|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Should I cross post my two previous messages in "How do you define the word Evolution?" or is that frowned on?
I think they belong in that forum more so than this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CRR writes: Does the theory of evolution require a gain of copious quantities of genetic information? No, of course not.
CRR writes: Both versions believe that the all life on Earth is ascended from primitive ancestors. Darwin lacked the evidence to definitely say only one ancestor but he made it clear that it was his belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. Most proponents of the modern version, on the evidence of DNA, definitely conclude there was a Last Universal Common Ancestor. Again, simply not true. The theory of evolution says nothing about either the origin of life or any directionality.
CRR writes: In both versions this common ancestor is envisaged as some simple life form of minimal complexity. Again, simply not true. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about any common ancestor. However, REALITY and the evidence does show that the earliest life forms were simple. When life is a single cell critter almost any change MUST be towards greater complexity. Once something more complex than a single cell exists the Theory of Evolution explains how it could evolve to be a single cell critter yet again. When you begin with three definite falsehoods it most likely that any conclusion you can draw based on those misunderstandings will also be false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
The population contained one gene and now there are two genes. You don't seem to understand what is actually happening to the gene, at least in the case of lactase. There is no new gene. At best there is a new allele of the gene. Even in the case of Nylonase it is not as once proposed a new gene created by a frameshift mutation but only a duplication and fine tuning of an existing gene that already had some activity on nylon.
How is it [adult lactose detrimental] detrimental [where there is n access to dairy products]? There is a metabolic cost of maintaining production of an enzyme that is no longer being used. That's why it is normal for lactase production to be switched off after weaning.
The theory of evolution does not propose that people evolved from single celled organisms. Yes it does, as you showed in the next paragraph. It proposes that man evolved from microbes through a long chain of intermediates.
The Discovery Institute is a creationist organization... No it's not. At best you could characterise it as being theistic evolutionist but the people at Biologos who claim to be theistic evolutionists would probably object to that. DI has many "faiths" in its following including agnostics.
...that performs no scientific research. Again false, as you can confirm by clicking the Research tab on Center for Science and Culture | Discovery Institute#The Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab is a group of STEM (science/technology/engineer/math) professionals who focus on the role of information in the modeling and analysis of evolutionary processes and related phenomena. They also provide research grants and fellowships and publish in peer reviewed scientific publications as well as publishing Bio-Complexity journal. I understand that you might have swallowed some propaganda against DI but I trust that now you know better you will desist from spreading that propaganda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
According to the time stamps it took you nine minutes to read my post and formulate and type your reply. With such haste I can understand why you got it so wrong. I suggest you try again after some more thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
No matter how long I think about your falsehoods they never change to being true.
The Theory of Evolution does not require a gain of information or complexity or sauerkraut.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Does the theory of evolution require a gain of copious quantities of genetic information? No. Information is undefined and has no metric to measure whether it is there or not, nor compare from one species to another, therefore it can have no need to be incorporated into any scientific field, to say nothing of theory. "Information" is useless babble to science. Science operates on what can be measured, what can be quantified and compared empirically.
Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution; Has a direction. It is attempting to explain microbes to man, not the reverse Requires the development of multicellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and complex body plans This development requires the production of new genes and genetic information; in copious quantities Nope. These are invalid conclusion reached on the basis of a false premise. The topic is debunking selection not fantasies about made-up parameters Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Should I cross post my two previous messages in "How do you define the word Evolution?" or is that frowned on? I think they belong in that forum more so than this one. If it were me, I would start a whole new thread on the topic of information. Present what you think it is and how it can be measured, and then use these two previous posts as arguments based on the presentation to show how it develops a deeper understanding of the parameter... Good luck. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Here's their tax form. Detect any creationist activities there?
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/...911521697_201512_990.pdf (Note: intelligent design has been determined to be creationism in a federal district court.) Edited by Coyote, : SpellingReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
The population contained one gene and now there are two genes.
You don't seem to understand what is actually happening to the gene, at least in the case of lactase. There is no new gene. At best there is a new allele of the gene. Yeah and now there twice as many alleles of that gene as there were before. This has increased the genome of the population. This is one of the ways that variation is increased. This is one of the ways that information, that creationist are so fixated on, increases.
Even in the case of Nylonase it is not as once proposed a new gene created by a frameshift mutation but only a duplication and fine tuning of an existing gene that already had some activity on nylon. Wow, you are starting to get it. This is one of the well documented ways that new genes are created. This increases the size of the genome of a population. And this sort of mutation is happening to multiple genes in every generation in many individuals and it adds a tremendous amount of new variation over time.
How is it [adult lactose detrimental] detrimental [where there is n access to dairy products]? There is a metabolic cost of maintaining production of an enzyme that is no longer being used. That's why it is normal for lactase production to be switched off after weaning. Really? My understanding is that lactase is not produced until lactose presence triggers a regulatory switch.
