Questions for Creationists.

Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

A bit of turning the tables in the direction they should be. Feel free to add your own well thought out queries to the irrational. Evolution should NOT ever be on the defensive, when a creationist asks a ridiculously trite strawman of a question, retort with one of my personal favorites:

Here are a few questions I like to ask, and they are only the tip of the iceberg (I can formulate hundreds more, but we must start somewhere):

What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well.

What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.

Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now?

We should expect related species to look similar.

What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?

Salamanders and Songbirds

More details on the salamanders, with additional links

London mosquitos

Another article on Himalayan song birds

Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here

More examples

Speciation models

Links on examples and models

More on the London mosquitos

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links

In Drosophila (fruit flies)

How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?

An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?

You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:

PubMed links

And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray:

What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?

And another from a fried of mine, warriorking:

So I'm in medical school learning about the human body and all the time, I'm wondering how creationism (or ID supporters, whoever's willing to answer me) covers some of the similarities between humans and other animals that aren't like us and how they explain how poorly our bodies are designed. I wanted a thread where I could ask my questions, and anyone else who has intellectual questions for creationists, I want to hear other oddities that don't seem to be explained without common ancestry.

Let's suppose that the appendix is an intentional lymphoid tissue (it's not, and it doesn't really serve as such, but let's give Ken Hovind that). How do you explain the hair-on-end reflex to cold or fright? Our hair doesn't insulate us and it doesn't seem to scare away predators or other men in an ensuing battle. Why are our hairs innervated to do that if we have no common ancestor with other mammals? Think about it, dog showing fangs and hair-on-end...you're not going to try to pet it. My hair stands on end, I'm still cold and you'd still probably try to kick my ass. Why do our hair follicles need muscle innervation if we're created intelligently and uniquely from all other mammals?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

Good job yellow, the retroviral transposon argument is indeed solid. I would like to add another point concerning Mitochondria, some would say is the most sucessful parasite. At some point mitochondria (a progaryotic bacteria) started parasatizing eukaryotic cells, but like the goal of all parasites, it is not to kill it's host but to maximize the benefits received from it's host. After all what good is a dead host. So the most successful evolutionary symbiosis was born, the ultimate commensualist relationship. It is obvious that this symbiosis occured very early in the evolutionary line and hence now you have every single eukaryotic cell with mitochondria. This tends to follow the transposon argument that Yellow is talking about.

If god made us perfect, why then would we need a prokaryotic organism, performing the most essential of all life processes; cellular respiration?

I always use the vestigial organs argument, the response I receive is usually, well god made us this way for a reason that we are nto meant to know. That is usually the default answer.

I also like the Cancer and autoimmune argument. Most theists have no fucking clue about apoptosis and the genes and mechanisms involved around cancer. Again, I get the: well god made us this way for a reason...it is to test our faith. Blah..makes me sick.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

Well, ask a question, get an answer.

I used a lot of the first post of this thread in my pointless emailing with a Creationist. Here's a snippet of his response, which conveinently avoided a couple of other questions (to be fair, the email was loooooooong).

"I am surprised that you would even mention chirality, which is far more than a "twist" of similarity. In nature, we find that all amino acids occur randomly, in equal proportion of right- and left-handed (a racemic mixture). After years of study, scientists have not found a single means of adequately purifying the mixture? that is, increasing substantially the proportion of left-handed amino acids. The same problem exists for all nucleotides, which must be right-handed. To create the first cell, all of the thousands of amino acids in the hundred-plus functional proteins required for the first cell would have to suddenly show up? the right types at exactly the right place at exactly the right time? all left-handed. That is the only way they would have been able to properly bond as instructed by the DNA. In other words, to just get the 100,000 correctly oriented nucleotides together in the first place would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row. To get the 10,000 correctly oriented amino acids together would be like flipping 10,000 tails in a row. To do both, which is necessary, would be like correctly getting 110,000 specified flips in a row. The odds are staggering: 1 in 10 to the 33,113th power. Dr. Alan Schwartz of the Evolutionary Biology Research Group at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands describes the attempt to prove that chirality is not necessary accordingly:

In an experiment designed to test the requirement for chiral purity, it was demonstrated that incorporation of even a single mononucleotide of opposite chirality into the end of a growing chain in template-directed oligomerization is sufficient to terminate the reaction (Origins of the RNA World, p. 247).

Game over. Esteemed evolutionists clearly recognize chirality as a major problem.

The differences between Origin Science and Operational Science are clear.

ORIGIN SCIENCE OPERATION SCIENCE
Studies past Studies present
Studies singularities Studies regularities
Studies unrepeatable Studies repeatable
Re-creation not possible Re-creation possible
How things began How things work
May find primary cause Finds secondary causes
Conclusions not falsifiable Conclusions falsifiable

I certainly do know that there are aspects of evolution are falsifiable, but as a whole, it is a metaphysical philosophy that resists falsification by positing naturalistic possibilities that explain away problems in the evolutionary theory (e.g., punctuated equilibrium is posited as an explanation for the virtual absence of graduated fossil transitions from earth crust to rock to the marvelously complex invertebrates in the Cambrian explosion dilemma).

Similarity in species is a clear indication of Design Economy. We all live in the same anthropically designed world. Similarity among life forms makes sense if your are designing creatures living in a given biosphere. We ought to expect similarities because of a common Creator in a common creation. of His natural world."

PS - Yellow #5, you are my hero and stuff, but learn how to spell check before you post Laughing out loud

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

StopEvangelists wrote:
Well, ask a question, get an answer.

I used a lot of the first post of this thread in my pointless emailing with a Creationist. Here's a snippet of his response, which conveinently avoided a couple of other questions (to be fair, the email was loooooooong).

"I am surprised that you would even mention chirality, which is far more than a "twist" of similarity. In nature, we find that all amino acids occur randomly, in equal proportion of right- and left-handed (a racemic mixture). After years of study, scientists have not found a single means of adequately purifying the mixture? that is, increasing substantially the proportion of left-handed amino acids. The same problem exists for all nucleotides, which must be right-handed. To create the first cell, all of the thousands of amino acids in the hundred-plus functional proteins required for the first cell would have to suddenly show up? the right types at exactly the right place at exactly the right time? all left-handed. That is the only way they would have been able to properly bond as instructed by the DNA. In other words, to just get the 100,000 correctly oriented nucleotides together in the first place would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row. To get the 10,000 correctly oriented amino acids together would be like flipping 10,000 tails in a row. To do both, which is necessary, would be like correctly getting 110,000 specified flips in a row. The odds are staggering: 1 in 10 to the 33,113th power. Dr. Alan Schwartz of the Evolutionary Biology Research Group at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands describes the attempt to prove that chirality is not necessary accordingly:

In an experiment designed to test the requirement for chiral purity, it was demonstrated that incorporation of even a single mononucleotide of opposite chirality into the end of a growing chain in template-directed oligomerization is sufficient to terminate the reaction (Origins of the RNA World, p. 247).

Game over. Esteemed evolutionists clearly recognize chirality as a major problem.

The differences between Origin Science and Operational Science are clear.

ORIGIN SCIENCE OPERATION SCIENCE
Studies past Studies present
Studies singularities Studies regularities
Studies unrepeatable Studies repeatable
Re-creation not possible Re-creation possible
How things began How things work
May find primary cause Finds secondary causes
Conclusions not falsifiable Conclusions falsifiable

I certainly do know that there are aspects of evolution are falsifiable, but as a whole, it is a metaphysical philosophy that resists falsification by positing naturalistic possibilities that explain away problems in the evolutionary theory (e.g., punctuated equilibrium is posited as an explanation for the virtual absence of graduated fossil transitions from earth crust to rock to the marvelously complex invertebrates in the Cambrian explosion dilemma).

Similarity in species is a clear indication of Design Economy. We all live in the same anthropically designed world. Similarity among life forms makes sense if your are designing creatures living in a given biosphere. We ought to expect similarities because of a common Creator in a common creation. of His natural world."

PS - Yellow #5, you are my hero and stuff, but learn how to spell check before you post :D

I have found something that may help you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11339854&dopt=Abstract
I am no expert in the chiral properties of organisms, and due to my own research and work, i rarely have time to post these days, however, I was doing some research to help you out. and have come across this. I will seek further and perhaps put toghether something, time permitting. This is just they synopsis, I have access to online journals for free because of my affiliation with the university, if you would like the whole journal PM me and give me your email address. I'll send it to ya.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

Also this may be interesting
from a postdoctoral fellow at oxford university

http://www.mwdeem.rice.edu/djearl/
This is his research. or part of it, click on the link above for more detail.

Protein Molecular Evolution

Concomitant with the evolution of biological diversity must have been the evolution of mechanisms that facilitate evolution, because of the essentially infinite complexity of protein sequence space. We have described how evolvability can be an object of Darwinian selection, emphasizing the collective nature of the process. We have quantified our theory with computer simulations of protein evolution. These simulations demonstrate that rapid or dramatic environmental change leads to selection for greater evolvability. The selective pressure for large-scale genetic moves such as DNA exchange becomes increasingly strong as the environmental conditions become more uncertain. Our results demonstrate that evolvability is a selectable trait and allow for the explanation of a large body of experimental results.

Molecular Chirality

Lord Kelvin defined chirality in his Baltimore Lectures on Molecular Dynamics and the Wave Theory of Light when he said, "I call any geometrical figure, or group of points, chiral, and say that it has chirality if its image in a plane mirror, ideally realized, cannot be brought to coincide with itself." A simple example of chiral objects are your hands. The mirror image of your right hand looks like a left hand, but you cannot superimpose your right hand over your left hand. Molecules can also be chiral and can be classified as right [+] or left [-] handed by the direction that they rotate plane polarized light (clockwise [+] or anticlockwise [-]). A remarkable property of many liquid crystal phases (see above) is that chirality at the molecular level can be transmitted to the phase itself. For example, instead of forming a nematic liquid crystal, chiral molecules will form a chiral nematic (cholesteric) phase in which the liquid crystal director undergoes a helical twist.

Schematic diagram of a chiral nematic phase with a helical pitch, P. n is the nematic director for each of the layers shown in the diagram.

Similarly, when chiral molecules are added to an achiral liquid crystal phase, they can transmit their chirality to the whole system over distances many times their molecular length, giving the liquid crystal a right or left handed helical twist (depending on the enantiomer added). Moreover, different chiral molecules can induce different levels of twist. A quantitative measure of this effect is provided by the helical twisting power.

My research has used theory and computation to make predictions of helical twisting powers for a range of chiral molecules. Chiral molecules with high helical twisting powers have great industrial importance. They are used in liquid crystal displays and in chiral polymers films which improve the viewing angles of displays and can be used as thermally controllable reflective polarizers. The production of new chiral dopant molecules can be a long and costly process, and the helical twisting power is unknown until it has been synthesized and purified. The theoretical tools that I have developed are being utilized by Merck to determine future synthetic strategies and target molecules for use in industrial and commercial applications.

A van der Waals' sphere representation of a chiral bridged biaryl molecule.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

I have emaild Dr. Earl, to see if he can share some of his research on the evolvability of evolution.. his research incorporates molecular chirality. I will post correspondence here.

Below are some of his talks.

http://www.mwdeem.rice.edu/djearl/earl_talks.html

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

1) Larry has said all that needs to be said to back my point.

2) Larry, you rock.

3) Notice he didn't bother taking on the other issues.

4) Notice the reference to the Cambrian "dilemma" Laughing out loud

5) Notice the failure to look at shared chirality in the grand scheme.

6) Notice the failure to offer an alternative scientific explanation.

7) Notice the cock sure posturing without evidence to the contrary.

