Posted on 06/08/2009 4:41:47 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
No it doesn't. It happened in a computing cell.
I already allowed for 1067 variants. Of course then there would be many. But I also stated that given a cytochrome C, you could easily vary it into the other forms. The hard part is explaining where the first cytochrome C came from(without using a just so story).
“And if creationists limited themselves to opposing only the the scientific discipline of biology you MIGHT actually have a valid point.” [excerpt]Nice strawman.
“The scientific theories and disciples opposed by Creationists include but are not limited to...” [excerpt]A sweeping assertion that does not necessarily reflect reality.
“Basically Creationists have staked out an intractable position on their interpretation of Genesis, and deny any and all scientific findings that contradict that time line.” [excerpt]Come to think of it, thats what the Evolutionists have done with their various sacred texts and naturalistic methodologies.
“In case you need to be informed of this, that is not science, it is apologetics.” [excerpt]I'm well aware that Evolution is mostly apologetics.
Brilliant. I am actually a bit surprised AndrewC trotted out this tired Fred Hoylesque deck of cards analogy. I remember him being a tad more sophisticated than that.
My statement was in no way a strawman. Creationists are anti-science, and it is not just biology that they oppose; but the findings of any and all disciplines that contradict their interpretation of Genesis.
Geologists knew the Earth was far older than a few thousand years long before Darwin formulated his theory. They were not “evolutionists”, but scientists and Christians who had the strength of intellect and faith to accept the truth.
They didn't have to play with the speed of light, continental movement, readioisotopic decay, etc, etc; the numbers are what they are.
Light from an object one hundred million light years away.
Science sees no reason to try to insist that it took six thousand years for the light to traverse that distance.
That is apologetics, and rather silly stuff for those weak of mind and weak of faith.
“Creationists are anti-science, and it is not just biology that they oppose; but the findings of any and all disciplines that contradict their interpretation of Genesis.” [excerpt]Wherever you've got your head parked, leave it there.
“Geologists knew the Earth was far older than a few thousand years long before Darwin formulated his theory. They were not “evolutionists”, but scientists and Christians who had the strength of intellect and faith to accept the truth.” [excerpt]What happened to ‘Creationists are anti-science’?
“They didn't have to play with the speed of light, continental movement, readioisotopic decay, etc, etc; the numbers are what they are.” [excerpt]Actually, the numbers are whatever you say they are, reality notwithstanding.
“Light from an object one hundred million light years away.” [excerpt]Are you sure you want to bring that up?
“Science sees no reason to try to insist that it took six thousand years for the light to traverse that distance.” [excerpt]Science isn't a being that would try to insist anything.
“That is apologetics, and rather silly stuff for those weak of mind and weak of faith.” [excerpt]Apologetics, weak minds, and weak faith, is something you would definitely know about.
I agree with you! Why post an interesting article and highjack it into an evolution versus ID discussion?
Since all new ideas are simply new associations of old ideas, I guess you could say the idea evolved but not in the way this thread has gone. James Burke wrote a book titled Connections that more directly speaks to this than anything written by Darwin.
Scientist and Christian does not equal creationist. I am a scientist and a Christian and I am most certainly not a creationist, neither is the Pope. Creationists are STILL anti-science.
Explaining just how much the speed of light, radioisotopic decay, etc would have to be adjusted to fit a particular interpretation of Scripture is apologetics.
Evolution is science.
It is impossible for a creature to exactly replicate its genome, thus genetic variation arises within a population.
Natural selection has an effect upon this variation such that some are favored in some circumstances and others are not, leading to differential reproductive success.
This mechanism has been seen to accomplish antibiotic resistance, heat resistance, cold resistance, starvation resistance, utilization of new metabolic resources, and new enzymatic reactions.
The science of evolution has led to the discovery of functional units of DNA that show high evolutionary conservation between species, shows the relationships between human populations, informs our search for lifesaving medicines, and the concept of selection from random generation is used to develop enzymes for industrial uses.
Creationism meanwhile is absolutely of no use to science.
“No matter your opinion of my anatomic posture, it is true that Creationists oppose not just biology, but the findings of any and all disciplines that contradict their interpretation of Genesis.” [excerpt]Well, Christ was a Creationist and he believed Genesis.
“Scientist and Christian does not equal creationist. I am a scientist and a Christian and I am most certainly not a creationist, neither is the Pope. Creationists are STILL anti-science.” [excerpt]I know you sure want them to be.
“Explaining just how much the speed of light, radioisotopic decay, etc would have to be adjusted to fit a particular interpretation of Scripture is apologetics.” [excerpt]The same applies to the fudging of same to make them fit the Evolutionary model.
“Evolution is science.” [excerpt]About as much as Global Warming is.
“It is impossible for a creature to exactly replicate its genome, thus genetic variation arises within a population.” [excerpt]Can't, or was designed not to.
