Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quality Control the Gold Standard
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 121 of 238 (285464)
02-10-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 9:51 AM


Re: References
People must compare apples to apples . They may be looking at base pair errors per generation or per year or other figure.
Thats a good point. Given that the germ cells are the products of several rounds of duplication themselves then 20-30 novel mutational differences between a human child and its parents would seem reasonable, especially if your figure only encompasses substitutions as Crash points out.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 9:51 AM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 122 of 238 (285495)
02-10-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
02-10-2006 9:36 AM


Re: Getting back on topic
Actually you have rather missed the entire point.. rather badly.
The Intelligent Designer would have no limits to their creative abilities, obviously we do, and by definition could accomplish instantaneously de novo what was designed. A scientist should be wary of total intellectual committment to a theory which cannot demonstrate a scintilla of evidence for its most basic underlying premise. That is mysticism not science.
The argument is:
Reasoning from analogy properly persued is a completely legitimate exercise and has historically and contemporaniously yielded much fruit.
The fact that scientific and all human endeavor of consequence is carried out precisely as I described and never by evolutionary paradigms is beyond dispute.. please show me wrong with referenced examples.
I am unaware of any theory that that gains credible acceptance until its most fundamental premises have been adequately demonstrated so as to gain universal support (more than 50% of the American public doubts the theory of evolution) except the theory of evolution.
Keeping you on track and not wandering off into goat trails then ... Why cannot evolutionists demonstrate the fundamental premise that a seven sigma quality biologic process , namely the copying of a single human DNA molecule with only 1 error per billion base pairs copied can arise step by step from precursers of life right up to the current life we observe. Because that is precisely what you believe happened, there is no substitute construct of merit ( leaving out panspermia, space visitors, universal life force it simply must be done sir. If you want the American public including IDers and Creationists to join your camp it is all that need be done.
But then for 100 years that is precisely what has been attempted by thousands with total abject failure.
Even Einstein had to wait for the perihelion of Mercury.. the point is the reault was successful and his theory gained much more acceptance. LIkewise atomic clocks in jets trafveling the earth demonstrated time differences between clocks.
When will evolutionists live up to the scientific method and demonstrate this fundamental tenet by other than assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 9:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 12:18 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 1:26 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 123 of 238 (285517)
02-10-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
02-10-2006 9:58 AM


Re: References
If you will read carefully I said the error rate in copying once the entire human genome according to the best literature is 1 base pair error in the new copy per billion base pairs.
Admittedly there are other sources of mutation., etc. but I was talking about the inherent rate which is unavoidable according to the latest research. In Six Sigma parlance it is the "process capability" and will occur. Mutation in total includes mutagens, radiation induced, environmentals etc. and are perhaps avoidable.
My point stands. Errors due to the inherent limitations on DNA copying mechanism accuracy is 1 in 10**9 th base pairs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 9:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 12:23 PM Evopeach has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 124 of 238 (285524)
02-10-2006 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 11:25 AM


Going back off topic
This probably off-topic. But it is a reply to the originator of this topic.
The Intelligent Designer would have no limits to their creative abilities, ...
The reasonable conclusion is that the intelligent designer is just the some omnipotent God of creationism. That is, ID is merely creationism in disguise.
It seems that ID proponents can't help themselves, they just keep admitting that it is really creationism.
I am unaware of any theory that that gains credible acceptance until its most fundamental premises have been adequately demonstrated so as to gain universal support (more than 50% of the American public doubts the theory of evolution) except the theory of evolution.
More than 90% of the American public doesn't even understand relativity. And the degree of "universal support" for QM would be even less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 11:25 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 1:12 PM nwr has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 125 of 238 (285534)
02-10-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 12:08 PM


