Discussing "29 evidences..."

quote:

---

Yup sure. Can you test that hypothesis? I mean can you take a Sea Cucumber and actually observe that gene getting duplicated and then getting mutated to the 'new' gene that is its alleged descedant?

---

Actually, if you had read what was cited to you, you would know that back in the early 1980s Doolittle predicted the finding of a fibrogen like gene duplicated in invertebrates and to test the hypothesis he searched many species of invertebrates to find it and confirm the distance as well as the existence and was successful. IOW, it has already been tested.

quote:

---

The problem here is not only does that gene have to duplicated and then mutated to a new function (something that has never been directly observed, tested, repeated & verified)

---

Ahhhh...moving the goal posts--from the complaint that there is no genetic evidence to no direct evidence. There is plenty of evidence of gene duplication producing exactly that. See:
all from:
Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found

quote:

---

also other changes have to come about. Or are you saying this alleged gene duplication followed by function adding mutations was all that was needed to go from a sea cuc to a port jackson shark?

---

I didn't claim anything of the sort.

quote:

---

John Paul:
From what I have read 'molecular clocks' are not only unreliable but also assume the ToE is indicative of reality.

---

All evidence to the contrary.Of course, you have cited a link that finds such things as evidence of common descent so it is extremely unclear that you are able to understand even your own citations.CHeers,
Larry

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yup sure. Can you test that hypothesis? I mean can you take a Sea Cucumber and actually observe that gene getting duplicated and then getting mutated to the 'new' gene that is its alleged descedant?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Actually, if you had read what was cited to you, you would know that back in the early 1980s Doolittle predicted the finding of a fibrogen like gene duplicated in invertebrates and to test the hypothesis he searched many species of invertebrates to find it and confirm the distance as well as the existence and was successful. IOW, it has already been tested.John Paul:
If that is your idea of a test I wish you were my college professor.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The problem here is not only does that gene have to duplicated and then mutated to a new function (something that has never been directly observed, tested, repeated & verified)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Ahhhh...moving the goal posts--from the complaint that there is no genetic evidence to no direct evidence. There is plenty of evidence of gene duplication producing exactly that.John Paul:
You brought up gene duplication. Without direct evidence there is no way of knowing if what is observed is the result of a Common Creator (or Intellegent Designer) or common descent from some as yet unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to self-replicate (which, for another thread, is looking like IC also).I will read your links, but I did notice an Edward Max as one of the authors. Did you realize that he is in an ongoing debate with Lee Spetner about this very thing and isn't winning that debate. Go figure...quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------also other changes have to come about. Or are you saying this alleged gene duplication followed by function adding mutations was all that was needed to go from a sea cuc to a port jackson shark?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
I didn't claim anything of the sort.John Paul:
True and if you followed the posts you would see that was pointed out, I apologized and I posted this: "OK then, how is a sea cucumber evolving into a sea cucumber or a port jackson shark evolving into a port jackson shark evidence for the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality?" (see post 44, the one before your last post)quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
From what I have read 'molecular clocks' are not only unreliable but also assume the ToE is indicative of reality.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
All evidence to the contrary.John Paul:
Really? Please present it (start another thread)Larry:
Of course, you have cited a link that finds such things as evidence of common descent so it is extremely unclear that you are able to understand even your own citations.John Paul:
I don't know how many times I have to 'splain this to you- I cite Behe because, as he says, there is no substantiating evidence that some systems (and I add life itself) is the product of purely natural processes.------------------
John Paul

JP, you're quoting Behe? I take it you've abandoned YEC now, and that you agree with him on the common descent of all organisms?

jimlad:
JP, you're quoting Behe? I take it you've abandoned YEC now, and that you agree with him on the common descent of all organisms?John Paul:
Great, just what we need, another person who doesn't read posts. What's the matter? Too boring at the OCW DB?------------------
John Paul

JohnPaul:

quote:

---

I don't know how many times I have to 'splain this to you- I cite Behe because, as he says, there is no substantiating evidence that some systems (and I add life itself) is the product of purely natural processes.