Cool Finally realize that no ONE piece of biological, biochemical, genetic, anthropologic, geologoc. cosmic, etc piece of information makes the case for evolution. What I've offered in this thread are a few stumpers related to my particular field. The true strength of the theory of evolution is that is is confirmed left and right, by multiple fields of investigation and through multiple lines of evidence.

It is akin to convicting a person by forensic and genetic evidence. Why such evidence should be sufficient in court, and insufficient via the more exacting and extensive peer review process is honestly beyond me.

PS - I rarely, if ever, spell check. Deal with it. This is informal, if you can understand my point, then I've spelled it well enough. Complaining of spelling when the message is clear screams of pretentiousness.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
1) Larry has said all that needs to be said to back my point.

2) Larry, you rock.

3) Notice he didn't bother taking on the other issues.

4) Notice the reference to the Cambrian "dilemma" Laughing out loud

5) Notice the failure to look at shared chirality in the grand scheme.

6) Notice the failure to offer an alternative scientific explanation.

7) Notice the cock sure posturing without evidence to the contrary.

Cool Finally realize that no ONE piece of biological, biochemical, genetic, anthropologic, geologoc. cosmic, etc piece of information makes the case for evolution. What I've offered in this thread are a few stumpers related to my particular field. The true strength of the theory of evolution is that is is confirmed left and right, by multiple fields of investigation and through multiple lines of evidence.

It is akin to convicting a person by forensic and genetic evidence. Why such evidence should be sufficient in court, and insufficient via the more exacting and extensive peer review process is honestly beyond me.

PS - I rarely, if ever, spell check. Deal with it. This is informal, if you can understand my point, then I've spelled it well enough. Complaining of spelling when the message is clear screams of pretentiousness.

No yellow, you and the rest of the responders rock as well as everyone else on this board. Also, about spell checking, yeah...fuck that, we don't have time to check all spelling, we are not writing for the NYTIMES editorial pages here, if people get caught up with the small things and miss the big picture, then I'm sure they're not going to understand the point, spelled right or wrong.

I haven't heard back from that researcher at oxford, I will try again.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

Here is Dr. Earl's response to my email.

Hi Larry,

Your question is very interesting and brings together two
of my research interests, namely chirality and protein
evolution. So far I haven't really brought them together
in a way that would provide a satisfactory answer to your
question (and perhaps if I had, I would be well known in
the evolutionary biology field!).

A few perhaps naive thoughts on the subject:

i) I'm not sure it is too big a problem to think about
proteins with the same chirality having to come together to
form life. Presumably the first proteins (or protein precursors)
that could replicate themselves proliferated, and the handedness
was in some sense set in stone from that point.

ii) I certainly disagree with the intelligent design argument
that evolution over time is not capable of producing the
extremely complex networks of interactions that we see in
biological systems.

iii) Most of my thoughts on protein evolution can be found in
this article:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/32/11531

Sorry I can't be more helpful - I am a novice when it comes to
the origin of life!

Best wishes,

David

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Creationists.

Actually, that is exactly how I responded...evolution doesn't talk about the origin of life, so stop (fucking) setting up a straw man.

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


square
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-01-10
User is offlineOffline
punctuated equilibrium

Evolution is not a single and complete theory. It changes to incorporate new evidence and understanding. As it is not a single theory, it is not as a whole testable, and there is no way to put numbers on how well it fits the evidence. However there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it, besides which natural selection is sort of obvious once it is pointed out to you.

Punctuated equilibrium is just the observed dynamics of the system. This is not inconsistent with evolution by natural selection. The only reason why slow, steady evolution was assumed is because it is the simplest "obvious", default-hypothesis. Statistical models actually show that evolution by punctuated equilibrium arises quite naturally in a system of interdependent individuals (an ecosystem) evolving by natural selection. The theory (statistical simulation) agrees with the observation agrees with the consensus (the idea of punctuated equilibrium). Yeah, the consensus has been tweaked to fit with the other two but natural selection is a complex thing, no-one would expected Darwin to have formulated a complete and accurate theory alone.


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
I personally prefer to

I personally prefer to trend toward simpler questions that don't require a believer to have a background in genetic sciences to answer. For example:

If it's not possible for organisms to evolve, then how is it possible for ag businesses to create new varieties of vegetables and farm animals by doing nothing more than Artificial Selection (what would be called Natural Selection if it was nature and not mankind doing the breeding selection)?

If it's not possible for organisms to evolve, then how is it possible to have the science of gene therapy--which actually works--at all?

If it's not possible for life to come from rocks, why is it necessary for people to take vitamin and mineral supplements daily?

If it's not possible for life to come from inanimate chemicals, why is it the case that no animal or human can live long without water? Or air?  We shouldn't even need to eat, don't you think?

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Anyone notice that not one

Anyone notice that not one creationist has responded to this thread in nine months?

I'd love to see a creationist explain away these.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: Anyone notice

noor wrote:

Anyone notice that not one creationist has responded to this thread in nine months?

I'd love to see a creationist explain away these.

Yes, I noticed.

Anyway, let's leave them alone. One day, God will give them the answers and they'll come back to this thread.Smile


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Lol, yeah. I doubt even god

Lol, yeah. What if even god himself couldn't answer them? Laughing


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: Lol, yeah.

noor wrote:

Lol, yeah. What if even god himself couldn't answer them? Laughing

That would suck, huh? Eye-wink

 


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Yep, we'd have to put him in

Yep, we'd have to put him in a biology class or something like that. Sticking out tongue


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: Yep, we'd have

noor wrote:
Yep, we'd have to put him in a biology class or something like that. :P

With Richard Dawkins as the teacher, making God read a chapter from "The God Delusion". 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Clara Listensprechen

Clara Listensprechen wrote:

If it's not possible for organisms to evolve, then how is it possible for ag businesses to create new varieties of vegetables and farm animals by doing nothing more than Artificial Selection (what would be called Natural Selection if it was nature and not mankind doing the breeding selection)?

A creationist would likely argue that you are "destroying genetic information." I believe their claim is that the variations already exist and you are just whittling them down which they try to tie into the whole "entropy" nonsense argument.

-Triften 


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:

noor wrote:
Yep, we'd have to put him in a biology class or something like that. :P

With Richard Dawkins as the teacher, making God read a chapter from "The God Delusion".

ROFL! Laughing


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
How do ID and creationists

How do ID and creationists explain the autoregulatory and autocatalytic nature of every single function in biology?

How many metabolic pathways and chemical chain-reactions do you think an organism has? It probably numbers in the hundreds of thousands. ALL of the ones which have been unlocked, ATP synthesis, hormoe control feedback, translation, transcription, reverse transcription, neurotransmitter binding, protein receptors bla bla bla...have been found to be autoregulatory. Every function is the result of automatic chemical reactions that are bound by chemical laws. If life had a designer, then like a good programmer or tinkerer, he would have thought to insert the occasional little tweak here and there, that simply could not have arisen through natural chemistry.

So far, nothing of the sort has been discovered.

 

The way life obtains energy is by adenosine triphosphate synthesis. Guess how. At the end of the Krebs cycle, the ATP splits into Adenosine Diphophate. The breaking of this bond releases heat energy. When one thinks about this, it is extremely bizarre. Respiration has 200 synthesis steps, all to break one phosphate bond. This should give you an idea of the astounding inefficieny of biology due to it's autoregulatory nature. Another easy example is protein folding. Proteins fold into elegant shapes after being translated from mRNA only for a tiny piece of it to serve as an active site. The haemoglobin molecule is the bizarre case and point. It is a colossal macromolecular protein snugly wrapped around a single haemite (iron). This is somewhat akin to building a nuclear powered transformer to plug in a lamp.

This is not the work of a designer. Or if it is, he was a drunken idiot with no understanding of molecular biology and catalytic chemistry.

"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


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Q. “What do you have to

Q. “What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?”

A. I am not familiar with the technical matters of this phenomenon or the observed facts upon which evolutionists base their argument sufficiently to comment as of yet. My problem of course, not yours.

Q “What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?”

A. You could also have included the fundamental dogma in your list. That the same codons represent the same amino-acid in all life. (AGC = Serine for instance). Actually this points heavily to design. Considering the supposed developments that life on earth has supposedly undergone, (the original sexual revolution for example - the evolution of different sexes). Is it not reasonable the various branches of the tree of life would have evolved different codons for different amino-acids, or evolved the use of different amino acids, or mildly different uses of bio-chemistry. The fact that they don’t, from humans to bacteria, suggests that evolution did not if fact occur. It is the similarity of life where one would expect at least some difference is in fact an argument for design.

Q. “What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? Now?”

A. This matter along with a few others you raise requires a thorough examination of the evidence. I am sorry that I am not providing you with one here. I intend only to deal with the more general questions in this reply. Time and research and all that, you know!!!

Q. What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?

A. Same as above. Thank you for the links though.

Q. How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?

A. How would you distinguish between a vestigual structure and a genetic deformity. The genetic disorder that causes its sufferers to have furry faces for example, caused because the genes cannot control the growth of hair. Presumably evidence that we evolved from Werewolves!!! Actually perhaps this is a bad argument. But I would not argue against complex forms being built up from simple forms in life. I would simply argue that it is not an issue of common descent. For example, you have a genome for a fish that already codes for many important features. Modify it, add a few more elements, build on what you’ve already got to make something new and more complex. If the extra coding breaks down in the organism, then they might well exhibit characteristics of a more primitive life form. If primitive life forms mutated and developed attributes of a more complex life form, then that would be something for an evolutionist to shout about. Also it is worth pointing out that practically all the supposed vestigial structures turned out to not be vestigial after all. They all had some function at some point in the life cycle.

Q How do ID and creationists explain the autoregulatory and autocatalytic nature of every single function in biology?

A Again a basic necessary design feature. By using the natural principles of chemistry one only has to ensure the preservation of the genetic code. If you’re suggesting that life should incorporate little nanomachines that rely on mechanical operation like a car for instance, then life would be asking for trouble and would probably have fizzled out eons ago. Basing life on chemical principles rather than structural mechanical ones makes very, very good sense.


Diosdato
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?

Hmmmmmmm. That's pretty deep. I don't say anything, nor will I pretend to know what you are even talking about.

Quote:
This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

Could it have happened in two different species without common ancestry? Were these retrogenes observed first in one organism and then tracked through posterity and still found to exist once the species seperated or is your statement speculation as to how the retrogenes ended up in identical chromosomal positions? Don't say that isn't a rational question. "indicates" means "to give grounds for supposing or inferring the existence or presence of something" --notice the key words, ie: supposing or inferring. You say theists have faith........

Quote:
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry.

Once again, a presumptive statement. It doesn't necessarily mean we have a common ancestor, just a supposition. No different from theists.

Listen, I won't pretend that I can provide physical evidence for God. I can only speak from my personal experiences as to the existence of God. He has been a powerful force in my life and I KNOW he exists, my point is that you take science on just as much faith as I take God. No one knows for an absolute fact how life originated, creationists say God, you say chance and evolution. The only difference between your theory and mine is that mine comes with a set of rules to be followed and yours doesn't.

How convenient for you. If I can prove to myself that there is no God, then I can live my life the way I want with no one looking over my shoulder. Well, wether or not you believe in Him, you will face His judgement one day. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most atheists have a transgression that they just don't want to let go of, so they create a god that will allow it(mother nature). That's called idolatry and I practiced it for many years. I was an atheist(prabably more of an agnostic) for all my life until I was a Freshman in college and found the truth about evolution.

Quote:
I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance.

Now is that 7 examples among how many billion humans and primates, or is it something different?