“Natural selection has an effect upon this variation such that some are favored in some circumstances and others are not, leading to differential reproductive success.And in the end, you have the same kind of critter you started out with.
This mechanism has been seen to accomplish antibiotic resistance, heat resistance, cold resistance, starvation resistance, utilization of new metabolic resources, and new enzymatic reactions.” [excerpt]
“The science of evolution has led to the discovery of functional units of DNA that show high evolutionary conservation between species, shows the relationships between human populations, informs our search for lifesaving medicines, and the concept of selection from random generation is used to develop enzymes for industrial uses.” [excerpt]Interestingly, objective scientists could completely strip out Evolution and would in no way be hampered in their discoveries.
“Creationism meanwhile is absolutely of no use to science.” [excerpt]Only if you define Evolution and Science to be synonymous.
[Ich:] No evolutionary biologist proposes that the transition occurred in one day. Period. Not even close.
[AC:] I really did not think you were that dense. But you are! Get a clue on the use of words.
Oh for pete's sake. Don't attack *me* for *your* inability to state something clearly enough for me to unambiguously tell what in the hell you were trying to say. *eyeroll*
The whale was classed as a mesonychid, now it is classed as a artiodactyl closely related to the Hippo and imbedded within the artiodactyls(if you believe the genetic evidence).
First, if you wanted to talk about how they're *classified*, you should have said so at the start, you shouldn't have mumbled about what a whale "is" one day and then the next, as if you were trying to make a garbled statement about their actual nature changing. So don't whine to *me* about "getting a clue on the use of words". Follow your own advice, and learn to write more clearly.
Now let's look at the content of your "clarification". You say, "The whale was classed as a mesonychid". Gee really? When? Animals *ancestral* to whales have been classed as possible mesonychids. "The whale" however hasn't been. Again, it would help if you could actually follow your own advice about "getting a clue on the use of words", and said something that wasn't a weird mish-mash of terms which you appear to be using in non-conventional ways. Precise terminology is your friend.
You go on to say, "now it is classed as a [sic] artiodactyl closely related to the Hippo". "It" what? "The whale"? Which "the whale" are you blathering on about here? No, sorry, whales are not "classed as a [sic] artiodactyl". Whales are classed as cetaceans, not artiodactyls. Some biologists, while not disputing that whales are cetaceans, like to refer to the combined cetacean and artiodactyl group as an unranked meta-clade they call Cetartiodactyla, but that still doesn't make "the whale" an artiodactyl per se.
As opposed to your still garbled version of it, ancestral whales were at one time considered to be derived from extinct mesonychids based on the limited evidence then available, but since then a wealth of new evidence has revealed that the ancestral whales shared closer kinship to a previously unsuspected subgrouping of the artiodactyls than to the (still somewhat close) mesonychid sister group. Gosh, as more information becomes available science can further refine its understanding of the fine-scale phylogenetic tree, what a concept... I fail to see how this helps your point any. Actually, it rather torpedoes your attempted point.
AC will now begin to further pointlessly nitpick terminology and classification groupings without making a significant point in 3.. 2...
No, you are the one who said, " None of us have any idea how many “useful” proteins could potentially exist, or what the odds are of producing such a protein." That is the fallacy of argument from ignorance because you are assuming that 'useful' proteins could potentially exist when you don't know that they exist. This could also be called the fallacy of appeal to probability because you appeal to something that 'could' happen.
"Unless one can rule out all the other possibilities as invalid, one can’t say that ONE option is the only possibility - to do otherwise IS the argument from ignorance fallacy."
No, that is you committing the perfect solution fallacy by arguing that unless it has been proven that there is only one solution that you can ignore the evidence against non-teleological processes forming 'useful' proteins..
An experiment with heat resistance evolution in bacteria showed that a particular protein went through every possible single nucleotide polymorphism before arriving at the mutation that would become the predominant genome of the heat resistant population.
Every possible DNA base was changed until the “correct” configuration (for that circumstance) was derived.
If you are suggesting that the ability to change the genome by ‘searching the design space’ is “front loaded” then you are correct.
If you are suggesting that the “correct” sequence was just hiding somewhere waiting to be used “information that already existed” you are off your rocker.
The information did not already exist. The gene had to MUTATE, changing the old useless information (how to make a protein that doesn't work at high temp) into new useful information (how to make a protein that DOES work at high temp).
And your base of knowledge for your statement that Biologists could just skip evolution and not be hampered? You base this upon what exactly?
The Biologists I know and work with, those I have taught and been taught by; all seem to think that the theory is of primary importance for understanding observations and making predictions.
But maybe you think you know better than those who actually know and understand the subject?
Was he a Young Earth Creationist or did He believe in Intelligent Design?
Another question that keeps me up at night is whether Jesus accepted Einstein's general relativity or was He partial to classical Newtonian mechanics? Or perhaps He subscribed to the Aristotlean physics of His time? What does the Bible say about such matters?
