Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 61 of 126 (1355)
12-28-2001 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Fred Williams
12-28-2001 7:35 PM


Fred
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Wasn't the ribosome a product of the DNA itself?


Speaking of avoiding things.....
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Fred Williams, posted 12-28-2001 7:35 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Fred Williams, posted 01-07-2002 11:13 AM mark24 has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 62 of 126 (1374)
12-30-2001 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Fred Williams
12-19-2001 4:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
It is a fundamental tenet of NDT that non-random, adaptive mutations do NOT occur.

You have claimed on another board that you are a 'proselytizer' of non-random adaptive mutations accounting for the nucloetide differences between obviously related animals.
You have claimed that there is a 'large cache' of evidence for this.
You have been asked repeatedly for at least 7 months to present some actual evidence that this 'large cache' exists.
You have failed to produce a single citation.
Where is your evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 4:55 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 63 of 126 (1377)
12-30-2001 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fred Williams
12-19-2001 5:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

2) You misunderstand the Haldane number. His analysis showed that at best ONE beneficial substitution could occur in a population every 30 generations. Just ONE, in the entire population. Not 50, or 667,000. Just ONE every 30 generations. Walter Remine documents this problem in detail in his book The Biotic Message. Given this number, at most 1667 beneficial substitutions could have been made over 10 million years between man and man/monkey ancestor. The amazing thing is that Haldane used very favorable assumptions. Using more realistic assumptions and the problem gets much worse (as if it needed to get worse!).

Is that actually the case? Even if it were, what is the EVIDENCE that 1667 fixed beneficial mutations are too few to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor? Without the explicit knowledge of what, exactly, that ancestor was, such bombast is sophism.
What strikes me is that creationists seemingly refuse to update their knowledge base, especially when they think they have found the 'soft underbelly.'
Problem 1:
New evidence indicates that far more mutations (around 30,000) may have become fixed in time since the split.(J. C. Fay, G. J. Wyckoff and C.-I. Wu: Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome, Genetics 158, 1227-1234.)
This has been known to Williams for some time. Yet he continues to use the outdated Haldane estimate (1957) for obvious reasons.
Problem 2:
See the article cited. The reasons should be clear (for all those that continue to prattle on about 'bad mutations' building up and all that...).
Sexual Recombination and the
Power of Natural Selection
William R. Rice and Adam K. Chippindale
2001 Science 294:555-559
From the abstract:
"Our results experimentally verify a counteracting advantage of recombining compared to clonal lineages: reduced accu-mulation of harmful mutations and increased
accumulation of beneficial mutations. The magnitude of this benefit will accrue over geological time and promote the superior persistence of recombining lineages at both the level of species within communities (clonal versus sexual species) and genes within chromosomes (nonrecombining Y-linked versus recombining X-linked genes)."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 5:26 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 64 of 126 (1381)
12-30-2001 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Fred Williams
12-28-2001 7:35 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
RetroCrono: Harmful mutations out way it hands down, off the top of my head, blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growth
=======================================
schrafinator: ROTFL! Many things besides heredity can cause all the maladies you list. In fact, hardly any illnesses you list are the result of mutations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams:
You should get off the floor and allow us to ROTFL. With exception to aids, genetic mutation has most certainly been associated with ALL of the other human maladies listed.
Are you saying that all of those maladies are caused by mutations? If so, then I submit that schraf was correct in his ROTFLMAO, and I will join him due to your response. While some cases of, for example, deafness, can be linked to genetics, it does nto follow that therefore deafness is genetic. A simple understanding of epidemiology, development, and genetics would have made this clear. For example, only a handful (maybe 3-10%) of breast cancers are linked to mutations, yet the public perception is that breast cancer is caused by mutations.
quote:
Some are somatic, other germinal.
Perhaps you can provide documentation for somatic mutations causing blindness, deafness, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, or disordered muscle growth, whatever that is. I can see cancer, certainly, bu the rest I would actually have to see documentation. I trust you have some?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator: Mark asked for evidence, and now I am, too. What evidence do you have for your claim?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You guys seem to be avoiding my article like the plague:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm

And with good reason. Your article is laughable under-researched and premised on what Sir Fred Hoyle calls "an illusion" - Haldane's dilemma. In addition, the following from your 'article' is quite misleading:
"So in 10 million years, twice the time since the chimp/human split from a common ancestor, only 1667 beneficial substitutions could occur. That's only a 0.001% difference between human and chimp genomes. The entire number of substitution differences between man & chimp, ranging from harmful to neutral to beneficial, is estimated to be between 1-3%, or 30-90 million substitutions. Surely 1667 is not enough to make a man out of a hairy, armpit-scratchin, dung throwin' ancestor!"
One should wonder why you juxtapose the fixed beneficial mutation assumption of 1667 in 10 million years with the total estimated nucleotide difference between extant chimps and humans? The two are, in the context of your article, quite unrelated. The conclusion is obvious - your juxtaposition is designed to impress laymen that might happen upon your page and be wowed by such a big discrepency. That is deceptive.
That or you do not understand the differnce between fixed beneficial and fixed neutral/deleterious. Nor does this take into acocunt the fact that the total estimated nucleotide difference contains SNPs which are not fixed in the entire populations.
Of course, as I have documented recently on this board, the numbers in William's article are suspect anyway.
In addition, you seem to be conflating "functional" with "genic"
(e.g., "Some evolutionists try to "fix" this problem by lowering the amount of functional genome. But as this is lowered, they remove space for new genes that are absolutely essentially for their theory."). This is also deceptive and confusing. Informed creationists understand that there is an important distinction between 'functional' and 'genic', and you are also relying upon outdated estimates (Maynard-Smith) when actual data is availabale from a little thing called the Human Genome Project.
So it is probably best that your article is avoided. It would only produce confusion.
[This message has been edited by SLP, 12-30-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Fred Williams, posted 12-28-2001 7:35 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 126 (1393)
12-30-2001 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fred Williams
12-19-2001 5:26 PM


Fred,
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
1) The code can never change unless there is prior agreement between sender & receiver. I think you are confusing code with message. Some examples of a code are Morse, Basic, C, English language, Chinese language, DNA.

You have piqued my interest. Isn’t it true that DNA is both code & message? The DNA contains information to create ribosomes, tRNA etc. So what is the receiver?
The problem remains that a coded message needs decoding.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho33.htm
This is a vicious circle: the message and the decode instructions are both encoded. How to start decoding? Yockey does not mention the problem at all. Both biological systems and engineering systems need to solve it. Consider for example a CD-player. The instructions how to translate the information on a CD are not stored on the CD itself, but in the CD-player. Or consider for example the Morse code with its dots and dashes. Could the meaning of the Morse code itself (the meaning of the dots and dashes) be transmitted together with the message? Clearly an impossibility: to decode the decode-instructions one needs the decode-instructions before anything can be decoded. This is solved for the Morse code by sending the decode instructions on a piece of paper, so by a separate channel. Another analogy is the boot process of a computer. Or still another analogy: try to read a Chinese book with a dictionary which is also in Chinese! I don't know how this problem is solved in the biological world. Although the decode instructions are stored in DNA, they are encoded themselves. So the first cells of the embryo still need help to start (boot up). Because only DNA is transmitted according to the textbooks. The only solution seems to be to transmit the tRNA's (the decode instructions) via an extra independent channel. But how? They must be present in every cell of every individual; otherwise no DNA could be translated (or: no message could be decoded). Going back in the life of an individual we end up in the zygote, and going back further: sperm and egg. It seems that the egg is most suitable to 'transmit' those decode instructions from one generation to the next generation. They must be present in the cytoplasm of the egg (outside the nucleus) as ready-to-use translator molecules. Once booted, the translation process produces its own translators. Amazingly this implies that there must be an unbroken chain of transmission of tRNA molecules going back in time to the first organism with a genetic code...
Well, Amazingly this implies that there must be an unbroken chain of transmission of tRNA molecules going back in time to the first organism with a genetic code... , ain’t necessarily so. When a new cell is formed, the DNA isn’t just kicked out of the cell to fend for itself. The cell DIVIDES. Meaning tRNA, from the parent DNA, is given to the new cell along with the new DNA. That is to say, that the code (tRNA) is transmitted to the new cell with the DNA. Both are the product of the parent DNA. DNA & tRNA are both transmitted.
So, what is the receiver?
There doesn’t appear to be one, DNA is a continuous transmission. As there is no receiver, there is no requirement for prior agreement in code change, provided the code change works. The most obvious example of a change in code is that RNA uses Uracil instead of Thymine as a nucleotide. ie DNA nucleotide (ACGT) code is translated to a NEW RNA (ACGU) code for protein synthesis. So, a nucleotide code change isn’t necessarily harmful.
Not that code change is particularly required for evolution, I just wanted to argue within your framework.
So, I put it to you that the ONLY verification of any genetic code/message change, is the validity of the organism itself.
Mark
ps Please define new information
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 5:26 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 66 of 126 (1491)
01-03-2002 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by redstang281
12-17-2001 12:14 PM