Quote:
What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution? The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it. In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one. There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes. All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical. Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides. Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well. The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

I'm glad you brought this up. This could also just as easily point to a common designer. Now be rational.......your statement is presumptive. Actually scientists have created a homoDNA with a six carbon sugar: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/stories/homodna.html

I want you to notice the language that science uses to deny God when it could just as easily acknowledge Him. Here is what I mean:

"containing chemical “rungs” tenuously uniting the two halves — seems to be the work of an accomplished sculptor.

Yet the graceful, sinuous profile of the DNA double helix is the result of random chemical reactions in a simmering, primordial stew.

Just how nature arrived at this molecule and its sister molecule, RNA, remains one of the greatest — and potentially unsolvable — scientific mysteries."

They admit that DNA seems to be the work of a sculptor, yet say its the result of random chemical reactions, then insult my intelligence by saying it is a potentially unsolvable scientific mystery. See how they say "nature" arrived at this molecule......why not God........do you think scientists would be out of a job if God existed? On the contrary, God allows himself to be seen by those who seek Him.

The article is really interesting, just insert the word God where they put "nature" and you'll see my point. Science doesn't have any more facts about the origin of life that creationists do, they just spout theories in the name of science and call theists crazy b/c they disagree. I don't know for sure but I'm willing to bet that some scientists thought some people were nuts b/c they said the earth was round.

Quote:
what do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now? We should expect related species to look similar. What do you have to say about these observed speciation events? Salamanders and Songbirds More details on the salamanders, with additional links London mosquitos Another article on Himalayan song birds Speciation by reinforcement Lots of examples here More examples Speciation models Links on examples and models More on the London mosquitos Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links In Drosophila (fruit flies)

I first disagree with your notion of species. By man made definition, they are different species, but they are still reproducing after their own kind like it says in the Bible. The skull pictures shown have also been theorized to be genetic anomalies not missing links. Ever seen a midgets skull? It doesn't look human. Whose to say that God didn't create other kinds of animals that may have even more closely resembled humans......no one knows. Read the literature that accompanies the pictures, it is loaded with presumptive language. My point is not to try and disprove you, but to get people to see that to believe we all descended from a primordial soup takes just as much faith as theism does, if not more.

Quote:
How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures? An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus? You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here: PubMed links And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone

How would you like to explain midgets, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, missing fingers, siamese twins, extra limbs, etc. Science has presumed that the anomaly is a "vestigial" organ. Once again, there is just no factual evidence for the claim you just made. Yes, I see the x-ray, I also see midgets, retards, etc. Are you going to tell me that they are phenotypic humans??? My Dad is a Chiropractor and firm believer in evolution, yet his understanding of the human spine specifically leads him to believe that our tailbones are a necessary structure for our everyday life and are in no way vestigial.

Quote:
What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent? And another from a fried of mine, warriorking: So I'm in medical school learning about the human body and all the time, I'm wondering how creationism (or ID supporters, whoever's willing to answer me) covers some of the similarities between humans and other animals that aren't like us and how they explain how poorly our bodies are designed. I wanted a thread where I could ask my questions, and anyone else who has intellectual questions for creationists, I want to hear other oddities that don't seem to be explained without common ancestry. Let's suppose that the appendix is an intentional lymphoid tissue (it's not, and it doesn't really serve as such, but let's give Ken Hovind that). How do you explain the hair-on-end reflex to cold or fright? Our hair doesn't insulate us and it doesn't seem to scare away predators or other men in an ensuing battle. Why are our hairs innervated to do that if we have no common ancestor with other mammals? Think about it, dog showing fangs and hair-on-end...you're not going to try to pet it. My hair stands on end, I'm still cold and you'd still probably try to kick my ass. Why do our hair follicles need muscle innervation if we're created intelligently and uniquely from all other mammals?

Once again, the muscle innervation is a result of common design. Why aren't there humans in the colder regions of the world covered in dense hair? Our hair standing on end is the result of either a chemical reaction in our brain to ready us to attention or to rush blood to the surface of our skin and warm us when we are cold. No one ever said we were created uniquely from other mammals, that's not biblical atleast. About the appendix, let's hear what a physiologist has to say:

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

 

That's Scientific American.com, you better tell him he's ruining your vestigial organ claim. "professing themselves to be wise will become fools"

 

Your "science' is as much faith and presupposition as theism, you just get to live the way you want.......cop out. I bet several members on here are living in some sort of sin and use atheism to justify their immorality............................................................here comes the barrage of attacks........righteous indignation.......I know, but I was once like all of you, lost in darkness. I'm not perfect nor do I claim to be, and I do honestly care about your eternal salvation, I just hope you don't die before you come to the truth. I'm praying for all of you......even though you will make fun of me for doing so.

In His Love,

Dio


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Interesting name, Dio the

Interesting name, Dio the latin derivative of God. Since i am also an evolutionary scientist (whose also posted a question on this which I think you should answer), I can tell you that you are essentially wrong.

Firstly, your definition of "species". It is not a word that can be toyed with. A species a genetically similar subset which can only breed offspring within its set. This is why genetic speciation occurs during evolution when the gametes no longer fuse due to a branch which has undergone cumulative mutation from the prototype usually due to geographical seperation. A lion and tiger could copulate, but the offspring will be sterile. Thus branches must go their different.

Next, if you do not know about endogenous insertion, it shows you don't understand the transcription functions, in which case, you might as well not comment on the subject of evolution until you find out. having studied the subject, I can say that Endogenous retroviral insertion is very solid and I have never seen a creationist find a way around it.

How would you like to explain midgets, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, missing fingers, siamese twins, extra limbs, etc.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of mutation conservation. All of these disorders are the result of embryogenic meiosis error, with the result that genes that participate in the hormone control autocatalysm are either missing or overproduced. For instance, in Down's syndrome, an extra copy of the long arm of 21 is produced via duplication error. Every chemical produced by the exons of chromosome 21 will be overproduced, which is devastating to the fundamental endocrine homeostasis, causing heart degeneration, stunting, mental retardation etc.

On the other hand, a vestigial organ is something that once had a use throughout evolution that is now useless, usually due to environmental determinate changes in priority. I go into this in alot more detail in my essay and comments that followed called the fundamental axioms of evolution, which is on this forum. Basically, there are three types of mutation: Good, bad and useless. Bad mutations are ones that disrupt the exon transcription or intron control to the point where they disrupt the autocatalysm. Thus the cell either dies (usually when the kind of error that causes the deformities you cited occurs, the zygote simply dies) or the error is targeted and repaired (unfortunately, sexual gametes do not have this mechanism, so if the meisosis goes wrong but the zygote does not die, the baby will be deformed).

On the other hand, a useless mutation does not interrupt the cycle so it is just ignored, as is a good mutation. Eukaryotic genomes retain a lot of junk code (only 9% of the human DNA is actually functioning). The result is like looking back in time. We have lots of useless functions that once had uses that we simply kept because there was no bother to remove them. Your example of deformities is not valid.

I loved your article cited, especially because next to it there is another article tabbed 15 answers to creationist nonsense. I used to study endocrinolgy so I know that the appendix is useful lymph tissue. But when I say useless, I am talking about molecular level wastefulness, which is why I suggest you read the question I posted on this thread.

I love the way you abuse the word theory. To the general public theory means "an explanation", to scientists (that's real scientists not creationists) it means "a verified hypothesis that has been tested, evaluated and peer reveiwed. So when you say that we "just spout theories", you are correct, because theory means fact.

If you think we are just as faithful (you mentioned abiogenesis, a primordial chemistry theory) then you have not looked at the evidence. The fossil record, the genetic preservation effect, the cumulative mutation effect, the taxanomic splits or the genome decoding. On the other hand, there is no evidence for your nonsense, all you do is attack what we hitherto do not yet understand, like ribonucleotide origin and abiogenesis. Even if life's origin might have had a non-evolutionary explanation like Panspermia, everything after that is supported by masses of evidence which I would like to see you try and debunk.

 

"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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I have one more question

I have one more question for creationists:

How do you explain paralog shifts, ortholog splits, pseudogene code and retrotransposons? 

"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


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I thought I might take

I thought I might take advantage of the expertise of the evolutionary scientists on this site to find out something about endogenous  retrogene insertions.

Firstly, since we can conclude that humans and chimps sharing this virus insertion is a phenomenon (ie it is not chance) then we can conclude that it has a natural explanation.  So my first question is this.  I assume that the virus does not insert its DNA randomly but that it has a means of specifying where, I have in mind here the ability to detect functional proteins (introns) in its host.  Am I right in this assumtion?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
very quickly, because I

very quickly, because I have to leave

retroviral recognition of insertion point is ridiculously complex. Reverse transcriptase has to start it off with assembling the complementary strain of RNA which then binds to a tRNA to be fixed into the host's DNA by means of binding to the complementary sites, since RNA can recognize DNA. After that, the process becomes a bizarre chain of jumping genes (retrotransposons), RNAase enzymes to degrade the 3 and 5 (shorthand for the two ends of the DNA strain) to allow the RNA to be spliced into it. An integrase enzyme will fuse the RNA with the DNA.

So yes, the retroviral RNA can recognize the DNA because RNA works on the same principle of complentary binding, leaving me to wonder why I typed such an unnecessary explanation.

Bye. Cool

"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


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
“retroviral recognition

“retroviral recognition of insertion point is ridiculously complex. Reverse transcriptase has to start it off with assembling the complementary strain of RNA which then binds to a tRNA to be fixed into the host's DNA by means of binding to the complementary sites, since RNA can recognize DNA. After that, the process becomes a bizarre chain of jumping genes (retrotransposons), RNAase enzymes to degrade the 3 and 5 (shorthand for the two ends of the DNA strain) to allow the RNA to be spliced into it. An integrase enzyme will fuse the RNA with the DNA.

So yes, the retroviral RNA can recognize the DNA because RNA works on the same principle of complentary binding, leaving me to wonder why I typed such an unnecessary explanation.”

I defer here to your superior knowledge of the subject but will hypothesize based upon the answers you give. We are looking for a natural explanation for the fact that there are seven (at least seven, according to Yellow No. 5) similarities between chimps and humans with regard to viral DNA insertions. The answer you gave is that the Virus has the ability to recognize DNA in its host and specify its insertion point. Based on the fact that chimps and humans have relatively similar genomes (98% similar I believe or there about) one would expect the virus in question to insert its own DNA into the genes of its host (be it human or chimp) in the analogous sections. What I am saying is. If the insertion of DNA were random then that would be powerful evidence for a common ancestor indeed. But since it is not random but specified, and since chimps and humans have very similar DNA, one would expect the virus to insert its genes in the same place in each species. If this were the case then why would there be the need to invoke the explanation of a common ancestor?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Diostado, you come onto

Diostado, you come onto this thread, arrogantly challenging evolutionary biologists on their own subject by spewing garbage you clearly do not understand. Not only that, you claim "science is a cop out", then post a scientific article which draws a conclusion that everyone should know. No one claims the appendix is a completely useless organ, and if they do, they are just as stupid as you. Why do you hate science so much? What is wrong with the notion of discovering things about the world by hypothesizing, testing, evaluating and peer reviewing? Science produces miracles every day, religion is a pile of garbage that has seen no advance in 5000 years.

I suggest you check out the thread I started in which I wrote an essay which was followed by a discussion, within both of which all of your ridiculous claims are debunked.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/4880

What evidence do you have for your ridiculous claims? We have loads for our statements: The genomic sequencing, the fossil record, prokaryotic evolution, antibiotic resistance, observed microevolution, microarray expression tracking, molecular clock amino acid tracking etc etc etc

Oh and when you do read the debate between me and newmodeltheist, there is a lesson you could learn. you see, this may be an alien concept, but in a debate, you have two or more people who offer explanations and rebuttals, followed by more explanations and rebuttals, and the discussion continues. At no point in the debate does one of the members start spouting incredibly rude ad hominids. All you have been doing is very rudely criticizing us without offering evidence for your claims (you know, evidence, that funny concept that science relies on).