The theory of evolution does not propose that people evolved from single celled organisms. Yes it does, as you showed in the next paragraph. It proposes that man evolved from microbes through a long chain of intermediates. Yeah, an incredibly long chain of intermediaries and it took a billion years or more. Leaving all that out of the statement is a classic creationist ploy to try to make the evolution of all life sound as simple minded as the magic poof.
The Discovery Institute is a creationist organization... No it's not. At best you could characterise it as being theistic evolutionist but the people at Biologos who claim to be theistic evolutionists would probably object to that. DI has many "faiths" in its following including agnostics. They may have conned you, but if they were doing science they would have convinced the rest of us already.
...that performs no scientific research. Again false, as you can confirm by clicking the Research tab on Center for Science and Culture | Discovery Institute#The Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab is a group of STEM (science/technology/engineer/math) professionals who focus on the role of information in the modeling and analysis of evolutionary processes and related phenomena. Wowee. I have read some of their blogs.
They also provide research grants and fellowships and publish in peer reviewed scientific publications as well as publishing Bio-Complexity journal. That sounds wonderful. Of course you have to sign a contract that you accept the 'Wedge Document", before you get a grant or a fellowship. Can you show us some papers by Discovery Institute members, associates, whatever, about Discovery Institutes research published in peer reviewed journals? Publishing your own journal (Bio-Complexity) has as much scientific credibility as publishing a news letter.
I understand that you might have swallowed some propaganda against DI but I trust that now you know better you will desist from spreading that propaganda. And I understand that you might have swallowed some propaganda from DI and I don't expect you to ever realize what happened. DI showed the whole world what they were about during the Dover Trial. I have read their propaganda and it convinced me that they are just creationists who have tried to (unsuccessfully) re-brand themselves.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Where in that 49 pages does it say they are a creationist organisation?
And what Federal Court are you referring to? Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Where in that 49 pages does it say they are a creationist organisation? From page 2, describing the Center for Science and Culture (about 60% of their budget): THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND CULTURE PROMOTES RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN THE CENTER'S ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THE SPONSORSHIP OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND WRITING, THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, ARTICLES, REPORTS, AND CURRICULA, THE ORGANIZING OF SEMINARS AND CONFERENCES, AND THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF EDUCATIONAL WEBSITES, PODCASTS, AND VIDEOS See also the Wedge Strategy: The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education
And what Federal Court are you referring to? From Wiki: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket No. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.[1] In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book.[2] The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial,[3][4] a name which deliberately recalls the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics. Another tidbit: Discovery Institute An Insider’s Tale Discovery Institute — An Insider’s Tale | The Sensuous CurmudgeonReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
CRR: Where in that 49 pages does it say they are a creationist organisation? Coyote: From page 2, describing the Center for Science and Culture (about 60% of their budget): THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND CULTURE PROMOTES RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN THE CENTER'S ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THE SPONSORSHIP OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND WRITING, THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, ARTICLES, REPORTS, AND CURRICULA, THE ORGANIZING OF SEMINARS AND CONFERENCES, AND THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF EDUCATIONAL WEBSITES, PODCASTS, AND VIDEOS Maybe I need my eyes checked but where in that quote does it say creation or any derivative of that word? Perhaps you could tell me exactly what you think a Creationist believes? Do they, for instance believe that the Earth is billions of years old? or only thousands of years old? That life began as microbial life form that evolved into Humans and other complex organisms, or that God created each Kind separately?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CRR writes: The Discovery Institute is a creationist organization...No it's not. At best you could characterise it as being theistic evolutionist but the people at Biologos who claim to be theistic evolutionists would probably object to that. DI has many "faiths" in its following including agnostics. quote: The Wedge Document | National Center for Science EducationJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CRR writes: Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution;Has a direction. It is attempting to explain microbes to man, not the reverse Requires the development of multicellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and complex body plans This development requires the production of new genes and genetic information; in copious quantities I've already suggested a new information thread at least once. I'm looking forward to it, and finding out the technical reasons you think that evolutionary processes cannot increase information, if that is what you think. Shall I start it, or will you? I agree that genetic information would have massively increased since the origin of life, however difficult it is to quantify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Natural Selection in Bats quote: Batula Davidbat writes: Re:Answer the question, Are babies different now than before.. As per usual, evolutionists run when asked a question, because they know they cant answer it ? I repeat, Re:Answer the question, Are babies different now than before. Yes.
Davidbatty writes: What new beneficial mutations have occured that make us different than our ancestors babies, I mean our human ancestor babies. Here's a few for you to start with:
Genome-wide detection and characterization ofpositive selection in human populations If you disagree with those researchers on the subject of positive selection in humans, give us the technical reasons why. Now, when are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking the obvious reality of selection?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024