Things that no Creationist argument is complete without...

The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Things that no Creationist argument is complete without...

1) A quote mined out of context from a scientist.  It's even better if the scientist in question is an atheist when they can be reffered to as "the eminent atheist scientist".

2) A reference to a study carried out by someone with a PhD that supports Creationist theory.  That fact that the PhD is in, say, Mechanical Engineering rather than biology or geology is irelevant.

3) Frequent references to scientific 'facts' that:

a) are blatantly untrue 

b) have been debunked more times than a seaman in a violent storm 

c) are no longer valid and, in fact, have not been since before the invention of the net.  Or electricity for that matter.

4)  Logic that is more circular than one of Leonardo da Vinci's better freehand efforts.

5) Dismissal of properly accredited and tested scientific evidence because basically it's too hard to understand and it's much easier to say goddidit.

6) A really patronising tone.

7) The conclusion that God is responsible for everything.  Oh, and that all you science jockeys are goig to hell.

 

Feel free to add your own. 

 

 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
There's plenty of good stuff

There's plenty of good stuff on the site already.  Give it a read. Smiling


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Cheers.  Funny and true!

Cheers.  Funny and true!


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I hadn't seen that link

I hadn't seen that link yet...that's good stuff.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Very good. I'm laughing

Very good. I'm laughing muchly.


mountaineer
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The world view that you

The world view that you start with is always going to determine your view of science. Especially when talking about things that nobody observed. There's a big difference between opeational science which brings us computers, cell phones, jets, and cars - and historical science about things that happened in the past that weren't empirically observed.

Historical Science is the area of the assumptions which come from an individual person's starting point (world view).


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
mountaineer

mountaineer wrote:

 

Historical Science is the area of the assumptions which come from an individual person's starting point (world view).

Even if we didn't have any fossils, evolution can be proven true through DNA evidence which is observable in the here and now.  A good starting place for info is The Making of the Fittest  by Sean Carroll.  If deludedgod shows up, he has some interesting info regarding molecular clocks in DNA...stuff I don't understand yet because I haven't forced myself to read it in detail.

(When I read, I much prefer to be supine, reading from an actual book.  Too much computer reading hurts my eyes, neck and back.  I often skim long posts...)

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
If deludedgod shows up, he

If deludedgod shows up, he has some interesting info regarding molecular clocks in DNA...stuff I don't understand yet because I haven't forced myself to read it in detail.

Ah. I see you have read my so called "debate" on the recent blog entry "Is Evolution a religion?"

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Todangst had pointed out a

Todangst had pointed out a few of his other writings, but most are, you know, serious.  Bah.  That list is too funny. Smiling

 Edit: In all seriousness myself, it's a must-read for Christians especially to get an idea of what's come before.  Especially the thermodynamics stuff, IMO.  I expect that's an easy one to fall into if you've never read up on it.

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Feel free to add your own.

Feel free to add your own.

Allow me to quote the professional comedian Mr Ray Comfort:

Please forget your arguments and turn your lives over to Jesus

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: If

deludedgod wrote:

If deludedgod shows up, he has some interesting info regarding molecular clocks in DNA...stuff I don't understand yet because I haven't forced myself to read it in detail.

Ah. I see you have read my so called "debate" on the recent blog entry "Is Evolution a religion?"

Yeah, dude.  I need to print it out and look up the terms I don't understand.  I found Sean Carroll's books fascinating (need to read it again) and would like to add to my knowledge. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, dude.  I need to

Yeah, dude.  I need to print it out and look up the terms I don't understand.

Fire away. I can tell you what they mean 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


mountaineer
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: Even

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Even if we didn't have any fossils, evolution can be proven true through DNA evidence which is observable in the here and now.  A good starting place for info is The Making of the Fittest  by Sean Carroll.  If deludedgod shows up, he has some interesting info regarding molecular clocks in DNA...stuff I don't understand yet because I haven't forced myself to read it in detail.

(When I read, I much prefer to be supine, reading from an actual book.  Too much computer reading hurts my eyes, neck and back.  I often skim long posts...)

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same fossils and the same DNA. Its all about how you intrepret what you are looking at and that intrepretation will be determined by your starting assumptions. 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
mountaineer wrote:

mountaineer wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:
Even if we didn't have any fossils, evolution can be proven true through DNA evidence which is observable in the here and now. A good starting place for info is The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. If deludedgod shows up, he has some interesting info regarding molecular clocks in DNA...stuff I don't understand yet because I haven't forced myself to read it in detail.