Sir, you could take a lesson from newmodeltheist when you read the argument. He knows how to conduct himself in a debate.

You call us ignorant and say we don't know what we are talking about, but then you freely admit that you don't understand anything about biology. You call science a cop out then admit you don't understand endogenous insertion. Do you understand anything else? Do you understand intron/exon shift? What about amino acid divergence tracking? What about flourescence microarrays? What about autocatalytic translation and transcription, or protein sequencing or endosymbiosis? What about cellular biology? Do you understand mitochondrial origins, centriole functioning, telophase mutation? If the answer to these in no, then you might as well leave, because you dont understand evolution.

 

Also Diostado, your comment about "why dont humans in colder regions have denser hair" misses an obvious point which shows that your understanding of the subject is gravely lacking. Evolution by mutation and natural selection only works if a trait bestows a reproductive advantage, usually this means it bestows a survival advantage which in turn causes the organism to reproduce more than his fellows. But humans, with their socieities and civilizations, have drastically altered evolution. Having thicker hair wont bestow a survival advantage anymore, because we have heated homes and warm clothing. Humans have clothed themselves since the dawn of man 2 million years ago. Humans have lived in home-like structures, be it caves or simple tents made from animal fur, for a similar length of time.

Contrary to your belief, the goal of science is not to answer every question there is. There are logical limits like the presumption of naturalism. We do not pretend to hold absolute truths, only theories and explanations for natural phenomenom. Theists, on the other hand, hold absolute truths based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. Science answers "how" and "what" questions based on evidence gathered from the natural world, and is objectively based. Religion is completely subjective and relies on sources of authority and unquestioning to propogate, and answers nonexistent "why" questions.

 

 

 

"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


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Yellow No. 5 wrote:

Yellow No. 5 wrote: “Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent.”

newmodeltheist wrote: “What I am saying is. If the insertion of DNA were random then that would be powerful evidence for a common ancestor indeed. But since it is not random but specified, and since chimps and humans have very similar DNA, one would expect the virus to insert its genes in the same place in each species. If this were the case then why would there be the need to invoke the explanation of a common ancestor?”

Have I made a reasonable point here or is there another element to this that I am unaware of?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: Q

newmodeltheist wrote:

Q “What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?”

A. You could also have included the fundamental dogma in your list. That the same codons represent the same amino-acid in all life. (AGC = Serine for instance). Actually this points heavily to design.

How, exactly? 

Quote:
Considering the supposed developments that life on earth has supposedly undergone, (the original sexual revolution for example - the evolution of different sexes). Is it not reasonable the various branches of the tree of life would have evolved different codons for different amino-acids, or evolved the use of different amino acids, or mildly different uses of bio-chemistry.

Why SHOULD they have evolved such things? The current codons and acids work just fine - and yes, they are used in very different ways by different organisms. 

Quote:
The fact that they don’t, from humans to bacteria, suggests that evolution did not if fact occur.

Why, exactly? Does the fact that all life on earth is carbon based somehow refute evolution as well? 

Quote:
It is the similarity of life where one would expect at least some difference is in fact an argument for design.

That's one lazy, uncreative, inefficient designer then.  

Quote:
Q. How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?

A. How would you distinguish between a vestigual structure and a genetic deformity. The genetic disorder that causes its sufferers to have furry faces for example, caused because the genes cannot control the growth of hair.

And why, exactly, do humans have hair on their faces? The point is the genes to produce tails and THICK hair all over, rather than the thin covering we usually have are ALREADY THERE. These genes are molecular vestiges. Their expression has been reduced over milennia of evolution, but the genes are STILL THERE. In rare cases, they get turned on again. 

 

Quote:
Presumably evidence that we evolved from Werewolves!!! Actually perhaps this is a bad argument.

It really isn't an argument, rather a misunderstanding of what is occurring. 

Quote:
But I would not argue against complex forms being built up from simple forms in life. I would simply argue that it is not an issue of common descent. For example, you have a genome for a fish that already codes for many important features. Modify it, add a few more elements, build on what you’ve already got to make something new and more complex.

Kind of like sticklback fish? In stickleback fish for example, sticklebacks with hind projections and without hind projections BOTH have the genes for that projection - all the stickleback without the hind projection lacks is a small segment of DNA that initiates the function of many other genes in the embryo. Without that master gene, you won't get the projection. This projection sometimes can prevent the fish from becoming food for other fish, as it makes them tough to swallow, but it also makes them less streamlined, which is a disadvantage when finding food of their own. Hence in populations with large numbers of predators, we see more sticklebacks with the hind projection; less in envioronments where there is less predation.

Quote:
If the extra coding breaks down in the organism, then they might well exhibit characteristics of a more primitive life form. If primitive life forms mutated and developed attributes of a more complex life form, then that would be something for an evolutionist to shout about. Also it is worth pointing out that practically all the supposed vestigial structures turned out to not be vestigial after all. They all had some function at some point in the life cycle.

This made no sense at all. First of all, define complex, and then tell me how your logic works. You seem to say that ancestors would need to suddenly manifest traits of future generations in order to have evidence for evolution - this not only makes no sense logically or hereditarily, but shows a pretty weak grasp of basic concepts involved.

Quote:
Q How do ID and creationists explain the autoregulatory and autocatalytic nature of every single function in biology?

A Again a basic necessary design feature. By using the natural principles of chemistry one only has to ensure the preservation of the genetic code. If you’re suggesting that life should incorporate little nanomachines that rely on mechanical operation like a car for instance, then life would be asking for trouble and would probably have fizzled out eons ago. Basing life on chemical principles rather than structural mechanical ones makes very, very good sense.

But this explanation does not explain what we observe or predict what we should observe. It's a cop out. There is no reason to expect a designed system to behave in such a fashion or to be the way it is, with all the countless inefficiencies and flaws. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato

Diosdato wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?

Hmmmmmmm. That's pretty deep. I don't say anything, nor will I pretend to know what you are even talking about.

Quote:
This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

Could it have happened in two different species without common ancestry?

No. As I explained this is a statistically ridiculous.  

Quote:
Were these retrogenes observed first in one organism and then tracked through posterity and still found to exist once the species seperated or is your statement speculation as to how the retrogenes ended up in identical chromosomal positions?

No, they were found by sequencing chimp and human DNA and comparing chromosomal loacations and molecular clocks. 

Quote:
Don't say that isn't a rational question. "indicates" means "to give grounds for supposing or inferring the existence or presence of something" --notice the key words, ie: supposing or inferring. You say theists have faith........

No, I said indicates, because common descent is exactly what this indicates. This small piece of evidence in conjuction with countless other pieces of data leads us to a scientifically sound and reasonable conclusion based on evidence. No faith is involved, simply the inductive method. Once again, a presumptive statement. It doesn't necessarily mean we have a common ancestor, just a supposition. No different from theists.

Quote:
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry.

Quote:
Listen, I won't pretend that I can provide physical evidence for God. I can only speak from my personal experiences as to the existence of God. He has been a powerful force in my life and I KNOW he exists, my point is that you take science on just as much faith as I take God. No one knows for an absolute fact how life originated, creationists say God, you say chance and evolution. The only difference between your theory and mine is that mine comes with a set of rules to be followed and yours doesn't.

How convenient for you. If I can prove to myself that there is no God, then I can live my life the way I want with no one looking over my shoulder. Well, wether or not you believe in Him, you will face His judgement one day. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most atheists have a transgression that they just don't want to let go of, so they create a god that will allow it(mother nature). That's called idolatry and I practiced it for many years. I was an atheist(prabably more of an agnostic) for all my life until I was a Freshman in college and found the truth about evolution.

Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science. 

Quote:
Quote:
I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance.

Now is that 7 examples among how many billion humans and primates, or is it something different?

No, it means that these insertions are found in ALL humans and chimps. Exactly what we would expect if a common ancestor of the two had such insertions. 

Quote:
Quote:
What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution? The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it. In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one. There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes. All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical. Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides. Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well. The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

I'm glad you brought this up. This could also just as easily point to a common designer.

The common designer explanation cannot explain why the scheme used is the one used. Nor can it explain the inefficiencies and convoluted nature of what is actually observed. A designer would have no reason to give life the same scheme, let alone this one. 

Quote:
Now be rational.......your statement is presumptive. Actually scientists have created a homoDNA with a six carbon sugar: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/stories/homodna.html

I want you to notice the language that science uses to deny God when it could just as easily acknowledge Him. Here is what I mean:

"containing chemical “rungs” tenuously uniting the two halves — seems to be the work of an accomplished sculptor.

Yet the graceful, sinuous profile of the DNA double helix is the result of random chemical reactions in a simmering, primordial  stew. Just how nature arrived at this molecule and its sister molecule, RNA, remains one of the greatest — and potentially unsolvable — scientific mysteries."

They admit that DNA seems to be the work of a sculptor, yet say its the result of random chemical reactions, then insult my intelligence by saying it is a potentially unsolvable scientific mystery.

So poetic liscence is now evidence for god as well?

 

Quote:
See how they say "nature" arrived at this molecule......why not God........do you think scientists would be out of a job if God existed? On the contrary, God allows himself to be seen by those who seek Him.

The article is really interesting, just insert the word God where they put "nature" and you'll see my point. Science doesn't have any more facts about the origin of life that creationists do, they just spout theories in the name of science and call theists crazy b/c they disagree. I don't know for sure but I'm willing to bet that some scientists thought some people were nuts b/c they said the earth was round.

You've a rather skewed vision of how the scientific process actually works. 

Quote:
Quote:
what do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now? We should expect related species to look similar. What do you have to say about these observed speciation events? Salamanders and Songbirds More details on the salamanders, with additional links London mosquitos Another article on Himalayan song birds Speciation by reinforcement Lots of examples here More examples Speciation models Links on examples and models More on the London mosquitos Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links In Drosophila (fruit flies)

I first disagree with your notion of species. By man made definition, they are different species, but they are still reproducing after their own kind like it says in the Bible.

Define kind. 

Quote:
The skull pictures shown have also been theorized to be genetic anomalies not missing links.

Only by people who understand niether genetics or anthropology. 

 

Quote:
Ever seen a midgets skull? It doesn't look human. Whose to say that God didn't create other kinds of animals that may have even more closely resembled humans......no one knows. Read the literature that accompanies the pictures, it is loaded with presumptive language. My point is not to try and disprove you, but to get people to see that to believe we all descended from a primordial soup takes just as much faith as theism does, if not more.

 Saying it over and over again does not make it so. 

Quote:
Quote:
How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures? An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus? You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here: PubMed links And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone

How would you like to explain midgets, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, missing fingers, siamese twins, extra limbs, etc. Science has presumed that the anomaly is a "vestigial" organ.

No. Science has FOUND the gene for tail formation in humans (same gene in other organisms). In rare instances such as this, the gene is activated and produces a tail. That is what we mean by genetic vestige.

Quote:
Once again, there is just no factual evidence for the claim you just made. Yes, I see the x-ray, I also see midgets, retards, etc. Are you going to tell me that they are phenotypic humans???

Yes. You're lack of understanding is not my problem. 

 

Quote:
My Dad is a Chiropractor and firm believer in evolution, yet his understanding of the human spine specifically leads him to believe that our tailbones are a necessary structure for our everyday life and are in no way vestigial.

