15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[AndrewC]

Just because the experiment may be replicated, the results may still be random. Many experiments on the sub-atomic level are like this. Young's two slit experiment is a good example.

Are you saying that no prediction can be made about the results? If the results are random how can this applet mean anything?

[medved]

The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion whicih operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

Careful that Reep (VadeRepo) and JennyP don't go off halfcocked and accuse you of "spamming(TM)"...

[RightWingNilla]

Nice summary of how trangenics are made, but I dont see how this supports your notion that the genome can't handle change which what I was arguing with you about in the first place. I have read hundreds of papers on "knockout" and "knock-in" mice and the results vary tremednously. Sometimes if the gene disrupts a critical developmental program, they die in the embryoinc stage. Sometimes the mice live longer. Clearly the genome can handle change.

[AndrewC]

accuse you of "spamming(TM)"...

How can that be spamming? I am quoting you. Since I don't wish to fight a battle about misquotes or out of context quotes, I used the whole enchilada. I expected to be pilloried because I did not quote another source. You know what happens when anything with ICR in its hyperlink is presented.

[RightWingNilla]

Surely you are not postulating directed transformation of one species into another are you? That is the only way that non-random evolution could arise. That would also imply almost a grand plan from the very beginning to achieve successfully a large group of transformations. I think you have not thought this out very thoroughly.

This is a concept creationists have a lot of trouble with for some reason. I will try to break it down. Mutations (the random element here) gives rise to many diverse phenotypes. The selection of those phenotypes (by nature - competition for mates, resources etc.) is NOT random. Successful genes will exapnd and further be improved upon by many,many many millions of rounds of selection. No mysterious intelligent guide required...only survival.

[medved]

One other thing I'd watch out for is that the Universal Church of Rastifari doesn't sue you for defamation (comparing Rastifari with something as stupid as evolution).

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[RightWingNilla]

That junk-DNA is not junk is beyond doubt now. What is left to learn is to discover what functions are being coded for and where they lie. This will be a tremendous task and it is just beginning.

Beyond doubt? Hardly. There may be yet be a beneficial effect of all those transposable elements/repeats (LINEs, SINEs etc.) which make up over 50% of the human genome, but Gore's assertion that they play a direct role in gene transcription is highly unlikely. The intronic enhancers Gore3000 speaks of have been known for almost 20 years and this is not a new contribution to the field of gene regulation. Also the genome is filled with a ton of leftover vestigal-junk from our past called "pseduogenes". These are genes that were presumably important during some point in our evolutionary history, yet are currently not expressed due to the accumulation of mutations (they are no longer under any selective pressure). There GLO gene (vitamin C metabolism) is an example of this. Not only that but often the same error (or very similar type of error) is seen in related species - strong evidence for a common ancestor.

The genome is chock full of similar kinds of (what can only be referred to as) "mistakes" which lead to only two interpretations....either organisms evolve, or a creator purposely designed patterns in the genome for what would appear to be evidence for evolution.

[RightWingNilla]

Thanks for agreeing with me on the above. Saving space is quite important in organisms because one must remember that the entire genome is replicated in almost every cell in the human body.

There is no evidence for any selective pressure on the amount of "extra" DNA in mammailian chromosomes. Bacteria are a different story since their survival requires rapid proliferation.

[AndrewC]

Beyond doubt? Hardly. There may be yet be a beneficial effect of all those transposable elements/repeats (LINEs, SINEs etc.) which make up over 50% of the human genome, but Gore's assertion that they play a direct role in gene transcription is highly unlikely.

...

The genome is chock full of similar kinds of (what can only be referred to as) "mistakes" which lead to only two interpretations....either organisms evolve, or a creator purposely designed patterns in the genome for what would appear to be evidence for evolution.

You are consistent. You allow as you are the sole possessor of certainty.

[RightWingNilla]

You are consistent. You allow as you are the sole possessor of certainty.

Care to propose a function for all of these pseudogenes scattered throughout the genome (mutated beyond repair in most instances)? You would make quite a splash in the field!

[Catholicguy]

LOL What a wonderful and wonderfully funny post. Packed with info and devestating critiques. Thanks for the links and the laughs. God Bless you

[Catholicguy]

Your "punctuated equilibrium theory" you worship is just a rhetorical repackaging of the hoary and discredited
"hopeful monster theory."

I think it funny,and ironic,that such an abusrd "theory" is,
in reality, just a Talisman "scientists" cling to for comfort

[Catholicguy]

"Newt Gingrich put it rather succinctly in noting that the question of whether a man views his fellow man as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of stochastic events and processes simply has to effect human relations."

When did he say this? I can't remember if it was before he dumped his ailing wife like a chunk of rancid pork or afterwards when he had taken what was, to him, a trophy wife

[Physicist]

Thanks for the kind words, friends. Such crises are unavoidable as he's in the end stages of Shy-Drager's syndrome, I'm afraid.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Are you saying that no prediction can be made about the results?

Random results do not mean that everything is unpredictable. One may have a system wherein one of outcomes has a probability of one-half but which outcome occurs at a given time is completely undetermined. One can compute means, variances, first passage times, etc.

[f.Christian]

in the world of mush-flux-trash-gumbo-jumbo-sewers...EVOLUTION!

OOBFOO

Is this how you're going to find the Creator/creation...in the world of mush-flux-trash-gumbo-jumbo-sewers---EVOLUTION!

[AndrewC]

Care to propose a function for all of these pseudogenes scattered throughout the genome (mutated beyond repair in most instances)? You would make quite a splash in the field!

I'm not into just so stories so I decline the offer for extrapolation.

But since you appear to be interested in those mysteries, I'll ask you---

Care to propose a function(s) for all of the copies of this post in all of their various forms on all of the computers between me and you?

[AndrewC]

One can compute means, variances, first passage times, etc.

Not from a single result and maintain any semblance of meaningfulness.

[jlogajan]

In the kind of thought experiment Einstein was doing to come up with his equivalence principle, the gravitational field is assumed to be like that. The inverse-square effect is too small to measure.

ha, so if I have an imprecise ruler, an inch is equivalent to two inches? :-)