergence During 2,000 Generations" The American Naturalist, Vol. 138, No. 6. (Dec., 1991), pp. 1315-1341

Estelle Crozat, Nadège Philippe, Richard E. Lenski, Johannes Geiselmann, Dominique Schneider
2005 "Long-Term Experimental Evolution in Escherichia coli. XII. DNA Topology as a Key Target of Selection" Genetics February 1, vol. 169 no. 2 523-532

"experimental evolution" +increased +function gave 4,160 hits to articles.

"Gene resurrection, or "Ancestral Function"

Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton
2006 "Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation" Science 312, 97-101

(a general intro, and review)
Joseph W. Thornton
2004 "RESURRECTING ANCIENT GENES: EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF EXTINCT MOLECULES" NATURE REVIEWS | GENETICS VOLUME 5: 366-375

SEAN MICHAEL CARROLL
2009 "MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION BY GENE DUPLICATION: THE ORIGINS OF CORTICOSTEROID SIGNALING" Dissertation, University of Oregon.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,14:04   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 20 2011,11:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2011,11:37)
You could show him a fractal and ask him if that is a lot of information or a little bit of information.   If he says 'a lot' then he's an idiot (well, beyond what we already knew).

If you're talking about the information needed to generate it, that would be a little. But what if you're talking about a list of the coordinates of the pixels to display it? ;)

Henry

Do you REALLY want to get into arguments about Shannon verus Kolmogrov?

If so, I recommend reading Shallit and Elsberry, "Playing Games with Probability: Dembski's Complex Specified Information." 2005  "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" Rutgers University Press

Use the paperback

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,15:29   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 20 2011,13:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2011,11:37)
You could show him a fractal and ask him if that is a lot of information or a little bit of information.   If he says 'a lot' then he's an idiot (well, beyond what we already knew).

If you're talking about the information needed to generate it, that would be a little. But what if you're talking about a list of the coordinates of the pixels to display it? ;)

Henry

Then we would know what he means by 'information' wouldn't we?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,15:41   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2011,21:29)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 20 2011,13:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2011,11:37)
You could show him a fractal and ask him if that is a lot of information or a little bit of information.   If he says 'a lot' then he's an idiot (well, beyond what we already knew).

If you're talking about the information needed to generate it, that would be a little. But what if you're talking about a list of the coordinates of the pixels to display it? ;)

Henry

Then we would know what he means by 'information' wouldn't we?

Ooooohhh. Sneaky!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,16:39   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2011,15:29)
Then we would know what he means by 'information' wouldn't we?

You're assuming he has a coherent meaning....

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,16:50   

Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 20 2011,16:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2011,15:29)
Then we would know what he means by 'information' wouldn't we?

You're assuming he has a coherent meaning....

Yeah, that is the central fallacy of my position.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,17:16   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 20 2011,06:15)
Here's a link to a rundown of this paper:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010.......91.html

Any ideas how to throw this out the window?

Marty

Luskin cites a paper from a random (retired) agronomist:
 
Quote
Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...
(December 2010).)

I don't know about these "mutation breeding programs", but I don't see how this proves anything. Artificial selection is still widely undergone in agriculture, and it has led to the varieties we have today (compare these to the wild ancestors and see the difference).
Now, artificial selection is even assisted by molecular markers, so we have direct evidence that the selected trait is encoded by variations localized on the chromosomes. So unless that guy suggests that artificially selected variation is designed (maybe God caused the variation, heh?), I'm not sure what he's up to.
Regarding his argument about new systematic species... He doesn't seem to know how species form.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2011,19:34   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 20 2011,17:16)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 20 2011,06:15)
Here's a link to a rundown of this paper:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010.......91.html

Any ideas how to throw this out the window?

Marty

Luskin cites a paper from a random (retired) agronomist:
 
Quote
Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...
(December 2010).)

I don't know about these "mutation breeding programs", but I don't see how this proves anything. Artificial selection is still widely undergone in agriculture, and it has led to the varieties we have today (compare these to the wild ancestors and see the difference).
Now, artificial selection is even assisted by molecular markers, so we have direct evidence that the selected trait is encoded by variations localized on the chromosomes. So unless that guy suggests that artificially selected variation is designed (maybe God cause the variation, heh?), I'm not sure what he's up to.
Regarding his argument about new systematic species... He doesn't seem to know how species form.

That's actually an interesting point.  We know (for example) that Canis familaris has been selectively bred for thousands of years... and yet they are all dogs.  

The ID proponents generally consider this to be a case of front-loading... in which case, the ID proponents really need to show the genes for some of the odd domestic dog mutations exist in wolfs/coyotes.  For example, they would need to show that the actual allele that creates the smushed noses of pugs or the unique traits of the dachshund (including the variety of coats, leg lengths, and sizes) already exist in precursor organisms.

That's a very interesting tack and I'm curious about the results.  I would suspect that the unique mutations do not exist in wolfs or coyotes, but instead can be traced to mutations in alleles that are in wolfs or coyotes.  This would neatly destroy the frontloading option.

A similar case could be done with the scottish fold cat, since we know exactly when that mutation occurred in the wild.  The problem is that we really don't have an ancestral species for the domestic cats to look at.

The other option for the ID crowd would be to admit that the mutations happened and in the way science shows they occurred, but under the direction of an intelligent designer.  Unfortunately, they cannot do that because it would give them the worst of both worlds.  They would be forced to admit that science is right and be required to show that their designer of choice was actually involved.

Which pretty much leaves them with front-loading.

It's even worse for the YEC crowd.  They must use front-loading to explain the existence of the 670+ HLA-A alleles in the human population.  By definition, the YECs must accept that only 10 alleles existed at the time of the Flood and they have to get the additional 660+ alleles in less than 6000 years.  Just that would be a mutation rate to turn everyone into cancer ridden piles of jello, but they also have to deal with all the other multiple alleles (not to mention all the human specific diseases that either existed on the ark or came into being since the ark... as Rick would say... "Oops").

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2011,03:51   

Some alleles causing particular dog phenotypes (hairless for instance) have been identified, and I'd be surprised in they existed in wolves.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2011,16:02   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 14 2011,19:07)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2011,13:50)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,03:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 13 2011,02:26)

Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

Go to my blog  ogremk5.wordpress.com

and click on the abiogenesis link in the right hand column under 'categories'.

I enjoy studying abiogenesis and there are literally 100s of new articles published every year.  I've got many links, reviews, etc.

One thing about abiogenesis, it is simple to falsify.  All someone has to do is show that a required chemical reaction cannot happen.  In the 40+ years abiogenesis research has been going on, no one has been able to say, 'x reaction cannot happen therefore abiogenesis is impossible'.

There's a fair bit of research indicating that comets have a high level of organic compounds and it very well might be that a comet strike dumped a couple of tons of concentrated organic chemicals which got life on Earth really cooking.  We will never know how it happened.

The fact that we can know it is possible and that it did happen and there is nothing (so far) that requires divine intervention is enough.

Ah HA! I say Ah HA!

You could also see my Short Outline of the Origin of Life because it is short.

It is also in need of updating.

Hi,

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2011,16:16   

If your opponents won't even accept that evolution can generate new functionality without intelligent intervention, I suggest you not get sucked into a discussion of abiogenesis. Although there are some great hypotheses about abiogenesis, the evidence base is still virtually nothing compared to what's been proven for evolution.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2011,16:39   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 21 2011,16:02)
Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

Whatever little we know has to be compared against what they are claiming to know.

For example. This website: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai........program
is full of information, actual work people have done.

Ask the people who are claiming to have the answers if they have anything comparable to that single site? If not, it's not on the basis of evidence that they hold their position as some evidence is better then no evidence at all. And no support is exactly what they've got, apart from their claimed insufficiency of their straw-man of evolution.

Stop engaging with their attempts to pick holes and ask them to provide their explanation that, by definition, must have better explanatory power otherwise why are they not just accepting your viewpoint? :)

But there will probably be no "this is how life started" moment, so if they want that they can have it. But to win they need to prove it could not have happened, and that's not possible. All that's needed is a plausible pathway.

And what do they care anyway, they already know what happened! Make them say 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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2011,18:59   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 21 2011,16:39)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 21 2011,16:02)
Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

Whatever little we know has to be compared against what they are claiming to know.

For example. This website: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai........program
is full of information, actual work people have done.

Ask the people who are claiming to have the answers if they have anything comparable to that single site? If not, it's not on the basis of evidence that they hold their position as some evidence is better then no evidence at all. And no support is exactly what they've got, apart from their claimed insufficiency of their straw-man of evolution.

Stop engaging with their attempts to pick holes and ask them to provide their explanation that, by definition, must have better explanatory power otherwise why are they not just accepting your viewpoint? :)

But there will probably be no "this is how life started" moment, so if they want that they can have it. But to win they need to prove it could not have happened, and that's not possible. All that's needed is a plausible pathway.

And what do they care anyway, they already know what happened! Make them say it!

I will say there is tons of research on the subject and nothing, so far, says that anything is impossible.

On the other hand, it does not have anything to do with evolution and is a completely different matter.

I have to agree.  Make them say what caused it.

You can always play this game with them too.

"OK, you win, evolution is total bunk.  What replaces it?  What research can be done in the area?  What tools, products, and processes might come from it?"

And don't get sucked into the "anthropology, forensic science and SETI are based on ID"  discussion.  They aren't.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2011,22:40   

Another thought: even if the current theory was wrong in some areas, it's still a useful approximation. If it weren't at least that, scientists would have stopped using it already. It doesn't take technical knowledge of the subject to figure that.

For comparison, consider Newton's laws of motion. At low speeds and weak gravity, they give results that are generally within the margin of error of all but the most precise measurements. (Just don't look at the precession of Mercury's orbit!;)

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2011,23:50   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 21 2011,14:02)
Hi,

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

Thanks
Marty

"The first 3 or 4 pages are about why the origin of life has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

The rest show that there is no insurmountable barrier to the natural origination of life.

Any god could do the job in much less trouble than we know actually has taken place. Unless that is, if you are a theistic evolutionist. In that case, goddidit no matter how. That is actually OK with me.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 21 2011,21:54

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2011,03:26   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2011,23:50)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 21 2011,14:02)
Hi,

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

Thanks
Marty

"The first 3 or 4 pages are about why the origin of life has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

The rest show that there is no insurmountable barrier to the natural origination of life.

Any god could do the job in much less trouble than we know actually has taken place. Unless that is, if you are a theistic evolutionist. In that case, goddidit no matter how. That is actually OK with me.

Hi,

Don't get me wrong I fully understand what you mean. But a logical argument could be made along the lines of:

Well even if you have, all the ingridients of a recipe, you don't really have a way of backing the cake. But worse you don't even know what cake you are baking or even if it is a cake at all.

The devils advocate.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2011,03:38   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 22 2011,03:26)
Well even if you have, all the ingridients of a recipe, you don't really have a way of backing the cake. But worse you don't even know what cake you are baking or even if it is a cake at all.

But what's wrong with that?

We start from knowing nothing and progress from there.

They start from already knowing the answer and never changing their mind.

Given the short amount of time that this has been undergoing research compared to the thousands of years they've had (as the default position) I think our position has done fantastically well.

You have the outline of a sketch of a cake. They have a blank piece of paper with "poof" written on it.

Call them on it! Ask them why they demand evidence to a standard that they cannot themselves provide! Ask them why their position is more logical then "we're not sure but here are some plausible pathways".

Give them the link I provided to the Nasa workshop and ask them how filling that cake is compared to their cake?

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2011,07:55   

Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 20 2011,11:51)
P.S. What's your interest in trying to "break this down?" If you're just trying to understand how Ioseb's arguments are flawed, or you're trying to convince others how he's wrong, fair enough. But if you're hoping to convince Ioseb that he's wrong, forget it. It's not gonna happen.

Hi,

Well my intrest is:
1) Seeing how his argument is flawed
2) Learning by his mistake what the real version is
3) Proving to others in the forum that he dosen't have a leg to stand on.
4) Gain knowlege on how to counter future arguments.
5) Have fun.

PS some good new my brother is out! now I'm going to stay there until others snap out of it too... or until they kick me out. But even then I've learned sooo much that i'm going to gatecrash another forum so that I can learn some more and have a good time too.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2011,08:37   

Once again, I'll point you to my blog.  There's a lot of Origins of Life stuff, including several summaries of peer-reviewed research on the subject here: http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/categor....of-life

Enjoy.

As far as the rest, well, that's exactly why I do it too.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2011,09:34   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,08:37)

Lol I got to post this:

--------- Transcript begins here---------

barnabe said: Right the next thing she'll come up with is that light can come from nothing.

Marty: Ehm actualy some chap in Sweden already did that:
http://blogs.nature.com/news....011
11/light_coaxed_from_nothingness.html

--------- Transcript ends here --------------

Lol.
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2011,11:30   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 22 2011,09:34)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 22 2011,08:37][/quote]
Lol I got to post this:

--------- Transcript begins here---------

barnabe said: Right the next thing she'll come up with is that light can come from nothing.

Marty: Ehm actualy some chap in Sweden already did that:
http://blogs.nature.com/news...........011
11/light_coaxed_from_nothingness.html

--------- Transcript ends here --------------

Lol.
Marty

Isn't it fun  :)

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,07:19   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,11:30)

Hi everyone,

I'm sure you guys are really used to debating this seeing all th threads on this site. I'd like to share with you some things that i began to realise regarding the debate.

1) There seems, (at least in my forum) to be very few educated people. There are some still convinced that god is behind gravity or lightening and I totally get it that these guys accept that god did it cause they are to lazy or ignorant to do some reading..
2) There are a very few who actually know something and they tend to be the ringleaders. You can't "save" them they are lost but you need them to "save" others.
3) Being polite helps alot, people sometimes ask really dumb and stupid questions (I do too) but it's not an excuse to run them down if you take the time to explain they listen. Even the dumbest question if answered politely gets respect.
4) In my discussions I've tried to avoid any athiest remark or remarks that could be interpreted as offensive to religion. I'm there to see what they've got and to show that they are looking the wrong way in scientific terms.
5) Most people have the wrong or stereotype ideas of evolution which I have noticed are continually encouriged by the ringleaders... things like man descends from monkey, or you'll never have all the fossils.. I try to be patient and every time explain why this is not so (i've explained both points like 50 times) and people have understood that it's not the case.
6) I do not respond to direct offense, (even though behind the computer I screem!) I shrug it off, i'm not there to fight i'm there to explain. I politely indicate that it's not the cristian way to offend, they should critisize the studies I present and not me.
7) Most people as suckers for the truth but are unable to understand the meccanics of biology or of even far simpler things. Analogies I find go a long way.
8) Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

Just a few ideas.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,08:17   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 24 2011,07:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,11:30)
[/quote]
Hi everyone,

I'm sure you guys are really used to debating this seeing all th threads on this site. I'd like to share with you some things that i began to realise regarding the debate.

1) There seems, (at least in my forum) to be very few educated people. There are some still convinced that god is behind gravity or lightening and I totally get it that these guys accept that god did it cause they are to lazy or ignorant to do some reading..

Yes.  At least the in the US most people's sum total of science education is one class in 9th grade and one in 8th grade.

Not only that, but they are willfully ignorant.  Meaning that they don't want to know that they are wrong.

Quote

2) There are a very few who actually know something and they tend to be the ringleaders. You can't "save" them they are lost but you need them to "save" others.


Yes, The ringleaders fall into two types (IME), the True Believer who is basically a fundamentalist and too ignorant to know anything about his beliefs and what he's saying.  But he's loud and a pretty good debater (unless you recognize and point out all the fallacies and rhetorical tricks.

The other type is the guy who knows he's wrong, but has sucked in some True Believers and either refuses to admit his mistake or is making some profit off of it.

Quote

3) Being polite helps alot, people sometimes ask really dumb and stupid questions (I do too) but it's not an excuse to run them down if you take the time to explain they listen. Even the dumbest question if answered politely gets respect.

Yes, yes, yes.  Until you discover that they are totally immune to knowledge, in which case a little humor at their expense can lighten the mood.

Quote

4) In my discussions I've tried to avoid any athiest remark or remarks that could be interpreted as offensive to religion. I'm there to see what they've got and to show that they are looking the wrong way in scientific terms.

Yes.  Atheism has nothing to do with science.  IME, the creationists can't understand the difference between science, atheism, and religion.

In religion, they are told the truth by their pastors or church leaders.  They can't understand that science doesn't work like that.  It's why they attack Darwin and Dawkins so much. They think that by discrediting them, they are making headway against the science.

To, their entire worldview is fixed around religion being incorporated into their lives.  They have real difficulty separating religion (or non-religion) from anything else and can't understand that religion plays no role in science and vice versa.  Any attempt to combine the two is doomed to fail (including atheism).

Further, they can't understand that a scientist can say things as a non-scientist.  Dawkins is a good example of this.  He does good science.  He also does good philosophy.  The creationists often assume that by attacking one they can make headway against the other.  They are wrong and can't understand why.

Quote

5) Most people have the wrong or stereotype ideas of evolution which I have noticed are continually encouriged by the ringleaders... things like man descends from monkey, or you'll never have all the fossils.. I try to be patient and every time explain why this is not so (i've explained both points like 50 times) and people have understood that it's not the case.

A thousand times yes.  I'm glad it's working for you.

Strawman arguments are the basis of creationist attacks on science.  They can't argue against the actual science and they refuse to learn what it really is.

Quote

6) I do not respond to direct offense, (even though behind the computer I screem!) I shrug it off, i'm not there to fight i'm there to explain. I politely indicate that it's not the cristian way to offend, they should critisize the studies I present and not me.

You're are very good at this.  That's the best way.

Quote


7) Most people as suckers for the truth but are unable to understand the meccanics of biology or of even far simpler things. Analogies I find go a long way.


Just be VERY VERY careful to state that is is an analogy and that it is used to illustrate the point, not define it.

Analogies (like our discussion with forastero and the Big Bang) can cause lots of confusion, especially when the creationists attack the analogy instead of the science.
Quote

8) Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

Yes.

[quote]
Just a few ideas.

Marty

Your points are all exactly on point.  Well done.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,08:22   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 24 2011,07:19)
Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

The thing is, those ringleaders are right: Science is against religion. Science is religion's greatest, most deadly enemy... but not because science actively tries to destroy religion. Rather, what science does to religion is far more cruel and lethal than even the most intransigently hostile opposition:
Science ignores religion.
You may be thinking, if science ignores religion, what's all the fuss about? The answer is that religion cannot afford to be ignored; in order to thrive, religion must be at the center of everything, must be at the center of all spotlights. So when science shows how things work, and gets results, and keeps on showing how things work, and keeps on getting results, all without paying religion any attention at all, for good or ill...
...when science does all that and keeps on doing all that, year in and year out, decade in and decade out, century in and century out...
...science makes religion unimportant. Trivial. Irrelevant.
And religious believers know it. Religions can die when the last adherent is slaughtered -- but they're just as dead when people stop caring about them. By coming up with usable, religion-free explanations for things, science shows that Not Caring About Religion is a viable option. And since religions have, by and large, lost their former power to torture and kill unbelievers... Not Caring About Religion is an option more and more people are choosing. And this state of affairs is flatly intolerable, in the eyes of someone whose whole life, nay, whose entire existence has always revolved around their religion.
That's what the reality-based section of the populace is up against. And that's why Creationists are so friggin' resistant to correction and learning.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,13:23   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 24 2011,08:22)

Hi everyone,

finally Ioseb has run out of amo and all he can say is:

Studies in which only the abstract is visable are not real studies... My studies are available for everyone to read...

LOL

Unfortunately some people don't understand that some studies belong to universtities and you need subscribtion to access them but this by no means, indicates that they are less important.

Btw I found this study that I thought you might find useful too... It's nice 'cause it's even got a reference to IDiots false claims and macroevolution.

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19....sis.pdf

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,18:01   

Just FYI, it's not that the studies belong to the universities. It's that the papers are often published in for-profit journals. Such journals don't typically provide free full-text access because they're trying to make money.

Not that that makes Ioseb's argument any less ridiculous.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,19:52   

Sure, the practice of science hasn't resulted in any consistent evidence of religion, but continually pointing this out is bound to drive sensible literate people away from religion faster.

Henry

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,00:36   

There are a growing number of public access journals, and a fair number of others also offer free access to all issues over 1 year old. For example; Public Library of Science, Science magazine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Growing numbers of responsible scientists place their publications in their academic websites; use Google Scholar as your search engine.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 24 2011,22:38

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,07:12   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,00:36)

Hi,

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap... He's a JW!! So you see they got their own private scientists, although that's a contradiction in terms...

Questione 1) How do you know if a paper is peer reviewed and who the reviewers are?

Questione 2) Here's the latest work of art http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVe....006.pdf

Have you ever heard of this almighty natural law?

Question 3) Do you know of any review of this paper in scientific literature.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,08:51   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 24 2011,08:17)

Hi Ogre,

I was reading the forester thrashing and noticed that you mentioned that you said:

"I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus".

Can you give me the link to the genus study?

Could really use it on my front

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,10:20   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,07:12)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,00:36)

Hi,

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap... He's a JW!! So you see they got their own private scientists, although that's a contradiction in terms...

Questione 1) How do you know if a paper is peer reviewed and who the reviewers are?

Questione 2) Here's the latest work of art http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVe....006.pdf

Have you ever heard of this almighty natural law?

Question 3) Do you know of any review of this paper in scientific literature.