Re: References
If you will read carefully I said the error rate in copying once the entire human genome according to the best literature is 1 base pair error in the new copy per billion base pairs.
No, you said the substitution rate. As I said, there are other types of mutations that you are ignoring.
Mutation in total includes mutagens, radiation induced, environmentals etc. and are perhaps avoidable.
These were not what I was referring to. I presumed that you were aware of the other types of mutation that you were ignoring; apparently I was wrong. Other types of mutations that you have ignored include deletions, additions, duplications, and reversals.
My point stands.
Your point fails because you're only looking at substitutions and not the other kinds of mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 12:08 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 1:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 126 of 238 (285569)
02-10-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nwr
02-10-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Going back off topic
SO you think the comparision of the publics k-12 exposure to relativity theory and quantum mechanics is commensurate with their exposure to all things evolutionary.
Your post is a prime example of distortion, inuendo, half-truths and illogical argument.
The public from age 3 to 30 is pillaried with evolutionary dogma from every avenue in American life.
I guess I missed the three movies on Jarassic QUARK I II III.
If your argument is Americans are too ingorant and stupid to understand the brilliance of the evolutionary bioloby crowd.. just say it in plain english.
How about, we listened to this evolution stuff for 25 years and it doen't make common sense, fit with other requirements of scientific theory and the proponents are the most arrogant egocentric people in the country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 12:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 1:19 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 1:33 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 130 by nator, posted 02-10-2006 1:40 PM Evopeach has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 127 of 238 (285575)
02-10-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 1:12 PM


Re: Going back off topic
SO you think the comparision of the publics k-12 exposure to relativity theory and quantum mechanics is commensurate with their exposure to all things evolutionary.
I'm a product of public schools. I had learned far more about relativity and QM by the time I graduated than I had ever learned about evolution.
That's my own experience, but the fact that almost no layperson - even the intelligent ones - has any accurate knowledge about evolutionary theories and reasoning indicates to me that my experience isn't unusual.
I notice too that you offer no evidence to rebut him; you only accuse him of dishonesty. How you mistook that for a legitimate argument I cannot imagine.
The public from age 3 to 30 is pillaried with evolutionary dogma from every avenue in American life.
No, they're not. Just minsinformation about evolution. Misunderstandings about evolution. And outright fabrications of the model by creationists like yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 1:12 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 128 of 238 (285579)
02-10-2006 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 11:25 AM


Re: Getting back on topic
Evopeach writes:
The Intelligent Designer would have no limits to their creative abilities, obviously we do, and by definition could accomplish instantaneously de novo what was designed.
You're describing God again. All the rest of your argument is based upon God as a premise, and hence fails to qualify as science.
On a more general level, if you have evidence for the qualities of the ID designer, please let us know what that evidence is.
Keeping you on track and not wandering off into goat trails...
If you really think the above about the Designer is off-topic then we should drop it, but it was you that offered an argument about the Designer when I asked how you justify a comparision between human designs and genetic copying. I'm not the IDist here. I don't tend to introduce the Designer into discussions. You did that yourself.
Why cannot evolutionists demonstrate the fundamental premise that a seven sigma quality biologic process , namely the copying of a single human DNA molecule with only 1 error per billion base pairs copied can arise step by step from precursers of life right up to the current life we observe.
First, I don't think evolutionists think of the genetic copying process in terms of seven sigma. The modern synthesis of evolution and genetics into the synthetic theory of evolution was solidified long before we had any idea of genetic error rates. But you are correct to note that it is a very high level of accuracy.
But second, understanding how this came about *is* something that the origins of life community is working on. In response to your original inquiry about this I provided you an example of such an experiment in Message 87. You never replied. Why don't you take a look at it now and see what you think.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 11:25 AM Evopeach has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 129 of 238 (285587)
02-10-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 1:12 PM


Re: Going back off topic
SO you think the comparision of the publics k-12 exposure to relativity theory and quantum mechanics is commensurate with their exposure to all things evolutionary.
It might be more honest to compare exposure to relativity theory with exposure to evolutionary theory, and to compare exposure to all things evolutionary with exposure to all things relativistic.
Your post is a prime example of distortion, inuendo, half-truths and illogical argument.
Those attributes would better characterise your post. I have just pointed out some of the distortion.
The public from age 3 to 30 is pillaried with evolutionary dogma from every avenue in American life.
Most of the "evolutionary dogma" that they see comes from creationists, and is wrong.
If your argument is Americans are too ingorant and stupid to understand the brilliance of the evolutionary bioloby crowd.. just say it in plain english.
Now what was that you were saying about "distortion, inuendo, half-truths and illogical argument."
Most evolutionary scientists would prefer to spend their time in the lab doing science, where the public would rarely hear from them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 1:12 PM Evopeach has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 130 of 238 (285591)
02-10-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 1:12 PM