---

No conclusion can be made, and no assertion is supported, from a *lack* of evidence, and several people have tried to explain this to you already.You need to provide POSITIVE, CONFIRMING EVIDENCE to make a conclusion, and Behe doesn't do this, and neither do you.All Behe has done is point to gaps in our knowledge and said, "See? we don't understand the specifics this, and that means that it couldn't have come about by natural means. It is impossible to come about by natural means."All it takes to refute the argument is science showing that such systems could have come about by natural means. It is *possible*, therefore it is no longer *IMpossible*.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how many times I have to 'splain this to you- I cite Behe because, as he says, there is no substantiating evidence that some systems (and I add life itself) is the product of purely natural processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
No conclusion can be made, and no assertion is supported, from a *lack* of evidence, and several people have tried to explain this to you already.John Paul:
That doesn't seem to stop evolutionists from making their conclusions now does it? In order to come to a conclusion you should have substantiating evidence and as Behe points out, the ToE lacks this.schraf:
You need to provide POSITIVE, CONFIRMING EVIDENCE to make a conclusion, and Behe doesn't do this, and neither do you.John Paul:
OK we're waiting. Please provide positive, confirming evidence that the ToE is indicative of reality.schraf:
All Behe has done is point to gaps in our knowledge and said, "See? we don't understand the specifics this, and that means that it couldn't have come about by natural means. It is impossible to come about by natural means."John Paul:
You used quotes. Is that an actual Behe quote? Or are you putting words in his mouth? All Behe is saying is there is no evidence to support the claim what appears to be IC came about via purely natural means.schraf:
All it takes to refute the argument is science showing that such systems could have come about by natural means. It is *possible*, therefore it is no longer *IMpossible*.John Paul:
We're waiting.------------------
John Paul

Why don't you tell me, my dear, dear John Paul, what you would accept as confirming evidence for common descent and the ToE?You ask for evidence.It is supplied to you, often complete with full bibliographic citations to the actual experiments.You eiter do not respond at all, change the topic of discussion, produce something brilliant like "That doesn't happen." or say something like "Oh yeah, well why don't trees evolve into anything else but trees?", as if that is some kind of valid criticism of the ToE, which it isn't.So, please, tell us what would qualify as positive evidence for you.Remember, you must stay within the Theory of Evolution, unless you have positive evidence for this as-of-yet unseen "Scientific Theory of Creation, or Scientific Theory of ID.Lack of evidence for the ToE doesn NOT constitute positive evoidence for any other theory or notion, including Creation "science".

schraf:
Why don't you tell me, my dear, dear John Paul, what you would accept as confirming evidence for common descent and the ToE?John Paul:
Something that can be observed, tested, repeated and verified. The things we can do to confirm gravity and the atomic theory.schraf:
You ask for evidence.It is supplied to you, often complete with full bibliographic citations to the actual experiments.John Paul:
Oh really? What experiment verified endosymbioses? What experiment shows us that a mammal can evolve from a reptile? What experiment shows us that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism? (forming colonies is not the answer as these are just aggregatea of the original and reproduce only the same single-celled organism that formed the colony)schraf:
Lack of evidence for the ToE doesn NOT constitute positive evoidence for any other theory or notion, including Creation "science".John Paul:
But the amount of evidence lacking to substantiate today's ToE relegates it to a 'belief' system- ie a religion.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

John Paul:
What is a 'plausible pathway'? One someone can think of? Or once it is thought of, also demonstrated to be so? As an engineer I can testify that what works on paper does not always work in real life. Also you are correct by stating "Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument." That of course is how to falsify ID. Show that one isn't needed.