Thanks
Marty

One way is to look at how many times a given paper has been cited by others, it's "impact factor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._factor

Some links at the end of that page might be of interest.

I'm not 100% sure but it seems to me that the PDF you link to has been cited (?) 4 times

http://tinyurl.com/77t9e68....77t9e68

And all by the author himself. So, as usual for ID, it's just a big circle jerk.

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,10:26   

Quote
Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap


It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,10:30   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,08:51)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 24 2011,08:17][/quote]
Hi Ogre,

I was reading the forester thrashing and noticed that you mentioned that you said:

"I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus".

Can you give me the link to the genus study?

Could really use it on my front

Marty

Here you go.  

http://agris.fao.org/agris-s....97B6240

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,11:01   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26)
Quote
Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap


It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,11:29   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,11:01)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26)
   
Quote
Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap


It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

While that is true it's also true that ID has been going a long time now and it's just not going anywhere.

 
Quote
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


Darwin's idea caught on because it had explanatory power. It could explain observed facts in a way that no other idea could.

The question to ask those who claim a new enlightenment is coming is "What does your idea explain better that current ideas do not?"

If nothing, on what basis do they hold to it or claim it is better then existing ideas?

Another point to raise is that there is a difference between positive evidence for ID and simply picking holes in evolution.

Picking holes in our current understanding is fine, but what do they propose to replace it with?

For example, they have a paper that shows that gene X is impossible to evolve using current known mechanisms of evolution. That does not support ID in any way, shape or form. What ID needs to support ID is positive evidence for ID, not "negative" evidence for evolution.

Until they can actually produce such positive evidence then they've got nothing.  

So, again, this new wave of enlightenment proposes to do what? Replace the idea of evolution with an idea that better explains observed evidence?

Just ask them what it explains and how....

"It was designed" is the typical answer. Which is always good for a laugh.

It's also amusing that in no peer reviewed paper from the usual gang (Dembski, Behe etc) the "Intelligent Designer" has ever been mentioned. They allude to it, but never actually use the phrase. So again it's just a case of picking holes in our (admittedly) incomplete understanding of evolution, not actually generating support for their idea, whatever that idea actually is!

Ask them when they predict evolution will be debunked.

When they answer give them this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/Answers....se.html

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:00   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,11:29)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,11:01)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26)
   
Quote
Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap


It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

While that is true it's also true that ID has been going a long time now and it's just not going anywhere.

   
Quote
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


Darwin's idea caught on because it had explanatory power. It could explain observed facts in a way that no other idea could.

The question to ask those who claim a new enlightenment is coming is "What does your idea explain better that current ideas do not?"

If nothing, on what basis do they hold to it or claim it is better then existing ideas?

Another point to raise is that there is a difference between positive evidence for ID and simply picking holes in evolution.

Picking holes in our current understanding is fine, but what do they propose to replace it with?

For example, they have a paper that shows that gene X is impossible to evolve using current known mechanisms of evolution. That does not support ID in any way, shape or form. What ID needs to support ID is positive evidence for ID, not "negative" evidence for evolution.

Until they can actually produce such positive evidence then they've got nothing.  

So, again, this new wave of enlightenment proposes to do what? Replace the idea of evolution with an idea that better explains observed evidence?

Just ask them what it explains and how....

"It was designed" is the typical answer. Which is always good for a laugh.

It's also amusing that in no peer reviewed paper from the usual gang (Dembski, Behe etc) the "Intelligent Designer" has ever been mentioned. They allude to it, but never actually use the phrase. So again it's just a case of picking holes in our (admittedly) incomplete understanding of evolution, not actually generating support for their idea, whatever that idea actually is!

Ask them when they predict evolution will be debunked.

When they answer give them this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/Answers....se.html

I get the feeling that they are looking for something you can't answer which sooner or later comes up then they say:

(Here's a mock argument)

Southstar: Well we can't really explain x yet, but science is working on it besides just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean the designer™ did it.

TARD1: Well see, you have faith in the science... even though you don't have an answer you have faith, so science is a faith.

TARD 2: Ah and not to mention that it's a sect, see they all have faith in each others work, nobody even bothers to check if something is wrong they just assume it's right cause another scientist said so. Just look at a research paper full of assumptions of other scientists your just building a house of cards on nothing. on faith. Since when does a biologist check to see if an astronmers conclusions are right they just believe they are right.

So if you have faith in science, it's misplaced, cause we hold all the faith cookies.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:10   

The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith.

If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting.

--------------
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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:23   

At Panda's Thumb I posted this comment:

Quote
I was thinking about how ordinary it really is to infer derivation (in relation to comments on this thread), and how oddly IDiots deny it, so I Googled one of Stephen Meyer’s references to it. He also mentions it in his book Signature in the Cell, but I didn’t want to write that out. So here’s Meyer noting how we infer derivation, only he weirdly calls it detection of “design”:

 
Quote
STEVE: No. You just put words into my mouth. I was saying that the scientists in many fields -– you and I were talking about plagiarism before we came on the air -– it’s possible now with programs to detect papers that students turn in that have been plagiarized. Well that’s a form of inferring to design. Kind of sneaky malevolent design, but when you see a string of characters that match up from two different strings, highly improbable arrangement, that match, we call that a specification and you have improbability in specification, we design people say that indicates intelligence. Well, that’s a form of reasoning that is not only – let me finish…

   http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1246.html


Only in the loosest and most question-begging sense (in what way is it “design”?) is this detecting “design.” It’s detecting derivation, and if we can assume derivation in his case, why not in the case of life?

Life doesn’t “look designed” except in a very amorphous and agency-biased manner, but it looks derived through and through, and all reasonable tests for such derivation support that inference. Behe accepts that (without accepting that it is the limits of known mechanisms of derivation and adaptation that give us the best indication of evolution), while Meyer apparently is more of a traditional creationist, nevertheless trotting out the fact that we can detect derivation readily (with changes, certainly, in the case of human judgment) without understanding how that speaks volumes for evolutionary evidence.

Follow the evidence they say, and then mold the evidence to fit their presuppositions, not accepting what is obvious from that evidence.


I know that this doesn't speak to any specifics here, it's just general to what creationists do, shoehorn anything into creationism or "design," even great examples of how we do detect derivation reliably.  Or should we suppose that God just copied thoughts from person to person, being the source of all truth, as several religious plagiarizers have explained their obviously derivative works?  

Would he have accepted a magical explanation for "so-called plagiarism" when he was a professor?  If not, why does he accept, indeed, relish, one for all of the derivation found in life?

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:26   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,12:10)
The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith.

If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting.

no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say.

'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based.  Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got.

Don't want to go there...

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:35   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,05:12)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,00:36)

Hi,

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap... He's a JW!! So you see they got their own private scientists, although that's a contradiction in terms...

Questione 1) How do you know if a paper is peer reviewed and who the reviewers are?

Questione 2) Here's the latest work of art http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVe....006.pdf

Have you ever heard of this almighty natural law?

Question 3) Do you know of any review of this paper in scientific literature.

Thanks
Marty

The particular article, "Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation" was from an invited paper to a book on commercial flower growing. It was not likely reviewed anonymously in the same way as a journal article, but was certainly read carefully by the book's editor.

The so-called "law" seems to exist only in the imagination of Lönnig. No one else has ever referenced, or 'applied' it. It boils down to the (apparent) limit of induced mutation to alter phenotype (esp. outward appearance) before the chemicals, or radiation used kills the organism. This is hardly big news. Particularly in plants, more new species are the product of  polypoid hybrids that then shed, or mutated duplicated genes than any point mutations alone.

What I suspect these people are doing is just throwing random Google search results at you to waste your time. Start insisting they explain why this, or that paper is relevant.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 25 2011,13:06

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,13:16   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,12:35)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,05:12)
[quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 25 2011,00:36]


What I susspect these people are doing is just throwing random Google search results at you to waste your time. Start insisting they explain why this, or that paper is relevant.

No it's not random, this lonning chap, is a JW. And he got kicked out of the Max Plank institute because according to him he had a enlighing thought that was against the evil science of our age...

Nuff said.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,13:48   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,12:26)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,12:10)
The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith.

If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting.

no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say.

'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based.  Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got.

Don't want to go there...

Yes, of course.

However it depends on how you define "right".

Was Newton right or wrong?

Was Einstein?

It's not that we're "never right" it's rather that the accuracy of our rightness is constantly increasing whereas theirs is static and unchanging.

So if they are in fact wrong (as somebody has to be as not all religions can be right by definition) the chances of them actually finding that out is zero. So they are potentially wasting their lives worshipping the wrong god.

But sure, it's not the place to go with these people but perhaps the "ever increasing rightness" is something worth mentioning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._giants

 
Quote
Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantium humeris insidentes) is a Western metaphor meaning "One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past," a contemporary interpretation. However, the metaphor was first recorded in the twelfth century and attributed to Bernard of Chartres.[1] It was famously uttered by seventeenth-century scientist Isaac Newton (see below). The picture is derived from the Greek mythology where the blind giant Orion carried his servant Cedalion on his shoulders.


They've had since the beginning of recorded history and how did they do? Since the enlightenment progress in understanding our universe has been somewhat more rapid.

--------------
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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,13:59   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,13:48)
...
They've had since the beginning of recorded history and how did they do? Since the enlightenment progress in understanding our universe has been somewhat more rapid.

Brilliant!  :D

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,15:19   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,13:59)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,13:48)
...
They've had since the beginning of recorded history and how did they do? Since the enlightenment progress in understanding our universe has been somewhat more rapid.

Brilliant!  :D

The "dust bunny" argument that just wiped them out!!

Lol

They're running all over the place trying to justify that the dust bunny is less complex than a cell and is therefor more likely to appear under my bed.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,16:12   

Here's one you might like to try. I used it at UD but did not put much effort into it.

I asked at UD why is an onion, with it's out sized genome, not expected to have more FSCI (or whatever) then a human (which they claim is the case).

The best (only IIRC) answer I got? It has lower FSCI then a human because of the number of cell types that need to be specified. Fewer in a onion then human, despite genome size differences.

So if that's true them it means that your gut bacteria have more FSCI then the human they inhabit because there are more types of them then there are different cells in a human.

We've been to the Moon. Yet we have less "complex information" then our gut bacteria. Perhaps going to the moon was their idea and humans just acted it out?

So what is FSCI actually measuring? Obviously it's not measuring anything because it can't be calculated but you get the idea. Just some random thoughts...

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,17:14   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,12:26)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,12:10)
The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith.

If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting.

no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say.

'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based.  Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got.

Don't want to go there...

The difference is, in all of recorded history, those people that have had 'faith' in science... have been fully justified in that faith.

Every bit of technology, every bit of knowledge that can be falsified, has come about through science.

Not a single bit (literally) of falsifiable knowledge has come from religion or creationism or intelligent design.

The creationists (as OM pointed out) have been saying that the demise of Darwinism is coming... and they have been saying it for over 100 years.  Yet, evolutionary theory is stronger than ever.

Finally, it's not really faith.  It's using the knowledge and skills given to us by science and taking it one step farther.  It's called predicting and creationism, in it's 2000 year history has never successfully made a prediction.   Science has.

I think we're fully justified in our 'faith' (for want of a better term in this context) in science.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,01:08   

Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in relatively trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews are still waiting for the Messiah to show up).
So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-east-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-east-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'.
So.
Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder.

edited to correct a dumb-ass brainfart about how the Sun rises in the west... oops...

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,02:11   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08)
Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up).
So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'.
So.
Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder.

I don't think the Sun rises in the west. I hope that opinion isn't set in stone as it could rise up and bite you in the ass.     ;)

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,02:55   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08)
Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up).
So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'.
So.
Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder.

I don't think it's a good idea to go down this road. One cause most scriptures both cristian and of other religions are generally very complex texts and one can litiraly find proof of anything in them as long as you interpret them the way that suits you in that moment.

So if you ask: well what did the Bible/Quran predict? one can arguably find and construct a pritty convincing case for almost anything using the fine and distinguished art of free interpretation and cut past collage quotes. Hell they even used the bible to back more than one war in the past, an let's not even get into the contorted use of the Quran.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,08:44   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2011,02:55)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08)
Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up).
So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'.
So.
Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder.

I don't think it's a good idea to go down this road. One cause most scriptures both cristian and of other religions are generally very complex texts and one can litiraly find proof of anything in them as long as you interpret them the way that suits you in that moment.

So if you ask: well what did the Bible/Quran predict? one can arguably find and construct a pritty convincing case for almost anything using the fine and distinguished art of free interpretation and cut past collage quotes. Hell they even used the bible to back more than one war in the past, an let's not even get into the contorted use of the Quran.

Which is the entire point.  Not that this should devolve into a religious discussion, but it's worth bringing up here.

If the text is SO open to interpretation that it can be, literally, anything for anyone... then it's utterly useless.  You might as well just have a bunch of people making stuff up... just like now.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,10:18   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2011,08:44)

Some help needed to fight behe's silly work.

Okay I have made the following case against this paper presented by the Tards. but before I write it down I want to check with you guys if I'm on track. I don't want to mess this part up.

here is the link to the paper:
http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf
Ioseb is using the paper in the following way:

He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations. So evolution can't occur. So it's all wrong.

Here are my accusations:

1) The paper is limited in that it only analises bacteria and viruses. No eukyrots are analised. So how the hell can you say that it applies to life in general.

2) The paper is limited to artificial experiments in which the process of natural selection has been removed. The only natural case examined was malaria.

3) Concerning the case Gain of FCT function i found a comment on a critic site: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010....w-paper

stating that: "The construction by mutation of a new promoter, intron/exon splice site, or protein processing site are gain-of-FCT mutations. Also included in this category is the divergence by mutation of the activity of a previously duplicated coded element.” In other words, mutations in this category produce new genes, parts of genes, or confer drastic new capabilities on genes by adding new splicing sites.

Also note that because almost no bacteria or viruses have introns in their cellular genes, it’s impossible to even see one class of this mutation in lab experiments on these groups.

a) What does this last paragraph mean?
b) How does this relate to FCT gains?
c) Is there evidence to support this?

4) Behe states regarding Lenskies experiments:
If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy
gain-of-FCT mutation.

Do we have examples of gain-of-FCT mutations in experiments similar to Lenskies?

5) Is there a specific reason that has arisen in other papers as to why most of the experiments lead to loss of FCT? I would answer that it is only due to the experimenters removing natural selection from the equation. Would I be right?

6) The work is based on three organisms, prokaryotes, viruses and hemoglobin?
Eukyrotes are not included in the study. Or does table 1 automatically include eukyrotes?

7) Plasmodium falciparum (malaria) is a eukyrote but the genetic mutation that is being studied is of Hemoglobin not of the malaria. Is this correct?

8) Isoeb makes the following case: The adaptation to Malaria is the sickle cell. Which is obviously due to FCT loss and leads to premature death.  Only on extremely rare occasions do we get gain of FCT by Chloroquine Complexity Cluster or C Harlem. How rare is this gain let me tell you with C Harlem where the are two conections sites in the plasmid: it required 10^40 organisms to get this mutation. Seeing as there is only one known case.

Want to know how many organisims are estimated to have been around since start of life on the planet? 10^40.
Do you know how may conection sites ther are in a cell 10.000.

Okay point one: I would say that he's making the stupid probability error again so I just fight this with the "evil killer dust bunny".
Point two: What has this got to do with anything???

8) Ioseb calls my attenton to this site: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7574/
Saying that you see another study say exactly the same thing.

I looked at it and could find nothing of the sort...

9) My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what?

Thanks for your imput on this

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,10:28   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18)

He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations.


Hardly any is still a number greater then zero. And that's all that is required.

 
Quote
My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what?


This is where I usually bring out the evil designer options.

The parasitical brain sucking wasp, for example.

It exists because

A) It was designed to be like that.
B) It evolved.

If A) then the designer is a shit.

If B) Then, well, we all agree.

They might choose option C) which is that it was once "good" and due to the fall it devolved into what it currently is. And that's good because it means they have already left the realm of science far behind.

So even if it "devolved" from it's original perfect state that does not actually help them because that means that evolution can significantly change organisms, and that's what they are disputing.

Ask then who designed this behavior, evolution or their "designer"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......id_wasp

Either way they lose.

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 27 2011,10:28)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18)

He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations.


Hardly any is still a number greater then zero. And that's all that is required.

 
Quote
My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what?


This is where I usually bring out the evil designer options.

The parasitical brain sucking wasp, for example.

It exists because

A) It was designed to be like that.
B) It evolved.

If A) then the designer is a shit.

If B) Then, well, we all agree.

They might choose option C) which is that it was once "good" and due to the fall it devolved into what it currently is. And that's good because it means they have already left the realm of science far behind.

So even if it "devolved" from it's original perfect state that does not actually help them because that means that evolution can significantly change organisms, and that's what they are disputing.

Ask then who designed this behavior, evolution or their "designer"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......id_wasp

Either way they lose.

As far as I can infer they assume that organisms are somehow evil if they do evil things tu humans, in this case either they are possesed or are created by the "evil one®".

In the case of your wasp they would say well it's just nature god created them to take care of the pests so actually they are a blessing.

So no evil designer™ in my forum

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:06   

"Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin,  Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767

Quote

It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of exposure to antibiotic in our experiment. A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential. The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body. Furthermore, our study provides a framework for exploring rapid evolution in other contexts such as cancer.



Multi-site mutations, functional mutations, 4 in TEN HOURS that replace within the population (~20 generations), why sequential mutations are functional, and more likely, and with medical applications.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:14   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,11:04)
As far as I can infer they assume that organisms are somehow evil if they do evil things tu humans, in this case either they are possesed or are created by the "evil one®".

In the case of your wasp they would say well it's just nature god created them to take care of the pests so actually they are a blessing.

So no evil designer™ in my forum

Marty

Then they are not discussing science any more and you've essentially proven your point. If their only response to X is "god designed it that way" then it's religion they are discussing, not science.

And if a brain sucking wasp is the best solution that a good god can muster up as pest control, well, that alone is a good stick to beat them with....

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:17   

Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it.  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip.

The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency).

According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.  

You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed.  In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary.

To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'.  There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done.  That's the claim.

The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful).  So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:51   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,11:17)
Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it.  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip.

The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency).

According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.  

You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed.  In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary.

To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'.  There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done.  That's the claim.

The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful).  So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works.

The critique to Darwinian evolution on a chip, was that it was totally artificial and had no basis in nature.

The scientists skewed the variables to create positive gain of FCT mutations.

Question if his paper was falsified, is there a paper that address this. So I can say it's not only marty that's got this idea.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,12:12   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,11:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,11:17)
Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it.  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip.

The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency).

According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.  

You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed.  In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary.

To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'.  There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done.  That's the claim.

The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful).  So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works.

The critique to Darwinian evolution on a chip, was that it was totally artificial and had no basis in nature.

The scientists skewed the variables to create positive gain of FCT mutations.

Question if his paper was falsified, is there a paper that address this. So I can say it's not only marty that's got this idea.

Marty

It doesn't matter.  I told you they would use the "It's a designed experiment" option.

And it doesn't matter.  There was a specific claim made... that no two mutations could happen to increase the function of an RNA (in this case).

That claim has been falsified.  It doesn't matter if it doesn't happen in nature.  What is nature?  The natural world.. EVERYTHING is a part of nature, including that lab, and those scientists, and those RNAs, and those copy enzymes.  

The RNA doesn't care if it's in a test tube or in a puddle or in a human or in a liverwort.  All any of it does is what it is supposed to do.  The end result of the experiment showed a MASSIVE gain in function.  Not a little, but a huge gain.

Therefore, the claim, as stated is falsified.  BTWL I have talked to Dr. Joyce.  My understanding is that the samples from this run are still available.  I'd love to see these guys take a look at them and find the place where the designer worked.

Basically, their objection to the experiment is a red herring.  It is meaningless.  

First they would need to state a definition of 'designed' or 'to design'.  I predict that they will refuse to do so.  If they do, then they will provide a definition so loose, that I could claim to have designed my son.

Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the RNA during this experiment (before, during or after)?  No.

Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the enzymes during this experiment (before, during or after)?  No.

Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the mutations during this experiment (before, during or after)?  No.

Therefore, they did not design THE RESULTS of the experiment.

I know this is very picky, but that's the way science and logic work.  

There was a claim made, that two or more mutations are so impossible to happen that they will not.  That claim is falsified here.

The other claim is that two or more mutations cannot result in improved function.  That claim is also falsified.

They also might need to be told about the mutation rates in 'natural' things.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract  Shows a mutation rate that is way beyond even those levels.  BTW: This is a viroid, which is almost exactly the same thing as in Joyce's experiment.

Don't let them go off on tangents.  They made a very specific claim.  That claim is refuted.  

If they can bury you under BS, then you'll never get out.  State it very specifically.  This is the claim... this is why it is refuted.

The experimental nature has nothing to do with the results.  If that were the case, then easily 75% of modern science would be wrong.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,12:15   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 27 2011,11:06)
"Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin,  Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767

Do you have an access link for the whole study?
I was only able to find the abstract

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,14:44   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18)
[Ioseb] is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations. So evolution can't occur. So it's all wrong.

Simply showing that gain-of-FCT mutations are uncommon proves nothing of the sort. For Ioseb to make his case, he'd need to show that gain-of-FCT mutations occur too infrequently to support the rate at which new phenotypes have appeared over the past few billion years. Behe doesn't do that in his paper, and I'm confident Ioseb can't do it either.