Re: Going back off topic
quote:
The public from age 3 to 30 is pillaried with evolutionary dogma from every avenue in American life.
That's quite a claim, there peach. Maybe you can help me realize what you seem to be so sure of, coz I sure don't see it from where I'm sitting.
Please indicate where Evolutionary Theory is crammed down people's throats constantly during the following avenues of American life:
Preschool/daycare
Church/mosque/temple attendence
Paying taxes
renting a home/paying a mortgage
getting a physical examination
attending the theater/cinema/concert
leaning to read/do mathematics
larning to operate a motor vehicle
getting married/divorced
getting a job
going on vacation
learning to a sport
getting a haircut
going shopping
watching television
surfing the internet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 1:12 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:28 PM nator has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 131 of 238 (285610)
02-10-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
02-10-2006 12:23 PM


Re: References
If you think my example of a seven sigma operation strictly observable in every science lab so equipped, the copying of the DNA molecule, is erroneous I simply refer you to the Human Genome Project material releaased.
Changes in the DNA code are called mutations. Repair enzymes repair most of the errors that occur in DNA.
http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/...%20Lectures/DNA/dna.htm
Errors During DNA Replication
One in 100,000 bases are mismatched.
Several enzymes including DNA polymerase proofread and remove mismatched bases. Mismatching causes replication to pause while the mismatch is removed and replaced with the correct nucleotide.
After proofreading, the error rate is 1 in 1 billion base pairs.
If you think 1 in a billion is not seven sigma for a normal distribution then thats your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 12:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 1:58 PM Evopeach has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 238 (285614)
02-10-2006 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 1:56 PM


Re: References
After proofreading, the error rate is 1 in 1 billion base pairs.
Just for substitutions, though. And actually the accurate figure is something like 3.2 substitutions for mammalian nuclear DNA. It goes up and down for other species.
And that still doesn't address other mutations, like duplications and reversals. Just stop me now if you don't understand what I'm talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 1:56 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 133 of 238 (285620)
02-10-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
02-10-2006 1:19 PM


Re: Going back off topic
PLease dont post to me anymore.. I have no interest in discussing with totally intellectually dishonest people.
There are maybe 1% of all high schools who broach the subject of QM or relativity ....yet every book store has books about dinos and their ages and cave men starting with pre-school.
Every HS has an evolutionary based Bioloy class (es).
You are a very dishonest person.. period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 1:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 134 of 238 (285622)
02-10-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by crashfrog
02-10-2006 1:58 PM


Re: References
You are not paying attention.
I agree the overall mutation rate is higher when every source is considered.
That does not change the fact that the DNA molecule is routinely replicated with only three base pair errors per billion.
That is mathmatically a seven sigma level of accuracy.
Its not debateable.. its a 100% true fact... period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 2:12 PM Evopeach has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 135 of 238 (285626)
02-10-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 2:06 PM


Re: References
You are not paying attention.
No, you're not paying attention. I've told you twice now that I'm not talking about environmental mutagens and UV rays and the like; I'm telling you that there's more than one kind of mutation, and the data that you're looking at doesn't include all of them. It just looks at substitutions, one of the basic mutations commonly examined in molecular phylogenetics.
That does not change the fact that the DNA molecule is routinely replicated with only three base pair errors per billion.
I've told you three times now - there's more errors than that, even, because you're looking only at substitutions and not other mutations. You're reading tables that say "substitutions" and assuming that that's the total number of mutations that happens.
It isn't. You're looking at sources designed for phylogenetics instruction, because phylogeneticists begin by considering only substitutions. But more mutations happen than just substitutions, just from the regular copying process alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:06 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024