Tailbone, yes. The tail, complete with extra vertebra, NO.  

Quote:
Quote:
What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent? And another from a fried of mine, warriorking: So I'm in medical school learning about the human body and all the time, I'm wondering how creationism (or ID supporters, whoever's willing to answer me) covers some of the similarities between humans and other animals that aren't like us and how they explain how poorly our bodies are designed. I wanted a thread where I could ask my questions, and anyone else who has intellectual questions for creationists, I want to hear other oddities that don't seem to be explained without common ancestry. Let's suppose that the appendix is an intentional lymphoid tissue (it's not, and it doesn't really serve as such, but let's give Ken Hovind that). How do you explain the hair-on-end reflex to cold or fright? Our hair doesn't insulate us and it doesn't seem to scare away predators or other men in an ensuing battle. Why are our hairs innervated to do that if we have no common ancestor with other mammals? Think about it, dog showing fangs and hair-on-end...you're not going to try to pet it. My hair stands on end, I'm still cold and you'd still probably try to kick my ass. Why do our hair follicles need muscle innervation if we're created intelligently and uniquely from all other mammals?

Once again, the muscle innervation is a result of common design.

How, exactly? What purpose does it serve? Why did the designer put that in? You cannot offer a scientific explanation. You'll simply say "god works in mysterious ways" - and there's no bigger affront to the pursuit of knowledge than statements like that.

Quote:
Why aren't there humans in the colder regions of the world covered in dense hair?

Because we've learned to clothe ourselves and all humans are descended from primarily hairless ancestors. 

Quote:
About the appendix, let's hear what a physiologist has to say:

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

 

That's Scientific American.com, you better tell him he's ruining your vestigial organ claim. "professing themselves to be wise will become fools"

Again a misunderstanding of what vestigial means. The common misconception is that vestigial means without function - it does not. It is simply an organ or something else left behind after a change has occured - like the leg joints in snakes. Wisdom teeth, like the appendix, are vestiges, because they can be removed without affecting the survivability of the organism and obviously do not serve the function we would expect them to by comparison to similar organs in other animals.

Now, if humans are indeed designed by a creator, then one must question the intelligence of such a creator for giving us things like wisdom teeth and the appendix which serve no vital purpose, are not necessary and often lead to our demise.

 

Quote:
Your "science' is as much faith and presupposition as theism, you just get to live the way you want.......cop out. I bet several members on here are living in some sort of sin and use atheism to justify their immorality............................................................here comes the barrage of attacks........righteous indignation.......I know, but I was once like all of you, lost in darkness. I'm not perfect nor do I claim to be, and I do honestly care about your eternal salvation, I just hope you don't die before you come to the truth. I'm praying for all of you......even though you will make fun of me for doing so.

In His Love,

Dio

 When in doubt, assert and preach.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: I

newmodeltheist wrote:

I thought I might take advantage of the expertise of the evolutionary scientists on this site to find out something about endogenous retrogene insertions.

Firstly, since we can conclude that humans and chimps sharing this virus insertion is a phenomenon (ie it is not chance) then we can conclude that it has a natural explanation. So my first question is this. I assume that the virus does not insert its DNA randomly but that it has a means of specifying where, I have in mind here the ability to detect functional proteins (introns) in its host. Am I right in this assumtion?

 As simply as possible, retroviruses do typicllaly search out specific codon sequences, but many identical sequences occur in everyone's genome. 

HIV, for example, will not insert itself into the exact same position on every human it infects.

This is why I said earlier that retrogene issertion is somewhat random and that finding endogenous retrogenes at the exact same chromosmal marker in two different species is not something we should expect to occur by chance. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Yellow No. 5 wrote: “Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent.”

newmodeltheist wrote: “What I am saying is. If the insertion of DNA were random then that would be powerful evidence for a common ancestor indeed. But since it is not random but specified, and since chimps and humans have very similar DNA, one would expect the virus to insert its genes in the same place in each species. If this were the case then why would there be the need to invoke the explanation of a common ancestor?”

Have I made a reasonable point here or is there another element to this that I am unaware of?

No, it is was a very good question, in fact. I feel like I explained it in the above post, let me know if I need to clarify. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Why SHOULD they have evolved such things? The current codons and acids work just fine - and yes, they are used in very different ways by different organisms. 

There’s no meta-physical reason why they SHOULD from an evolutionary perspective, any more than there is a ‘reason’ why fish SHOULD have colonised land. It is just that if evolution happened, then one would predict a little less similarity in such things after time wouldn’t you say?

Quote:
That's one lazy, uncreative, inefficient designer then.  

Hardly. The biochemistry is just the mechanics. The creativity is in the outer forms of the creatures. As for inefficiencies, I do not dispute that there are certain non-designed elements in living systems. I would say that it is the random mutation from the original stock that has been the course of this however. This is a reverse of your position. You believe that the efficiencies are the result of undirected evolution, I believe the inefficiencies are the result of undirected random mutation.

Quote:
And why, exactly, do humans have hair on their faces? The point is the genes to produce tails and THICK hair all over, rather than the thin covering we usually have are ALREADY THERE. These genes are molecular vestiges. Their expression has been reduced over milennia of evolution, but the genes are STILL THERE. In rare cases, they get turned on again. 

This is a bogus argument. The genes produce HAIR. The thickness or thinness of hair is dependent on how the genes are expressed. We have a thin hair covering because we have our genes for HAIR limited in their expression. Furry faced people simply have their control genes disabled. The resultant THICK hair is not a vestigial THICK HAIR gene.

The following quote of mine…..

“But I would not argue against complex forms being built up from simple forms in life. I would simply argue that it is not an issue of common descent. For example, you have a genome for a fish that already codes for many important features. Modify it, add a few more elements, build on what you’ve already got to make something new and more complex.”

This was really a point of view regarding the apparent ‘tree of life’. Evolutionists see the apparent progression of complexity in living things and the similarity of genes as evidence of common descent. I was making the point that it can be viewed in more than one way. I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at with the sticklebacks.

Quote:
This made no sense at all. First of all, define complex, and then tell me how your logic works. You seem to say that ancestors would need to suddenly manifest traits of future generations in order to have evidence for evolution - this not only makes no sense logically or hereditarily, but shows a pretty weak grasp of basic concepts involved.

No! I was not saying that at all. I am saying that vestigial characteristics are not vestigial at all. I used the example of hair above. But what about tails. Is there actually a gene or genes that encodes for a tail? Or does a tail come about through genes controlling the growth and development of backbones? This is an important difference. If a gene in humans that controls back bone development is disabled then this may well lead to what we call a tail. This is not a vestigial tail gene. My point was that evolutionists would have something worth shouting about if an organism developed a feature by mutation that it had no business having by any standard. But this is of course the whole point of evolution isn’t it.

Quote:
But this explanation does not explain what we observe or predict what we should observe. It's a cop out. There is no reason to expect a designed system to behave in such a fashion or to be the way it is, with all the countless inefficiencies and flaws. 

It is not a cop-out. I am just saying that the auto catalytic nature of life is a reasonable feature to incorporate. And that it does not necessitate the conclusion of non-design. We have two separate ways of seeing the world, that’s all. This phenomenon is not in any way an argument against design. As for inefficiencies and flaws, I have already touched upon. You would have to be specific for us to have any sort of meaningful debate.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

 As simply as possible, retroviruses do typicllaly search out specific codon sequences, but many identical sequences occur in everyone's genome. 

HIV, for example, will not insert itself into the exact same position on every human it infects.

This is why I said earlier that retrogene issertion is somewhat random and that finding endogenous retrogenes at the exact same chromosmal marker in two different species is not something we should expect to occur by chance. 

 

OK this is very good.  But do we have any probability statistics?  What is the length of the sequence that the virus recognises?  How common is this sequence in primate genomes?  How many times might we expect the sequence to appear in a genome of a given length. 

 If the insertion of viral DNA is random (although of course it does recognise a specific sequence) then I will admit you have a case if the calculations support it.  


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Why SHOULD they have evolved such things? The current codons and acids work just fine - and yes, they are used in very different ways by different organisms. 

There’s no meta-physical reason why they SHOULD from an evolutionary perspective, any more than there is a ‘reason’ why fish SHOULD have colonised land. It is just that if evolution happened, then one would predict a little less similarity in such things after time wouldn’t you say?

 Fallacy of equivocation. We accept that evolution is NOT a goal orientated process, there is nothing about the theory and little empirical evidence to suggest such - teleology has been dead in the biological community for quite some time.

However, IF there were an intelligent designer, we SHOULD be able to deduce some sort of methodology in their design - but we cannot. We should be able to say why we use ATP to carry out cellular energetic processes rather than any number of other compounds that could have worked equally well, or possibly better in some circumstances.

Why should we expect a designer to limit themselves in such a manner? If every organism on earth had a DIFFERENT biological sheme, it would be pretty obvious that evolution via common descent was NOT the case. Similar schemes are what we SHOULD expect IF all life on earth is related via a common ancestry. It does not follow that a designer would use the same scheme for EVERYTHING - what REASON would there be for this? Lack of creativity? Laziness?

Furthur, it is NOT possible to determine a common designer merely from similar functional parts. All cars have tires, but we don't assume all cars were made by Ford or Chevy.

Quote:
Quote:
That's one lazy, uncreative, inefficient designer then.  

Hardly. The biochemistry is just the mechanics. The creativity is in the outer forms of the creatures.

Which is a function of the biochemistry, and again, there is no reason to presume a designer would use the same template for everything they make - especially when simpler explanations are available and supported via empirical evidence.

 

Quote:
Quote:
As for inefficiencies, I do not dispute that there are certain non-designed elements in living systems. I would say that it is the random mutation from the original stock that has been the course of this however. This is a reverse of your position. You believe that the efficiencies are the result of undirected evolution, I believe the inefficiencies are the result of undirected random mutation.

No, I believe the inefficiencies are a result of evolution. We can only evolve from what is. In this sense the process is limited. Nature can only work with what is available. Thus men have narrow urethras that pass through the prostate of all places, thus we cannot see in the ultraviolet spectrum, ect.

This also begs the question why a good designer would incorporate a virus of sorts in their plan.

Quote:
Quote:
And why, exactly, do humans have hair on their faces? The point is the genes to produce tails and THICK hair all over, rather than the thin covering we usually have are ALREADY THERE. These genes are molecular vestiges. Their expression has been reduced over milennia of evolution, but the genes are STILL THERE. In rare cases, they get turned on again. 

This is a bogus argument. The genes produce HAIR. The thickness or thinness of hair is dependent on how the genes are expressed. We have a thin hair covering because we have our genes for HAIR limited in their expression. Furry faced people simply have their control genes disabled. The resultant THICK hair is not a vestigial THICK HAIR gene.

You miss the point. If we are not designed to have tails or be furry, why do we have the genes that enable such? It makes no sense.

What DOES make sense is the explanation offered by common descent theory. We have such genes, becuase we evolved from otganisms that possessed such genes. The degree of expression and functionality may have changed, but we still have the genes of our ancestors, and occasionally these vestiges manifest. This is the definition of genetic vestige. 

Quote:
The following quote of mine…..

“But I would not argue against complex forms being built up from simple forms in life. I would simply argue that it is not an issue of common descent. For example, you have a genome for a fish that already codes for many important features. Modify it, add a few more elements, build on what you’ve already got to make something new and more complex.”

This was really a point of view regarding the apparent ‘tree of life’. Evolutionists see the apparent progression of complexity in living things and the similarity of genes as evidence of common descent. I was making the point that it can be viewed in more than one way. I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at with the sticklebacks.