In any case, focusing on gain-of-FCTs is a red herring. If modification of an existing function leads to a new function, it's still a new function. Especially if the modification involves gene duplication so that the original function is maintained as well. So Ioseb's (and Behe's) challenge is actually much greater: show that the combined rate of M+G mutations isn't enough to support evolution of existing diversity.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,16:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2011,02:11)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08)
Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up).
So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'.
So.
Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder.

I don't think the Sun rises in the west. I hope that opinion isn't set in stone as it could rise up and bite you in the ass.     ;)

You're only saying that 'cause it's true, damn your eyes... [sigh] My bad, and thanks for catching the error. Will edit to correct said error ASAP.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,16:46   

"The experiment was designed, therefore the results of the experiment were designed!" is a common IDiot response when faced with experimental results which nuke their assertions. It's also pretty stoopid, and you can make the stoopidity very obvious indeed with a few simple word-substitutions...

The roulette wheel was designed, therefore the sequence of numbers which come up on the wheel was designed!

The refrigerator was designed, therefore ice is designed!

Also, it's worth noting that the experiment was designed, therefore the results were designed is a veiled accusation of fraud on the part of scientists. It's saying that they got the results they got because they damn well made sure they got that particular set of results. Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,17:27   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,16:46)
"The experiment was designed, therefore the results of the experiment were designed!" is a common IDiot response when faced with experimental results which nuke their assertions. It's also pretty stoopid, and you can make the stoopidity very obvious indeed with a few simple word-substitutions...

The roulette wheel was designed, therefore the sequence of numbers which come up on the wheel was designed!

The refrigerator was designed, therefore ice is designed!

Also, it's worth noting that the experiment was designed, therefore the results were designed is a veiled accusation of fraud on the part of scientists. It's saying that they got the results they got because they damn well made sure they got that particular set of results. Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

They probably do, but they are too scared to.  That opens them up for court action on libel.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,17:34   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,17:46)
Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

um, you do realize that Creationists accuse scientists of fraud and dishonesty on a regular basis, don't you?

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,19:00   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2011,17:34)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,17:46)
Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

um, you do realize that Creationists accuse scientists of fraud and dishonesty on a regular basis, don't you?

But very rarely is it explicit or narrowed to one individual's attempt at any one thing.  Most likely because the accusing creationists are pussies....  Creationists, I'd be happy to retract if proven wrong.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,20:48   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2011,17:34)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,17:46)
Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

um, you do realize that Creationists accuse scientists of fraud and dishonesty on a regular basis, don't you?

AFAICT, Creationists tend not to explicitly, directly accuse scientists of fraud; the standard schtick (again, AFAICT) is to make some kind of statement or argument which is critically dependent on an unspoken presumption that scientists are frauds. Such as, just to pick a random example, the experiment is designed; therefore, the results are designed. It's not an explicit accusation of malfeasance, so it's not slander, right? Basically, it's the same old 'word magic' bullshit that Creationists indulge in so damn often. I suspect that most Creationists don't even realize what they're doing when they make veiled accusations of fraud/sleaze/turpitude... which is why it can be effective to drag such implicit accusations out into the cold, hard light of day where everybody can clearly see them for what they are.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,21:53   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,20:48)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2011,17:34)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,17:46)
Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

um, you do realize that Creationists accuse scientists of fraud and dishonesty on a regular basis, don't you?

AFAICT, Creationists tend not to explicitly, directly accuse scientists of fraud; the standard schtick (again, AFAICT) is to make some kind of statement or argument which is critically dependent on an unspoken presumption that scientists are frauds. Such as, just to pick a random example, the experiment is designed; therefore, the results are designed. It's not an explicit accusation of malfeasance, so it's not slander, right? Basically, it's the same old 'word magic' bullshit that Creationists indulge in so damn often. I suspect that most Creationists don't even realize what they're doing when they make veiled accusations of fraud/sleaze/turpitude... which is why it can be effective to drag such implicit accusations out into the cold, hard light of day where everybody can clearly see them for what they are.

That's it...

and force them to actually conduct a dialogue about the paper they are trashing.

Fine, the experiment was designed.  What part of the results were designed by the experimenters.  Was the final RNA sequence designed?  Was each mutation designed?  etc. etc.

Hammer them on the science and on their non-answers.

Take everything they say to the next logical conclusion (as Cubist has shown with the roulette wheel).

"Oh, we weren't there so we don't know what happened?  By that logic, unless the judge and jury were present at the crime, then no one could be convicted."

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,01:03   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,21:53)

Okay thank's for the imput everyone, but I ask you to be patient with me

I would really need my particular questions aswered. For the following reasons:

1) Some of the questions were placed by other readers of the forum and I'd like to answer them as they are pertinent questions.
2) Some of the questions are my personal questions that help me with the better understanding.
3) Some of the questions were placed directly at me by Ioseb

Yes of course I will finish with the conclusions that you have brought up and that should take care of the paper, but it's important to tie up the loose ends and give a more complete understanding.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,04:52   

Wrong thread :)

--------------
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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,09:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,21:53)
...
Fine, the experiment was designed.  What part of the results were designed by the experimenters.  Was the final RNA sequence designed?  Was each mutation designed?  etc. etc.
...

Surely it is impossible to conduct an undesigned experiment, is it not?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,09:21   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,09:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,21:53)
...
Fine, the experiment was designed.  What part of the results were designed by the experimenters.  Was the final RNA sequence designed?  Was each mutation designed?  etc. etc.
...

Surely it is impossible to conduct an undesigned experiment, is it not?

They're called 'observations'.

I've designed an experiment to cause a star to nova... but I never can get funding for some reason.

Just have to stick with observing stars that happen to explode.

:)

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,14:56   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 28 2011,09:21)
I've designed an experiment to cause a star to nova... but I never can get funding for some reason.

Perhaps you don't have sufficient preliminary data in your applications. Try including this next time.
:D

P.S. Marty, if no one else has addressed your specific questions by this evening I'll try to take a few stabs, time permitting.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2011,19:58   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2011,08:44)

Some help needed to fight behe's silly work.

Okay I have made the following case against this paper presented by the Tards. but before I write it down I want to check with you guys if I'm on track. I don't want to mess this part up.

here is the link to the paper:
http://www.lehigh.edu/bio........per.pdf
Ioseb is using the paper in the following way:

He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations. So evolution can't occur. So it's all wrong.

Here are my accusations:

1) The paper is limited in that it only analises bacteria and viruses. No eukyrots are analised. So how the hell can you say that it applies to life in general.


I don't think this is a compelling argument on your part. First, the paper does include eukaryotes. All the mutations discussed in Table 1 are in human genes. Second, even if the paper does focus mostly on prokaryotes, they still comprise the longest extant lineage, dating back some 2 billion years, and a huge range of distinct functions first arose in prokaryotes. So if Behe's analysis really presented a fundamental problem for evolution, even just in prokaryotes, that would be a significant issue. Fortunately, his analysis does no such thing.

Quote
2) The paper is limited to artificial experiments in which the process of natural selection has been removed. The only natural case examined was malaria.


I don't think this is a good criticism either. Even if most of the experiments involved selection in a lab environment, it's still a matter of some organism adapting to a new environment. The only real issue with lab-based studies, IMO, is that they're only able to assess evolution over periods of years to (at most) decades. They're not capable of directly observing the slow accretion of mutations and new functions that take place over thousands to billions of years. Naturally, the kinds of changes we see over ~ 10 years will look trivial compared to what can happen in 10 million years.

Quote
3) Concerning the case Gain of FCT function i found a comment on a critic site: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......w-paper

stating that: "The construction by mutation of a new promoter, intron/exon splice site, or protein processing site are gain-of-FCT mutations. Also included in this category is the divergence by mutation of the activity of a previously duplicated coded element.” In other words, mutations in this category produce new genes, parts of genes, or confer drastic new capabilities on genes by adding new splicing sites.

Also note that because almost no bacteria or viruses have introns in their cellular genes, it’s impossible to even see one class of this mutation in lab experiments on these groups.

a) What does this last paragraph mean?
b) How does this relate to FCT gains?
c) Is there evidence to support this?


Eukaryotes often have their protein coding sequences broken into separate bits called exons, with non-coding sequences called introns in between each exon. Bacteria don't usually do this - their protein coding sequences are typically uninterrupted. Some types of FCT gains involve rearrangement of introns and exons. Since bacteria don't usually have those, they can't generate that type of FCT gain.

All that said, I don't think this is a good criticism either. As noted above, bacteria have unquestionably developed new functions over evolutionary time. Really complicated structures like ribosomes, flagella, replication complexes, transporter proteins, etc., etc., all arose in prokaryotes first. So one way or another, bacteria must have developed novel functions over time.

Quote
4) Behe states regarding Lenskies experiments:
If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation.

Do we have examples of gain-of-FCT mutations in experiments similar to Lenskies?


Behe's paper already lists some mutations that he classifyies as gain-of-FCTs. See Tables 2 & 4.

Quote
5) Is there a specific reason that has arisen in other papers as to why most of the experiments lead to loss of FCT? I would answer that it is only due to the experimenters removing natural selection from the equation. Would I be right?


No, it's almost certainly because loss-of-FCT mutations are much more common than gain-of-FCT mutations. I can't readily offer a citation, but it's widely accepted that the vast majority of mutions in a protein coding sequence, for example, will either be neutral or deleterious to protein function. Only a few will enhance function or generate new functions (assuming we can agree on what a 'new function' really means). I don't think it's surprising that there will often be cases where a loss of FCT provides a selective advantage.

Quote
6) The work is based on three organisms, prokaryotes, viruses and hemoglobin?
Eukyrotes are not included in the study. Or does table 1 automatically include eukyrotes?


Table 1 exclusively lists human mutations that provide malaria resistance, so yes, it's about eukaryotes.

Quote
7) Plasmodium falciparum (malaria) is a eukyrote but the genetic mutation that is being studied is of Hemoglobin not of the malaria. Is this correct?


Hemoglobin and other genes in humans, yes.

Quote
8) Isoeb makes the following case: The adaptation to Malaria is the sickle cell. Which is obviously due to FCT loss and leads to premature death.  Only on extremely rare occasions do we get gain of FCT by Chloroquine Complexity Cluster or C Harlem. How rare is this gain let me tell you with C Harlem where the are two conections sites in the plasmid: it required 10^40 organisms to get this mutation. Seeing as there is only one known case.

Want to know how many organisims are estimated to have been around since start of life on the planet? 10^40.
Do you know how may conection sites ther are in a cell 10.000.

Okay point one: I would say that he's making the stupid probability error again so I just fight this with the "evil killer dust bunny".
Point two: What has this got to do with anything???


I have to guess with this one, because Ioseb is talking gibberish. I have no idea what "connection sites" are supposed to be, and plasmids have nothing to do with either chloroquine or malaria resistance.

A quick google of "C harlem" reveals that it's a particular hemoglobin variant where the B chain has two different amino acid substitutions. Most likely, Ioseb is trying to make the argument that it's nearly impossible for both of those mutations to have arisen simultaneously in one person, given the known mutation rate and the likely number of humans that have ever existed.

If so, there are two huge flaws in his argument. The first is his assumption that no other single or double mutations would have afforded malaria resistance. But in fact we know that's wrong, as Behe's own Table 1 shows. Thus, it's not a question of the probability of getting exactly those two mutations at some time during human evolution. It's a question of how many possible combinations of mutations would confer resistance, and whether it's reasonable that at least some of them could have arisen by chance during human evolution.

The other huge flaw is that Ioseb seems to be assuming that both mutations would have to arise at the same time in the same person. But that's obviously wrong. Nothing prevents one mutations from occurring and spreading through the population, before the second mutation occurs. And here's the kicker: it turns out that one of the two mutations in hemoglobin C harlem is the same mutation seen in conventional sickle cell disease. And we already know that lots of people have only that one mutation, and that that mutation alone confers malaria resistance. So it's easy to imagine that the sickle mutation happened first and spread to many individuals due to conferring resistance. The second mutation could have happened at some later date. Maybe the second mutation adds some additional selective advantage. (I didn't see anything about that either way in my brief search.) If so, that would be a perfect example of how evolution often works - incremental advantages adding on to previous ones.

Quote
8) Ioseb calls my attenton to this site: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7574/
Saying that you see another study say exactly the same thing.

I looked at it and could find nothing of the sort...


Well, the first sentence of section 16.5.1 reads: "Making random changes in a gene is quite likely to stop it working, but very unlikely to give it a novel function." So Ioseb's point is probably again that gain-of-FCT mutations are uncommon. I already addressed this in my previous post: yes, but so what? Just because gain of function mutations are less common doesn't mean they don't happen (as even Behe acknowledges), and it doesn't mean they're too rare to support evolution. If Ioseb thinks they are too rare, he's going to need a lot more evidence than Behe's paper to make his case.

Quote
9) My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what?


Exactly. Evolution clearly requires gain-of-FCT mutations, so if we never saw such mutations in lab studies, that might raise some questions. But we do see such mutations, so that's all fine. The fact that we see more loss-of-FCT mutations isn't a problem for evolution.

Quote
Thanks for your imput on this

Marty

You're welcome. I hope that's helpful.

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,01:38   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,09:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,21:53)
...
Fine, the experiment was designed.  What part of the results were designed by the experimenters.  Was the final RNA sequence designed?  Was each mutation designed?  etc. etc.
...

Surely it is impossible to conduct an undesigned experiment, is it not?

Using "natural experiments" is common enough in ecology.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,03:55   

Behe's FCT stuff has also had plenty of poking elsewhere:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......w-paper
Quote
What he’s saying is this:  “Yes, gain of FCTs could, and likely is, more important in nature than seen in these short-term experiments.  But my conclusions are limited to these types of short-term lab studies.”  Well, good, but then let us not hear Behe’s ID colleagues tout these results as giving strong conclusions about microbial or eukyaryotic evolution in nature, particularly because the lab studies deliberately exclude sources of gain-of-FCT mutations that we know are important in nature.


http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......quickly

Quote
These “new genes,” then, would qualify as what Behe calls “gain-of-FCT” adaptive mutations (“FCT” = functional coded element): the kind of mutations that Behe did not see arising in short-term lab experiments on bacteria and viruses.


Of course, Behe has responded, sort of.

http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010.......ve-evol
Quote
I was saying that, no matter what causes gain-of-FCT events to sporadically arise in nature (and I of course think the more complex ones likely resulted from deliberate intelligent design http://tinyurl.com/32n64xl....n64xl), short-term Darwinian evolution will be dominated by loss-of-FCT, which is itself an important, basic fact about the tempo of evolution.


Note the "likely resulted from ID" - the man has no idea whatsoever if they did or not, it's just "likely". Pathetic is as pathetic does.

Quote
Any mutation which confers an advantage at any time will be selected, and the large majority of those in the short term will be LOF.


A "large majority" again. So even Behe admits that evolution can "create" as well as "destroy".

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,13:38   

Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 28 2011,19:58)

Hi

Thank's for this it was really useful!

Just a consideration, is it possible that oraganisms left to themselves, without the pressures of natural competative selection would automatically tend toward loss of function.

After all they would just be responding to the new situation which requires less complex machinery.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,14:42   



--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,14:56   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 30 2011,14:42)

Look's like a nile crock... should i be worried? Did I say something wrong?


;)

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,16:29   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 30 2011,13:38)
Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 28 2011,19:58)

Hi

Thank's for this it was really useful!

Just a consideration, is it possible that oraganisms left to themselves, without the pressures of natural competative selection would automatically tend toward loss of function.

After all they would just be responding to the new situation which requires less complex machinery.

I don't think there is, or even can be, an environment "without the pressures of natural competative selection".
Let's suppose an species is 'perfectly' adapted to its environment (for whatever value of 'perfectly'), and let's further suppose that its environment is stable over geologically relevant periods of time. Even in such a situation, there's going to be a finite quantity of resources available at any one time, and members of the species will be competing against each other for those resources. Voila -- natural selection! As well, mutations will occur, and some of those mutations will render their possessors more or less able to produce offspring, as compared to their fellow critters who lack the reproduction-affecting mutations. Again, natural selection.
In short: You can't get rid of competition, because if nothing else, critters compete against each other.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,17:39   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 30 2011,14:56)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 30 2011,14:42)

Look's like a nile crock... should i be worried? Did I say something wrong?


;)

Marty

Two points here...

1) Crocodiles have been morphologically almost unchanged for a hundred millions of years.  Though some variations died out... have you see cheetah croc?

2) The other point is that even if they are morphologically similar, evolution is still occurring.  Think of it as stabilizing selection.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilizing_selection

The crocs of today and the crocs of 100 million years ago are very different genetically, even they are morphologically the same.

Same thing with Ceolocanths.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,20:18   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 30 2011,13:38)
[quote=qetzal,Nov. 28 2011,19:58][/quote]
Hi

Thank's for this it was really useful!

Just a consideration, is it possible that oraganisms left to themselves, without the pressures of natural competative selection would automatically tend toward loss of function.

After all they would just be responding to the new situation which requires less complex machinery.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

Well, like others have said, you can never completely escape from selection. Even if all resources were infinite, there would still be selection against mutations that cause death or infertility.

That said, there are lots of examples where organisms have lost functions that were no longer essential. A very well known example is that humans and related primates have lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C.

In some cases, there may even be advantages to not making something that's no longer needed.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,00:53   

Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 28 2011,17:58)
(snip)"Making random changes in a gene is quite likely to stop it working, but very unlikely to give it a novel function." So Ioseb's point is probably again that gain-of-FCT mutations are uncommon. I already addressed this in my previous post: yes, but so what? Just because gain of function mutations are less common doesn't mean they don't happen (as even Behe acknowledges), and it doesn't mean they're too rare to support evolution. If Ioseb thinks they are too rare, he's going to need a lot more evidence than Behe's paper to make his case.

       
Quote
9) My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what?


Exactly. Evolution clearly requires gain-of-FCT mutations, so if we never saw such mutations in lab studies, that might raise some questions. But we do see such mutations, so that's all fine. The fact that we see more loss-of-FCT mutations isn't a problem for evolution.

       
Quote
Thanks for your imput on this

Marty

You're welcome. I hope that's helpful.

Creationists have this strawman / misunderstanding / deliberate misrepresentation of life / evolution / Creation as a constant forward march to perfection, i.e., us.

They forget or ignore that 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. We are the 1%! :-)

So the rarity of beneficial mutations comes as no surprise to anyone, really.

Forget "survival of the fittest", evolution is just "reproduction of the fit enough", aka live long enough to get laid.

eta "mis"

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,13:22   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 02 2011,00:53)

I'm begining to understand your lack of patience with Idiots..

Goodness my is wearing so thin! If I had one of those idots at firing range I would shoot them dead and do the gene pool a favour!

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,12:17   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 02 2011,13:22)

New chew toy people, since Ioseb has found this forum, I've asked him if he would like to come here a debate with you directly. He has some "fascinating" ideas about Behe and co.

I challenged him to come here and debate with you guys. Hopefully he'll say yes. I really hope he does...

let see..

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2011,17:18   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 03 2011,12:17)
[quote=Southstar,Dec. 02 2011,13:22][/quote]
New chew toy people, since Ioseb has found this forum, I've asked him if he would like to come here a debate with you directly. He has some "fascinating" ideas about Behe and co.

I challenged him to come here and debate with you guys. Hopefully he'll say yes. I really hope he does...

let see..

Marty

He's too chicken.  Only the truly brain dead will come here and argue for more than a few posts.

You ought to read the AFDave threads.  There's also another one for FT.  Good reads.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,12:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2011,17:18)

Hi,

I've been looking for some example of gain-of-function mutation that has derived from speciation.

Do you have any good examples

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,13:03   

Perhaps this recent example?

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Quote
“Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”


--------------
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: Dec. 06 2011,17:09   

How would gain of function derive from speciation? Speciation just means that some subset of the species is now evolving separately from the rest of it. Seems to me that that's independent of whether either part of the population had a gain of function or not.

Henry

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,18:20   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 06 2011,12:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2011,17:18)

Hi,

I've been looking for some example of gain-of-function mutation that has derived from speciation.

That seems backwards to me. Mutations, including gain-of-function mutations in specific, are the stuff of which speciation is made, not so? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask for examples of speciation derived from gain-of-function mutation, rather than the other way around?

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,19:04   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2011,18:20)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 06 2011,12:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2011,17:18)

Hi,

I've been looking for some example of gain-of-function mutation that has derived from speciation.

That seems backwards to me. Mutations, including gain-of-function mutations in specific, are the stuff of which speciation is made, not so? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask for examples of speciation derived from gain-of-function mutation, rather than the other way around?

Most speciation is not driven by natural selection, but by accumulation of genetic differences.  Lenski's E coli experiment showed a gain of function - ability to use citrate as a nutrient.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,09:57   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 06 2011,13:03)
Perhaps this recent example?

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

 
Quote
“Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Hi,

The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,10:32   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 07 2011,09:57)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 06 2011,13:03)
Perhaps this recent example?

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

 
Quote
“Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Hi,

The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

There is proof in Lenski's experiment.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,10:41   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 07 2011,09:57)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 06 2011,13:03)
Perhaps this recent example?

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

 
Quote
“Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Hi,

The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

One argument is that there is no such thing as 'novel genetic material'.  Almost all genetic material is Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, or Thyamine... and the methylations thereof.

So in that respect, you can't have novel genetic material.  I guess what they are referring to is the sequence.

But a quick glance at a couple of sentences shows that very novel changes to the meaning of the system can be made with very minor changes to the sequence of letters.  For example:

The quick, brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
The quick, brown fox jumped over the lady dog.