---

One that is consistent with the mechanisms of evolution and fits the available evidence. Either you can show that the pathway Miller presents or Doolittle in his original work wouldn’t work, or Behe doesn’t have an argument. You don’t seem to grasp Behe’s argument at all. His argument is based on it being impossible. If it isn’t impossible he doesn’t have an argument. Understand?

quote:

---

John Paul:
What are his results consitent with? Common Creator or common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce. And not only could they reproduce, they could do so in just an imperfect way as to lead from that population to all the diversity of life. How can you tell which his results support?

---

For one there is no theory regarding a common creator so it is impossible to tell what would be consistent. Your position seems to be that anything is consistent with a common creator. Perhaps you could identify some clear falsifications of such a theory if it were to exist so that one could tell what is consistent and what is not? It should be a breeze if such a theory exists.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Behe has kicked butt so far. Seeing that this is his field, I will wait to see what he says.

---

Ummmit is also Doolittle’s field and Doolittle is much better respected. So your argument from authority is invalid. How do you know if he is kicking butt if you can’t understand the argument. AGAIN, I will ask you how you can reconcile your contention that evolution is impossible because of evidence that BEHE states is evidence of common descent? If you had read what you cited, you would know that Behe agrees that Doolittle has evidence of common descent, but argues a special mechanism is needed in there. DO YOU GRASP THAT WHAT YOU ARE CITING IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING?

quote:

---

You are correct though, I didn't read Doolittle's new stuff. After being body slammed I thought he would just stay down and just rolled my eyes when I saw your link. And know that Miller has added his 2 cents worth I am sure it is even more exciting.
BTW, Behe did read Miller & Doolittle:

​

---

And if you are going to continue to refuse to pay attention this is going to be a long discussion of circles. Behe is replying to an earlier article by Doolittle and to Miller’s book. Miller provides a much more detailed analysis of xenon shuffling in the link that the publisher removed for brevity. IOW, it isn’t what Behe is responding to in your link. If you read what you linked you would know this.Cheers and Happy Reading,
Larry

Not reading all of the posts isn't as bad as not reading what you cite. Behe, in the citations you offered argues that Doolittle's work is evidence of common descent. By presenting this you have explicitly accepted common descent or demonstrated you are unable to support your position with any integrity.Cheers,
Larry

At this point, you have presented a citation that accepts common descent and Doolittle as evidence of common descent and so now the only disagreement you can have is whether or not systems can be selected for by natural selection. That or you must refute what you have already cited and explain how you disagree with it.

The 29 lines of evidence can all be observed, tested, and repeated. You have yet to offer any competing theory that explains the evidence nor any falsifications of those lines of evidence.Larry

I need to go to bed, so I will only respond to one point.

quote:

---

JP: But the amount of evidence lacking to substantiate today's ToE relegates it to a 'belief' system- ie a religion.

---

So what? Even if the ToE didn't even exist, it still would not constitute positive evidence for the Biblical version of things.The ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, and it wouldn't make Creationism correct. Not even a little bit. That's because creationism isn't science.You are operating under this strange idea that the logical alternative to the ToE is your particular stripe of Creationism.

I would also like to point out, John Paul, that you have just demonstrated the classic Creationist tactic of playing both sides of the fence.You attempt to use a lot of science, (Biology, Geology) to support your claims, but then you turn right around and say that Biology is religion anyway and not science at all!You can't have it both ways, you know. You can't try to use science that you do like to validate your religious views, and then say that the science you don't like isn't science at all, but religion.

schraf:
You attempt to use a lot of science, (Biology, Geology) to support your claims, but then you turn right around and say that Biology is religion anyway and not science at all!John Paul:
I said no such thing. Bioloy isn't a religion. I said the ToE (as it stands today) is a belief system, ie a religion. I know evolutionists like to think the ToE is the foundation of modern biology, but that is just dogmatic ranting.schraf:
You can't have it both ways, you know. You can't try to use science that you do like to validate your religious views, and then say that the science you don't like isn't science at all, but religion.John Paul:
Again, you are confused. Saying the ToE is 'scientific' is an oxymoron. I have nothing against science. Why do evolutionists like to misrepresent Creationists?------------------
John Paul