|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Taq writes: Dredge writes: Please translate this into English. They use a phylogeny based on common ancestry to predict protein function. You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption.Here's how it goes: The fact that the DNA system is common to all living things is used by Darwinists as evidence of common ancestry. Cytochrome c performs a similar role in cellular respiration in many different organisms, and this fact is also used as evidence of common ancestry. Fair enough, but such facts can also be used as evidence of a Creator who decided to use the same biological machinery in lots of different creatures. So when an evolutionary biologist says something like "based on common ancestry", what he is really saying is, "it is assumed by the Darwinist paradigm to be based on common ancestry". Furthermore, the assumption of common ancestry is not what is useful in biology - it is the facts that led to the assumption that are useful in biology. Of course, the science of Darwinism - which is inherently dishonest and deceitful - would have us believe that common ancestry is not only an undeniable and demonstrable fact, but that it is eminently useful in applied biology. I'd love a dollar for every biology student who has been brainwashed into believing this mendacious cult nonsense. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
(2) results in UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY. What if spontaneous generation occurred twice, and one died and everything else came from the other one? There'd still be a universal common ancestor. What if it happened 100 times, and 99 died? Same deal. A single occurrence isn't required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example. There is a basic requirement of the recipient of being able to understand what is presented. If the example is text and you do not know how to read anything, then what possible example could we present that would be simple enough even for you? What form of text would be simple enough for someone incapable of reading text? Or even more propos, what possible text example could ever be acceptable to someone who rejects all forms of text? You need to learn enough to understand the explanations you are given. For example, I am a social dancer. Part of dancing is turning and spins. That is quite simply a matter of conservation of angular momentum, basic physics. Now try to explain that to someone with no knowledge of physics nor any desire to learn any. You are in the category of having no desire to learn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age there are educated adults who believe that dead matter can somehow produce life. Superstition will never die.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
That possibility is covered in the quote from Dobzhansky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
From Taq's Message 897 (bet you thought you had buried it too deep for us):
Taq writes: "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. So what's your assumption here? Blind random luck producing those results?
Of course, the science of Darwinism - which is inherently dishonest and deceitful - Yet more of your deceptive lies.
Cytochrome c performs a similar role in cellular respiration in many different organisms, and this fact is also used as evidence of common ancestry. Fair enough, but such facts can also be used as evidence of a Creator who decided to use the same biological machinery in lots of different creatures. And yet you continue to behave as if you believed that evolution contradicts the idea of a Creator. Where do you get such nonsense from? I know where, from your creationist handlers who are feeding you lie after lie. What about "creation science" itself? A deliberately crafted deception. You have been fooled and you continue to be played for a fool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age there are educated adults who believe that dead matter can somehow produce life. Unless God is involved, I suppose.
quote: Source, King James version Might not God have started a very simple form of life from "the dust of the ground"? (Theistic abiogenisis/evolution in action).
Superstition will never die. Such as Genesis 2:7? Moose Added by edit - Might the above be modified into: Might not God have started man via a very simple form of life from "the dust of the ground"? (Theistic abiogenisis/evolution in action). Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined:
|
Dead matter can't produce life.
Humans can't produce life from dead matter. God can produce life from dead matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Dredge writes: Nope. The opposite. It's a conclusion. You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
OMG, CRR. Most people here don't have the mentality of a kindergarten child. You using different colours and fonts and stuff like that trying to impress people shows your mentality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You object to his use of colors and fonts? I think that shows more about YOUR childish mentality than his. How about commenting on the substance of his post?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Dreadge writes: It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age there are educated adults who believe that dead matter can somehow produce life. Unless God is involved, I suppose.
Genesis 2:7 writes: - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Might not God have started a very simple form of life from "the dust of the ground"? (Theistic abiogenisis/evolution in action).
Dredge writes: Superstition will never die. Such as Genesis 2:7? Moose. I guess either can be called a superstition if that's your point, but Genesis 2:7 gives the essential difference between life spontaneously coming out of matter and God creating life by using matter, which is that, according to the Bible, the life doesn't come from the matter, God breathes life into the matter after He's formed the material body. Matter can't breathe life into itself, even if it could somehow come up with the material shell, which of course it couldn't without the life in it. In other words life is something entirely different from matter, matter is just the vehicle for life to be able to function in the physical universe. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
My reply at Message 931 addressed ONLY (1) and (2) which you said were not premises of the ToE Assumption (1) is ABIOGENESIS and assumption (2) results in UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY. Yes, and as I pointed out your references did not address the issue.
Darwin’s theory of evolution entails the following fundamental ideas Entail: 1. Involve (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence.
"Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms." ABIOGENESIS NOT ABIOGENESIS since it starts with simple forms of life existing. Also no mention of abiogenesis being an assumption underlying the ToE.
Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. Yep, that's our conclusion from the evidence and the ToE. Do you even read what you write? You are trying to prove that common descent is a starting assumption of the ToE, not a conclusion. Quotes that do not address that question are irrelevant.
Abiogenesis, they include as an event in Important events in the history of life, Yes, an important event. No, not an assumption of the ToE.
"They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth.) " You're not even trying. How are you selecting these quotes? Something that is "suggested" is not assumed. Duh.
"Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive speciesperhaps a self-replicating moleculethat lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection. Yep, another conclusion from the evidence based on the ToE. No mention of any assumptions underlying the ToE. I suggest you start looking for quotes that actually are relevant. Oh, and if you want to establish Kerkut as a valid authority, you're going to have to address all of his "assumptions" and more. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example. See the logic error there? Of course not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption. Conclusion, not assumption. Note how CRR is failing miserably at trying to establish that it's an assumption.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024