Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 6:19 PM
351 online now:
Coragyps, Coyote, halibut, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, xongsmith (7 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,308 Year: 23,914/21,208 Month: 1,879/2,468 Week: 388/822 Day: 48/66 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
17NextFF
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 76 of 252 (814440)
07-09-2017 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by CRR
07-09-2017 8:11 PM


When we compare the human genome to any two other species it is almost certain that one of those will be genetically closer to humans than the other. E.g. Human vs dog vs banana. I bet the dog is closer genetically.

And why is that?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:11 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 77 of 252 (814443)
07-09-2017 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CRR
05-25-2017 12:12 AM


Re: No Contest
Since you have put no bounds on the starting assumptions and you have made your definition of microevolution so broad, anything could be "explained".

For instance, according to Jorge Ruiz-Orera, et al, there are 634 human-specific genes, 780 chimpanzee-specific genes, and 1,300 hominoid-specific genes.

If we assume a common ancestor with ~1400 more genes than modern humans or apes and assume that a gene deletion can be counted as microevolution then all non-homologous genes can be accounted for by microevolution.

With a wave of the evolutionary wand everything is explained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CRR, posted 05-25-2017 12:12 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 5:22 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 78 of 252 (814444)
07-09-2017 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RAZD
07-09-2017 8:20 PM


RAZD writes:


CRR writes:

When we compare the human genome to any two other species it is almost certain that one of those will be genetically closer to humans than the other. E.g. Human vs dog vs banana. I bet the dog is closer genetically.

And why is that?

Why, when we compare the human genome to any two other species is it almost certain that one of those will be genetically closer to humans than the other?

Because the alternative is that humans are genetically equidistant from every other organism. So if humans are say 95% similar to chimps they would also be 95% similar to dogs and 95% similar to bananas. [edit: But would chimps be 95% similar to bananas?]

Or were you asking why I think dogs would be genetically closer? Because we have in common many body tissues, organs, etc. that are built of similar proteins. From a common designer we would expect the genomes to contain many similar sequences.

Edited by CRR, : as marked


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2017 8:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by dwise1, posted 07-09-2017 11:28 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2017 7:04 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 79 of 252 (814445)
07-09-2017 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by CRR
07-09-2017 7:54 PM


So all these people are "anti-science"?

Creationists who believe in a global flood during historic times and a young earth, and who ignore and misrepresent the vast amounts of scientific evidence to the contrary, are anti-science. Doesn't matter who they are.

If they use the scientific method to do science, they could claim to be scientists. If they use scripture and belief to oppose science what else would you call them?


Religious 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 7:54 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 11:29 PM Coyote has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 80 of 252 (814446)
07-09-2017 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by CRR
07-09-2017 8:55 PM


Or were you asking why I think dogs would be genetically closer? Because we have in common many body tissues, organs, etc. that are built of similar proteins. From a common designer we would expect the genomes to contain many similar sequences.

Except that is not how it works. Those proteins being compared are functionally identical even though many of the individual amino acids can vary widely such that their amino acid sequences can differ greatly. It is the patterns of those differences that we are interested in. Yes, a common designer (or even a decent one, for that matter) would be expected to reuse certain proteins based on their functionality, but why would we ever expect that designer to also use such a wide variation of actual sequences. And why would he do that in such a deliberate manner so as to support the idea that those genomes are related to each other in exactly the way that we would expect if evolution actually happened? Is your trickster god's name Loki by any chance?

Here's a little something along those lines that I wrote in an email in 1996 to a creationist who had rehashed that tired old false probability argument about the probability of a protein 80 amino acids long just having them all fall into place at random in just that exact order that is needed for the protein to work. Two major problems with that claim:


  1. Nobody but a creationist would expect a protein to form in that manner. A protein would have evolved, which is an entirely different process than he described using an entirely different kind of selection with entirely different probabilistic results -- yes, I did refer him to my http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/monkey.htmlMONKEY.

  2. Proteins do not require one exact order, but a number of amino acids can occupy locations within the sequence.

I then wrote the following to illustrate that point:
quote:


Rather than brandying about a hypothetical protein, let's look at a specific
case. In the class notes of Frank Awbrey & William Thwaites'
creation/evolution class at UCSD (the Institute for Creation Research
conducted half the lectures and Awbrey & Thwaites the other half), they give
the example of a calcium binding site with 29 amino acid positions: only 2
positions (7%) require specific amino acids, 8 positions (28%) can be filled
by any of 5 hydrophobic amino acids, 3 positions (10%) can be filled by any
one of 4 other amino acids, 2 positions (7%) can be filled with two different
amino acids, and 14 of the positions (48%) can be filled by virtually any of
the 20 amino acids.