One change to one letter changes most of the meaning of the sentence.  

So 'novel' changes to the sequence are NOT required for the resulting protein to have a very different structure... and likely function.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,11:11   

Quote
The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study.


You have to realize by now that even were you to show that novel genetic material was created then they'd simply drop back to "you can't explain the origin of the original information" and "it's easy to make new genetic material from existing genetic material, you have to explain the origin of genetic material full stop".  

And in any case, if they'll accept evolution if it can be shown that evolution can generate novel genetic material that's an easy example to show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......lyploid

   
Quote
So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

I don't understand the question. A mutation is a mutation, however it was induced. Even when (as just discussed) the environment is static mutations continue to occur. And a mutation must always be "genetically based" as that's what's mutating!

So perhaps they are trying the front loading angle?

   
Quote
another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material.

Not necessarily. As Ogre notes changing a letter does not change the length of a sequence but can substantially alter the "meaning". Perhaps it had an increase, perhaps it did not. See Lenski.
   
Quote
Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Anything is possible but only science will tell you what actually happens. It's more then possible there is much more detail on this specific topic by now, that article was fairly old as these things go. Perhaps check to see if there was any follow up research?

What's their exploration for the valve in question? Did the designer notice that it was needed and reach in and add it? Can they even begin to state an answer? If not, why don't they accept yours until they can come up with a better one, that's the key question.

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,12:08   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 07 2011,11:11)
   
Quote
Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Anything is possible but only science will tell you what actually happens. It's more then possible there is much more detail on this specific topic by now, that article was fairly old as these things go. Perhaps check to see if there was any follow up research?

What's their exploration for the valve in question? Did the designer notice that it was needed and reach in and add it? Can they even begin to state an answer? If not, why don't they accept yours until they can come up with a better one, that's the key question.

That looks like a front-loading tactic... or maybe forastero's brand of epigenetics.

Either one can also easily be defeated.

Front Loading doesn't help ID

One of the requirements for epigenetics is that it is reversible.  So we just need to find a modern organism that has reverted to its ancestral state, while keeping exactly the same gene sequence.  That's about the only thing that would prove epigenetics at that level.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,14:32   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 06 2011,19:04)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2011,18:20)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 06 2011,12:54)

Hi,

I've been looking for some example of gain-of-function mutation that has derived from speciation.

That seems backwards to me. Mutations, including gain-of-function mutations in specific, are the stuff of which speciation is made, not so? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask for examples of speciation derived from gain-of-function mutation, rather than the other way around?

Most speciation is not driven by natural selection, but by accumulation of genetic differences.

This dichotomy is false. A genetic difference involved in reproductive isolation can be promoted by selection. In fact, that has been show to be the case for most genes causing reproductive isolation (and that's for species pairs where hybrid deficiency isn't environment-dependent. For the others, the contribution of natural selection to speciation makes no doubt).
On the other hand, there is very little evidence for speciation by genetic drift.

Regarding the issue of "gain-of-function derived from speciation", I'm not sure what that means. Speciation is not  the motor of genetic novelty, it's an outcome. (EDIT: as Cubist said).

It's also unclear what "gain-of-function" means. In ecological speciation, an ecological trait diversifies, which enhances reproductive isolation. For instance, feeding on seeds of a different sizes. Is that a new function?
Speciation takes place between populations that are initially similar, and species don't grow new organs often.
Sure there might be physiological/biochemical functions that may bot be externally visible. Whether they contribute to reproductive isolation is hard to tell. The genes causing reproductive isolation remain largely uncovered (they're identified in a handful of species).

Here's an example of what may be qualified as gain of function: http://www.pnas.org/content....38.long
An aphid species has acquired some venom as a result of the duplication of a protease gene. I'm not sure this has anything to do with speciation though, and this may not be testable.
There's the famous example of Heliconius butterflies that mimmic other butterfly species. Wing patterns are also involved in reproductive isolation (a case of ecological speciation). Would a new pattern (e.g. red stripes, derived from a uniform color) be considered as a gain-of function?

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,16:13   

Hi, sorry to barge in but with reference to the original question (on mechanisms of evolution) ((I'm guessing for non-evolutionists)) has anyone seen this? The Evidence for Evolution in 100 Pages

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,21:03   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 07 2011,09:57)
The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?


Mutations are genetically based, by definition. And the DNA analysis did not confirm the the lizards were genetically identical. It only confirmed that the PM lizards were genetically indistinguishable from the PK lizards by the method employed. The test was only designed to show that the lizards collected on PM were, in fact, descendents of the original 5 pairs of PK lizards that were introduced to PM. That test was not designed to identify possible mutations in the PM lizards that might account for the observed physical differences.

 
Quote
another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

No, I don't think you can't say the the development of cecal valves could only occur with an increase in the amount of genetic material. Remember that these lizards are descended from a total of 10 original lizards. So, any particular gene locus could have been present in multiple different versions (alleles) in the founding population. As the population expanded, those alleles would have reassorted into many combinations that weren't present in any single founding lizard. In addition, most traits are influenced by combinations of lots of genes and loci. So the appearance of cecal valves might not involve any new mutations. It might just involve new combinations of alleles that already existed individually in the founding population.

The fact that these traits appeared in only ~ 30 generations suggests to me that reassortment and selection of existing alleles is probably a significant factor here, though it's possible there were novel mutations as well.

Note that this is not really the same as saying that the genes were somehow latent, though your anti-evolutionist acquaintences may try to claim as much.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,01:05   

I wouldn't rule out new mutations.
We tend to consider that the adapted phenotype was some target, and that mutations were unlikely to have affected the right genes at the right nucleotides in such a short amount of time. But this vision is biased.
Consider the whole genome of the lizards. Probably, mutations appeared in each descendent, and some (few) may have to increased their reproductive rate. It's not impossible that they affected the phenotype we see.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,08:12   

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 07 2011,21:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 07 2011,09:57)
The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?


Mutations are genetically based, by definition. And the DNA analysis did not confirm the the lizards were genetically identical. It only confirmed that the PM lizards were genetically indistinguishable from the PK lizards by the method employed. The test was only designed to show that the lizards collected on PM were, in fact, descendents of the original 5 pairs of PK lizards that were introduced to PM. That test was not designed to identify possible mutations in the PM lizards that might account for the observed physical differences.

   
Quote
another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

No, I don't think you can't say the the development of cecal valves could only occur with an increase in the amount of genetic material. Remember that these lizards are descended from a total of 10 original lizards. So, any particular gene locus could have been present in multiple different versions (alleles) in the founding population. As the population expanded, those alleles would have reassorted into many combinations that weren't present in any single founding lizard. In addition, most traits are influenced by combinations of lots of genes and loci. So the appearance of cecal valves might not involve any new mutations. It might just involve new combinations of alleles that already existed individually in the founding population.

The fact that these traits appeared in only ~ 30 generations suggests to me that reassortment and selection of existing alleles is probably a significant factor here, though it's possible there were novel mutations as well.

Note that this is not really the same as saying that the genes were somehow latent, though your anti-evolutionist acquaintences may try to claim as much.

The problem here as I understand it:

There is a basic claim that the creationists make (well actually they are to scared to make a real claim)  that evolution cannot "produce new information".

The example of the P.siculae lizard is brushed off as being a mix of adaptation And epigenetics:
According to the original paper, approximately 1 percent of reptiles include cecal valves  meaning that there are around 80 species of reptile with cecal valves , including some Lacertid lizards besides Podarcis sicula. This suggests then that the genes that code for cecal valves may in fact be in all lacertid lizards, except the genes are not expressed, or turned "off". In the Pod Mr?aru population, adaptive pressures from the environment (i.e., lack of insects) triggered the expression of these genes.

No genetic testing hase been done on the lizards as far a sI can tell so we have no real way of saying that there has been a gain of function or a increase of genetic material in the new lizards.

Incidentely the claim of epigenetics is also called into question to explain what Lenski found in  the CitT.

The argument is that it is impossible that millions of nucleotide sequences were generated in 30 years.

So the line is the following:
There are so very few examples of novel genetic material and most of them are deleterious to the organism anyway. (the examples so far are just twisted examples of very simple epigenetics). No new information is ever added. As Behe's study on "evolutionary law" showed most are loss of function or at best M.

The main tactic is as follows:
They do not argue that these mutations don't exist and they do not argue that microchanges are natural but just that  99% of these are loss of function and the 1% is mostly deleterious, the remaining slice is positive, but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution. Therefore evolution is false. They do not (at this moment) indicate that there is a designer anywhere along the line but simply that the theory is a hoax.

Furthermore all examples of speciation are in line with their spiecies according to spiecies model, and none of them have any novel genetic material, or at least such a few have that it is neglegeble.

As further evidence of the impossibility of evolution there is the recent finding of ancient microbes that share 98% of the dna with modern versions. This is proof that the microbes are unable to evolve even in millions of years.

I wish I could find a knowlegble biologist willing to debate over there.

Thanks
marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,08:21   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)
but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

--------------
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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,10:06   

[quote=Southstar,Dec. 08 2011,08:12]
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 07 2011,21:03)
 

The main tactic is as follows:
They do not argue that these mutations don't exist and they do not argue that microchanges are natural but just that  99% of these are loss of function and the 1% is mostly deleterious, the remaining slice is positive, but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution. Therefore evolution is false. They do not (at this moment) indicate that there is a designer anywhere along the line but simply that the theory is a hoax.

marty


Since most mutations are neutral, it is hard to cram that probability in between the alleged 99% loss of function and 1% mostly deleterious.  They don't know enough about how genotype affects phenotype to have a sensible conversation.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,11:06   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)
but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.

If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.

Playing devils advocate
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,11:10   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,11:06)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)
but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.

If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.

Playing devils advocate
Marty

make them do the math anyway.

At some point you have to cut your losses.

Dr Behe has shown no such thing. What paper did he publish that has this information you should ask.

EDIT: Lenski.

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,12:30   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,11:06)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)
but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.

If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.

Playing devils advocate
Marty

What would be even better is to ask them for the number that their notion PREDICT.  Then you just patiently wait for the research to be done (it won't be done by creationists, that's for sure, which is another thing to tweak their noses about).

Remind them that a theory must not only explain why things are the way that they are, but it must predict future results.  For example, the prediction made by Shubin about where he could find a fossil that was transitional between fish and amphibians.

So, remind them that this is an opportunity to use their notions to make a prediction based on those notions.  Then, in the future, we can actually see which notion is correct.

I'll give you a thousand to one odds, that they won't take you up on the offer.  Continue to remind them that this is how real science is done and that, very simply, are not doing science.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,16:29   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)
but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

It would be interesting to go back to Behe's paper, count up all the things that even he concedes are "gain-of-function" mutations in lab experiments, and calculate how many organisms evolved through how many generations to get that number. Then roughly extrapolate how many new functions you'd expect from an entire Earth full of organisms evolving over several billion years.

Even with very conservative assumptions, I guarantee the number will be staggeringly high. I'm sure Ioseb and his ilk would find a way to object, but it might take them aback temporarily.

Not that I think such calculations would have any real relevance. But that's what Ioseb et al seem to value, and I doubt they realize what their own approach would show.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,01:47   

The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,03:49   

Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 09 2011,01:47)
The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

The problem is that speciation (they don't deny speciation) is the means by which evolution occurs. It is therfore important to prove that novel genetic material is added at a somewhat constant rate at the base of speciation so as to create biodiversity.

Further it seems that loss of genetic material is more common than gain of genetic material. Which would lead in the long run to a depletion of genetic material.

To disprove their idea we would need:

1) to find at least a few clear examples of speciation that is due to creation of novel genetic material (which cannot be attributeded to genes already present which were turned on)
2) Have a specific study which shows that novel genetic material is constantly being added and selected by natural selection.
3) Have a study that shows that loss of FCT (in behe's terms) cannot swamp out gain of FCT cases.

Are these valid questions or am I missing the point.

Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,05:42   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,03:49)
Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Even if it's wrong if they've nothing to replace it with then it makes sense to stick with a "wrong" idea until a better idea comes along. Do they have that better idea?

I'm sure that there is plenty that is wrong about our best understanding of evolution but I think once you get to that point it's gone beyond the point where you, I or those people you are talking to could sensibly participate in the conversation.

Some here for sure. But once you get down to the details it's hard work, just pick up any textbook.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley.....C20.pdf

And that's for students, not people on the cutting edge (where it could be "wrong") of research.

If, as they say, the theory of evolution is wrong then ask them (as presumably they've read it) what page the first factual error in "The Greatest Show on Earth" is? As that does a great job of detailing the evidence for the theory of evolution they can use that as a indicator of what's wrong specifically.

Nobody at UD ever pointed out the first factual error.

So to me science is about sticking with a wrong idea until a less wrong idea comes along. To the people you are talking to replacing a wrong idea with a better idea is not part of their mindset - their book of knowledge has been set in stone for the best part of 2000 years and they don't want it to change. They are not interested in finding out the truth, they already *know* the truth, praise the lord.

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,05:59   

Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 09 2011,01:47)
The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

Regarding the aphid study, they would point out that there is no new genetic material as the study indicates at this point:

"These results suggested an evolutionary scenario that several copies of cathepsin B genes were present in an ancestor of these social aphids, and one of them acquired a novel venom function in the soldier caste."

It is again a question of a latent gene that was not expressed until this point.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,06:35   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2011,05:42)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,03:49)
Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Even if it's wrong if they've nothing to replace it with then it makes sense to stick with a "wrong" idea until a better idea comes along. Do they have that better idea?

I'm sure that there is plenty that is wrong about our best understanding of evolution but I think once you get to that point it's gone beyond the point where you, I or those people you are talking to could sensibly participate in the conversation.

Some here for sure. But once you get down to the details it's hard work, just pick up any textbook.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley.....C20.pdf

And that's for students, not people on the cutting edge (where it could be "wrong") of research.

If, as they say, the theory of evolution is wrong then ask them (as presumably they've read it) what page the first factual error in "The Greatest Show on Earth" is? As that does a great job of detailing the evidence for the theory of evolution they can use that as a indicator of what's wrong specifically.

Nobody at UD ever pointed out the first factual error.

So to me science is about sticking with a wrong idea until a less wrong idea comes along. To the people you are talking to replacing a wrong idea with a better idea is not part of their mindset - their book of knowledge has been set in stone for the best part of 2000 years and they don't want it to change. They are not interested in finding out the truth, they already *know* the truth, praise the lord.

Hmm no you can't answer like that at all, cause they will pull you to pieces by simply stating: there you see even they don't agree with their idea, they know it's wrong, they have faith in a wrong idea. So actually what does science have to offer, a just so idea, which they agree is wrong.

It takes just as much faith to sustain such ideas as it does to sustain ID or creationism. Which they will say is sustained by a scientifically wrong idea until such time as a new and better idea comes along.

This kind of argument just get turned around against you.

Regarding the "the greatest show on earth" I haven't read it yet, but I ask can the claims posted in my previous post be used against this book?

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,11:34   

remind them of the definition of evolution

evolution = change in allele frequency in a population.  

Aphids never had an allele for venom, now they do.  Infinite increase in allele frequency.  Evolution.

It really is that simple.

Ask them where the new function came from if it was not an increase in information and function.  Of course, they have to define information and function, remind them that they have not done so in a rigorous way (I don't even have to read the threads to know that they have not done so).

You absolutely must remind them, in every single post, that they are not doing science.  They are attacking something that they do not fully understand.  They are not producing any level of detail about their notions.  They are not allowing anyone to attack their notions (because they keep changing and/or are undefined).  There is no research on their notions at all.

Remind them that this is all a game.  No amount of argument on any forum anywhere in the world will actually accomplish anything to support their notions.  

I've, dozens of times, offered to help ID proponents create testable hypotheses and attempt to find research that would support those hypotheses.  I've offered dozens of opportunities for them to make predictions based on their notions.  Not a single one has ever taken me up on those offers.

Until they do... they are just babbling.  There is no science and it's purely a mental exercise for you.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,11:44   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,06:35)
So actually what does science have to offer, a just so idea, which they agree is wrong.

It offers the computers that they are typing on which would not exist if our understanding of physics was so badly wrong that in fact the earth could be 6000 years old.

For their ideas to be true we have to sit in a cave to discuss them seriously.

No doubt some of the people you are arguing with have flown.

They have plenty of trust in science and it's conclusions then.

EDIT: It's easy to be wrong. Anybody can do that.

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,12:15   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2011,11:44)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,06:35)
So actually what does science have to offer, a just so idea, which they agree is wrong.

It offers the computers that they are typing on which would not exist if our understanding of physics was so badly wrong that in fact the earth could be 6000 years old.

For their ideas to be true we have to sit in a cave to discuss them seriously.

No doubt some of the people you are arguing with have flown.

They have plenty of trust in science and it's conclusions then.

EDIT: It's easy to be wrong. Anybody can do that.

What is that saying about science... 90% of everything done is wrong.

The difference is that science can stand up and admit to being wrong and admits it is not infallible.  That's a major problem for the religious who assume that their religion is infallible and can't stomach the idea of something being wrong.

Unfortunately, these kinds of people never grow, never change, never realize that it's OK to be wrong sometimes.  We're people we aren't perfect.  

Science is wrong sometimes.  The ability to realize when science has the potential of being wrong about something (cold fusion) and when there is no possible doubt in any thinking person's mind (evolution) is a hallmark of critical thinking.

It's not skepticism to say that evolution doesn't work.  It's stupidity.  There is literally mountains of evidence supporting evolution (and radiometric dating).  If they want to show evolution is wrong, then they have to disprove every single paper in existence regarding evolution.  They'll need to get started on that.

Does science know everything?  Of course not.  Only an idiot would make that claim.  That doesn't mean that we don't actually know what we do know.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,12:32   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,01:49)
The problem is that speciation (they don't deny speciation) is the means by which evolution occurs. It is therfore important to prove that novel genetic material is added at a somewhat constant rate at the base of speciation so as to create biodiversity.

Speciation is the reproductive isolation of populations. It is "Evolution." I still don't think your friends, and perhaps yourself, understand what a "species" really is. I suggest reading;
What is a Species and What is Not

Speciation does not occur at a constant rate, so why should anyone expect genetic change to "be added" at a constant rate. Many cellular mechanisms exist to correctly copy DNA, and so are impediments to mutation. These are impaired by 'stress' (starvation, infection, chemical toxicity), making mutation more likely. These stresses are not necessarily "constant rate."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,16:25   

@Southstar.
Speciation is not the mean by which evolution occurs. You can have evolution without speciation.

Regarding the aphid paper, the venom cathepsine gene copy is not found in related aphid species that don't produce venomous soldiers. They're just dodging the issue.

EDIT: scratch that, I didn't remember quite well what was said in the paper. The authors don't say if the gene copy is absent in non-venomous species. However, they do show accelerated evolution of the soldier-specific gene copy. There was a duplication of the cathepsine gene in the past (may be at the origin of the venomous species clade, or before) and the soldier specific copy evolved under positive selection (that involves non-synonymous mutations). Some "new genetic material" was involved it seems, however important this might be to these IDers.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2011,16:57   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,06:35)
Regarding the "the greatest show on earth" I haven't read it yet, but I ask can the claims posted in my previous post be used against this book?

 
Quote
It is again a question of a latent gene that was not expressed until this point.


What, universal front loading? In short, no. How can it be? If it were then there are consequences for that. How is the latent gene activated? Does the designer do it manually? And so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......eriment
 
Quote
As of February 2010, the E. coli populations have been under study for over 50,000 generations, and are thought to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome should have occurred multiple times


Why front load at all when you can have something better....

--------------
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: Dec. 11 2011,20:18   

Quote
Further it seems that loss of genetic material is more common than gain of genetic material. Which would lead in the long run to a depletion of genetic material.

Only if the gains and losses are all in one species with no branching.

But if gains happen to be in ancestral species with lots of descendant species, that would not imply a net loss.

Speciation doesn't in and of itself imply gains of function; it simply allows subsets of a species to evolve separately from then on; this allows increase of diversity without necessarily involving any added functionality (or any added complexity either, whatever that means).

-----

Quote
Even if it's wrong if they've nothing to replace it with then it makes sense to stick with a "wrong" idea until a better idea comes along. Do they have that better idea?

I thought I was wrong once.

But it turned out I was mistaken.

More seriously, though, it isn't so much whether a hypothesis is wrong, as it is whether or not it is a useful approximation. Consider Newton's "laws" of motion: technical they're wrong, but they remain in use because, as long as speeds and gravity are both low enough, results are within the margin of error of the measurements; and also the space probes get where they're intended to go. (GPS, on the other hand, requires relativity calculations to work correctly, IIRC.)

-----

Quote
This kind of argument just get turned around against you.

That's when you're talking to people who don't really get how to use evidence to derive or support general principles. I think this is somewhat different from using evidence to determine specific details about one event.

Henry

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,05:32   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 11 2011,20:18)

Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun,  show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics.

Or in any case give us an example of evolution that cannot have "other" alternative explanations. These are simple people asking this question

To this last question I would answer cetacian evolution. We have a very good fossil record that shows step by step evolution.

Your thoughts on all of this?
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,05:48   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:32)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 11 2011,20:18)

Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun,  show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species
 
Quote
A classic example of ring species is the Larus gulls' circumpolar species "ring". The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole, which is not normally transited by individual gulls.
The Herring Gull L. argentatus, which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American Herring Gull L. smithsonianus, (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull L. vegae, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull L. vegae birulai, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull L. heuglini, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull L. fuscus. All four of these live across the north of Siberia.