quote:
minnemooseus (post #8) :It seems time to once again bring up the two aspects of organic evolution:
1) The fact of evolution - The worldly evidence that, down through time, there has been a change in the life forms populating the earth. This is true, regardless of whether it be from the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, or from a progression of God's creations.
2) The theory of evolution - Mutations, natural selection, etc.
I ask Redstang - Do you accept #1, the fact of evolution?
quote:
redstang281 (post#9):
What you consider evidence of evolution, I consider misinterpritations and in some cases even frauds.
quote:
Fred Williams (extracted from post #58, of Topic: Is the Bible the word of God):
This method of interpretation of facts by evolutionists is very common. They hang their hat on a sliver of data, ignoring the wealth of data that contradicts it. A classic example is the fossil record. Here we have 99.99% of the record consisting of intact fossils representing millions of species, yet there is not one sign of evolution whatsoever. Evolutionists cannot come up with a single example of a transitional leading up to the complex invertebrates, nor can they come up with a single link between what would have been an enormous jump between invertebrate and vertebrate.
What I was driving at, back in post #8, is that as you progress up the geologic column, from the older rocks to the younger, the fossils found are of distinctly different populations. As the rocks get younger, some animals disappear, and others appear. Progression of time - Progression of life forms present - That's evolution!
Of course, this keeps the "great flood" influences out of the consideration. I would prefer that the flood debate go on at the appropriate string.
Mr. Williams - You are denying the fact of evolution. Would you care to comment further?
Why isn't the progression of life in the geologic column a documentation that evolution has happened?
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
EDIT NOTE: I INADVERTANTLY DOUBLE-POSTED THE ABOVE AS MESSAGE 67. I HAVE NOW DELETED MESSAGE 67. THAT IS WHY MESSAGE 67 IS MISSING.
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 12:14 PM redstang281 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Fred Williams, posted 01-07-2002 11:47 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 68 of 126 (1625)
01-07-2002 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by mark24
12-28-2001 9:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Fred
Speaking of avoiding things.....

I don't "avoid things". I am busy and have a life.
Ribosomes and their accompanying support structures are indeed encoded in the DNA, a classic chicken & egg problem for evolutionists and an overwhelming testimony to design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-28-2001 9:15 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 01-07-2002 11:42 AM Fred Williams has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 69 of 126 (1626)
01-07-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Fred Williams
01-07-2002 11:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Ribosomes and their accompanying support structures are indeed encoded in the DNA, a classic chicken & egg problem for evolutionists and an overwhelming testimony to design.