My point with the sticklebacks was to make it clear to you how and why such instances occur. Sticklebacks are on the cusp of a phenotypic evolutionary change. Humans are a bit furthur along from said changes, which is why such vestigial manifestations are more rare in our species.

 And for the record, I don't quite see the evolution of complexity or to more complex organisms. This depends, entirely on how one defines the word. Life does not evolve to become more "complex" as a rule.

Quote:
Quote:
This made no sense at all. First of all, define complex, and then tell me how your logic works. You seem to say that ancestors would need to suddenly manifest traits of future generations in order to have evidence for evolution - this not only makes no sense logically or hereditarily, but shows a pretty weak grasp of basic concepts involved.

No! I was not saying that at all. I am saying that vestigial characteristics are not vestigial at all. I used the example of hair above. But what about tails. Is there actually a gene or genes that encodes for a tail?

Yes. 

 

Quote:
Or does a tail come about through genes controlling the growth and development of backbones? This is an important difference.

Half a dozen of one, six of the other. It is not an important difference, biologically speaking. 

 

Quote:
If a gene in humans that controls back bone development is disabled then this may well lead to what we call a tail. This is not a vestigial tail gene.

Yes, it IS. That's the definition of vestigial! 

 

Quote:
My point was that evolutionists would have something worth shouting about if an organism developed a feature by mutation that it had no business having by any standard. But this is of course the whole point of evolution isn’t it.

If an organism devoloped something it had "no business having" it would be the result of grosse mutation, not the reactivation of vestigial genes.

Quote:
Quote:
But this explanation does not explain what we observe or predict what we should observe. It's a cop out. There is no reason to expect a designed system to behave in such a fashion or to be the way it is, with all the countless inefficiencies and flaws. 

It is not a cop-out. I am just saying that the auto catalytic nature of life is a reasonable feature to incorporate. And that it does not necessitate the conclusion of non-design. We have two separate ways of seeing the world, that’s all.

So why, exactly, should we expect an omnipotent designer to design everything with the same scheme? Why, exactly, does that designer give us genes that we don't need? (vestigial ones as I point out) Why, exactly, did this designer go out of his or her way to make relatively intelligent people conclude that no such design exists or is necessary?

All it would take is a few organisms here or there using differenent biochemical schemes to make it obvious. If chimps used a different protein chirality than humans, evolution makes no sense. If cows used PTP rather than ATP, Darwin would obviously be wrong.  

 

Quote:
This phenomenon is not in any way an argument against design. As for inefficiencies and flaws, I have already touched upon. You would have to be specific for us to have any sort of meaningful debate.

I've not really set out to argue against design. The concept is completely ad hoc and has no science to support it - that is unless you can answer some of the points I made above.

And for the record, I was unaware we were debating.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

 As simply as possible, retroviruses do typicllaly search out specific codon sequences, but many identical sequences occur in everyone's genome. 

HIV, for example, will not insert itself into the exact same position on every human it infects.

This is why I said earlier that retrogene issertion is somewhat random and that finding endogenous retrogenes at the exact same chromosmal marker in two different species is not something we should expect to occur by chance. 

OK this is very good.  But do we have any probability statistics?  What is the length of the sequence that the virus recognises?  How common is this sequence in primate genomes?  How many times might we expect the sequence to appear in a genome of a given length. 

I don't have the numbers at hand, I did know ball park figures at one time, but will endeavor to find such. 

 

Quote:
If the insertion of viral DNA is random (although of course it does recognise a specific sequence) then I will admit you have a case if the calculations support it.  

Look, I think you forget that we're talking about ENOGENOUS retrogenes here.

It is pretty rare that a retrovirus infects a gamete, and that gamete gets fertilized. It is relatively random where that virus inserts itself.

So we have the odds that the gene infected the gamete, the crazier odds that it infected the EXACT same locus in both species.

Couple to this the fact that we see the many of the same mutations in the EVR in both species, but we ALSO see a few differences. Microsatellite data and mutational clocks give us insight into when, genetically speaking, the lines of humans and chimps split - this clock agrees with the fossil record.

Couple to that, the fact that we DON'T see these EVRs in other animals - we ONLY see them in primates. It would make NO sense, evolutionarily speaking, to see such an insertion in a cow or a pig. So, is there a REASON the desinger didn't put that insertion in pigs or cows? Humans and chimps are further down the evolutionary line. We can explain it evolutionarily - the primate line came after the phylogenetic tree diverged between bovines and pigs and the common ancestor of humans and chimps that passed these EVRs onto us.

To illustrate this point, let's also not forget that there are EVR's in other species as well. The fossil record shows that small cats like the bobcat, lynx, housecat, etc. came AFTER big cats like lions and tigers. The small cats share an EVR not found in the big cats. This makes PERFECT sense, if the opposite were true, we'd have a serious problem.

 

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Yellow No.5 Much of your

Yellow No.5

Much of your last post to me asks the question of why would certain features be incorporated or not incorporated in a designed life scheme. Some of these points I think are entirely reasonable. I have asked myself the question of why life forms on earth do not have ‘common ancestor conclusion proof’ features such as some of those that you mentioned. Any answer I give would be theological in nature and so probably unsatisfactory for you for this reason alone. It is obvious that I infer design from the facts, that I conclude philosophically that the intelligence behind life is supernatural, and beyond that I have certain notions about the nature of the supernatural. To a materialist such as yourself I can only really offer evidence for design, rather than give what would in all likelihood be unconvincing arguments about the nature of God and why he does what he does. I say evidence and by that I mean impartial facts that I use in support of the design model. You may take the same facts but interpret them differently and this may provide evidence for your model. This seems to be the case with your question to creationists regarding the similarity of life. To you this is evidence for a natural common ancestor. To me this is evidence to enable the design inference. Why? Well, because there is coherency here that I don’t think one would find had life-forms evolved in an undirected way. Couple this together for example with the fact that living systems have checking apparatus to minimise error in genetic replication. If this evolved it would have to have done so virtually as soon as life got started. To me this is a feature that is evidence for my point of view. Whatever discrepancies there are in the design model (there are these in the naturalist model too) it is simply a case of weighing the evidence.

I must disagree with you still about vestigial organs. These things do not imply common ancestry. Or in other words they are not vestigial. They are no different in kind than giantism, dwarfism or fruit-flies with two sets of wings. For example, take hair growth again. The genes for healthy people might be as follows (this is just an illustration); Gene sequence 1 - Grow hair follicles. Gene sequence 2; Stop. The genes in poorly people might be as follows. Gene sequence 1 - Grow hair follicles. Gene sequence 2; disabled so hair keeps growing. In other hairy primates a healthy gene sequence might be Gene sequence1 - Grow hair follicles; This then repeats as planned until; Gene sequence 2 - Stop. This then is not vestigial, just a disability.

Your comment about ID having no science to support it I would disagree with. Design philosophy is not scientific though I would agree with that. There is a difference between a theory using science as evidence and the theory itself being scientific. But I will say this. Darwinism is in the same boat. The evidence that Darwinism mostly relies on is not scientific. The scientific evidence for evolution is rarely contested by design philosophy, ID incorporates the same science into its own model.

I would call this a debate of sorts, albeit a very informal one. I was not being presumptuous.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It is pretty rare

Quote:
It is pretty rare that a retrovirus infects a gamete, and that gamete gets fertilized. It is relatively random where that virus inserts itself.

So we have the odds that the gene infected the gamete, the crazier odds that it infected the EXACT same locus in both species.

I take your point here.  But I would need a more complete understanding of the facts and figures.  I am not asking you to provide me with this necessarily but if you do happen upon them in the near future then I will be interested.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Yellow No.5

Much of your last post to me asks the question of why would certain features be incorporated or not incorporated in a designed life scheme.

Is there a reason you respond heere enmasse? I think there is. You don't like the questions I asked, do you? Up until now, you've quoted my words and responded point by point. I find it telling that you've suddenly changed your mode of response. 

Quote:
Some of these points I think are entirely reasonable. I have asked myself the question of why life forms on earth do not have ‘common ancestor conclusion proof’ features such as some of those that you mentioned. Any answer I give would be theological in nature and so probably unsatisfactory for you for this reason alone.

Not true. All you need to do is show me why it is more likely a supernatural entity created what we observed, and support it with evidence. You haven't - in fact, you really haven't even tried to do that. I go where the evidence takes me. Make your case. I DO admit bias, but only an idiot fails to change their mind in the face of solid evidence.

Quote:
It is obvious that I infer design from the facts, that I conclude philosophically that the intelligence behind life is supernatural, and beyond that I have certain notions about the nature of the supernatural. To a materialist such as yourself I can only really offer evidence for design, rather than give what would in all likelihood be unconvincing arguments about the nature of God and why he does what he does.

You HAVEN'T offered evidence for design. You've only tried to chop down a small portion of the evidence for evolution. Tearing down evolution does not make your position valid or true by default.

 

Quote:
I say evidence and by that I mean impartial facts that I use in support of the design model.

Still waiting for those. Give me the evidence as to the existence of a creator, then give me evidence or a reason as to why said creator would choose ATP as the energy source for biological processes. Tell me why God made it all L chirality.

 

Quote:
Quote:
You may take the same facts but interpret them differently and this may provide evidence for your model. This seems to be the case with your question to creationists regarding the similarity of life. To you this is evidence for a natural common ancestor.

It is evidence for such, if you're honest, you'll say so and and simply disagree with the conclusions, because they conflict with your religious sentiments. It is evidence though, even die hard creationists agree with at least that. 

 

Quote:
To me this is evidence to enable the design inference. Why? Well, because there is coherency here that I don’t think one would find had life-forms evolved in an undirected way.

Why? Spell it out. 

 

Quote:
Couple this together for example with the fact that living systems have checking apparatus to minimise error in genetic replication. If this evolved it would have to have done so virtually as soon as life got started.

Why? To the contrary, most biologist think mutational rates were quite higher in the the very distant past. At any rate, all we are dealing with is fecundity, fidelity and production rate. 

 

Quote:
To me this is a feature that is evidence for my point of view. Whatever discrepancies there are in the design model (there are these in the naturalist model too) it is simply a case of weighing the evidence.

 Where, exactly, did you present evidence?

Quote:
I must disagree with you still about vestigial organs.

I wonder why?

Quote:
These things do not imply common ancestry.

They may or may not. Vestigial structures are actually just a small part of  the case for evolution. It's kind of hard for you to pass judgement, when you don't seem to understand what a vestige is or what it implies.

Quote:
in other words they are not vestigial.

According to what definition? According to what scientific assessment? 

Quote:
They are no different in kind than giantism, dwarfism or fruit-flies with two sets of wings.

Yes, they are. Down's syndrome is not a vestige, it's a genetic disease. Growing a fucking tail is more than a simple mutation, as I explained above. 

Quote:
For example, take hair growth again. The genes for healthy people might be as follows (this is just an illustration); Gene sequence 1 - Grow hair follicles. Gene sequence 2; Stop. The genes in poorly people might be as follows. Gene sequence 1 - Grow hair follicles. Gene sequence 2; disabled so hair keeps growing. In other hairy primates a healthy gene sequence might be Gene sequence1 - Grow hair follicles; This then repeats as planned until; Gene sequence 2 - Stop. This then is not vestigial, just a disability.

Read what I've been posting for a while now. You don't even understand what a vestige is. Perhaps this is the reason you failed to respond to the questions in my previous post? My patience has limits. 

Quote:
Your comment about ID having no science to support it I would disagree with. Design philosophy is not scientific though I would agree with that. There is a difference between a theory using science as evidence and the theory itself being scientific. But I will say this. Darwinism is in the same boat. The evidence that Darwinism mostly relies on is not scientific.