2) How can they not hybridize and have the same DNA? I can't show that they have novel DNA, but if they are fully sequenced....

3) Can't see that's the case here at all and as such it'll likely be unpersuasive. But it's the best I can do on my coffee break!

 
Quote

Or in any case give us an example of evolution that cannot have "other" alternative explanations. These are simple people asking this question


There are a million alternative explanations for anything I've linked to here. Perhaps invisible pink unicorns are editing DNA in real time towards a goal only they know. Or perhaps the designer is manipulating atoms at the quantum level making "random" mutations.

It's rather about what explanations make sense given the observed data and making predictions that can be tested.

Or perhaps HIV is a good example. It has evolved considerably and there is strong evidence for that.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite....V.shtml

Quote
Evolutionary biologists can help uncover clues to new ways to treat or vaccinate against HIV. These clues emerge from the evolutionary origins of the virus, how human populations have evolved under pressure from other deadly pathogens, and how the virus evolves resistance to the drugs we’ve designed. Controlling the disease may be a matter of controlling the evolution of this constantly adapting virus.


So either evolution allows HIV to stay ahead of our efforts to treat it or the designer is helping it directly. It has to be one or the other, make them choose.

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,05:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2011,16:57)

Quote
What, universal front loading? In short, no. How can it be? If it were then there are consequences for that. How is the latent gene activated? Does the designer do it manually? And so on.


The latent gene is activated by different ambient conditions, in the case of the lizard, different diet. The designer is not called into question.

Remember their aim is to show that evolution cannot work. by reducing the possibility of having novel genes and by showing that loss of information can outpace even the few rare examples of gain.

The designer for the moment is not called into question by them. He will be for sure, but for now they are out to disprove that evolution could work.

Their strategy is very simple:

1) Show people that evolution is faith based
2) Show people that evolution can't work using scientific peer review papers al la mr. behe's work.
3) Ask people why they put their trust on such a falascious system
4) Provide a framework for an alternative which requires just as much faith and is simpler to understand and is backed by "scientific work".
5) initiate brainwashing procedures.

marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,06:38   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:58)

The latent gene is activated by different ambient conditions, in the case of the lizard, different diet. The designer is not called into question.

Then the question is how do we tell the difference between the options of a latent gene being activated and a new gene.

The real question is what will they think if you show them a totally new gene appearing? Will they then go "oh, you are right, evolution can create new genes" or will they push their god back into a smaller gap?

So get them to put it on the line. What is it that you think they will accept if you can show a new gene? That evolution does work? Really?

If so, you've already won.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....02.html

 
Quote
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

 
Quote
by reducing the possibility of having novel genes and by showing that loss of information can outpace even the few rare examples of gain.

As they have not defined "informatio
n" how can they tell if it's lost or gained at all?
 
Quote
The designer for the moment is not called into question by them. He will be for sure, but for now they are out to disprove that evolution could work.

Evolution is an observed fact. There is no question there.
 
Quote
1) Show people that evolution is faith based
2) Show people that evolution can't work using scientific peer review papers al la mr. behe's work.
3) Ask people why they put their trust on such a falascious system
4) Provide a framework for an alternative which requires just as much faith and is simpler to understand and is backed by "scientific work".
5) initiate brainwashing procedures.

1) Evidence does not require faith. It's an observed fact.
2) For every paper showing that evolution does not work there are 10,000 showing that it does.
3) It produces results and predictions can be made.
4) Simpler to understand is the key. The details are hard work, it's just easier to throw up your hands and trust an "expert". It just so happens that the experts they have chosen to trust coincidentally are saying the things they want to hear.

--------------
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

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,09:39   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:32)
Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun,  show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics

Why the insistence on new species with "novel DNA?" As has already been noted above, speciation doesn't have to involve the appearance of brand new genes. And again - mutations can never be classified as epigenetics. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Epigenetics is changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in DNA sequence.

I suspect what your opponents are really objecting to is not speciation, which merely requires reproductive isolation. I think they're disputing that evolution can produce new genes and new functions.

If so, you're never going to be able to cite a lab study showing the complete evolution, from scratch, of some complex new structure like an eye. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to observe that directly.

In fact, you might remind them that that's their hypothesis - that some "intelligent designer" can supposedly create new functions and whole new creatures in an instant. Where's their evidence for that?

It's true we can't watch a mouse-like animal evolve into a bat-like animal in a lab. But we can observe mutations that alter gene functions. We observe the appearance of novel genes and novel biochemical functions. We observe transitions throughout the fossil record that are consistent with gradual evolution, not with instantaneous design. We observe genetic relationships between organisms, and between functions, that are very consistent with the fossil record. We can even observe related genes in different species, infer a likely evolutionary path from an ancestral organism, predict the likely gene sequence and function that ancestral organism should have had, make that predicted ancestral gene, and show it has the predicted function!

So, while it's true that we can't observe everything about evolution, it's very much false that belief in evolution is just as much faith as is belief in ID.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,11:05   

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 12 2011,09:39)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:32)
Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun,  show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics

As has already been noted above, speciation doesn't have to involve the appearance of brand new genes. And again - mutations can never be classified as epigenetics. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Epigenetics is changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in DNA sequence.



If so, you're never going to be able to cite a lab study showing the complete evolution, from scratch, of some complex new structure like an eye. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to observe that directly.

In fact, you might remind them that that's their hypothesis - that some "intelligent designer" can supposedly create new functions and whole new creatures in an instant. Where's their evidence for that?

It's true we can't watch a mouse-like animal evolve into a bat-like animal in a lab. But we can observe mutations that alter gene functions. We observe the appearance of novel genes and novel biochemical functions. We observe transitions throughout the fossil record that are consistent with gradual evolution, not with instantaneous design. We observe genetic relationships between organisms, and between functions, that are very consistent with the fossil record. We can even observe related genes in different species, infer a likely evolutionary path from an ancestral organism, predict the likely gene sequence and function that ancestral organism should have had, make that predicted ancestral gene, and show it has the predicted function!

So, while it's true that we can't observe everything about evolution, it's very much false that belief in evolution is just as much faith as is belief in ID.

Quote
Why the insistence on new species with "novel DNA?"

Because for them it would show that new more complex species could arise. It would be an example of how life became complex.

In the lizard example since the genome was not sequenced we don't know what the cause of the alterations are, so epigenics could be the cause as well as modified DNA or new DNA. But we can't use this example untill we know. Although I read a further study that did say that these morphological changes were already present at the embrionic stage suggesting that there is a genetic link, but we can't know for sure.

Quote

I suspect what your opponents are really objecting to is not speciation, which merely requires reproductive isolation. I think they're disputing that evolution can produce new genes and new functions.


Yes that's why I thought to ask them how we can get to humans with 400 - 700 alleles in under 4000 years from Noah's 16. Without having a HUGE amount of increase in genetic information.

I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species. That's all they are asking. So for example have a skink develop from a snake in nature. Showing that the skink has new genetic material (that was not already present in the snake) for protolegs and is otherwise very genetically similar or identical to a snake.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,11:25   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,11:05)
I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species.

http://www.newscientist.com/article....ab.html

 
Quote
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.


But sure, they will just say they are still "bacteria", not a new species (whatever that might mean).

But Lenski had exactly what you are asking for, novel genetic material promoted by selection and passed down to form a new species.

Another example: http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html
 
Quote
Sympatric speciation by the formation of host races (parasite populations associated with different plant or animal hosts) has been the subject of great controversy. It has been difficult to demonstrate the existence of host races1,2, much less to prove that host races are evolving toward species status. Genetic polymorphism attributable to association with different resources does occur3, but the phenomenon is far from ubiquitous in parasite populations. The apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella uses a variety of host plants, and Bush4,5 has argued that it is a likely candidate for speciation by a sympatric mode. So far however there has been no direct evidence of any genetic differentiation between host-associated fly populations. We report significant differences in allele frequencies between fly populations reared from sympatric apple (Mains pumila) and hawthorn (Crataegus mollis) trees at a field site in Urbana, Illinois, in the United States.


In any case Darwin already provided what you are looking for here, in effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......finches

 
Quote
Developmental research in 2004 found that bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), and its differential expression during development, resulted in variation of beak size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features, including the beak.[24] The same group showed that the different beak shapes of Darwin's finches develop are also influenced by slightly different timing and spatial expression of a gene called calmodulin (CaM).[25] Calmodulin acts in a similar way to BMP4, affecting some of the features of beak growth. The authors suggest that changes in the temporal and spatial expression of these two factors are possible developmental controls of beak morphology.


Give it more time and they won't be able to interbreed because of the beak sizes and you have what you want. Long after we're all dead, but evolution is (usually) slow at the species level.

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,11:32   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2011,11:25)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,11:05)
I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species.

http://www.newscientist.com/article....ab.html

 
Quote
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.


But sure, they will just say they are still "bacteria", not a new species (whatever that might mean).

But Lenski had exactly what you are asking for, novel genetic material promoted by selection and passed down to form a new species.

Another example: http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html
 
Quote
Sympatric speciation by the formation of host races (parasite populations associated with different plant or animal hosts) has been the subject of great controversy. It has been difficult to demonstrate the existence of host races1,2, much less to prove that host races are evolving toward species status. Genetic polymorphism attributable to association with different resources does occur3, but the phenomenon is far from ubiquitous in parasite populations. The apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella uses a variety of host plants, and Bush4,5 has argued that it is a likely candidate for speciation by a sympatric mode. So far however there has been no direct evidence of any genetic differentiation between host-associated fly populations. We report significant differences in allele frequencies between fly populations reared from sympatric apple (Mains pumila) and hawthorn (Crataegus mollis) trees at a field site in Urbana, Illinois, in the United States.


In any case Darwin already provided what you are looking for here, in effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......finches

 
Quote
Developmental research in 2004 found that bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), and its differential expression during development, resulted in variation of beak size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features, including the beak.[24] The same group showed that the different beak shapes of Darwin's finches develop are also influenced by slightly different timing and spatial expression of a gene called calmodulin (CaM).[25] Calmodulin acts in a similar way to BMP4, affecting some of the features of beak growth. The authors suggest that changes in the temporal and spatial expression of these two factors are possible developmental controls of beak morphology.


Give it more time and they won't be able to interbreed because of the beak sizes and you have what you want. Long after we're all dead, but evolution is (usually) slow at the species level.

Actually, the arguably a new species by most meaningful definitions of the word.

The collection of bacteria we call E. coli can have up to 80% genetic variation.  That's way more than any equivalent non-bacterial species.

But one of the defining characters of E. coli is the inability to utilize citrate.  That is how doctors determine if you have Salmonella poisoning or E. coli poisoning.  They grow the sample on citrate.  If it grows, then it is Salmonella.

So, you have a bacterium with a very novel feature, one, by definition, it shouldn't have.

If Lenski ever writes a paper describing his strain as a new species, there would probably not be anyone complaining about it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,12:07   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,11:32)
If Lenski ever writes a paper describing his strain as a new species, there would probably not be anyone complaining about it.

But it's still bacteriaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

:p

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,12:18   

i will always complain about "species" of bacteria

--------------
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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,12:19   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,11:05)
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 12 2011,09:39)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:32)
Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun,  show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics

As has already been noted above, speciation doesn't have to involve the appearance of brand new genes. And again - mutations can never be classified as epigenetics. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Epigenetics is changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in DNA sequence.



If so, you're never going to be able to cite a lab study showing the complete evolution, from scratch, of some complex new structure like an eye. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to observe that directly.

In fact, you might remind them that that's their hypothesis - that some "intelligent designer" can supposedly create new functions and whole new creatures in an instant. Where's their evidence for that?

It's true we can't watch a mouse-like animal evolve into a bat-like animal in a lab. But we can observe mutations that alter gene functions. We observe the appearance of novel genes and novel biochemical functions. We observe transitions throughout the fossil record that are consistent with gradual evolution, not with instantaneous design. We observe genetic relationships between organisms, and between functions, that are very consistent with the fossil record. We can even observe related genes in different species, infer a likely evolutionary path from an ancestral organism, predict the likely gene sequence and function that ancestral organism should have had, make that predicted ancestral gene, and show it has the predicted function!

So, while it's true that we can't observe everything about evolution, it's very much false that belief in evolution is just as much faith as is belief in ID.

 
Quote
Why the insistence on new species with "novel DNA?"

Because for them it would show that new more complex species could arise. It would be an example of how life became complex.

In the lizard example since the genome was not sequenced we don't know what the cause of the alterations are, so epigenics could be the cause as well as modified DNA or new DNA. But we can't use this example untill we know. Although I read a further study that did say that these morphological changes were already present at the embrionic stage suggesting that there is a genetic link, but we can't know for sure.

 
Quote

I suspect what your opponents are really objecting to is not speciation, which merely requires reproductive isolation. I think they're disputing that evolution can produce new genes and new functions.


Yes that's why I thought to ask them how we can get to humans with 400 - 700 alleles in under 4000 years from Noah's 16. Without having a HUGE amount of increase in genetic information.

I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species. That's all they are asking. So for example have a skink develop from a snake in nature. Showing that the skink has new genetic material (that was not already present in the snake) for protolegs and is otherwise very genetically similar or identical to a snake.

Thanks
Marty

You have asked a good question, because it demonstrates the weakness of YEC - making an argument based only on the immediate moment (mutation can't generate novel alleles when talking about evolution), and  ignoring the fact that they must postulate much higher rates (for a population arising from 8 individuals).

qetzal is correct in noting that they do not even know what epigenetics is about in 3).  I also point out that 2) is not required for 1), despite what they think they understand.

The key is showing that evolution DID occur, whether they understand HOW or not.  The HOW is being used as an excuse, a rationalization.  That is why the fossil record is so crucial for demonstrating that YEC is so absurd.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,14:51   

What's a "more complex species"? One that has a bigger genome? Polyploidization produces those species all the time.
On the top of my head, I cannot find pairs of incipient species where one could be readily considered phenotypically as "more complex". New functions, like new organs, take some time to evolve, and that is not achieved through a single speciation event. Of course, difference in phenotypic complexity is visible when you compare more distant species.  Some Heliconius races have complex wing patterns that are derived from simpler patterns (if I'm not mistaken). Does that count?

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,16:20   

Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,21:04   

If novel DNA is hard to find, what about short story DNA?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,00:51   

Every chromosome that replicates makes "new DNA". Well, half-new DNA.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,05:28   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 12 2011,16:20)
Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

Remeber these people hold behe's work and the bible next to each other.

So in the example of the lizard, they say yes it may have mutated but no new novel functions or genetic material is involved. It's just epigenics.

What they say is show us that the DNA of the original lizard and the "new" lizard has been totaly sequenced and show us where there is added information. Until you do so you are assuming that there is without a drop of proof.

This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.

marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,07:02   

Quote
This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.


Then just wait a few years and you can disprove their religion for them all at once. The price of sequencing is falling all the time, compared to just a few years ago it's now a fraction of the price.

What you should really do is let them know that their challenge is almost science! All they have to do is write up what exactly they are proposing and send it to the  John Templeton Foundation.

http://www.templeton.org/who-we-....mission
Quote
Our vision is derived from the late Sir John Templeton's optimism about the possibility of acquiring “new spiritual information” and from his commitment to rigorous scientific research and related scholarship. The Foundation's motto, "How little we know, how eager to learn," exemplifies our support for open-minded inquiry and our hope for advancing human progress through breakthrough discoveries.

I'm 100% sure (they previously asked for ID submissions) they would fund such a study that claimed not only to disprove "Darwinism" but provide evidence for an interventionist deity at the same time. And if all you have to do is sequence a couple of Lizards then they'd go for it I'm sure.

http://www.templeton.org/....ton....ton.org

--------------
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

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,07:21   

Why does there have to be "novel genetic material" and what does that actually mean? If a series of mutations altered existing genes and led to some new function, would that count as new added genetic material?

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,07:43   

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,07:21)
Why does there have to be "novel genetic material" and what does that actually mean? If a series of mutations altered existing genes and led to some new function, would that count as new added genetic material?

See in there minds, nothing new can be created by nature. Remember Behe's study? Almost all mutations are negative or involve a loss of function. This for them is a law.

They state that if you don't have new genetic material how do you create new organs, how do you get from bacteria to humans without new genetic material.

That's why for them the ultimate proof of evolution is something that disproves this. Although I have no doubt that they will move the goal post once you offer them this proof.

I have to add that because most of them are not very learnered (niether am I actually at least in biology I have a degree in international economics) what they want to see is a new species (preferebly an animal)  that arises due to new genetic material.

The example of the lizard would have been great but the evolution could have been due to other factors not necessarily new genetic material.

Another thing that would greatly weeken their argument is a peer reviewed paper that is critical of Behe's work.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,07:48   

But again, what counts as "new genetic material" as they (or you) define it?

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,08:04   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,07:43)

By the way this is one example of how the creationist would try to convince us that superevolution after the flood is real. As an answer to how 8 people gave rise to 700 allele. I have put in bold the phrase that I think is rubbish. Would you agree?

Marty
_
Millions of Species in a Few Hundred Years?

Some people who object to a recent-creation interpretation of Genesis point to the fact that such a view requires that all modern animal species on earth must have descended from these same species saved on the Ark. If the Ark had roughly 30,000 animals (less than 15,000 species or different kinds), how could the animals on the Ark produce millions of species within a few hundred, or a few thousand, years after the Flood? Surely this would require a faster evolutionary rate than even the most ardent evolutionist would propose.

However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science.

Evolution, defined as large-scale changes that produce one kind of organism from another kind, is not capable of producing the millions of species observed today from the 15,000 different kinds of animals on the Ark. However, the genetic potential of each kind of animal and the freedom from genetic equilibrium, combined with mutations, would allow the appearance of many different species from the few animals on the Ark.

Genetic Potential for Variation

The genetic potential to produce a wide range of variation in any animal kind or species, regardless of how these terms are defined, easily provides 30,000 different species from fewer than 15,000 different kinds. Genetic potential is the amount of variation that a kind or type of organism can produce from the genetic material that is already present. It is possible for a pair of animals to harbor nearly all of the alleles (variations of a type of gene) for their kind in their genome.

Other alleles result from mutations to existing genes (human red hair color would be a good example of this). For example, two humans (Adam and Eve?) could have all the common DNA variations (called polymorphisms) found in all ethnic groups. This would require only one DNA base difference every 667 bases between the two of them. This is hardly a difficult situation for the genomes of two people and can account for much of the genetic variation observed in people today. Rare polymorphisms are few in number compared to common polymorphisms and are likely the result of the accumulation of mutations. These rare polymorphisms are frequently referred to as personal polymorphisms, since they can be used to identify an individual.

The effects of common and rare polymorphisms can be easily illustrated by all domesticated animals and their various breeds. Dogs, cattle, hamsters, and tropical fish all have many different breeds that easily demonstrate what genetic potential is. Of course, these are all artificially selected animals and selecting for these breeds has led to a much faster rate of variation (what some call evolution) than would be expected in the wild. (Most dog breeds have been developed in the last 200 years.)

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,08:12   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,08:04)

Sorry I forgot to add the second part of their magical explanation...

Marty
---------------------------------------


Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

The other important factor to be considered in this scenario is something called genetic (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium for the gene frequencies of a particular population of organisms. The change in gene frequency is used in evolutionary theory as evidence for microevolution, but this theorem can also be applied to a creation scenario since it does not involve the formation of novel genes from no genes. Hardy-Weinberg theory states that gene (or more accurately, allele) frequencies will remain constant as long as these requirements are met: random mating, no migration in or out of the population, no mutation, no genetic drift (chance changes in gene frequencies), and no selection for traits.

When the animals left the Ark none of these conditions would be met, enabling microevolution (change in allele frequency) and speciation events. These events include the selection of mates (for humans specifically), environmental selection of some traits, accumulation of mutations, chance genetic drift, and migration of animals taking with them different combinations of genetic material. Because of the small populations of animals immediately after the Flood, gene (allele) frequencies would rapidly be altered as animals migrated around the globe, adapted to various environments based on their genetic constitution, and became reproductively isolated.

This would result in many variations of the original animals on the Ark, just like artificial selection produces many variations in domestic animals. This is not just a creation paradigm. Many population genetic studies, for any animal, include migration and reproductive isolation leading to speciation. The migration of humans around the globe is well-documented and based on the changing gene frequencies (such as ABO blood alleles and mitochondrial DNA) in each population. It is also well documented from DNA and protein sequences that all animals had migratory events that contributed to the ecological, behavioral, and geographic speciation events observable today.
Sorry i forgot to add the second part of their explanation:

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

The other important factor to be considered in this scenario is something called genetic (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium for the gene frequencies of a particular population of organisms. The change in gene frequency is used in evolutionary theory as evidence for microevolution, but this theorem can also be applied to a creation scenario since it does not involve the formation of novel genes from no genes. Hardy-Weinberg theory states that gene (or more accurately, allele) frequencies will remain constant as long as these requirements are met: random mating, no migration in or out of the population, no mutation, no genetic drift (chance changes in gene frequencies), and no selection for traits.

When the animals left the Ark none of these conditions would be met, enabling microevolution (change in allele frequency) and speciation events. These events include the selection of mates (for humans specifically), environmental selection of some traits, accumulation of mutations, chance genetic drift, and migration of animals taking with them different combinations of genetic material. Because of the small populations of animals immediately after the Flood, gene (allele) frequencies would rapidly be altered as animals migrated around the globe, adapted to various environments based on their genetic constitution, and became reproductively isolated.