(When I read, I much prefer to be supine, reading from an actual book. Too much computer reading hurts my eyes, neck and back. I often skim long posts...)

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same fossils and the same DNA. Its all about how you intrepret what you are looking at and that intrepretation will be determined by your starting assumptions.

Um, no. The scientific method does not work that way. Only Creationists have in mind what they want to find. That's why it's called "creation science." And it is lousy science.

True science assumes nothing and it is peer-reviewed to death. That's why creation "scientists" have no respect from real scientists. Can you show me a peer-reviewed paper from a "creation scientist" that passed muster? Even one?

(BTW, deludedgod is on the other side of the planet. I'm getting sleepy and winding down, but it's not even noon there. If he's in the mood and has the time, prepare to have your uneducated ass handed to you.  At least educate your ass before you let it do the talking.)

deludedgod, it would be nice to have access to all of your writings / blogs.  I would like to print them out and read them...or are you going to publish a book? 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
*cracks knuckles* (BTW,

*cracks knuckles*

(BTW, deludedgod is on the other side of the planet. I'm getting sleepy and winding down, but it's not even noon there. If he's in the mood and has the time, prepare to have your uneducated ass handed to you.  At least educate your ass before you let it do the talking.)

Thank you. And correct, it is 11:23 am as I type. And a public holiday.

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same fossils and the same DNA. Its all about how you intrepret what you are looking at and that intrepretation will be determined by your starting assumptions.

No. Molecular genetics is absolutely in favor of evolution. The only way to disupte this is to have never seen them. everything I am writing about henceforth comes not from a textbook but rather from experimentations and genetic sequencings. From thousands of read printouts, scans, tracks, SEM photographs, and microarray chemical readouts.

 My first thought was...that's it? Thats your response to 16,000 homology catalogues, Endogenous Retroviral insertions, and Mitochondrial DNA transfers? Sir, this relationship is extremely obvious, and it is not one, it is tens of thousands of homologies which clearly diverge as separation widens and close as it narrows, as indicated by time length separation. This test will come up on any protein domain I pick. It clearly indicates that life began a primordial genome, and as the genome duplicated, parts diverged and it expanded thusly. Genetic duplication error and polyploids are set in stone fact, and no geneticist would say otherwise. I can even watch gene duplication myself, using a microarray, although I hardly think it is worth the trouble. Using decoders, microarrays, and homology databases, geneticists have now catalogued evolutionary relationships between vast swaths of life, and the effects of these changes.

The existence of paralogies of genetics across the families in the proteome, even diverged as far as separations between the three domains themselves, and the fact that amino acid tracking reveals this to narrow as the organisms in question become more closely related (a fact which is reinforced by advanced radiometry) can only be possible via repeated duplication and divergence of genes, thusly bearing gene families which in turn branched out depending on the survival requisites of the organism and location, the lack of originality in the proteome, especially the vertebrae proteome, which can be explained entirely in terms of domain shuffling and protein string recombination can only be explained by origin from a common descent, a primordial genome who bore only the survival requisites for the simplest of life. What this genome may have looked like is mysterious, but insight into a small bacteria called Mycoplasm genitalium can give us the answer, when computationally recombined with cross-references of genes exclusive to archae, eubacteria and eukaryotes (Excluding ESP proteins of course) we arrive at an answer of roughly 200 genes dedicated to basic metabolic and structural proteins, rRNAs and mitosis control gates. Ad it is from this humble beginning that life evolved. A fact which is correlated 100% by genomic/proteomic analysis and ortholog/paralog/xenolog tracking.

Quite simply, molecular genetics tracking, ERVs and mtDNA, in addition to computational searches for paralogies across the spectrum, leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the whole swath of life arose from a single, simple, primodial cell.

Across the spectrum of life we see very little originality. From the time of the primordial genome, it has expanded in size due to duplication error. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability. It diverges from its original function guided by Natural selection.

This new gene or section will be closely related to the original, both in function and sequence (although divergence starts widening over time). These two genes are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.

When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.

Basically this is how all of evolution works. Genes duplicate by accident, then these new copies diverge in function over time, species branch off, and whole families of related genes spring up. However, when we trace it back to the proto-cells, all the genes are related. There is no such thing as a truly original gene.