Right, because fossils, genetics and shit like that clearly isn't empirical :roll: 

Quote:
The scientific evidence for evolution is rarely contested by design philosophy, ID incorporates the same science into its own model.

Then show me the science. 

Quote:
I would call this a debate of sorts, albeit a very informal one. I was not being presumptuous.

Call it what you wish, I call it tedious. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Quote:
It is pretty rare that a retrovirus infects a gamete, and that gamete gets fertilized. It is relatively random where that virus inserts itself.

So we have the odds that the gene infected the gamete, the crazier odds that it infected the EXACT same locus in both species.

I take your point here. But I would need a more complete understanding of the facts and figures. I am not asking you to provide me with this necessarily but if you do happen upon them in the near future then I will be interested.

I'm wondering what more you need. I've pointed out to you two unlikely things that would have to happen and additionally pointed out points of fact about mutational data between the EVRs in the related species. You would need at least (A x A x A x A^Y)^7+ to be a reasonable number for what you wish to be true.

For your contention to be valid, the retrovirus would have to infect the gametes of both chimps and humans at the same time. The virus would  have to insert itself at the exact same locus in both the chimp and human gametes. Both of the infected gametes would need to be fertilized. The mutation rates and specific mutations of both of the ancestral populations must have been almost identical. And this MUST have happened at LEAST seven times over.

Unless A=1 in the above, I think you have problems. 

But sure, a common designer inserting such junk DNA for no apparant reason is certainly a more plausible explaination. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Is there a reason

Quote:
Is there a reason you respond heere enmasse? I think there is. You don't like the questions I asked, do you? Up until now, you've quoted my words and responded point by point. I find it telling that you've suddenly changed your mode of response.

Don’t read too much into it Yellow No.5. I changed my response because your previous post seemed to be a jumble of comments such as “Why should we expect a designer to limit themselves in such a manner?” What possible answer could I give that would satisfy. It would be nothing but pointless musing.

Quote:
Not true. All you need to do is show me why it is more likely a supernatural entity created what we observed, and support it with evidence. You haven't - in fact, you really haven't even tried to do that. I go where the evidence takes me. Make your case. I DO admit bias, but only an idiot fails to change their mind in the face of solid evidence.

I would not tend to argue for a supernatural entity from the empirical facts. This is a philosophical matter upon a reasonable design inference. And we have that. And anyway, to what extent is biochemical uniformity sufficient evidence for common descent. It is pokey evidence as it is for design, almost to the point of it being a pointless discussion. Its almost like saying that the fact that chimps look similar to humans is decent evidence, it isn’t. Your response on this matter is somewhat hypocritical.

Quote:
You HAVEN'T offered evidence for design. You've only tried to chop down a small portion of the evidence for evolution. Tearing down evolution does not make your position valid or true by default.

What I have done in response to your original post on this thread is give a design theory response to your supposed problems. I have simply stated why they are not in anyway problematic for design theory. (The retroviral issue is a slightly different matter that we are discussing separately). I would disagree in part to the point about ‘true by default’. It is not about being able to say that design is true if evolution is torn down. It’s about saying that the design inference is valid if naturalism can be reasonably ruled out. (in other words one cannot assume design except by ruling out chance and nature). Darwinism has precious little scientific evidence. Just historical evidence shoe-horned into a model because no other is tolerable, and a great deal of materialist mythology which has no baring on reality outside the minds of their advocates. Nothing tangible at all in fact, and this is especially embarrassing for a theory which is ‘as true as the fact that the earth goes round the sun’ according to Dawkins.

Quote:
Still waiting for those. Give me the evidence as to the existence of a creator, then give me evidence or a reason as to why said creator would choose ATP as the energy source for biological processes. Tell me why God made it all L chirality.

More to the point, tell me why L chirality demonstrates natural origin.

Quote:
It is evidence for such, if you're honest, you'll say so and and simply disagree with the conclusions, because they conflict with your religious sentiments. It is evidence though, even die hard creationists agree with at least that.

Oh absolutely! It can be taken as evidence. As can the similarity of form between humans and chimps and their similarity of genome. But like I said these things don’t really demonstrate anything of substance do they?

Quote:
Why? To the contrary, most biologist think mutational rates were quite higher in the the very distant past. At any rate, all we are dealing with is fecundity, fidelity and production rate.

What were you lecturing me about regarding admitting evidence for the other side? If you can’t at least admit that a common genetic checking mechanism shared by life on earth allows one to infer design and that it is a thorn for Darwinist theory thn you are not as open as you say you are.

Quote:
They may or may not. Vestigial structures are actually just a small part of the case for evolution. It's kind of hard for you to pass judgement, when you don't seem to understand what a vestige is or what it implies.

I think you are commenting here in my post when I said that evolutionists would have something to shout about if a completely new organ were to manifest itself rather than traits associated with lower life forms appearing on a higher. I know this is impossible, I’m not an evolutionist. I am also saying that the word vestigial is misleading because the traits are not attributable to old genes but damaged genomes. But at least you say that this phenomenon might not be attributable to common descent.

Quote:
Right, because fossils, genetics and shit like that clearly isn't empirical :roll:

Oh its empirical alright, as is historical research, but that doesn’t make it scientific

Quote:
Call it what you wish, I call it tedious.

Why bother to write anything then.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
newmodeltheist wrote:

Quote:
It is pretty rare that a retrovirus infects a gamete, and that gamete gets fertilized. It is relatively random where that virus inserts itself.

So we have the odds that the gene infected the gamete, the crazier odds that it infected the EXACT same locus in both species.

I take your point here. But I would need a more complete understanding of the facts and figures. I am not asking you to provide me with this necessarily but if you do happen upon them in the near future then I will be interested.

I'm wondering what more you need. I've pointed out to you two unlikely things that would have to happen and additionally pointed out points of fact about mutational data between the EVRs in the related species. You would need at least (A x A x A x A^Y)^7+ to be a reasonable number for what you wish to be true.

For your contention to be valid, the retrovirus would have to infect the gametes of both chimps and humans at the same time. The virus would  have to insert itself at the exact same locus in both the chimp and human gametes. Both of the infected gametes would need to be fertilized. The mutation rates and specific mutations of both of the ancestral populations must have been almost identical. And this MUST have happened at LEAST seven times over.

Unless A=1 in the above, I think you have problems. 

But sure, a common designer inserting such junk DNA for no apparant reason is certainly a more plausible explaination. 

I'll base my conclusions on the actual facts and figures if you don't mind.


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:
I must disagree with you still about vestigial organs. These things do not imply common ancestry. Or in other words they are not vestigial.

As someone who is lacking the knowledge on these subjects but would like to learn more, I've enjoyed reading this debate - mostly because I enjoy learning more about the proofs and arguments for the evolutionary process, not because I like listening to people whining that it's not convincing enough for them.

Why are things like the coccyx and appendix are not vestigial organs? What would imply common ancestry to you that you find missing? It seems like all you're doing is saying 'not good enough'. What would convince you that you haven't yet seen? Or are you simply made up on your decision and refuse to let any evidence or argument satisfy you? What would creationists need to convince them? I'm not trying to attack annyone - I really want to know what you would need!

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: As someone who is

Quote:
As someone who is lacking the knowledge on these subjects but would like to learn more, I've enjoyed reading this debate - mostly because I enjoy learning more about the proofs and arguments for the evolutionary process, not because I like listening to people whining that it's not convincing enough for them.

The whining comes from the fact that unsubstatiated naturalist claims are treated like holy gospel, called scientific, and are used to declare that evolution is fact and if anyone disputes this then they are heretical.  It isn't that there isn't enough evidence for evolution, its the fact that there is no evidence for evolution outside of bias interpretation.

Quote:
Why are things like the coccyx and appendix are not vestigial organs? What would imply common ancestry to you that you find missing? It seems like all you're doing is saying 'not good enough'. What would convince you that you haven't yet seen? Or are you simply made up on your decision and refuse to let any evidence or argument satisfy you? What would creationists need to convince them? I'm not trying to attack annyone - I really want to know what you would need!

 I could just as easily ask why so-called 'vestigial organs' are evidence for common ancestry.  It is worth remembering here that of many organs previously thought to be 'vestigial', virtually all are shown to have some function at some point in our life cycle.  The whole 'vestigial' argument is nothing but viewing biology through the evolutionary goggles.  The appendix incidentally performs an immune function, I don't have the precise details to hand, nor about the coccyx, sorry.

What would make me take evolutionary theory seriously?  If the signatures of the same random mutations were routinely found in significantly different species.   Not functional genes, but real and agreed random mutation signatures.  And varying species that are not reasonably sharing common ancestors.  In other words, two verieties of fairly similar bird or fish, no good.  But between for instance, canines and cats, or any other agreed upon difference that would require new genetic information to evolve the forms from a common ancestor.

You suggest that I might have a blinkered view of the world.  This may well be true but so have naturalists.  They have a passionate world-view which they are defending.  Evolution screams at them when they look at fossils.  Not because the fossils say so mind, but because to them it all makes sense to their naturalist eyes.


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
What you would consider

What you would consider proof I have no understanding of, as I lack any real in-depth knowledge of this subject.

The only statement you made which I could reply to is your comment on 'naturalists': Why do you suppose that such an overwhelming majority of the scientific community hears evolution screaming at them from the fossil record, and only a tiny number do not? Why is this tiny minority almost exclusively religious? There are still people out there, living in developed countries, who truly and honestly believe with all their heart that the Earth is flat because it is stated so in the Bible and that NASA fakes information about it being spherical etc. You and I both (hopefully) think they are crazy to believe such a thing. Why would they, in the face of so much evidence, which is agreed upon by such an overwhelming number of diverse and varied educated people to prove otherwise? Creationism falls in *exactly* this same category. You do have a blinkered view of the world - if you didn't you would see that all of the presented evidence taken together makes an extraordinarily convincing argument that all life on our planet has become what it is by means of the processes of evolution. 

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Rave wrote: What you would

Rave wrote:

What you would consider proof I have no understanding of, as I lack any real in-depth knowledge of this subject.

The only statement you made which I could reply to is your comment on 'naturalists': Why do you suppose that such an overwhelming majority of the scientific community hears evolution screaming at them from the fossil record, and only a tiny number do not? Why is this tiny minority almost exclusively religious? There are still people out there, living in developed countries, who truly and honestly believe with all their heart that the Earth is flat because it is stated so in the Bible and that NASA fakes information about it being spherical etc. You and I both (hopefully) think they are crazy to believe such a thing. Why would they, in the face of so much evidence, which is agreed upon by such an overwhelming number of diverse and varied educated people to prove otherwise? Creationism falls in *exactly* this same category. You do have a blinkered view of the world - if you didn't you would see that all of the presented evidence taken together makes an extraordinarily convincing argument that all life on our planet has become what it is by means of the processes of evolution. 

Forget the bible, the bible has got nothing to do with anything on this matter.  My theistic world-view merely equips me with the necessary ability to be able to judge evolution objectively.  Those without a theistic world-view are bound to accept it even in light of the impossible.   Science thrives on opposing models.  Evolution cannot stand evaluating the facts objectively because it is not science but naturalist mythology.  All regimes that are close to falling behave this way.  ID is a serious argument that has purposefully divorced itselve from any religious scripture.  The arguments it presents are reasonable and sound, even if one doesn't agree with design one can admit that.  Evolutionism however, due to its woeful lack of scientific footing, cannot tolerate dissent.  As you probably know, to dissent is tantamount to professional suicide, like holocaust revisionism or whatever.   As for extrordinarily convincing, this would only apply to hard-core atheists and those who don't truely understand what an amazing leap of faith evolution represents.  Hence the only argument Dawkins can come up with is essentially 'well at least its more realistic than the idea of God'.  This is just anti-religious dogma.  What I continue to find so appalling is that they still have the audacity to call it science.  I'd have more respect for them if they at least admitted that it isn't.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Yellow No.5

Much of your last post to me asks the question of why would certain features be incorporated or not incorporated in a designed life scheme. Some of these points I think are entirely reasonable. I have asked myself the question of why life forms on earth do not have ‘common ancestor conclusion proof’ features such as some of those that you mentioned. Any answer I give would be theological in nature and so probably unsatisfactory for you for this reason alone.