This would result in many variations of the original animals on the Ark, just like artificial selection produces many variations in domestic animals. This is not just a creation paradigm. Many population genetic studies, for any animal, include migration and reproductive isolation leading to speciation. The migration of humans around the globe is well-documented and based on the changing gene frequencies (such as ABO blood alleles and mitochondrial DNA) in each population. It is also well documented from DNA and protein sequences that all animals had migratory events that contributed to the ecological, behavioral, and geographic speciation events observable today.

All of the examples given above do not require creation of new genes or genetic information via natural processes from genetic information not previously in existence (evolution). The genetic information we observe today was supplied at the time of creation in these animals in their genomes, and their genetic potential has created the variations frequently classified as species. It is true that mutations create many new variations, but this is not an example of Darwinian evolution. Mutations work on pre-existing genetic material, are accompanied with a loss of information, and lead to extinction, not the conversion of one animal kind into another animal kind, regardless of how many years mutations are given.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,08:25   

Of course it's impossible for the human genome to 'hide' all 673 HLA-A alleles.

The human genome project would have found them.  

See, that's just it. The research has been done.  Those alleles are not there.  Every human has two.  Either one (homozygous) or two (heterozygous) of the 673 HLA-A alleles.  That's it.

If those alleles are 'hidden', then the only way to hide them would be to MUTATE them into something that ISN'T an allele and then hope that they mutate back epigentically or something.

It's pure hogwash.  Again, the research has been done... they are simply wrong.

edit to add: BTW, the entire human genome is available on-line... those guys can get to work looking for those extra alleles... maybe it will keep them out of our hair for a while.  Who am I kidding?  Actually do science... hah!

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,09:30   

It's coming from here FYI: http://www.icr.org/article....als-ark

ICR, lol....

Do they have anything more substantial? Anything peer reviewed?

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,09:44   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 13 2011,09:30)
It's coming from here FYI: http://www.icr.org/article....als-ark

ICR, lol....

Do they have anything more substantial? Anything peer reviewed?

I wondered why they sent it to me in a Pm an why the english was so good...

See it's even from a Phd in molecular biology...

LOL
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,10:09   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,09:44)

For my understanding:

1) Only 2 allele are found per gene correct?

2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.

3)  Of these 700 each gene will only have a specific 2 correct?

Thanks for you patience.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,11:14   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,09:09)
[quote=Southstar,Dec. 13 2011,09:44][/quote]
For my understanding:

1) Only 2 allele are found per gene correct?

2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.

3)  Of these 700 each gene will only have a specific 2 correct?

Thanks for you patience.

Marty

No, yes, no.

You have no fundamental understanding, which is funny since you are claiming to have a greater understanding than do those who actually do research.

If you can't distinguish between "you" and "your," there's not a lot of hope for you when it comes to high-school level genetics.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,11:21   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,10:09)
[quote=Southstar,Dec. 13 2011,09:44][/quote]
For my understanding:

1) Only 2 allele are found per gene correct?

2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.

3)  Of these 700 each gene will only have a specific 2 correct?

Thanks for you patience.

Marty

Right.  One allele from each parent.  

An allele is a variant of a gene.  Everyone has two alleles for blood type.  I happen to have an 'A' allele and a 'B' allele... so my blood type is AB.  I got the 'A' from my mom (who is blood type A) and the 'B' from my dad (who is blood type B).

My kid picked up a 'B' allele from me (since I could only give him one of the two) and an 'O' allele from my wife, so he's blood type 'B'.

Having two different alleles means you are heterozygous for that gene.  Having two alleles that are the same means you are homozygous for that gene.

There are 673 HLA-A alleles... all variants for the HLA-A gene.  Every person has two alleles.  That's all that they can have... one from mom, one from dad*.

So either, after the flood a maximum of 10 alleles** (assuming that everyone on board was heterozygous) somehow mutated into 673 in less than 4000 years (depending on the date of da Flood), which results in sometime like 1 valid mutation every 6 years... in the HLA-A gene.***

Their other choice is front-loading.  Which, simply has been proven wrong.  The human genome would have to contain another 671 HLA-A alleles, another couple hundred HLA-B alleles, another few hundred HLA-C alleles, plus all the blood type alleles, etc. etc. etc.

As I said, the human genome has been sequenced completely.  Those other alleles were not found.  Therefore, frontloading didn't happen.  Think about it, in 4000 years, with a mutation rate than YEcs can accept, there is no way that several thousand alleles would be changed so much as to be impossible to see in the genome... in everyone's genome.  

Another way to think about that last bit is that you must have a population of 340 people to have every possible HLA-A allele expressed.  Given birth rates, if everything went perfectly for Noah and his offspring, then it would still take over 60 years just to have every allele in an expressed position.  And honestly, what is more likely, that every child born will just happen to have two completely unique alleles? or will there likely be some doubling going on?

So a minimum time for this is 60 years, if every parent has two children and all parents and offspring survive to reproduce and all parents have children well into their elderly years (like 70+).  If you assume anything reasonable, the minimum time approaches several hundred years for all HLA-A alleles to be expressed.

Then you have to get rid of all those extra alleles so that they don't show up when the human genome project finishes some 4000 years later.  It can't be a lucky mutation in just a few people... it must be a concerted effort to hide the evidence of those hundreds of alleles that now, must not exist in the population... and the YECs have less than 4000 years... probably less than 3000 years to do it.  Again, with what we know of mutations and mutation rates, there is no way that these populations would survive the massive mutation rates.  (remember it has to happen to multiple genes, not just HLA-A)

Finally, we get into the whole haplotype, which is used to trace human migration patterns over the course of human existence.  Not only did kids have to be born with unique alleles, but they also had to get those in such a way as to allow certain haplotypes to move into certain regions at the same time.

For example, The Super-B8 haplotype is enriched in the Western Irish, declines along gradients away from that region, and is found only in areas of the world where Western Europeans have migrated. The "A3-B7-DR2-DQ1" is more widely spread, from Eastern Asia to Iberia. (from wikipedia)

This is akin to having a giant jar with thousands of marbles of all different types all mixed up.  You dump the jar out and all the marbles not only roll into groups, but the groups are consistent within each other (all the turtles in one pile, all the aggies in another pile, all the pearls in a different pile.  Again possible, but massively unlikely.

So, in conclusion, to accept the YEC belief, you must accept at least 3 widely improbably claims (not to mention the ark, the animals, feeding, where'd the water come from, where'd it go, depth, heat generated by rainfall, etc, etc, etc).  And all of those claims are directly opposite of what is known to actually occur.

One must ask the question, when did the rules change and why?

Their only option is many, many miracles.  But that's not science.


*With the exception of a couple of trisomy issues, but those are universally bad.

** 2 from Noah, 2 from his wife, and 6 from the three wives.  Noah's boys don't count, because they could only have what Noah and his wife have.  If you make an allowance for mutation in every single allele for the boys (which is highly unlikely), then you could make the claim for 16 alleles.

*** Considering that there is more than one gene with a massive number of alleles, you end up looking at something like 2-3 valid mutations per year in the entire population.  Which is fine if your population is 7 billion.  If your population is 20, that's a big deal.  And that fact destroys any chance of the YECs saying 'mutation is bad', 'mutation degrades the genome', ect. etc.  They MUST have massive positive mutation rates... which BTW are way higher than any biologist would consider feasible.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,11:27   

Quote (JAM @ Dec. 13 2011,11:14)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,09:09)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,09:44)

For my understanding:

1) Only 2 allele are found per gene correct?

2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.

3)  Of these 700 each gene will only have a specific 2 correct?

Thanks for you patience.

Marty

No, yes, no.

You have no fundamental understanding, which is funny since you are claiming to have a greater understanding than do those who actually do research.

If you can't distinguish between "you" and "your," there's not a lot of hope for you when it comes to high-school level genetics.

Hello? I'm on your side, I'm trying to convince some IDots for the case of evolution. Unfortunately my understanding of genetics isn't as good as I wish it was, that's why i posted questions here.

I made a specific point as you can read in my past posts against their silly argument that if the Ark story was true they would have to explain how we could get from 16 alleles to the 700 found now.

However since my understanding is limited and I'm debating in Italian I like to learn more as the different questions arise. Thanks to the people here I've learned alot already.

Perhaps I see where the mistake is, I've corrected the questions
1) Only 2 allele are found per human correct?
2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.
3)  Of these 700 each human will only have a specific 2 correct?
4) These 700 would have to have developed since the flood if their TARDsm was true.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,11:38   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 13 2011,11:21)
Right.  One allele from each parent.  

An allele is a variant of a gene.  Everyone has two alleles for blood type.  I happen to have an 'A' allele and a 'B' allele... so my blood type is AB.  I got the 'A' from my mom (who is blood type A) and the 'B' from my dad (who is blood type B).

My kid picked up a 'B' allele from me (since I could only give him one of the two) and an 'O' allele from my wife, so he's blood type 'B'.

Having two different alleles means you are heterozygous for that gene.  Having two alleles that are the same means you are homozygous for that gene.

There are 673 HLA-A alleles... all variants for the HLA-A gene.  Every person has two alleles.  That's all that they can have... one from mom, one from dad*.

So either, after the flood a maximum of 10 alleles** (assuming that everyone on board was heterozygous) somehow mutated into 673 in less than 4000 years (depending on the date of da Flood), which results in sometime like 1 valid mutation every 6 years... in the HLA-A gene.***

Their other choice is front-loading.  Which, simply has been proven wrong.  The human genome would have to contain another 671 HLA-A alleles, another couple hundred HLA-B alleles, another few hundred HLA-C alleles, plus all the blood type alleles, etc. etc. etc.

As I said, the human genome has been sequenced completely.  Those other alleles were not found.  Therefore, frontloading didn't happen.  Think about it, in 4000 years, with a mutation rate than YEcs can accept, there is no way that several thousand alleles would be changed so much as to be impossible to see in the genome... in everyone's genome.  

Another way to think about that last bit is that you must have a population of 340 people to have every possible HLA-A allele expressed.  Given birth rates, if everything went perfectly for Noah and his offspring, then it would still take over 60 years just to have every allele in an expressed position.  And honestly, what is more likely, that every child born will just happen to have two completely unique alleles? or will there likely be some doubling going on?

So a minimum time for this is 60 years, if every parent has two children and all parents and offspring survive to reproduce and all parents have children well into their elderly years (like 70+).  If you assume anything reasonable, the minimum time approaches several hundred years for all HLA-A alleles to be expressed.

Then you have to get rid of all those extra alleles so that they don't show up when the human genome project finishes some 4000 years later.  It can't be a lucky mutation in just a few people... it must be a concerted effort to hide the evidence of those hundreds of alleles that now, must not exist in the population... and the YECs have less than 4000 years... probably less than 3000 years to do it.  Again, with what we know of mutations and mutation rates, there is no way that these populations would survive the massive mutation rates.  (remember it has to happen to multiple genes, not just HLA-A)

Finally, we get into the whole haplotype, which is used to trace human migration patterns over the course of human existence.  Not only did kids have to be born with unique alleles, but they also had to get those in such a way as to allow certain haplotypes to move into certain regions at the same time.

For example, The Super-B8 haplotype is enriched in the Western Irish, declines along gradients away from that region, and is found only in areas of the world where Western Europeans have migrated. The "A3-B7-DR2-DQ1" is more widely spread, from Eastern Asia to Iberia. (from wikipedia)

This is akin to having a giant jar with thousands of marbles of all different types all mixed up.  You dump the jar out and all the marbles not only roll into groups, but the groups are consistent within each other (all the turtles in one pile, all the aggies in another pile, all the pearls in a different pile.  Again possible, but massively unlikely.

So, in conclusion, to accept the YEC belief, you must accept at least 3 widely improbably claims (not to mention the ark, the animals, feeding, where'd the water come from, where'd it go, depth, heat generated by rainfall, etc, etc, etc).  And all of those claims are directly opposite of what is known to actually occur.

One must ask the question, when did the rules change and why?

Their only option is many, many miracles.  But that's not science.


*With the exception of a couple of trisomy issues, but those are universally bad.

** 2 from Noah, 2 from his wife, and 6 from the three wives.  Noah's boys don't count, because they could only have what Noah and his wife have.  If you make an allowance for mutation in every single allele for the boys (which is highly unlikely), then you could make the claim for 16 alleles.

*** Considering that there is more than one gene with a massive number of alleles, you end up looking at something like 2-3 valid mutations per year in the entire population.  Which is fine if your population is 7 billion.  If your population is 20, that's a big deal.  And that fact destroys any chance of the YECs saying 'mutation is bad', 'mutation degrades the genome', ect. etc.  They MUST have massive positive mutation rates... which BTW are way higher than any biologist would consider feasible.

Thank's for having given a great explanation that I can really use!

Cheers
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,13:15   

Marty,

I still want to know what they consider "new genetic information." Which of these would qualify, in their opinion?

A) a mutation in an existing gene that has no effect on gene function
B) a mutation in an existing gene that modifies the existing function (eg maybe changes gene expression levels, or changes catalytic rates of an enzyme encoded by the gene)
C) a mutation in an existing gene that creates a new function (eg the encoded enzyme can now act on a different substrate, or the encoded protein can now bind to a different DNA sequence)
D) an existing gene that gets duplicated, with no change in the DNA sequence
E) a gene that gets duplicated with some sequence change that either modifies gene function (E1) or creates a new function (E2)
F) duplication of a large stretch of the genome, without or with modified or new functions
G) duplication of the entire genome (polyploidy)
H) introduction of DNA from an outside source, such as integration of viral DNA into the host's chromosome
I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,14:28   

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,13:15)
Marty,

I still want to know what they consider "new genetic information." Which of these would qualify, in their opinion?

A) a mutation in an existing gene that has no effect on gene function
B) a mutation in an existing gene that modifies the existing function (eg maybe changes gene expression levels, or changes catalytic rates of an enzyme encoded by the gene)
C) a mutation in an existing gene that creates a new function (eg the encoded enzyme can now act on a different substrate, or the encoded protein can now bind to a different DNA sequence)
D) an existing gene that gets duplicated, with no change in the DNA sequence
E) a gene that gets duplicated with some sequence change that either modifies gene function (E1) or creates a new function (E2)
F) duplication of a large stretch of the genome, without or with modified or new functions
G) duplication of the entire genome (polyploidy)
H) introduction of DNA from an outside source, such as integration of viral DNA into the host's chromosome
I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.

That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.

Their argument is that it would take "10^40 critters to make the gains seen by Behe feasible for the creation of the biodiversity". Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity. Sure it's enough for small changes and microscale evolution but not to justify biodiversity in nature. Actually he challenged us to provide a peer reviewed paper that would prove him wrong, regarding gain of functions and/or that proved Behe's findings to be off.

I mentioned that Lenski had in fact seen a gain of function in 2008 with CITL but this was shrugged off as a typical example of epigenics, "and even if it that wasn't the case it was still so rare that it's a negligible event"  

I've asked him to show me the equation that got him that number (10^40) but got no answer.

To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,16:17   

New genes mostly happen by duplication of existing genes.
Those IDiots can do their homework and look up the current literature about gene duplication.
I haven't read the lenski paper, but I'd be surprised if the mutation that caused adaptation to citrate wasn't characterized.

And regarding post-flood speciation... Anyone who believes in the biblical version of the flood has lost it. There's no point in arguing with brainwashed people.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,16:22   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.

Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,22:24   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,05:28)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 12 2011,16:20)
Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

Remeber these people hold behe's work and the bible next to each other.

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.
Quote
So in the example of the lizard, they say yes it may have mutated but no new novel functions or genetic material is involved. It's just epigenics.

They can claim whatever they like, but you need to be doggedly persistent. Don't let them just handwave a question away; demand that they bloody well answer the question, and make it bloody well obvious that they don't have any answers! So your reply should be, "Oh, really? No 'novel genetic material', you say? That's a meaningless claim unless you have some method to tell whether or not a chunk of genetic material is 'novel'. So please, would you use that method to tell me how much (if any) of the nucleotide sequence gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga is 'novel'?"
Quote
What they say is show us that the DNA of the original lizard and the "new" lizard has been totaly sequenced and show us where there is added information. Until you do so you are assuming that there is without a drop of proof.

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.
Quote
This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.

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'?"

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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. 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 alread existing genetic material. Nothing new here, move along.

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.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,03:56   

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


 
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:22   

New genetic info: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....02.html

 
Quote
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


Case closed. Citations provided at the linked page.

And as evolution in a simulated digital environment can be directly observed, bit by bit, it might be interesting also:

http://www.pnas.org/content....63.full

EDIT EDIT: http://pandasthumb.org/archive....nt.html

Quote
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)


--------------
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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:22   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,11:56)
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


 
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

oh yeah a study that proves Behe wrong....


What was it 42 days at Dover?


Behe the twit in the headlights. The git with the gaffs.

Exponding on palm readers and an imagined conversation with Le Grand Fromage Hisself.

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.

Behe swore on a stack of 50 biology books he wasn't decended from no monkeys or apes or summit.

In any case after he was thoroughly sacked, he declared victory!

The circus had moved on by then, although the creationist clowns were still stuck under a collapsed big tent.

One day when they have stopped squirting each other with fake plastic flowers they will wake up.

Behe is no more relevant than a hoola hoop.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:50   

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,11:56)
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


   
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

   
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

 
Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

oh yeah a study that proves Behe wrong....


What was it 42 days at Dover?


Behe the twit in the headlights. The git with the gaffs.

Exponding on palm readers and an imagined conversation with Le Grand Fromage Hisself.

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.

Behe swore on a stack of 50 biology books he wasn't decended from no monkeys or apes or summit.

In any case after he was thoroughly sacked, he declared victory!

The circus had moved on by then, although the creationist clowns were still stuck under a collapsed big tent.

One day when they have stopped squirting each other with fake plastic flowers they will wake up.

Behe is no more relevant than a hoola hoop.

Yes don't get me wrong I'm on your side.

But consider these lines:
1) Behe's work in PLOS does not support ID it simply points to creating difficluties for evolution to work. Its a starting point in showing "see no gain of function, it's all loss". The people I'm debating with are using this paper to show that the biggest research ever carried out in the history of the planet shows that loss outweighs gain to such an extent that there is no way that evolution can work.
2) As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed paper out there that goes against this particular study. They use this fact as proof that the scientific community agrees with Behe's argument. So for them the case is closed.

That's why I thought of asking them to explain how we got from 16 alleles in Noahs ark to 700+ if Behe's work is right.

These guys are not pushing ID they're pushing "evolution doesn't/can't work"

Cheers

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:53   

k.e.:

Quote

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.


There are multiple, mutually inconsistent accounts of how Dembski came to be withdrawn as a witness for the Thomas More Law Center. Dembski claimed to be protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics by withdrawing, an interesting take since Dembski was the guy who precipitated pretty much all the risk their materials had. The TMLC claimed in a pleading that it was all those nasty Darwinists' fault trying to screw up their line-up of expert witnesses. And Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute later claimed in an interview that seeing the way the wind was blowing, he asked all the DI-associated expert witnesses to withdraw, and three out of five of them did.

Dembski attended Barbara Forrest's deposition. Forrest's supplemental expert report, submitted after Dembski's withdrawal from the case, analyzed the history of "Of Pandas and People" based on a series of drafts provided under subpoena from the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. But I'm not seeing a principal role for Forrest in Dembski's withdrawal.

Dembski withdrew three days before his deposition was to take place in Waco, TX. A number of communications concerning the deposition preceded that withdrawal. One was to be prepared to carry over to a second day of deposition-taking given the number of questions his involvement in the case raised. Demsbki was requested to bring his documentation of the review process for his book, "The Design Inference", along to the deposition. Another was that we planned to have a videographer on hand to document it. And the last communication to Dembski and TMLC prior to his withdrawal was that Prof. Jeff Shallit and I would be present to assist Pepper Hamilton lawyer Steven Harvey with his questioning.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:06   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
New genetic info: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....02.html

   
Quote
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


Case closed. Citations provided at the linked page.

And as evolution in a simulated digital environment can be directly observed, bit by bit, it might be interesting also:

http://www.pnas.org/content....63.full



Quote
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

Quote
EDIT EDIT: http://pandasthumb.org/archive....nt.html


This is great, and the Picard picture lol!

Thanks
marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:09   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,04:50)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,11:56)
 
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


     
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

     
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

   
Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

oh yeah a study that proves Behe wrong....


What was it 42 days at Dover?


Behe the twit in the headlights. The git with the gaffs.

Exponding on palm readers and an imagined conversation with Le Grand Fromage Hisself.

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.

Behe swore on a stack of 50 biology books he wasn't decended from no monkeys or apes or summit.

In any case after he was thoroughly sacked, he declared victory!

The circus had moved on by then, although the creationist clowns were still stuck under a collapsed big tent.

One day when they have stopped squirting each other with fake plastic flowers they will wake up.

Behe is no more relevant than a hoola hoop.

Yes don't get me wrong I'm on your side.

But consider these lines:
1) Behe's work in PLOS does not support ID it simply points to creating difficluties for evolution to work. Its a starting point in showing "see no gain of function, it's all loss". The people I'm debating with are using this paper to show that the biggest research ever carried out in the history of the planet shows that loss outweighs gain to such an extent that there is no way that evolution can work.
2) As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed paper out there that goes against this particular study. They use this fact as proof that the scientific community agrees with Behe's argument. So for them the case is closed.