The sequence of the 15 specified positions is:
L* L*L* L*D D* D*G* I*D* EL* L*L* L*

Where:
L* = hydrophobic - Leu, Val, Ilu, Phe, or Met
Prob = (5/20)^8

D* = (a) Asp, Glu, Ser, or Asn
Prob = (4/20)^3
OR (b) theoretically also Gls or Thr
Prob = (6/20)^3

D = Asp
Prob = (1/20)

E = Glu
Prob = (1/20)

G* = Gly or Asp
Prob = (2/20)

I* = Ilu or Val
Prob = (2/20)

Remaining positions = any of 20
Prob = (20/20)^14 = 1^14 = 1

Total Prob = Prob(L*) * Prob(D*) * Prob(D) * Prob(E) * Prob(G*) * Prob(I*)
= (a) 3.05 x 10^(-12)
OR (b) 10.2 x 10^(-12)

Your own calculation of the probability of a functional order coming up (ie,
the standard creation science method) would be: (1/20)^29 = 1.86 x 10^(-38).

Comparing the lower probability to yours shows it to be 1.64 x 10^26 times
greater.



That just describes an active site. I believe we will find that most of a proteins sequence consists of a some active sites connected with a lot of structural sequences. Thwaites and Awbrey didn't come out and say it here, but I would expect that most of the locations in those structural sequences would accept any amino acid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:55 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 81 of 252 (814447)
07-09-2017 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coyote
07-09-2017 11:08 PM


They all use/used the scientific method to do science. They are scientists. If you didn't recognise the names you could have looked them up.

Science is a methodology, not a set of dogma. Any theory in science is open to question. If you deny that you are anti science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 07-09-2017 11:08 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 07-09-2017 11:35 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 82 of 252 (814448)
07-09-2017 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by CRR
07-09-2017 11:29 PM


They all use/used the scientific method to do science. They are scientists. If you didn't recognise the names you could have looked them up.

Science is a methodology, not a set of dogma. Any theory in science is open to question. If you deny that you are anti science.

Creationists do not follow the scientific method wherever it leads. We have had more than one creationist on this very site who stated that if scientific evidence contradicted the bible, then the scientific evidence was wrong--no matter what.

That's anti-science, and its very common among creationists even though they usually try to deny it.


Religious 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 11:29 PM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 83 of 252 (814449)
07-10-2017 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coyote
07-09-2017 11:35 PM


Science means knowledge, period.
Creationists do not follow the scientific method wherever it leads. We have had more than one creationist on this very site who stated that if scientific evidence contradicted the bible, then the scientific evidence was wrong--no matter what.

That's anti-science, and its very common among creationists even though they usually try to deny it.

Not at all anti-science. If you absolutely know something is the truth revealed by God, it can't be anti-science to treat it as the known truth. It's just as scientific as any source of knowledge, or truth about the physical world, and far more reliable than any conclusions the fallen human mind can come up with. "Science" simply means "knowledge," you know. The scientific method is always followed where it's the only source of knowledge. The deniers are those who deny the Biblical revelation.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 07-09-2017 11:35 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Tangle, posted 07-10-2017 4:38 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2017 4:41 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 07-10-2017 12:40 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Stile, posted 07-10-2017 2:18 PM Faith has responded
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 5:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 132 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 6:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5063
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 84 of 252 (814451)
07-10-2017 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-10-2017 4:10 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

It's just as scientific as any source of knowledge, or truth about the physical world, and far more reliable than any conclusions the fallen human mind can come up with.

Have you spent all these years here and not even learned this? I find it really hard to understand how that's possible.

Personal beliefs are not scientific knowledge - by the very definition of science they can't be.

quote:
Science The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science's conclusions can be confirmed independently and repeatedly by others regardless of their personal belief. Additionally, they can change depending on the evidence supporting them.

Your approach to knowledge gathering is the exact opposite of science.

What's even more amazing to me is why you would even want it to be.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 85 of 252 (814452)
07-10-2017 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-10-2017 4:10 AM


Faith tries to play the definition game
quote:

Not at all anti-science

We know perfectly well that you take an anti-scientific attitude whenever science contradicts your beliefs. Denying it is foolish.

quote:

If you absolutely know something is the truth revealed by God, it can't be anti-science to treat it as the known truth.

Your personal delusions are not science - not even a genuine divine Revelatiin would be science.

quote:

It's just as scientific as any source of knowledge, or truth about the physical world, and far more reliable than any conclusions the fallen human mind can come up with.

One of the greatest strengths of science - the reason WHY it is reliable - is that it does its best to avoid the weaknesses of the human mind. Which is more than can be said for your beliefs. Not surprisingly science is the far more reliable of the two.

quote:

"Science" simply means "knowledge," you know.

In an archaic usage. So even this represents an equivocation.

Dishonestly trying to cover up the obvious truth does you no favours, Faith.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 7:18 AM PaulK has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 86 of 252 (814456)
07-10-2017 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by CRR
07-09-2017 8:55 PM


your designer copies and reuses specific designs?
Or were you asking why I think dogs would be genetically closer? Because we have in common many body tissues, organs, etc. that are built of similar proteins. From a common designer we would expect the genomes to contain many similar sequences.

Leaving aside the issue of similar proteins being usable, while the non-coding markers show an inherited lineage pattern rather than one simply required for functionality ...