It is about duplicative mutations, followed by recombinative mutations, or shuffling mutations. For instance, A protein is not subdivided merely by it’s amino acid. It is grouped into large subunits called polypeptides, regional stretches of protein subunit roughly 100 amino acids long. In this way we can see that massive proteins (>1000 amino acids) are not only defined by their individual, but ultimately, the order of different units created by smaller strings of amino acids within the complex. The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the subunits. The shape, therefore, of a protein is directly determined by it’s chemical sequence. The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual units take shape. Finally, the protein reaches it’s quaternary structure or it’s native state, with the intricate system of folds.

there is almost nothing original in the vertebrae genome. It is the result of multiple whole-global duplications throughout evolution. Even in humans, the proteome contains only 7% vertebrae-specific proteins. The only place we really seem to have any originality is in domain shuffling (Im pretty sure that the human tyrpsin can bind to at least 18 domains, while in drosophilia it's only 5). As I said about protein structure, much of the innovation merely comes from rearrangement of subunits, which is beneficial in terms of the shuffling mutation quite often.

 For instance, I could pick two random protein domains, even non-conserved ones, in two seperate species. Say a human and a fruit fly. And I could (which I am doing) array them along a microarray and decode the amino acid sequences in protein domains. Here are the results (each letter represents an amino acid):

HUMAN:

WYFGKKITRRESERLLLNAERPRGTFLVRESETTKGAYCLSVSDFDNAKGL

Drosophilia:

WFFENVLREADKLLLAEENPEGTFLVRPSEHNNGYSLSVKDWEDGRKYGY

Protein Domain Signature Homologies in Both:

WYFGKITRRESERLL
GTFLVRESE

Side chain grouping matches:
W+F+R+E+++LLLENPRGTFLVRSEYLSVD+++_G

These are divergences found in an identical protein domain confirmed exactly by molecular clock tracking against the known divergence rate of the domain and the orthologous seperation of these two species. If (as you claim) these species were created within days of each other, or had no common ancestor, this divergence would not exist. This is the same domain for each animal, which I took the liberty of sequencing myself. Because I can.

I can provide some more if you want!

Orthologous Divergence of the haemoglobin chain of various vertebrae correlated by molecular tracking:

Percentage divergence in amino acids between conserved domain of haemoglobin

Human/Lamprey (divergence: 550 million years ago) 35%

Human /Shark (Divergence: 520 million years) 51%

Human/tuna fish (450 million years) 55%

Human/frog (350 million years) 56%

Human/chicken (320 million years) 70%

Human/lizard (270 million years) 77%

Bird/Crocodile (220 million years) 76%

Human/Kangaroo (170 million years) 81%

Human/Sloth/Mouse/Elephant/Rabbit/Pig/Sheep/Whale/Cat/Dog/rat

All between 150 and 50 million years, all 80-85% related in this domain

Human/orangutang (10 million years) 98%

and finally...human/chimp (7 million years) 100%

 

All this in turn is corroborated by ERV tracking and the vertical transfers in Mitochondrial DNA

How do you explain and account for mitochondrial DNA horizontal transfer migration without common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertion occurs when a retrovirus reverse transcribes it's own RNA into a host's DNA by means of polymerase RNA-DNA conversion, 3' and 5' enzymatic degradation and intergrase fusion. Retroviruses are the only organisms that can do this. That is what makes HIV so deadly. The ERV insertions are rare and very random. Although complementation ensures they can only bind to specific points on the host's genome, the amount of possible insertions that the ERV could transcribe, not to mention the fact that this has to be to the power of seven to account for all seven retroviruses, and of course, the fact that it is a very rare occurrence and the fact that even a single transcribed piece has numerous choices of insertion due to multiple duplication errors that exist in Eukaryotic genomes means the odds of finding even just one insertion (let alone 8% of the genome for humans alone) on one identical position in the chromosomal karyotype would be astronomical. And then, that number has to be raised to the power of seven, then multiplied by several thousand to account for all the possible transcribable genes, which has to multiplied by 10 again to account for the duplicative errors, and that doesn't even factor in how rare the insertions are.

The only way it is possible that we can find large strings of ERV's on identical interspersals throughout the genome of species throughout every eon is because of common descent.

It is empirically demonstratable that mitochondria are the result of billion year old symbiosis between ancient oxyphobic bacteria and proto-eukaryotes. This is the reason they have their own little genome. The mtDNA genome in humans is only 16,000 base pairs. Prokaryotes have a remarkable ability to exchange genetic material by a different process which is critical to bacterial evolution. This is called horizontal transfer. Vertical transfer is an ability eukaryotes do not have because their DNA is enclosed in an intercellular packaged membrane (hence the name eukaroyote). Vertical transfer occurs when bacteria simply exchange genes by passing them through the cell membrane to each other. This can occur either by direct junction fusing or literally uptaking of the new material. Prokaryotes can take any peice of nucleic acid string and simply incorporate it immediately because their DNA is not kept in an intercellular membrane.