That's why I thought of asking them to explain how we got from 16 alleles in Noahs ark to 700+ if Behe's work is right.

These guys are not pushing ID they're pushing "evolution doesn't/can't work"

Cheers

There is a history here.

From Judge Overton's ruling in McLean v. Arkansas:

Quote

IV(A)
The approach to teaching "creation science" and "evolution-science" found in Act 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.

The two model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism (22) which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science "evidence" in support of Section 4(a).


The IDC advocates think that by settling for simply saying, "Not evolution" and leaving off "therefore, God" that nobody will notice that they are using the exact same approach (and arguments) as did the creation scientists before them. It hasn't worked, as demonstrated in Kitzmiller v. DASD in 2005.

Could you clarify what, precisely, people are taking as if the scientific community agrees? That certainly doesn't sound like it could describe the Behe and Snoke article that was the topic of part of the cross-examination of Michael Behe in 2005.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Cubist



Posts: 558
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?

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:28   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2011,05:09)

Quote
Could you clarify what, precisely, people are taking as if the scientific community agrees? That certainly doesn't sound like it could describe the Behe and Snoke article that was the topic of part of the cross-examination of Michael Behe in 2005.


http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf

This is the paper they hold next to their Bible. The claim is: this is what science believes since no scientist has ever published a paper that disprooves and or critisises Behe's "epic" work.


Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,06:47   

Once again, Marty. Behe's paper only attempts to show that gains are much less common than modifications and losses. It does not show that gains are too rare to support evolution. It doesn't even address that question. Behe's paper is irrelevant to what these people are claiming.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,06:50   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,05:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2011,05:09)

 
Quote
Could you clarify what, precisely, people are taking as if the scientific community agrees? That certainly doesn't sound like it could describe the Behe and Snoke article that was the topic of part of the cross-examination of Michael Behe in 2005.


http://www.lehigh.edu/bio........per.pdf

This is the paper they hold next to their Bible. The claim is: this is what science believes since no scientist has ever published a paper that disprooves and or critisises Behe's "epic" work.


Marty

Southstar:

 
Quote

But consider these lines:
1) Behe's work in PLOS does not support ID it simply points to creating difficluties for evolution to work. Its a starting point in showing "see no gain of function, it's all loss". The people I'm debating with are using this paper to show that the biggest research ever carried out in the history of the planet shows that loss outweighs gain to such an extent that there is no way that evolution can work.
2) As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed paper out there that goes against this particular study. They use this fact as proof that the scientific community agrees with Behe's argument. So for them the case is closed.


QRB is not PLOS. Behe's publication is not a report of research. It's a meta-review. Other people did research, Behe is merely commenting on their work, often through the medium of still others who reviewed the original research. There is no "history of the planet" here, merely a selected set of research reports and reviews. The degree to which Behe's selected set of topics reflects "the history of the planet" is quite open to question, and is certainly no basis upon which to confidently state that "loss outweighs gain".

How could there be "a" peer-reviewed paper that would counter Behe's assertion, which as you've related it concerns the statistical question of how frequent "loss" is compared to "gain"? That requires some sort of grand sampling plan far more ambitious than anything yet attempted. To what purpose? Funding agencies aren't keen on "showing up IDC advocates" as the sole prospect of a study, especially one that would likely carry a price tag in the multiple billions.

A more apropos interpretation of the scientific community's estimation of the worth of Behe's meta-review would be that it is well-cited in further research. Is that the case? Google Scholar certainly shows no sign that Behe's opus has stimulated much of anything scientifically. There are thousands of papers published every year that go on without rebuttal or significant citation; do all of them thus attain the status of settled science? To my mind, that follows only if one is completely insane.

Boudry et al. wrote a QRB piece on irreducible complexity as pseudoscience; is that equally well-esteemed by your correspondents? If not, why not?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,07:00   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,05:28)
This is the paper they hold next to their Bible. The claim is: this is what science believes since no scientist has ever published a paper that disprooves and or critisises Behe's "epic" work.


Marty

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......w-paper

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......w-paper

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......to-behe

Quote
I consider MB’s characterization of most molecular evolution in these experiments as point mutations and/or deletions to be accurate.  Indeed, as I told MB in my comments on his ms, I had made the same point in a recent book chapter.  We have not seen the evolution of much novelty in these lab experiments on bacteria and viruses, at least not the classic gene duplication followed by diversification into new functions.  There is, however, a literature on what is known as directed evolution that does document the evolution of novelty when strong selection is applied to large populations, but those studies focus on individual genes (e.g., on plasmids) or short nucleic acids (e.g., 50-base RNA molecules).

What surprises me is that anyone would consider this absence of novelty in experimental evolution studies to be surprising, given what we know both about evolution and about the nature of the experiments.  As Jerry Coyne (JC) commented recently, the organisms and conditions used for those studies are not amenable to many of the types of evolutionary mechanisms and selective conditions that we think operate in nature.  The natural environment for many microbes includes lots of  free ‘environmental’ DNA from many sources, produced when cells die and release their DNA.  In addition, phages abound in natural environments, providing a ready means of DNA transfer between different bacteria, but many bacteria are also capable of incorporating environmental DNA into their genomes.


Some papers linked to on this comment probably of interest too:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creatio....p634327

In essence the consensus seems to be that as a paper there's nothing particularly wrong with it, but the conclusions touted by ID supporters are not actually mentioned within or supported by the paper itself.

--------------
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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,21:19   

This will bore many here, but Erick Rothschild's brilliant cross examination of Behe in Dover was my favorite part. Barbara Forest was totally awesome. But Behe, and Steve Fuller did as much, if not more, damage to the creationist position under cross examination than Forest did under direct.

My bias of course is Day 12, PM. But, I had also argued that our goal with Steve Fuller should be to keep him talking about "science" and "ID" and "Creationism," and to not mention Paul Gross, or the Sokal hoax.

Edited by Dr.GH on Dec. 14 2011,19:20

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,09:33   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 14 2011,07:00)

Quote
In essence the consensus seems to be that as a paper there's nothing particularly wrong with it, but the conclusions touted by ID supporters are not actually mentioned within or supported by the paper itself.


But isn't it skewed? I mean okay he does point out the limits of the paper calling them possible objections, but still it's all the stuff that he doesn't consider that's worring,like that the historical evidence from eukaryotes genome shows that most of the kinds of mutations that would have been important could not have occurred in the experiments.

And aren't the definitions of what is L,M,G skewed too? I mean there is no basis in the literature for these definitions so they're really arbitrary aren't they?

Lastely the law which turns to "rule of the thumb" doesn't that go overboard?

One could easily do a counter review redifine L,M,G add the stuff that Behe willingly left out and have at least a more complete paper.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,11:58   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 15 2011,09:33)
But isn't it skewed? I mean okay he does point out the limits of the paper calling them possible objections, but still it's all the stuff that he doesn't consider that's worring,like that the historical evidence from eukaryotes genome shows that most of the kinds of mutations that would have been important could not have occurred in the experiments.

No! Frankly, I don't understand why you and/or Ioseb keep saying this. All Behe claims to show is that G is much rarer than M+L. That is NOT THE SAME as showing that G is too rare for evolution to work, or that the kinds of mutations needed for evolution couldn't have happened.

If you want to argue that G is too rare to support evolution, you need to show that the observed rate of G is low compared to the rate needed for evolution! Comparing it to the rates of M+L is NOT RELEVANT!

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,12:15   

Behe can't get the maths for his own book right...
   
Quote
And yet CQ resistance by the (assumed!) "double mutation", with probability 1 in 10^20, is Behe's central measuring stick throughout the book! Incredible...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ehe.php

The only people that actually care are those like the people you are arguing with who think that this paper/book has disproven evolution or shown it can't work.

Everybody else took a look, shrugged, moved on.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....th.html
 
Quote
Behe buttresses his argument for the improbability of protein-protein binding sites with the fact that no new protein-protein binding sites arose during the evolution of CQR, but never explains why this contradicts evolutionary expectations. He apparently thinks that evolutionary theory says anything should evolve a new binding site in response to any arbitrary situation. Behe dismisses antibodies, where new sites easily evolve to bind almost anything, on the grounds that the immune system is designed, neatly inserting his conclusion into his premises, and ignoring once again the embarrasing mountain of evidence against him [1]. Microbial toxin evolution is waved aside with “it’s relatively easy to clog a system,” which ignores the fact that such proteins often have exquisitely specific binding. Snake venom shows that even vertebrates with small populations can evolve huge gene families that specifically bind diverse proteins, with massive evidence of duplication, mutation, and selection as the mechanisms, and with intraspecific variation in regulation, sequence, and specificity. Is Someone actively designing rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus) venom in the American Midwest [7] and fine-tuning the specificity of black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) toxins for subtypes of mammalian muscarinic acetylcholine receptors [8]?

It is clear that Behe is driven not by a truly scientific investigation, but instead metaphysics. He is obsessed with “randomness,” which he incorrigibly associates with “Darwinism” and cosmic purposelessness. This is one of many incorrect but blindly-held assumptions common with creationists. But randomness in evolution is no more metaphysically significant than randomness in weather systems. If creationists realized this, we might finally see the edge of creationism, if not the end of it. But if Behe is any indication, that won’t be any time soon.


He's talking out of his arse but he can pull it together and get something published, unlike say KF. This makes him invaluable for the IDers but what actual impact has this paper had on the scientific community at large, the paper that according to some destroyed our understanding of evolution?

A: None.

Sure, they'll say it's because of the science establishments bias etc etc but by now you know better, right? I.E. Behe did science, Behe got published.

If Behe writes what he wrote in the Edge in a paper, Behe no get published. If he could support his claims about his designer scientifically he would already have done so. But they go in the book, not the paper...

So even if that paper proves what they say it proves it does not mean ID get's to take over by default. There is a long way to go before that barrel gets scraped.

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,12:16   

http://select.nytimes.com/preview....d=print

Quote
If correct, Behe’s calculations would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists, who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation. Single-handedly, Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants. Notwithstanding the inconvenient existence of dogs, cabbages and pouter pigeons, the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong. Michael Behe, the disowned biochemist of Lehigh University, is the only one who has done his sums right. You think?

The best way to find out is for Behe to submit a mathematical paper to The Journal of Theoretical Biology, say, or The American Naturalist, whose editors would send it to qualified referees. They might liken Behe’s error to the belief that you can’t win a game of cards unless you have a perfect hand. But, not to second-guess the referees, my point is that Behe, as is normal at the grotesquely ill-named Discovery Institute (a tax-free charity, would you believe?), where he is a senior fellow, has bypassed the peer-review procedure altogether, gone over the heads of the scientists he once aspired to number among his peers, and appealed directly to a public that — as he and his publisher know — is not qualified to rumble him.


--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,12:27   

6,280 results for “breathtaking inanity” Behe

For balance if you search for “breathtaking inanity” madonna you get 241 results but the top couple are still about Behe at Dover.

So make of that what you will. But if that was to be my legacy I'd find a different career.

--------------
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

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,19:53   

I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,20:52   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,22:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:

Zibbleblorf
Gzorply
Muffnordle
Gostak
Distim
Dosh
Jabberwock
Thurb
Tove
Plergb
Snark
Crottle
Greep
Potrzebie
Zorkmid
Boojum
Filfre
Sniny
Gnusto
Brillig

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,23:33   

Not to mention these:

shazbot
nanoo-nanoo
Mxyzptlk
frak

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,01:16   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2011,12:53)
k.e.:

 
Quote

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.


There are multiple, mutually inconsistent accounts of how Dembski came to be withdrawn as a witness for the Thomas More Law Center. Dembski claimed to be protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics by withdrawing, an interesting take since Dembski was the guy who precipitated pretty much all the risk their materials had. The TMLC claimed in a pleading that it was all those nasty Darwinists' fault trying to screw up their line-up of expert witnesses. And Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute later claimed in an interview that seeing the way the wind was blowing, he asked all the DI-associated expert witnesses to withdraw, and three out of five of them did.

Dembski attended Barbara Forrest's deposition. Forrest's supplemental expert report, submitted after Dembski's withdrawal from the case, analyzed the history of "Of Pandas and People" based on a series of drafts provided under subpoena from the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. But I'm not seeing a principal role for Forrest in Dembski's withdrawal.

Dembski withdrew three days before his deposition was to take place in Waco, TX. A number of communications concerning the deposition preceded that withdrawal. One was to be prepared to carry over to a second day of deposition-taking given the number of questions his involvement in the case raised. Demsbki was requested to bring his documentation of the review process for his book, "The Design Inference", along to the deposition. Another was that we planned to have a videographer on hand to document it. And the last communication to Dembski and TMLC prior to his withdrawal was that Prof. Jeff Shallit and I would be present to assist Pepper Hamilton lawyer Steven Harvey with his questioning.

Hahahahaha .....even better.

Thanks Wes

Dembski has that many bêtes noires it's a wonder he can do any ID research....oh wait..

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,01:59   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 15 2011,05:19)
This will bore many here, but Erick Rothschild's brilliant cross examination of Behe in Dover was my favorite part. Barbara Forest was totally awesome. But Behe, and Steve Fuller did as much, if not more, damage to the creationist position under cross examination than Forest did under direct.

My bias of course is Day 12, PM. But, I had also argued that our goal with Steve Fuller should be to keep him talking about "science" and "ID" and "Creationism," and to not mention Paul Gross, or the Sokal hoax.

Ha! Bias indeed.

I like the bit where the DI is trying to shove a satchel under the court doors without the ID lawyers knowing about it.

.... and Jones says "....some rogue cavalry come riding in here at the last instant"

classic.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,07:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,21:52)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

very nice, i would have not guessed howard van till had such a sense of humor.  i suppose to stand as an island of reason in that sea of foolishness one must maintain high spirits!

"3 views" really has been an influential book among my more literate family members, makes for an interesting metanarrative at family get togethers (pigeonholing exercise)

--------------
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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,07:50   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,22:58)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:

Zibbleblorf
Gzorply
Muffnordle
Gostak
Distim
Dosh
Jabberwock
Thurb
Tove
Plergb
Snark
Crottle
Greep
Potrzebie
Zorkmid
Boojum
Filfre
Sniny
Gnusto
Brillig

dFCSI

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,15:30   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 16 2011,07:50)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,22:58)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:

Zibbleblorf
Gzorply
Muffnordle
Gostak
Distim
Dosh
Jabberwock
Thurb
Tove
Plergb
Snark
Crottle
Greep
Potrzebie
Zorkmid
Boojum
Filfre
Sniny
Gnusto
Brillig

dFCSI

Tracy, they already are using "dFCSI", so I'd advise against using it in this context. Mind you, it could be great wicked fun to muddy the waters by using an ID nonsense pseudo-word as a placeholder for a different undefined ID concept...

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2011,02:09   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 16 2011,15:30)

I was wondering if anyone new why has the talk origins archive not any longer updated .

Also would it be possible to translate it into other languages? Any idea on who I should talk to?

Also I was wondering about the Bio-complexity org. I mean anyone can see that it's a fake pseudoscience journal, where the peer -reviewers are the same people as the editors. Doug Axe has writtne 3 out of the 5 articles and he's the managing director LOL. But If I mention it, people could answer well, it's just because you don't know enough, no real scientist has anything to say about this respectable institute.

Now I'm sure this is not true... do you have any links to science journals/scientists that indicate what this organisation really is...?

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2011,07:41   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 17 2011,02:09)
[quote=Cubist,Dec. 16 2011,15:30][/quote]
I was wondering if anyone new why has the talk origins archive not any longer updated .

Also would it be possible to translate it into other languages? Any idea on who I should talk to?

Also I was wondering about the Bio-complexity org. I mean anyone can see that it's a fake pseudoscience journal, where the peer -reviewers are the same people as the editors. Doug Axe has writtne 3 out of the 5 articles and he's the managing director LOL. But If I mention it, people could answer well, it's just because you don't know enough, no real scientist has anything to say about this respectable institute.

Now I'm sure this is not true... do you have any links to science journals/scientists that indicate what this organisation really is...?

Marty

My take on that is that scientific enterprises are based on trust.  If a people trust a journal... it has shown itself to be trustworthy... then people follow it and it has an impact to the scientific community.

Biologos, well, as far as I can tell, it has zero impact in the scientific community.  It's not that people think it is disreputable... no one really cares.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2011,07:42   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 17 2011,02:09)
[quote=Cubist,Dec. 16 2011,15:30][/quote]
I was wondering if anyone new why has the talk origins archive not any longer updated .

Also would it be possible to translate it into other languages? Any idea on who I should talk to?

Also I was wondering about the Bio-complexity org. I mean anyone can see that it's a fake pseudoscience journal, where the peer -reviewers are the same people as the editors. Doug Axe has writtne 3 out of the 5 articles and he's the managing director LOL. But If I mention it, people could answer well, it's just because you don't know enough, no real scientist has anything to say about this respectable institute.

Now I'm sure this is not true... do you have any links to science journals/scientists that indicate what this organisation really is...?

Marty

It is updated, just not very much at a time.

But we certainly could do with more submissions. That reminds me that I've been thinking of sending out a list of wanted essays to Evoldir to see if that stimulates some activity.

Wesley

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2011,07:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2011,07:41)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 17 2011,02:09)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 16 2011,15:30)

I was wondering if anyone new why has the talk origins archive not any longer updated .

Also would it be possible to translate it into other languages? Any idea on who I should talk to?

Also I was wondering about the Bio-complexity org. I mean anyone can see that it's a fake pseudoscience journal, where the peer -reviewers are the same people as the editors. Doug Axe has writtne 3 out of the 5 articles and he's the managing director LOL. But If I mention it, people could answer well, it's just because you don't know enough, no real scientist has anything to say about this respectable institute.

Now I'm sure this is not true... do you have any links to science journals/scientists that indicate what this organisation really is...?

Marty

My take on that is that scientific enterprises are based on trust.  If a people trust a journal... it has shown itself to be trustworthy... then people follow it and it has an impact to the scientific community.

Biologos, well, as far as I can tell, it has zero impact in the scientific community.  It's not that people think it is disreputable... no one really cares.

Bio-Complexity != Biologos

Bio-Complexity is disreputable and should be known to be so.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2011,08:35   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 17 2011,07:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2011,07:41)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 17 2011,02:09)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 16 2011,15:30)

I was wondering if anyone new why has the talk origins archive not any longer updated .

Also would it be possible to translate it into other languages? Any idea on who I should talk to?

Also I was wondering about the Bio-complexity org. I mean anyone can see that it's a fake pseudoscience journal, where the peer -reviewers are the same people as the editors. Doug Axe has writtne 3 out of the 5 articles and he's the managing director LOL. But If I mention it, people could answer well, it's just because you don't know enough, no real scientist has anything to say about this respectable institute.

Now I'm sure this is not true... do you have any links to science journals/scientists that indicate what this organisation really is...?

Marty

My take on that is that scientific enterprises are based on trust.  If a people trust a journal... it has shown itself to be trustworthy... then people follow it and it has an impact to the scientific community.

Biologos, well, as far as I can tell, it has zero impact in the scientific community.  It's not that people think it is disreputable... no one really cares.

Bio-Complexity != Biologos

Bio-Complexity is disreputable and should be known to be so.

Sorry... I'll go away now... I am too exhausted to think.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,01:57   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 17 2011,07:54)
Bio-Complexity != Biologos

Bio-Complexity is disreputable and should be known to be so.

Okay and is there an association of scientific writers/scientists who have made a statement in that sense? Or at the very least single scientists that have taken apart the "research" done there?

This comes out as the ID crowed use this particular organisation calling it the only "true" science based organisation which no other scientist has refuted.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,04:21   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,01:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 17 2011,07:54)
Bio-Complexity != Biologos

Bio-Complexity is disreputable and should be known to be so.

Okay and is there an association of scientific writers/scientists who have made a statement in that sense? Or at the very least single scientists that have taken apart the "research" done there?

This comes out as the ID crowed use this particular organisation calling it the only "true" science based organisation which no other scientist has refuted.

Thanks
Marty

I'm not sure why one would expect an illegitimate operation to get respectful treatment in the technical literature. There's a variety of online essays going into why Douglas Axe's numbers are cooked, if that's what you want. But the pretense that balderdash is only rebutted if the rebuttals appear in the technical literature is a non-starter.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,06:30   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 18 2011,04:21)
There's a variety of online essays going into why Douglas Axe's numbers are cooked, if that's what you want. But the pretense that balderdash is only rebutted if the rebuttals appear in the technical literature is a non-starter.

Quote
I'm not sure why one would expect an illegitimate operation to get respectful treatment in the technical literature.


I don't but I would expect someone to at least denounce the fact that it's a illegitimate operation. As long as it's me or you that say so it's just our word against theirs.  If it's an association of scientists or a respected journal that would be different.

Actually I don't expect the balderdash to be rebutted, except on terms of exercise for students and to expose where the errors lie. But I do expect it to be denounced as such by relevant organizations. A lot of times I get the argument see, no-body says there is something wrong with these "legitimate studies" so the logical conclusions are (1) they are legitimate and (2) they are so good that no one can disprove them.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,08:08   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,12:30)
A lot of times I get the argument see, no-body says there is something wrong with these "legitimate studies" so the logical conclusions are (1) they are legitimate and (2) they are so good that no one can disprove them.

Or they are just completely irrelevant.

Bio-Complexity published three articles in 2010. Each of these articles has been cited twice according to Google Scholar.