You are claiming your designer copies and reuses specific designs, and this results in the patterns we see rather than evolution being the cause, yes?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:55 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 87 of 252 (814457)
07-10-2017 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by PaulK
07-10-2017 4:41 AM


Re: Faith tries to play the definition game
Paul K writes:

One of the greatest strengths of science - the reason WHY it is reliable - is that it does its best to avoid the weaknesses of the human mind. Which is more than can be said for your beliefs. Not surprisingly science is the far more reliable of the two.

One of the greatest strengths of an MOT test is that it passes those brakes which are roadworthy, but does it therefore follow that all brakes tested are of equal performance? So then, don't be too confident in saying "this Skoda's brakes are just as good as this ferrari."

Of course you suggest two things are mutually exclusive, science, and the weakness of the human mind. But human minds came up with science, so who is to say that science is reliable, based on your reasoning? For under your own logic that would mean science could somehow be imperfect because of those weaknesses.

You would then argue the scientific method rids this weakness, but what if some things were not scientific, therefore the "weakness" was to assume they could be explained scientically? For example I could argue you divorced your wife for a mathematical reason even though it seemed obvious she wasn't faithful. Imagine then if I explain some complicated maths sum. That sum might be "correct", but logically that won't mean that the divorce was a matter of mathematics.

Confirmation evidence isn't enough to change the belief God created the world, especially if that evidence is circumstantial and tenuous, like with argued transitionals which are later abandoned. For example they used to argue the mesonychids were whale ancestors (probably spelt that wrong) but now they tend to argue it's the artiodactyls.

The point is - you can, "find" transitions like Rhodoectus, argue it had a tail fluke, then later on you can reject it.

Now I am not arguing all these things here obviously, my only point is this; imagine ditching the belief God created the world because they found rhodocetus (evidence) only to later be told that this is now NOT evidence of whale evolution.

The rest of your post is basically snide personal attacks. For example you said; "We know perfectly well that you take an anti-scientific attitude whenever science contradicts your beliefs". This is a deliberately devious comment only intended as propaganda.

Try to deal with the claims people make instead of constantly referring to the person in some way. I know you yourself see it as terribly clever as a tactic, but others see it for what it is, which is transparent rhetoric. For why would someone "know perfectly well" something about themselves they wouldn't agree is true?

That's such a rhetorical comment that begs the question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2017 4:41 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2017 7:58 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 88 of 252 (814460)
07-10-2017 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by mike the wiz
07-10-2017 7:18 AM


Re: Faith tries to play the definition game
quote:

Of course you suggest two things are mutually exclusive, science, and the weakness of the human mind. But human minds came up with science, so who is to say that science is reliable, based on your reasoning? For under your own logic that would mean science could somehow be imperfect because of those weaknesses.

Wrong. I suggest that science takes measures to avoid the weaknesses of the human mind. And that makes it better than just really strongly believing something, which is what Faith offers as "science"

quote:

Confirmation evidence isn't enough to change the belief God created the world, especially if that evidence is circumstantial and tenuous, like with argued transitionals which are later abandoned. For example they used to argue the mesonychids were whale ancestors (probably spelt that wrong) but now they tend to argue it's the artiodactyls.

You can put your personal beliefs above science but that doesn't make them science. Nor does science's willingness to revise conclusions when better evidence arrives mean that science is worse than faith. Being open-minded and admitting your errors is better than making excuses to pretend you were right all along.

quote:

Now I am not arguing all these things here obviously, my only point is this; imagine ditching the belief God created the world because they found rhodocetus (evidence) only to later be told that this is now NOT evidence of whale evolution.

Only an idiot would change their mind that God created the world based on the find of a single transitional fossil - but I don't see why being told a falsehood makes it any worse. Rhodocetus is still evidence for the evolution of whales - speculative elements like the assumed tail fluke aren't even reasons for thinking that it is a transitional in the first place.

quote:

Try to deal with the claims people make instead of constantly referring to the person in some way

The claim being made is that Faith is not anti-science. How can that be answered without referring to Faith ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 7:18 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3961
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 89 of 252 (814465)
07-10-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by CRR
07-09-2017 7:54 PM


Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater, Prof. Stuart Burgess, Professor Dr Ben Carson, Dr Raymond Damadian, Dr John Hartnett, Dr Raymond Jones, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Dr John Sanford, Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow

I don't see any evidence that those people are creationists.

Not to mention all past scientists such as Faraday and Maxwell.

Yeah, not to mention. Scientists who were unaware of the ToE or did not attempt to use Biblical-based creationism in their scientific work were not creationists in the modern sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 7:54 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 5:40 AM JonF has responded
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 07-11-2017 8:52 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 90 of 252 (814502)
07-10-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by CRR
07-09-2017 7:45 PM


quote:
“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.”

Doesn't that tell you something? They can believe something as ludicrously stupid as a flat earth but they STILL can't believe something as ludicrously stupid as creationism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 7:45 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
17NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017