So, mitochondria, as ancient prokaryotes, of course keep their DNA is a loop strand like every other bacteria. Indeed, mtDNA also undergoes transfer. This is very rare and obviously useless. In this case, it is intracellular thus the transfer is into the nucleus of the host cell, where the master genome is stored. Such is termed mtDNA migration.

I think mtDNA migration is even better than ERV because the probability is even lower by several orders of magnitude that we could find mtDNA on identical positions of the genotypes of multipe species throughout multiple eons without common descent whereby the offspring would inherit the mtDNA. The best part is that obviously, as time passes, the amount of mtDNA in the master genomes should accumulate, since more horizontal transfer is taking place over longer periods of time, and this should still turn up on the same positions in the genotype. What a surprise! It does.

Without common descent, the probability of individual horizontal transfers accounting for entire species inheriting identical mtDNA which remains so throughout geological eons and continues to accumulate and end up in the same places is so low the number is unfathomable.

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


mountaineer
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:
[p>

Um, no. The scientific method does not work that way. Only Creationists have in mind what they want to find. That's why it's called "creation science." And it is lousy science.

True science assumes nothing and it is peer-reviewed to death. That's why creation "scientists" have no respect from real scientists. Can you show me a peer-reviewed paper from a "creation scientist" that passed muster? Even one?

(BTW, deludedgod is on the other side of the planet. I'm getting sleepy and winding down, but it's not even noon there. If he's in the mood and has the time, prepare to have your uneducated ass handed to you.  At least educate your ass before you let it do the talking.)

deludedgod, it would be nice to have access to all of your writings / blogs.  I would like to print them out and read them...or are you going to publish a book? 

Of course a creation scientist will have a hard time getting his work through the evolutionist peer review jorunals. Thats not a surprise. Once again, its all about your presuppositions. A peer review that is committed to evolution isn't going to accept anything that would go agianst the presupposition of evolution.  Everybody works with the same data.  Intrepretations differ because of the assumptions.  Everybody has them including every single scientist.   


mountaineer
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: *cracks

deludedgod wrote:

*cracks knuckles*

(BTW, deludedgod is on the other side of the planet. I'm getting sleepy and winding down, but it's not even noon there. If he's in the mood and has the time, prepare to have your uneducated ass handed to you.  At least educate your ass before you let it do the talking.)

Thank you. And correct, it is 11:23 am as I type. And a public holiday.

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same fossils and the same DNA. Its all about how you intrepret what you are looking at and that intrepretation will be determined by your starting assumptions.

No. Molecular genetics is absolutely in favor of evolution. The only way to disupte this is to have never seen them. everything I am writing about henceforth comes not from a textbook but rather from experimentations and genetic sequencings. From thousands of read printouts, scans, tracks, SEM photographs, and microarray chemical readouts.

 My first thought was...that's it? Thats your response to 16,000 homology catalogues, Endogenous Retroviral insertions, and Mitochondrial DNA transfers? Sir, this relationship is extremely obvious, and it is not one, it is tens of thousands of homologies which clearly diverge as separation widens and close as it narrows, as indicated by time length separation. This test will come up on any protein domain I pick. It clearly indicates that life began a primordial genome, and as the genome duplicated, parts diverged and it expanded thusly. Genetic duplication error and polyploids are set in stone fact, and no geneticist would say otherwise. I can even watch gene duplication myself, using a microarray, although I hardly think it is worth the trouble. Using decoders, microarrays, and homology databases, geneticists have now catalogued evolutionary relationships between vast swaths of life, and the effects of these changes.

The existence of paralogies of genetics across the families in the proteome, even diverged as far as separations between the three domains themselves, and the fact that amino acid tracking reveals this to narrow as the organisms in question become more closely related (a fact which is reinforced by advanced radiometry) can only be possible via repeated duplication and divergence of genes, thusly bearing gene families which in turn branched out depending on the survival requisites of the organism and location, the lack of originality in the proteome, especially the vertebrae proteome, which can be explained entirely in terms of domain shuffling and protein string recombination can only be explained by origin from a common descent, a primordial genome who bore only the survival requisites for the simplest of life. What this genome may have looked like is mysterious, but insight into a small bacteria called Mycoplasm genitalium can give us the answer, when computationally recombined with cross-references of genes exclusive to archae, eubacteria and eukaryotes (Excluding ESP proteins of course) we arrive at an answer of roughly 200 genes dedicated to basic metabolic and structural proteins, rRNAs and mitosis control gates. Ad it is from this humble beginning that life evolved. A fact which is correlated 100% by genomic/proteomic analysis and ortholog/paralog/xenolog tracking.