It is not my fault you are a bonehead. You tend that way. Where is your cubic generator. It has been about 6 or 7 years has it not?
What do you think classes are? Something you drink out of? An artiodactyl is a class. A mesonychid is a class. A dog is a class. Fido is not a class.
| 1. | a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits; kind; sort: a class of objects used in daily living. |
Your analysis is B.S. Whales are artiodactyls in the same fashion as birds are dinosaurs. The now purported ancestor of whales was an artiodactyl. Previously that ancestor "was" a mesonychid. Without admitting those viewpoints, phylogeny is an exercise in self-delusion.
There are no living mesonychids. So any kinship of mesonychids to whales relies on the choosing of physical characteristics present on fossils and the structures of living animals. Hippos are living and the genetic characteristics which tie them to the whales are quite a bit more substantial than what somebody thinks is important about "bones".
That said, this little foray into the world of whales is your desperate attempt to hide your inability to think. You first addressed my mesonychid/artiodactyl example by stating that no one had said that it happened in a day. So it was clear to you that the mesonychid/artiodactyl classification was valid only that the change did not happen in a day(implying that it was an evolutionary tranisition not a misclassification). After I addressed your lunacy, you now step back and say my statement never meant anything in the first place. You are plainly an idiot.
Another thing, classes are things and classes can be classed. Besides that, your statements support exactly what I was pointing out in post 71 "There is always experimental evidence which can be twisted or explained away by someone ambitious enough." And, of course, my comment was not addressed to you, but you stepped in and immediately misinterpreted it. Having put your foot into your mouth, you now try to extract it by proving my point.
That is really weird. It was in the last place the bacteria looked at! And that was last possible place. /sarc
Well “the” bacteria was a population of bacteria derived from a single sequenced bacteria. The entire population went through every possible single nucleotide polymorphism, and many of the possible double or triple.
The point being that the information did not exist within the bacterial population previously, the information needed to be mutated so that it produced a more heat stable protein.
Thus genetic variation arises within a population such that selective pressure effects differential reproductive success; leading to a change in the population such that it became heat tolerant because the population was descended primarily from the bacteria that stumbled upon the “correct” mutation that produced a heat stable protein.
We all have those days... even bacteria. :-)
That is preposterous.
“No, you are the one who said, “ None of us have any idea how many “useful” proteins could potentially exist, or what the odds are of producing such a protein.” That is the fallacy of argument from ignorance because you are assuming that ‘useful’ proteins could potentially exist when you don’t know that they exist. This could also be called the fallacy of appeal to probability because you appeal to something that ‘could’ happen.”
—No, if I was saying “We don’t know, so they must exist”, that would be the argument from ignorance fallacy, but that isn’t what I’m saying. I’m arguing AGAINST the logic of: “We don’t know, so they don’t exist”. So I’m arguing AGAINST the argument of appeal to ignorance fallacy, and I’m now arguing against the shifting of burden of proof fallacy as well.
(And actually, we DO know that many different proteins are used among different life forms - every life form on the planet has different proteins. Cytochrome C was used as an example - but many life forms don’t have cytochrome C - and of those that do, there are many variations of cytochrome C).
“No, that is you committing the perfect solution fallacy by arguing that unless it has been proven that there is only one solution that you can ignore the evidence against non-teleological processes forming ‘useful’ proteins..”
—Every time I shuffle a deck of cards, the odds against any particular result are astronomical - so should I be amazed at every result? No, not unless there’s something special about that particular result - such as if it’s in some recognizable order, or if someone predicted the order ahead of time. The reason we would be amazed is because we know what the odds are against such a things occurring - in the case of dna and proteins, however, we have no idea what the odds are of something “useful” or “special” resulting. Yes, the odds against cytochrome C forming were astronomical - I doubt it will ever happen again. But that doesn’t necessarily mean we “lucky” that it occurred.
“If you are suggesting that the “correct” sequence was just hiding somewhere waiting to be used “information that already existed” you are off your rocker.When an engineer designs a refrigerator, they are using their front loaded ability to create a solution that will produce the desired result.
The information did not already exist. The gene had to MUTATE, changing the old useless information (how to make a protein that doesn't work at high temp) into new useful information (how to make a protein that DOES work at high temp).” [excerpt]
“And your base of knowledge for your statement that Biologists could just skip evolution and not be hampered? You base this upon what exactly?” [excerpt]You are always welcome to try to prove me wrong by training a group of biologists sans Evolution, and just see what they can do.
“The Biologists I know and work with, those I have taught and been taught by; all seem to think that the theory is of primary importance for understanding observations and making predictions.” [excerpt]Because that is what they've been taught to think.
“But maybe you think you know better than those who actually know and understand the subject?” [excerpt]Apparently I understand objectivity better than most Evolutionists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.