It isn't chicken & egg, this is a thread about evolution, not abiogenesis.
My questions remain,
1/ What is the receiver of genetic code?
2/ Please define "new information".
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Fred Williams, posted 01-07-2002 11:13 AM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Fred Williams, posted 01-07-2002 11:55 AM mark24 has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 70 of 126 (1629)
01-07-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Minnemooseus
01-03-2002 1:00 AM


Moose: Mr. Williams - You are denying the fact of evolution. Would you care to comment further?
Yes I am, and yes I will.
When I began looking into the evidence for evolution, I was expecting to find at least some. I was very surprised (and a bit angry at finding I had been brainwashed for 30 years) to see how little evidence there actually is. In fact, I found that there is no real tangible evidence for large-scale evolution at all.
Information science has rendered large-scale evolution *impossible*. You can refute my claim by finding just one single example of a code originating via a natural process. A code always requires a sender. No exceptions.
Tell me, if evolution is such an established fact, why is there so much time spent debating the interpretation of the evidence? I don’t see discussion boards debating the fact of gravity.
What are the top three evidences you believe support evolution?
Moose: Why isn't the progression of life in the geologic column a documentation that evolution has happened?
Because the geologic column does NOT show progression of life. This is an old myth that doesn’t seem to want to go away.
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence. - N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet
I believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progressrepresents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history — S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-03-2002 1:00 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 71 of 126 (1630)
01-07-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by mark24
01-07-2002 11:42 AM


quote:
Mark: 1/ What is the receiver of genetic code?
I already told you. The Ribosome for one (and accompanying structure, to be completely specific). This apparatus (including tRNA) needs to know how to interpret the mRNA to bring about the construction of the desired amino-acid string (protein).
quote:
Mark: 2/ Please define "new information".
A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 01-07-2002 11:42 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by mark24, posted 01-07-2002 4:34 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
Jimlad
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 126 (1633)
01-07-2002 12:13 PM


Hey Fred,
Have you mentioned how the implications of your "monkey-man"-article completely destoy creationism? LOL!
And how do you explain the vast allelic variety of the human MHC in the light of YEC?
It's funny how you've stopped posting at OCW on this matter and instead started posting the same old refuted argument here!

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by derwood, posted 01-07-2002 12:40 PM Jimlad has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 73 of 126 (1634)
01-07-2002 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jimlad
01-07-2002 12:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jimlad:
Hey Fred,
Have you mentioned how the implications of your "monkey-man"-article completely destoy creationism? LOL!
And how do you explain the vast allelic variety of the human MHC in the light of YEC?
It's funny how you've stopped posting at OCW on this matter and instead started posting the same old refuted argument here!

He's not the only one - he's just following suite.
JP tried it - I pointed out the contradictions and shadiness in his links, he flipped out and is now ignoring me.
I point out that Fred is spewing stuff he knows to be in doubt. He ignores it.
Jep splits from OCW only to turn up at the ARN forum regurgiposting his already refuted nonsense - to a new audience.
This is a common thread among creationists. Keep looking for fertile ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jimlad, posted 01-07-2002 12:13 PM Jimlad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 12:49 PM derwood has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 126 (1638)
01-07-2002 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by derwood
01-07-2002 12:40 PM


slp:
JP tried it - I pointed out the contradictions and shadiness in his links, he flipped out and is now ignoring me.
John Paul:
I am ignoring you because you offer nothing to debate. You only think you found contradictions & shadiness in the links I provided. Big difference nbetween that and there actually being contradictions and shadiness.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by derwood, posted 01-07-2002 12:40 PM derwood has not replied

  
skibum_theory
Inactive Junior Member


Message 75 of 126 (1639)
01-07-2002 12:49 PM


hey i'm new here, I'm a biology student at MSU. In response to the topic, can creationists show evolution never happened, I say no; but evolutionists can't show creation never happend too, its a double edged sword. My experience and research i have done shows that there is more evidence for an intelligent designer. The complexity of intracellular activities forces me to lean on intellignet designer side. big scale evolution, more than one cell, is easy to correlate and find similaries between differnt organisms, but how the molecular and chemical evoluion formed gradually, step-by-step is beyond me, and science so far. But lets get this part straight, stating one believes in an intelligent designer does not make them a religious, blind faith fanatic; they may just have weighed both sides of the scale and found one side more heavy. as incoherent as it may sound.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 01-08-2002 12:37 PM skibum_theory has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 76 of 126 (1640)
01-07-2002 12:55 PM


I know some of you bring a history of battles on other boards here, but please leave those behind. The Forum Rules are short and pretty clear. Please see Rule 2.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024