Quite simply, molecular genetics tracking, ERVs and mtDNA, in addition to computational searches for paralogies across the spectrum, leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the whole swath of life arose from a single, simple, primodial cell.

Across the spectrum of life we see very little originality. From the time of the primordial genome, it has expanded in size due to duplication error. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability. It diverges from its original function guided by Natural selection.

This new gene or section will be closely related to the original, both in function and sequence (although divergence starts widening over time). These two genes are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.

When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.

Basically this is how all of evolution works. Genes duplicate by accident, then these new copies diverge in function over time, species branch off, and whole families of related genes spring up. However, when we trace it back to the proto-cells, all the genes are related. There is no such thing as a truly original gene.

It is about duplicative mutations, followed by recombinative mutations, or shuffling mutations. For instance, A protein is not subdivided merely by it’s amino acid. It is grouped into large subunits called polypeptides, regional stretches of protein subunit roughly 100 amino acids long. In this way we can see that massive proteins (>1000 amino acids) are not only defined by their individual, but ultimately, the order of different units created by smaller strings of amino acids within the complex. The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the subunits. The shape, therefore, of a protein is directly determined by it’s chemical sequence. The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual units take shape. Finally, the protein reaches it’s quaternary structure or it’s native state, with the intricate system of folds.

there is almost nothing original in the vertebrae genome. It is the result of multiple whole-global duplications throughout evolution. Even in humans, the proteome contains only 7% vertebrae-specific proteins. The only place we really seem to have any originality is in domain shuffling (Im pretty sure that the human tyrpsin can bind to at least 18 domains, while in drosophilia it's only 5). As I said about protein structure, much of the innovation merely comes from rearrangement of subunits, which is beneficial in terms of the shuffling mutation quite often.

 For instance, I could pick two random protein domains, even non-conserved ones, in two seperate species. Say a human and a fruit fly. And I could (which I am doing) array them along a microarray and decode the amino acid sequences in protein domains. Here are the results (each letter represents an amino acid):

HUMAN:

WYFGKKITRRESERLLLNAERPRGTFLVRESETTKGAYCLSVSDFDNAKGL

Drosophilia:

WFFENVLREADKLLLAEENPEGTFLVRPSEHNNGYSLSVKDWEDGRKYGY

Protein Domain Signature Homologies in Both:

WYFGKITRRESERLL
GTFLVRESE

Side chain grouping matches:
W+F+R+E+++LLLENPRGTFLVRSEYLSVD+++_G

These are divergences found in an identical protein domain confirmed exactly by molecular clock tracking against the known divergence rate of the domain and the orthologous seperation of these two species. If (as you claim) these species were created within days of each other, or had no common ancestor, this divergence would not exist. This is the same domain for each animal, which I took the liberty of sequencing myself. Because I can.

I can provide some more if you want!

Orthologous Divergence of the haemoglobin chain of various vertebrae correlated by molecular tracking:

Percentage divergence in amino acids between conserved domain of haemoglobin

Human/Lamprey (divergence: 550 million years ago) 35%

Human /Shark (Divergence: 520 million years) 51%

Human/tuna fish (450 million years) 55%

Human/frog (350 million years) 56%

Human/chicken (320 million years) 70%

Human/lizard (270 million years) 77%

Bird/Crocodile (220 million years) 76%

Human/Kangaroo (170 million years) 81%

Human/Sloth/Mouse/Elephant/Rabbit/Pig/Sheep/Whale/Cat/Dog/rat

All between 150 and 50 million years, all 80-85% related in this domain

Human/orangutang (10 million years) 98%

and finally...human/chimp (7 million years) 100%

 

All this in turn is corroborated by ERV tracking and the vertical transfers in Mitochondrial DNA