Gauger was cited by a blog post and in an announcement.

Montanez article was cited by Ewert, who's second author of the Montanez article, and by Robert Sheldon, who posts occasionally at Uncommon Descent.

Axe's paper was cited by Sanford in The Journal of Creation and in an "article" at viXra.org, which "has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate." LOL.

If any of these articles were contributing anything worthwhile, they would've been cited outside of their little circlejerk. As it is, they aren't cited at all. That doesn't mean nobody can "disprove" them, it means there is no substance to be disproved.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,08:43   

As far as I know nobody has written a rebuttal to the Timecube guy's claims. That does not mean he's right...

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,08:48   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 18 2011,08:08)
Bio-Complexity published three articles in 2010. Each of these articles has been cited twice according to Google Scholar.

Gauger was cited by a blog post and in an announcement.

Montanez article was cited by Ewert, who's second author of the Montanez article, and by Robert Sheldon, who posts occasionally at Uncommon Descent.

Axe's paper was cited by Sanford in The Journal of Creation and in an "article" at viXra.org, which "has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate." LOL.

If any of these articles were contributing anything worthwhile, they would've been cited outside of their little circlejerk. As it is, they aren't cited at all. That doesn't mean nobody can "disprove" them, it means there is no substance to be disproved.

In a formal debate you would get no points for that argument. Don't get me wrong I do agree with you in every point but:

1) You have not shown that the articles are "unscientific"
2) the measure of citation for items which are on the cutting edge of science might be expected to be low and is in any case really a subjective measure of the value of a study.
3) If I write a theory of the spaghetty flying monster that explains string theory with the use of Zibibop power. Someone with a normal mind has got to denouce the fact that I've lost it especially since I have an organisation that supports the SFM and that I call myself a respectible scientist.
4) If you're ignoring something you either don't know that it exists or if you do it just means that you:
a) Can't find the time to call it rubbish (shameful)
b) Can't find a reason to call it rubbish (verry worring)
c) Can't find a problem with the item and just don't know what to do with it, which would not mean that it is not useful but that you can't understand it. (I believe that this is not the case with the Bio-complexity articles which are in fact junk).
5) Just because google scholar / pub-med do not indicate results it does in no way demish the particular value that a study may have.

What are your thoughts on these points
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,09:05   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 18 2011,08:43)
As far as I know nobody has written a rebuttal to the Timecube guy's claims. That does not mean he's right...

Wow, I went to check the timecube thing I gotta lie down now...

The difference is that:
1) Ray is not calling himself a respectable scientist
2) Ray does not belong to a center that claims peer review of articles
3) Ray has not published "in depth studies" using scientific jargon.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,09:58   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,08:48)
In a formal debate you would get no points for that argument. Don't get me wrong I do agree with you in every point but:

1) You have not shown that the articles are "unscientific"


We've hashed Behe's article to death. It's not horribly unscientific (though is categories of loss, modification and gain are pretty subjective), but we've explained repeatedly how his paper doesn't show what it's proponents claim. Wesley linked to discussions of Axe's paper, showing why it's a crock. Quite a few other ID papers have been extensively debunked in various places as well. At some point, it becomes a game of junk-paper whack-a-mole.

Quote
2) the measure of citation for items which are on the cutting edge of science might be expected to be low and is in any case really a subjective measure of the value of a study.


Not so. Every scientist wants to be on the cutting edge. If this stuff were perceived as actually cutting edge, it would get more citations, not less. True, citation rates are not an objective measure of importance, but they are a very good indication of whether other scientists consider important.

Quote
3) If I write a theory of the spaghetty flying monster that explains string theory with the use of Zibibop power. Someone with a normal mind has got to denouce the fact that I've lost it especially since I have an organisation that supports the SFM and that I call myself a respectible scientist.


No. Nobody has any obligation to say a word about it. You're theory would be bogus either way. If enough people started believing you, and that affects others, then perhaps respectable people will start to denounce you. And that's exactly the case with ID & "scientific" creationism. Respectable scientists (like Elsberry) have taken the time to denounce this stuff as the crap that it is.

Quote
4) If you're ignoring something you either don't know that it exists or if you do it just means that you:
a) Can't find the time to call it rubbish (shameful)
b) Can't find a reason to call it rubbish (verry worring)
c) Can't find a problem with the item and just don't know what to do with it, which would not mean that it is not useful but that you can't understand it. (I believe that this is not the case with the Bio-complexity articles which are in fact junk).


It's not being ignored. It has been called rubbish, and the reasons that it's rubbish have been given repeatedly.

Quote
5) Just because google scholar / pub-med do not indicate results it does in no way demish the particular value that a study may have.


True, but it's another indication that the study is not considered valuable.

I'm not quite sure what you're expecting here. Even if the NAS came out with a list saying "These journals and these papers are junk," so what? ID proponents would claim conspiracy, just like they have already. The real issue is whether these papers and claims hold up to scientific scrutiny, and they don't.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,10:41   

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 18 2011,09:58)

Quote
We've hashed Behe's article to death. It's not horribly unscientific (though is categories of loss, modification and gain are pretty subjective), but we've explained repeatedly how his paper doesn't show what it's proponents claim. Wesley linked to discussions of Axe's paper, showing why it's a crock. Quite a few other ID papers have been extensively debunked in various places as well. At some point, it becomes a game of junk-paper whack-a-mole.


Yes all points taken and used to the fullest but my reference in the case was to the Bio-complexity org. As an organization to promote "science".

Quote
No. Nobody has any obligation to say a word about it. You're theory would be bogus either way. If enough people started believing you, and that affects others, then perhaps respectable people will start to denounce you. And that's exactly the case with ID & "scientific" creationism. Respectable scientists (like Elsberry) have taken the time to denounce this stuff as the crap that it is.


Yes Point taken, I agree totally with you. Do you have some links specific to the Bio-complexity org. I would need them on my front.

Quote
It's not being ignored. It has been called rubbish, and the reasons that it's rubbish have been given repeatedly.


That's great can you send me some links specific to the Bio-complexity org.  The only link I had was from panda's thumb that was posted here. Do you have other links?

Quote
I'm not quite sure what you're expecting here. Even if the NAS came out with a list saying "These journals and these papers are junk," so what? ID proponents would claim conspiracy, just like they have already. The real issue is whether these papers and claims hold up to scientific scrutiny, and they don't.


Yes I understand, but you would have them on the defensive, they would be the ones who once again play the conspiracy card but that's their move.

Let me put it to you this way here's kind of how the debate is going on my front:

Someone has confronted me with 2 papers by D. Axe saying well see this proves that what we say is true. A respectable scientist has articles in a peer reviewed science journal which is of the highest standards as can be viewed in it's peer review standards.

Marty answers: Peer review my ass, D.Axe is the MD of the place and is also the author/co-author of the papers. That's one heck of a peer review that you got there.

Answer: Well so what, it's the science that counts right? and these papers show what they show and no one can deny that they are not science. They have passed a peer review (by definition of the term) the organization is bent on promoting real science, all the people involved are honest scientists that hold posts in universities. Which by the way goes to show that not all of science agrees with the evolution theory. (this last point is one of their wedges, ie. create impression that science is not unanimous on evolution theory)  

Here are the specific "papers" being quoted:
"The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations"
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs.....2010.4

"The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway"
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs.....2011.1

Seeing as I consider, and as I presume you too think, that all papers of this institute should be identified as codswallop, there must be more than one site that denounces this organization.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,10:52   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,10:41)
and these papers show what they show and no one can deny that they are not science.

So the question is what do those papers actually show?

What exactly are the claims that are being made on the basis of those papers?

--------------
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

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,11:24   

No, I don't have any links that specifically denounce Bio-complexity org, nor do I have links that specifically deconstruct those papers by Axe. Axe's past work has already proven to be wrong (see Elsberry's link above). Behe's paper has already proven not to show what Ioseb and company claimed it showed.

At some point, it becomes a waste of time. People like Ioseb never admit any error, they just point to something new and say, "Well, can you disprove this?" After a while, it becomes tiresome dealing with people who don't discuss in good faith.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,11:29   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 18 2011,10:52)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,10:41)
and these papers show what they show and no one can deny that they are not science.

So the question is what do those papers actually show?

What exactly are the claims that are being made on the basis of those papers?

Starting from Behe's paper I stated that Behe did in no way indicate that there was not enough time for evolution to take place all he said in the paper was that in the short term with the limitations clearly described in his paper, that loss was more common than gain. And that if they wanted to say that there had not been enough time they would have to prove it with some peer reviewed work.

That's when Doug Axe was ushered in with the following two claims in answer to my request:

1) The first study uses a model structured on bacteria that demonstrate the impossibility of sufficient mutational changes can take place in the time limit imposed by the age of the earth.  

They quote from the article:

In the end, the conclusion that complex adaptations cannot be very complex without running into feasibility problems appears to be robust. Finally, this raises the question of whether these limits to complex adaptation present a challenge to the Darwinian explanation of protein origins. The problem of explaining completely new protein structures—new folds—is so acute that it can be framed
with a very simple mathematical analysis [1]. Greater mathematical precision is needed when we consider the small-scale problem of functional diversification among proteins sharing a common fold. All such proteins are thought to have diverged through speciation and/or gene duplication events. In many cases, however, attempts to demonstrate the corresponding functional transitions in the laboratory require more than six base changes to achieve
even weak conversions (see, for example, references 28–30). Although studies of this kind tend to be interpreted as supporting the Darwinian paradigm, the present study indicates otherwise, underscoring the importance of combining careful measurements with the appropriate population models.


2) The second study analyses the changes necessary to convert two homologous enzymes which were specifically chosen to facilitate this operation.

They quote:
We agree with their rejection of chance, but we argue here
that the Darwinian explanation also appears to be inadequate.
Its deficiencies become evident when the focus moves from
similarities to dissimilarities, and in particular to functionally
important dissimilarities—to innovations. The extent to which
Darwinian evolution can explain enzymatic innovation seems,
on careful inspection, to be very limited. Large-scale innovations
that result in new protein folds appear to be well outside
its range [5]. This paper argues that at least some small-scale
innovations may also be beyond its reach.


Their final comment was: "as you can see it's case closed for evolution".

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,11:55   

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2011.......to.html
Quote
Specifically, I note what I think any evolutionary biologist would immediately see: that Axe and Gauger did not test an evolutionary hypothesis. Todd explains this very well, but here's the basic problem. To test an evolutionary hypothesis, as I mentioned above, one must study an evolutionary transition. In other words, one must study a change or transition from an ancestral state to a current (or later) state. Joe Thornton's work is a great example: his group examined protein function in a reconstruction of an evolutionary transition. What Axe and Gauger did was study a "transition" that has never been proposed to have happened. They examined a transition from one currently-existing protein to another currently-existing protein. It's as though they analyzed the "transition" from a cat to a dog, when they should have analyzed the transition from ancestral mammals to dogs and/or cats. Their conclusions tell us something about protein structure and function but, crucially, not about the evolution of those proteins.

This does not mean that Axe and Gauger are incorrect in their hypothesis, namely that different proteins are separated by vast evolutionary wastelands that can only be traversed with the help of "design." That may be the case. But the newly-published work in BIO-Complexity gets them no closer to establishing that hypothesis as reasonable or even likely.


Also a ton of info int he comments at PT.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-p.html

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,12:01   

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 18 2011,11:24)
No, I don't have any links that specifically denounce Bio-complexity org, nor do I have links that specifically deconstruct those papers by Axe. Axe's past work has already proven to be wrong (see Elsberry's link above). Behe's paper has already proven not to show what Ioseb and company claimed it showed.

At some point, it becomes a waste of time. People like Ioseb never admit any error, they just point to something new and say, "Well, can you disprove this?" After a while, it becomes tiresome dealing with people who don't discuss in good faith.

While I agree with you that it is time consuming and can become very tiresome (not to mention frustrating) and I'm certainly not out there to convince some people who have total blind faith and cannot reason beyond a very narrow view of the bible, I do believe that it needs to be done.

I have made some people over there reason, I have made people ask critical questions to which there was no answer beyond some vague statement like "it's the way that it is 'caus god made it that way" which is no answer at all, that's my little triumph.

I'm learning and that's always good, and many thanks to you guys.

But as the banner says above "Bring them on..." they are to chicken to do that themselves so I bring it to them.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2011,05:25   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,12:01)

Hmm would I be correct in saying that the Hla complex comprises 7196 alleles. Not 700 as we had previously stated?

http://hla.alleles.org/alleles....ex.html

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2011,06:02   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 20 2011,05:25)

Just a follow up on the Noah alleles story.

I guess the ID crowd would also have to explain why Otzi the iceman's DNA is the same as todays human DNA.

Actually we could take that further, DNA analysis of mummies in egypt. But why stop there we should also have DNA samples of bodys dating to 500, 1000, 1500,  years ago.

There's really no way around this one.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2011,06:03   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 20 2011,06:02)
[quote=Southstar,Dec. 20 2011,05:25][/quote]
Just a follow up on the Noah alleles story.

I guess the ID crowd would also have to explain why Otzi the iceman's DNA is the same as todays human DNA.

Actually we could take that further, DNA analysis of mummies in egypt. But why stop there we should also have DNA samples of bodys dating to 500, 1000, 1500,  years ago.

There's really no way around this one.

Hat's off to to thorton on http://confessionsofayec.wordpress.com/2011....e-flood

for the Otzi idea.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2011,09:40   

There are several HLA genes.  The 673 comes from HLA-A only.  There's also HLA-B and HLA-C and some other related genes.

I was trying to keep it simple, one gene with multiple alleles.

And you are totally right, except for the tactic JoeG is taking.  And this why do we assume that everything has to have a scientific explanation?  Why not just say that the designer could do it that way and leave it be?

I'll let you answer that one. ;)

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2011,10:51   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 20 2011,09:40)
There are several HLA genes.  The 673 comes from HLA-A only.  There's also HLA-B and HLA-C and some other related genes.

I was trying to keep it simple, one gene with multiple alleles.

And you are totally right, except for the tactic JoeG is taking.  And this why do we assume that everything has to have a scientific explanation?  Why not just say that the designer could do it that way and leave it be?

I'll let you answer that one. ;)

hmm yes I get your point... why bother to think let's just let the designer™ do that for us.

Lol

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2011,04:58   

This may be of interest:
Quote
Meyer’s main argument for the inability of random
mutation coupled with natural selection (hereafter,
“RM + NS”) to add information to DNA is based on
the research of Douglas Axe, a scientist currently
working at the Discovery Institute’s Biologic Institute.
10
Meyer claims that Axe’s work demonstrates
that proteins are rare in sequence space—and argues
therefore that functional proteins cannot be converted
to different functions through RM + NS due to the
intervening nonfunctional space between islands of
function. There are several reasons why Axe’s work
cannot be used as evidence for such an assertion.


http://www.asa3.org/ASA........ema.pdf

--------------
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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2011,09:42   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 23 2011,04:58)
This may be of interest:
 
Quote
Meyer’s main argument for the inability of random
mutation coupled with natural selection (hereafter,
“RM + NS”) to add information to DNA is based on
the research of Douglas Axe, a scientist currently
working at the Discovery Institute’s Biologic Institute.
10
Meyer claims that Axe’s work demonstrates
that proteins are rare in sequence space—and argues
therefore that functional proteins cannot be converted
to different functions through RM + NS due to the
intervening nonfunctional space between islands of
function. There are several reasons why Axe’s work
cannot be used as evidence for such an assertion.


http://www.asa3.org/ASA........ema.pdf

Thanks very interesting...

I have one question regarding Lenskies experiments I have seen here:

http://www.nature.com/news....66.html

Are the mutations discussed new function mutations?

Another thing did Lenski ever get round to finding the origin of the CIT+ mutation, was it epigenics or a two step indipendant mutation.

By the way finally ioseb admitted the following:

"As far as science is concerned, I consider it valid only and esclusively if it is not in contrast with the word of Jehova".

Guess that makes him very objective on what he calls science.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2011,15:52   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 23 2011,09:42)
Another thing did Lenski ever get round to finding the origin of the CIT+ mutation, was it epigenics or a two step indipendant mutation.

Epigenetics. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

A mutation is a heritable change in the DNA base sequence. Epigenetics cannot, by definition, involve a change in the DNA sequence. Instead, it involves things like base modification (e.g. methylation) or alteration of the pattern of histones binding to DNA. So it's non-sensical to ask if the origin of the CIT+ mutation could be epigenetics. Just so you understand the terminology.

What you're really trying to ask is whether the CIT+ phenotype (i.e. the observed ability to use citrate as an energy source) is due to a mutation or due to some epigenetic change. I don't know the answer for a fact, but I can almost guarantee that it's due to mutation. E. coli does utilize things like methylation and histone-like proteins, but I'm not aware of any case in E. coli where an epigenetic change could cause the appearance of something like the CIT+ phenotype.

Note that I didn't bother to see if Lenski has identified a mutation responsible for the CIT+ phenotype. I'd guess that he has, but I'll let you hunt that down yourself.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2011,11:02   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 23 2011,07:42)
By the way finally ioseb admitted the following:

"As far as science is concerned, I consider it valid only and esclusively if it is not in contrast with the word of Jehova".

ioseb might find the following observations worth think on for a while;

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches.  The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1.  (1273).

“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715)

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2011,11:35   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 25 2011,11:02)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 23 2011,07:42)
By the way finally ioseb admitted the following:

"As far as science is concerned, I consider it valid only and esclusively if it is not in contrast with the word of Jehova".

ioseb might find the following observations worth think on for a while;

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches.  The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1.  (1273).

“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715)

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

Yes I could post them to him, but I'd rather let him do the damage that he is doing by himself to his followers.

Besides he is too full of himself to understand anyway.

Here is how he thought he solved the HLA complex and Noah problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....8489735

http://www.nature.com/ng....07.html

In two words: it's not mutation its recombination and or conversion lol

Merry christmas to everyone
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2011,13:11   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 27 2011,11:35)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 25 2011,11:02)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 23 2011,07:42)
By the way finally ioseb admitted the following:

"As far as science is concerned, I consider it valid only and esclusively if it is not in contrast with the word of Jehova".

ioseb might find the following observations worth think on for a while;

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches.  The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1.  (1273).

“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715)

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

Yes I could post them to him, but I'd rather let him do the damage that he is doing by himself to his followers.

Besides he is too full of himself to understand anyway.

Here is how he thought he solved the HLA complex and Noah problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....8489735

http://www.nature.com/ng....0....07.html

In two words: it's not mutation its recombination and or conversion lol

Merry christmas to everyone
Marty

Funny, that's the same article that everyone links to.

Doesn't matter.  It still can't happen 4,000 years.  That's barely 200 generations.

Plus, they have to account for the fact that the spread of HLA-A alleles can be used to trace populations.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2011,15:37   

Quote
...it is probably more accurate to characterize
this supposed “absence of knowledge”
as knowledge of absence...

Stephen C. Meyer -- SIGNATURE IN THE CELL


Quote
[Snake and Eddie are riding in the hi-jacked police car; and Eddie is coming up to the two main Airport signs]

Eddie: Okay, we gotta pick a road. Arrivals or departures? We're arriving, but then we're departing. Which one, Snake?

Dave Barry -- Big Trouble


--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2012,04:28   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 27 2011,15:37)

Concerning pure chance.

I found that most IDiots tend to use the word chance in the wrong way. As in mutations can't come by chance or life cannot arrise by chance.

So I have explained that chance is not an interruption of cause-effect as in something unexpected arrises that has no cause.

Rather chance is used to express that we don't know what mutations will arise.

To this end I wanted to add an analogy so that it is easier to comprehend. So I thought of using the roulette game. But actually this is not really a good analogy cause you could calculate the exact number that would come out by doing calculations on the weights and forces involved. Sure it would be impossible to do at the casino, but it would be certainly possible to do it elsewhere.

Do any of you have a good analogy? where the cause-effects are well understood, but the final event is not in any way predictable.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2012,05:13   

Quote (Southstar @ Jan. 02 2012,04:28)
Sure it would be impossible to do at the casino, but it would be certainly possible to do it elsewhere.

In fact not, I saw a thing recently where people had cameras up their sleeves feeding data to a program which calculated the likely result of a spin in real time and they bet just as the table closed.....

--------------
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

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2012,07:06   

hmmm... you could talk about insurance companies? An insurance company can accurately predict how many of its customers are likely to break their legs in any given year, but they can't even begin to predict which ones those customers will be.
Alternately, you could talk about radioactive decay. Given a chunk of Radioactive Element X with [number] atoms of Element X in it, you can make very accurate predictions about the quantity of atoms that will decay in any given time period, but even in principle, there's no way to tell in advance *which* of those atoms will decay.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2012,09:34   

Quote (Southstar @ Jan. 02 2012,04:28)
Rather chance is used to express that we don't know what mutations will arise.

And, perhaps more importantly, that mutations arise independently of their observable effects. In other words, there is no purposeful direction to which mutations occur. The mutational process is random with respect to phenotype.

Evolution, in contrast, is highly non-random, because the chance that a given mutation will be passed down to future generations does depend on phenotype.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2012,12:52   

Quote
Do any of you have a good analogy? where the cause-effects are well understood, but the final event is not in any way predictable.

Weather. Economy. Individual quantum events. Genome of next offspring. Anything based on chaotic processes.

Henry

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2012,04:00   



Sounds familiar :)

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2012,07:50   

When you find out where babies come from kiddo come 'round for another visit.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
  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]