So you admit such positions have no basis in science? 

Quote:
It is obvious that I infer design from the facts, that I conclude philosophically that the intelligence behind life is supernatural, and beyond that I have certain notions about the nature of the supernatural. To a materialist such as yourself I can only really offer evidence for design, rather than give what would in all likelihood be unconvincing arguments about the nature of God and why he does what he does.

And as I asked, give me solid evidence for design. Of course your arguments will be unconvincing if you cannot support them empirically.  

Quote:
I say evidence and by that I mean impartial facts that I use in support of the design model.

Like? 

Quote:
You may take the same facts but interpret them differently and this may provide evidence for your model. This seems to be the case with your question to creationists regarding the similarity of life. To you this is evidence for a natural common ancestor. To me this is evidence to enable the design inference. Why? Well, because there is coherency here that I don’t think one would find had life-forms evolved in an undirected way.

And why, EXACTLY, should we not anticipate such a thing? You've done nothing but simply say "god did it". You've not said, and admit you cannot say WHY god did it, how god did it, what god did it, etc. Your explaination does NOTHING for us. If everything is designed, why should we expect bacteria and viruses to gain resistane to antibotics and vaccines? If everything is designed, why can't we trust that the pesticide that kills bollweavels now will kill them twenty years from now? 

 

Quote:
Couple this together for example with the fact that living systems have checking apparatus to minimise error in genetic replication. If this evolved it would have to have done so virtually as soon as life got started. To me this is a feature that is evidence for my point of view. Whatever discrepancies there are in the design model (there are these in the naturalist model too) it is simply a case of weighing the evidence.

 That's no point at all. If anything, its a point in my favor. There IS proofreading software in the genome, so to speak, but it does NOT prevent mutation, and such correction devices were NOT incorporated into early life. I honestly fail to see your point, especially as related to the subject we are discussing.

Quote:
I must disagree with you still about vestigial organs.

IOW, you refuse to accept the definition that is commononly accepted.  

Quote:
These things do not imply common ancestry. Or in other words they are not vestigial. They are no different in kind than giantism, dwarfism or fruit-flies with two sets of wings.

Yes, they DO imply ancestry, Yes they ARE different than abnormalities that cause Down's or gigantis, and yes they are different than fruit flies having extra wings.

I've explained this to you, you've simply failed to address it, you simply restate your point. The fact is, you don't or won't accept the definition of vestige and what such a thing actually implies.

Take everything I told you as a 50/50 shot. The virus infecting the gamete, the gamete making a viable offspring, the infection occuring at the exact same spot, the infection not killing or preventing the host from reproducing. Take them all as 50/50 - that would be (.5*.5*.5*.5)^7 = a  0.0000037256% chance. The odds of each step are lower than 50/50. These are the BEST odds you can have.

Quote:
For example, take hair growth again. The genes for healthy people might be as follows (this is just an illustration); Gene sequence 1 - Grow hair follicles. Gene sequence 2; Stop. The genes in poorly people might be as follows. Gene sequence 1 - Grow hair follicles. Gene sequence 2; disabled so hair keeps growing. In other hairy primates a healthy gene sequence might be Gene sequence1 - Grow hair follicles; This then repeats as planned until; Gene sequence 2 - Stop. This then is not vestigial, just a disability.

Your ignorance of how heredity and biology actually work is not my problem, nor is your refusal to accept the biological definition of vestige. Can YOU define vestige - I have given you that, btw? Please do. I seriously doubt it is anything one familuar with the concept would accept. 

Quote:
Your comment about ID having no science to support it I would disagree with. Design philosophy is not scientific though I would agree with that.

Then we agree. I said ID has no science behind it, and you said "Design philosophy is not scientific". You contradict yourself at every turn to hang onto an argument you've already lost. There's no shame in capitulation at this point. 

Quote:
There is a difference between a theory using science as evidence and the theory itself being scientific. But I will say this. Darwinism is in the same boat. The evidence that Darwinism mostly relies on is not scientific. The scientific evidence for evolution is rarely contested by design philosophy, ID incorporates the same science into its own model.

When in doubt, tell the other guy their ideas are just as stupid as your own, I see. Yeah, that helps us out :roll:. You've admitted you have NO scientific  evidence to support design. I've given you ONE small piece of the evidence for evolution, and you've stumbled over it. And let's make that clear, EVR's are only a SMALL piece of the evolutionary picture.  

Quote:
I would call this a debate of sorts, albeit a very informal one. I was not being presumptuous.

Debates typically involve a position and counter position. I've simply given you a small smattering of evidence for evolutionary theory. You've done backflips to reinterpret that evidence and have failed to provide any evidence in support of your position. You've hit me with nothing but a bunch of "could ofs" that have no empirical clout and which violate occam's razor. Like all creationists and IDers, you simply attempt to tear down the current science, but fail to provide something that works in its place.

And yes, I still want you to reply to the post you essentially ignored. There are at least a half dozen point there that you've utterly failed to address. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Quote:
Is there a reason you respond heere enmasse? I think there is. You don't like the questions I asked, do you? Up until now, you've quoted my words and responded point by point. I find it telling that you've suddenly changed your mode of response.

Don’t read too much into it Yellow No.5. I changed my response because your previous post seemed to be a jumble of comments such as “Why should we expect a designer to limit themselves in such a manner?” What possible answer could I give that would satisfy. It would be nothing but pointless musing.

Now I understand why you did not respond. You realize the points made were valid and had nothing to offer but unsupportable tripe.

Quote:
Quote:
Not true. All you need to do is show me why it is more likely a supernatural entity created what we observed, and support it with evidence. You haven't - in fact, you really haven't even tried to do that. I go where the evidence takes me. Make your case. I DO admit bias, but only an idiot fails to change their mind in the face of solid evidence.

I would not tend to argue for a supernatural entity from the empirical facts. This is a philosophical matter upon a reasonable design inference. And we have that.

No, we don't have that. We don't have that at all. And the fact fo the matter is, IF you are going to make this argument, you ARE trying to infer the supernatural from the natural - plain and simple. You admit you cannot do this from empirical data, so I'm wondering HOW you do it? How do you infer the supernatural from the natural? It's a very reasonable question.

Quote:
And anyway, to what extent is biochemical uniformity sufficient evidence for common descent.

I've explaine that.

Quote:
It is pokey evidence as it is for design, almost to the point of it being a pointless discussion.

Wrong. I have a scientific theory, based upon empirical observations, that explains the data that we see. A theory that helps us understand how our bodies and the diseases that afflict it work. A theory that works in practice and in principle, that gives us tangible results. You say "God did it".

Quote:
Its almost like saying that the fact that chimps look similar to humans is decent evidence, it isn’t. Your response on this matter is somewhat hypocritical.

Strawman.

Quote:
Quote:
You HAVEN'T offered evidence for design. You've only tried to chop down a small portion of the evidence for evolution. Tearing down evolution does not make your position valid or true by default.

What I have done in response to your original post on this thread is give a design theory response to your supposed problems. I have simply stated why they are not in anyway problematic for design theory. (The retroviral issue is a slightly different matter that we are discussing separately). I would disagree in part to the point about ‘true by default’. It is not about being able to say that design is true if evolution is torn down. It’s about saying that the design inference is valid if naturalism can be reasonably ruled out. (in other words one cannot assume design except by ruling out chance and nature).

Asinine. There is NO design theroy, first of all. Call it what it actually is - creationism. Your evidence, so far, has simply been what you percieve to be holes in the currently accepted scientific theory. What you have is a quibble based primarily on ignorance, at best, not a theory, not evidence, not science, not anything tangible.

Quote:
Darwinism has precious little scientific evidence.

Hilarious. You can't even deal with as single point of the voluminous data set available, and you want me to believe that there is little evidence? What the hell do you think we are discussing?

Quote:
Just historical evidence shoe-horned into a model because no other is tolerable, and a great deal of materialist mythology which has no baring on reality outside the minds of their advocates. Nothing tangible at all in fact, and this is especially embarrassing for a theory which is ‘as true as the fact that the earth goes round the sun’ according to Dawkins.

Yes, EVRs are certainly not tangible. The fossile record sure as fuck ain't tangible. Epidemiology ain't tangible. Mitochondrial DNA sequences are NOT tangible. Observed speciation events are NOT tangible. How embarrassing.

Quote:
Quote:
Still waiting for those. Give me the evidence as to the existence of a creator, then give me evidence or a reason as to why said creator would choose ATP as the energy source for biological processes. Tell me why God made it all L chirality.

More to the point, tell me why L chirality demonstrates natural origin.

Quote:
It is evidence for such, if you're honest, you'll say so and and simply disagree with the conclusions, because they conflict with your religious sentiments. It is evidence though, even die hard creationists agree with at least that.

Oh absolutely! It can be taken as evidence. As can the similarity of form between humans and chimps and their similarity of genome. But like I said these things don’t really demonstrate anything of substance do they?

Way to totally dodge my question and fail to provide evidence, yet again. This is becoming a common theme.

Quote:
Quote:
]Why? To the contrary, most biologist think mutational rates were quite higher in the the very distant past. At any rate, all we are dealing with is fecundity, fidelity and production rate.

What were you lecturing me about regarding admitting evidence for the other side? If you can’t at least admit that a common genetic checking mechanism shared by life on earth allows one to infer design and that it is a thorn for Darwinist theory thn you are not as open as you say you are.

Oh, I understand why people such as yourself say such things. I also understand why Palestinians blow themselves up on Israeli buses. I'm not drawing an anology, just saying I understand why people believe untennable things. I admit you CAN draw such a conclusion, and I also admit I think that people who draw that conclusion are typically pretty ignorant about the subject. You certainly seem to fit that bill.

Quote:
Quote:
They may or may not. Vestigial structures are actually just a small part of the case for evolution. It's kind of hard for you to pass judgement, when you don't seem to understand what a vestige is or what it implies.

I think you are commenting here in my post when I said that evolutionists would have something to shout about if a completely new organ were to manifest itself rather than traits associated with lower life forms appearing on a higher.

I already explained why this was assinine. You aske for evidence no bilogists contenst exists or could happen in a single generation. You manifest you own ignorance here in your insistence upon such.

Quote:
I know this is impossible, I’m not an evolutionist. I am also saying that the word vestigial is misleading because the traits are not attributable to old genes but damaged genomes. But at least you say that this phenomenon might not be attributable to common descent.

I admit, it MAY not be do to common descent, but the most plausible explanation IS common descent. You still don't understand what a vestige is, and I don't desire to explain it again. It MAY also be the case that gravitational theory may be wrong. Apples MAY rise from trees tomorrow, but I don't expect them to without good reason.

Quote:
Quote:
Right, because fossils, genetics and shit like that clearly isn't empirical :roll:

Oh its empirical alright, as is historical research, but that doesn’t make it scientific

Are you fucking kidding me?

Quote:
Quote:
Call it what you wish, I call it tedious.

Why bother to write anything then.

Because you took the time to write to me.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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