How do you explain and account for mitochondrial DNA horizontal transfer migration without common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertion occurs when a retrovirus reverse transcribes it's own RNA into a host's DNA by means of polymerase RNA-DNA conversion, 3' and 5' enzymatic degradation and intergrase fusion. Retroviruses are the only organisms that can do this. That is what makes HIV so deadly. The ERV insertions are rare and very random. Although complementation ensures they can only bind to specific points on the host's genome, the amount of possible insertions that the ERV could transcribe, not to mention the fact that this has to be to the power of seven to account for all seven retroviruses, and of course, the fact that it is a very rare occurrence and the fact that even a single transcribed piece has numerous choices of insertion due to multiple duplication errors that exist in Eukaryotic genomes means the odds of finding even just one insertion (let alone 8% of the genome for humans alone) on one identical position in the chromosomal karyotype would be astronomical. And then, that number has to be raised to the power of seven, then multiplied by several thousand to account for all the possible transcribable genes, which has to multiplied by 10 again to account for the duplicative errors, and that doesn't even factor in how rare the insertions are.

The only way it is possible that we can find large strings of ERV's on identical interspersals throughout the genome of species throughout every eon is because of common descent.

It is empirically demonstratable that mitochondria are the result of billion year old symbiosis between ancient oxyphobic bacteria and proto-eukaryotes. This is the reason they have their own little genome. The mtDNA genome in humans is only 16,000 base pairs. Prokaryotes have a remarkable ability to exchange genetic material by a different process which is critical to bacterial evolution. This is called horizontal transfer. Vertical transfer is an ability eukaryotes do not have because their DNA is enclosed in an intercellular packaged membrane (hence the name eukaroyote). Vertical transfer occurs when bacteria simply exchange genes by passing them through the cell membrane to each other. This can occur either by direct junction fusing or literally uptaking of the new material. Prokaryotes can take any peice of nucleic acid string and simply incorporate it immediately because their DNA is not kept in an intercellular membrane.

So, mitochondria, as ancient prokaryotes, of course keep their DNA is a loop strand like every other bacteria. Indeed, mtDNA also undergoes transfer. This is very rare and obviously useless. In this case, it is intracellular thus the transfer is into the nucleus of the host cell, where the master genome is stored. Such is termed mtDNA migration.

I think mtDNA migration is even better than ERV because the probability is even lower by several orders of magnitude that we could find mtDNA on identical positions of the genotypes of multipe species throughout multiple eons without common descent whereby the offspring would inherit the mtDNA. The best part is that obviously, as time passes, the amount of mtDNA in the master genomes should accumulate, since more horizontal transfer is taking place over longer periods of time, and this should still turn up on the same positions in the genotype. What a surprise! It does.

Without common descent, the probability of individual horizontal transfers accounting for entire species inheriting identical mtDNA which remains so throughout geological eons and continues to accumulate and end up in the same places is so low the number is unfathomable.

 

 

 

 

Thats all well and good but you are still assuming that evolution is the only possible cause of the evidence you cited. Ultimately we are dealing with the inductive method here so nothing can be proved.  I'm not a creation scientist but there are plenty who would disagree with your conclusions.  The fact is that regardless of how strongly you feel about your argument, you can't escape your assumptions.  Were you there 15 billion years ago?  No.  You are assuming that evolution is the only thing that can account for the cited evidence.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
  Thats all well and good

 

Thats all well and good but you are still assuming that evolution is the only possible cause of the evidence you cited.

Well, of course. That is because it is the only explanation. Unless you have another explanation for the homologies, the mtDNA vertical transfer and the ERV insertion, the paralogies, the duplicative families, the proteomic homologies, the domain shuffling, the time-divergence relationship, the recombinative ESP domains, the orthologous sets and the amino acid divergence. 

 Ultimately we are dealing with the inductive method here so nothing can be proved.

Actually, genomics is now so powerful that we could probably sequence and class every homology in existence within the next serveral decades, which would eliminate any questions and any inductive assumptions. It would all be there.

 I'm not a creation scientist but there are plenty who would disagree with your conclusions.

That is not an argument or a refutation.  

he fact is that regardless of how strongly you feel about your argument, you can't escape your assumptions.

My assumptions are perfectly reasonable in light of the evidence I presented, unless you have a better theory for the existence of the aformentioned genetic relationships. Remember what I said. These relationships would be impossible without common descent. So I am just waiting for you to present a viable alternative, and until then there is no reason to abandon the theory, unless you have a refutation.

 Were you there 15 billion years ago?  No.

What are you, high? Life has only been around on Earth for 3.8 billion years. And for all intents and purposes, I was there, because with today's techniques, I can read the primordial genome as easily as if it were written in English.

 you are assuming that evolution is the only thing that can account for the cited evidence.

