Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 837 of 1311 (815008)
07-14-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by caffeine
07-14-2017 11:25 AM


Re: Species
caffeine writes:
While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance.
It is arbitrary in the sense that most scientists view 95% confidence as a gold standard. However, it is objective in the sense that with p <= 0.05 there is a 5% chance that a single species would be mistaken for being two species.
I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one.
At one level or another, I suspect that the definition of species will be arbitrary since it is a continuum instead of a discontinuity. It is a bit like defining young and old, or short and tall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by caffeine, posted 07-14-2017 11:25 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 867 of 1311 (815200)
07-17-2017 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 816 by Dredge
07-14-2017 12:07 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
What I'm going on about about is, scientific explanations can be wrong.
What does that have to do with whether ToE has application in any specific field?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by Dredge, posted 07-14-2017 12:07 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 868 of 1311 (815209)
07-17-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 843 by Dredge
07-15-2017 6:24 PM


Re: Insecticide resistance
Dredge writes:
The purpose of using "evolved" is to promote their cult of evolution's theology that says,
I have always found it fascinating that creationists try so hard to make evolution look like a religion. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2017 6:24 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 874 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-17-2017 3:32 PM Taq has replied
 Message 880 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 1:06 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 889 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2017 7:04 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 869 of 1311 (815210)
07-17-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 859 by Dredge
07-16-2017 9:38 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
The theory that all life shares a common ancestor is the theory of evolution.
False. Universal Common Ancestry is a conclusion, not a theory. How many times have we gone over this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 859 by Dredge, posted 07-16-2017 9:38 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 12:58 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 870 of 1311 (815211)
07-17-2017 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 860 by Dredge
07-16-2017 10:26 PM


Re: Insecticide resistance
Dredge writes:
Doctors don't care about theories about origins and tales about rodents turning into whales or apes turning into humans.
Doctors don't care if scientists have unified the weak and electromagnetic forces. Does this mean it isn't true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 860 by Dredge, posted 07-16-2017 10:26 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 871 of 1311 (815212)
07-17-2017 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 844 by Dredge
07-15-2017 6:49 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
I agree. But thinking you understand something when in fact you don't is never useful. Hence, the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor is useless to applied science.
I already showed you that this is false with the example of SIFTER. Why do you keep lying about this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2017 6:49 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 12:50 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 872 of 1311 (815213)
07-17-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 857 by CRR
07-16-2017 6:19 PM


Re: Insecticide resistance
CRR writes:
I agree, and as we have seen in other threads neither the word evolution as used in biology nor the theory of evolution can be defined.
Both are lies. I have defined the theory of evolution for you, and I have given the example of SIFTER as a use for the theory of evolution in this very thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by CRR, posted 07-16-2017 6:19 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 884 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 5:54 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 873 of 1311 (815215)
07-17-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 850 by Dredge
07-15-2017 7:52 PM


Re: define "species"
Dredge writes:
Notice that breeders have not managed to produce black or red budgies - and I predict they never will, because there are limits to variation. Due to these genetic limitations, macroevolution is impossible and ToE is nonsense.
Quite obviously, the biodiversity we do see is within these limitations, so those limitations don't pose a problem. There are just 40 million mutations separating humans and chimps, well within the limitations of what genetics can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 850 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2017 7:52 PM Dredge has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 877 of 1311 (815224)
07-17-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 874 by Tanypteryx
07-17-2017 3:32 PM


Re: Insecticide resistance
Tanypteryx writes:
And an atheist religion at that.
As the old saying goes, if atheism is a religion then not playing golf is a sport.
Apparently, being a religion is the worst insult they can come up with.
It is straight up psychological projection. They reject science because of their religious beliefs, so they project their own inadequacies onto others in reaction to the cognitive dissonance caused by their own religious beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 874 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-17-2017 3:32 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 897 of 1311 (815286)
07-18-2017 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 878 by Dredge
07-18-2017 12:50 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Please explain how SIFTER makes use of the theory that all life shares a common ancestor.
"We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. "
We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5′-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 12:50 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 909 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 11:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 898 of 1311 (815287)
07-18-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by CRR
07-18-2017 5:54 AM


Re: Insecticide resistance
CRR writes:
Technically I was wrong to say "evolution" couldn't be defined. I should have said that neither word nor theory have a consensus definition.
That is just utter bullshit, as others have mentioned. Just because people use different words to define evolution does not mean it lacks a definition.
Is this all you have, a really stupid semantic argument? Why give you anything when you will just lie about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 5:54 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 921 of 1311 (815346)
07-19-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 901 by Dredge
07-18-2017 10:18 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. So since the hypothesis of common descent is supposedly supported by "mountains of evidence" provided by the fossil record, embryology, genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies ... blah, blah, blah, why it is not promoted to the status of "theory". All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused.
These are the steps of the scientific method:
As you see, it ends with a conclusion. Common ancestry is a conclusion. Theories are general models which are used to construct hypotheses for specific sets of observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 10:18 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 925 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2017 11:35 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 939 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2017 1:38 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 922 of 1311 (815347)
07-19-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 902 by Dredge
07-18-2017 10:44 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Darwinism is a "scientific" attempt to provide a mechanism for how such an evolutionary process might work. But it's still superstition ... scientifically-flavoured superstition.
Perhaps you could post something of substance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 902 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 10:44 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 923 of 1311 (815349)
07-19-2017 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 904 by Dredge
07-18-2017 11:02 PM


Re: Insecticide resistance
Dredge writes:
For starters, Darwinism isn't science ... it's pseudo-science. Darwinism is a cult, and there are similarities between any cult and religion.
When you can't address the science you start calling the theory a pseudo-science. Classic denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 11:02 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 924 of 1311 (815350)
07-19-2017 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 909 by Dredge
07-18-2017 11:32 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Please translate this into English.
They use a phylogeny based on common ancestry to predict protein function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 11:32 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 940 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2017 1:41 AM Taq has replied
 Message 961 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 12:27 AM Taq 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