That is because nothing else can. I explained very carefully why these events would be impossible without common descent. Care to refute that or present a scientific alternative?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


mountaineer
Theist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Thats all well and good but

Thats all well and good but you are still assuming that evolution is the only possible cause of the evidence you cited.

"Well, of course. That is because it is the only explanation."

Exactly my point.

 Ultimately we are dealing with the inductive method here so nothing can be proved. The fact is that regardless of how strongly you feel about your argument, you can't escape your assumptions.

"My assumptions are perfectly reasonable in light of the evidence I presented, unless you have a better theory for the existence of the aformentioned genetic relationships. Remember what I said. These relationships would be impossible without common descent. So I am just waiting for you to present a viable alternative, and until then there is no reason to abandon the theory, unless you have a refutation."

 Your evidence is fine. Everybody deals with the same evidence. But then you start using words like impossible and other absolute language which simply cannot be obtained through the inductive method.

Were you there 15 billion years ago?  No.

What are you, high? Life has only been around on Earth for 3.8 billion years. And for all intents and purposes, I was there, because with today's techniques, I can read the primordial genome as easily as if it were written in English.

My fault 3.8 billion.  I don't know how I could have forgot that fact.  You can intend and you can purpose all you want, the fact is, you weren't there. So all you can do is speculate based on your assumptions.

 you are assuming that evolution is the only thing that can account for the cited evidence.

"That is because nothing else can. I explained very carefully why these events would be impossible without common descent. Care to refute that or present a scientific alternative?"

 If you want alternatives, look in creationist science literature.  There is plenty of it out there.  But my guess is that you will say that your explanation is "better" and better is quite a subjective thing.  Keep in mind, you are still assuming naturalism as the only explanation.  You are also saying that if I can't come up with an explanation your position is proved. That's not logically valid.  You are trying to jump to absolute conclusions about origins with the inductive method.  And despite how much thought you put into your posts, this is something that just can't be done.  


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Your evidence is fine.

Your evidence is fine. Everybody deals with the same evidence. But then you start using words like impossible and other absolute language which simply cannot be obtained through the inductive method.

Surely there reaches a point where enough evidence is gathered that we can dismiss alternatives as absurd? Do you believe in heliocentricity? Gravity? Electromagnetism?

So all you can do is speculate based on your assumptions.

The only assumption that I make is that my gene sequencing calibrators work fine, and I assure you that even that is routinely checked. The rest, then, is fully accurate information about the genes, and thusly, from that, we can deduce, the nature of genetic change, and eliminating alternatives. And yes, I am going to se the word impossible. "Speculation" implies wild guessing. Carefully controlled genetic sequencing, microarray alignment, homologous screeing, is not wild guessing. It is verifiable fact. The same way that gravity is verifiable fact, heliocentricity is verifiable fact

If you want alternatives, look in creationist science literature.

You must be joking. Creationism is easily disproved. Notions like created kinds and design are disproved by simply observing the genome, something I pointed out and to which you did not respond.

There is plenty of it out there.

Are you implying that I have never read that garbage before?

But my guess is that you will say that your explanation is "better" and better is quite a subjective thing.

Ahem. My explanation is better because their expalantions do not fit with any of the observations. Can you get around that? How do you explain creationist notions in light of what I posted on the nature of genetic flow? Evolution is much more reasonable as the only explanation that fits will all of the observations and data. That is proof. Creationism is rendered impossible by these same observations (which I already pointed out) and thusly, can be thrown out.

. Keep in mind, you are still assuming naturalism as the only explanation.

Occam's Razor. Physicalism is the cornerstone of science.

ou are also saying that if I can't come up with an explanation your position is proved.

No. I am saying that this is the only explanation which fits with the data and the observations. And I am challanging you to refute that statement. In science, if a theory fits the data, it is proved. Very simple. If another experiment is performed and the theory is disproved, another explanation satisfying both explanations is found. This is called falsification. Evolution is easily falsifiable, but no one has found evidence to indicate its falsehood. This per se is not evidence for it, but what is evidence for it is that it is the only theory which fits all the observations from biology, geology, paleontology, and genetics, as I have pointed out about a dozen times. The more evidence that stacks up in favor of a theory, without alternatives (and offered alternatives like creationism disproved by observations like the one I drew) the more cemented it becomes. And evolution has remained on this pedestal for 200 years now. The whole of biology depends on it. All the observations fit with it, attempts to falsify it have failed, alternatives have disproved and thusly, it remains the best explanation from a scientific standpoint. This is not absolute proof of it, but that would be like saying "that is not absolute proof that genes carry information". It remains the very best explanation, and I am challenging you to use science to refute that statement.

And lastly, you continue to make the proof by assertion fallacy, repeatedly stating I am making assumptions without stating what those assumptions are. I assure you that the biology behind my post is 100% fact. And don't say my assumption is "evolution is true" because that is absurd. I concluded evolution was true after examining the genome. An alien civilization, looking at the genomes of many organisms from many strata and from all domains of life, and carefully comparing them, would easily conclude that they evolved from a common ancestor, for reasons I clearly outlined in the above post. So instead of trying to slip out of your duty to examine the evidence I gave you and asserting that it is merely induction when in fact it is cold hard fact, you could perhaps attempt to challenge it using science.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
mountaineer

mountaineer wrote:


 

Thats all well and good but you are still assuming that evolution is the only possible cause of the evidence you cited. Ultimately we are dealing with the inductive method here so nothing can be proved. I'm not a creation scientist but there are plenty who would disagree with your conclusions. The fact is that regardless of how strongly you feel about your argument, you can't escape your assumptions. Were you there 15 billion years ago? No. You are assuming that evolution is the only thing that can account for the cited evidence.



I remembered I'd left something in the microwave and made the mistake of logging back onto this thread.

mountaineer, THIS  is all you have to say? A bunch of assertions with no facts?  You ought to be ashamed of yourself!  You haven't even tried to understand anything deludedgod wrote, have you?  And you won't bother to try to learn anything because "goddidit" is an easy answer and you won't have to read any big words.  This is nothing but intellectual laziness.

I don't understand all of deludedgod's post, but I do understand some of it and I plan to learn more.  Once again I ask you to educate yourself just a little bit.  The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll is a little more understandable to a lay person.  So, start there...or anywhere, for crying out loud.  Any decently educated person cannot deny evolution because the natural world makes no sense without it.

mountaineer, I had a TERRIBLE science education at a fundamentalist Christian school, but I didn't let myself off the hook.  I go out of my way to learn things because ignorance could quite possibly get us all killed someday.  The American public--in other words, YOU, ME, ALL OF US in America--have a duty to educate ourselves if the schools didn't do a decent job (which is, unfortunately, quite likely).

"Goddidit" is a lazy answer.  Now, go educate your mind.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I admire your patience

I admire your patience deludedgod... I'd have already lost it after he said that the scientific method is based on bias and personal opinion. Anyway, like Iruka, I didn't understand everything (I'm rather into physics and cosmology than biology), but what I've understood made perfect sense to me.

I'm somewhat curious... what do creationists consider as evidence for creation? Only the:

- watchmaker argument?

- "Just take a look around you"? (teleological argument)

- The "irreducibly complex" argument?

I've never actually seen a creationist argue for creation, all I see is creationists "arguing" against revolution.

 I've read some wild stuff about the grand canyon and the flood though.. Smiling

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Deluded God is my new

Deluded God is my new science hero.

I'm sure you get asked this all the time, but what is your formal education? It's easy to tell you have alot of it.

 

**swoon** 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I think he's my hero too

I think he's my hero too and I'm straight!

Mountaineer,

Yes, evolution is an assumption but an assumption based on a mass of testing, evidence (visible and microscopic). Believing that God put all the animals down on earth with the snap of his fingers is much less founded than evolution itself. God is an assumption based on no evidence at all.

I don't understand all of what DeludedGod was saying but I do have an understanding of evolution away from all the misconceptions of IDers.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
my all time

my all time favorite.

 

Mr. Kirk Cameron..

 

"we wanna emphasize the principle of swinging from the intellect, straight to the conscience. It's so important to know that by doing this, you're not side-stepping the questions of the atheist, but you have to learn that it's not wise to stay in the intellect and wrestle with someone intellectually"

 

Not for you it isn't, bozo boy.

 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
gregfl wrote: my all time

gregfl wrote:

my all time favorite.

 

Mr. Kirk Cameron..

 

"we wanna emphasize the principle of swinging from the intellect, straight to the conscience. It's so important to know that by doing this, you're not side-stepping the questions of the atheist, but you have to learn that it's not wise to stay in the intellect and wrestle with someone intellectually"

 

Not for you it isn't, bozo boy.

 

Christians never change much:

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." -- Martin Luther

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.