|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
And evidence that they do produce viable new species? (Think nylon bacteria, for example)
Evidence that mutations do not produce viable new species.... Now if you think about the sheer complexity of DNA, you cant possibly imagine that such a structure could come into existence without direction and intelligence.
Wow, so you just admitted that your whole argument is one from personal incredulity. Just becuase you can't imagine it happening without a creator, doesn't mean it actually can't, Peg.
Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20/100
1 in 0.2? So it will happen 5 times? I wouldn't call those impossible odds, to be honest. (yes, you probably didn;t mean it like that, before you explain what you did mean, please also provide the calculation, loose numbers are meaningless)
This fact makes the ToE impossible for without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.
But we have DNA. Since by your own admission, DNA exists, saying that we have to doubt evolution because we need DNA for it, is kinda stupid. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
Yes, appearance, meaning it looks like it, but it isn't so... How hard can this be? he did say that nature gives the 'appearance of design' I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
he did say that nature gives the 'appearance of design' No he didn't. This is why the statement that you have put in quotes is not an actual quotation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
he goes on to explain that this is reason why almost all commercial breeding stations in the USA and Europe have deleted mutation breeding from their research programmes. Because they dont work! How can they be a basis for undirected evolution when even under laboratory conditions, mutations fail? Do you know what a mutation breeding experiment is, Peg? They take individuals from a genetically homogeneous captively bred population and expose them to radiation to induce mutation and have a gander at what results. There are three things about this you should immediately recognise as being different from natural populations: 1. There is no accumulation of mutations2. Mutation is induced by large radiation dosages 3. The initial population is homogeneous That these experiments produce an asymptotic number of mutations should be entirely unsurprising to you - there are only so many nucleotides to mutate or places to break a DNA strand (a common cause of mutation in radiation experiments but almost completely irrelevant to evolution). And most breaks to a gene will have the same effect: no functional protein produced so large groups of these point mutations and breaks will produce the same mutation. You'll notice as well that a large number of mutations produce no effect at all, either because they have struck some part of the genome that produces no meaningful change (i.e because it hit an inactive or duplicate gene) or because the mutation does not meaningful change the protein produced (either because it produced a synonym for the same amino acid, or because it altered a part of the protein not critical to function to a similar amino acid). Which brings me on to accumulation of mutation, whereas in a mutation breeding experiment these neutral changes are useless, in evolution they can be quite important. An empirical example of this comes from Richard Lenski's experiments with E. coli where an early neutral mutation was key in allowing a later mutation that enabled citrate metabolism. As a final point regarding mutation breeding, I refer your attention to a point you made:
He also says on page 50 that "If one multiplies the proportionate number of disadvantageous mutations by the factor of 10, the result would already be some 100,000 to 400,000 negative (or unavailing or neutral) mutants to 1 useful for breeding research" Again, I draw your attention to the point raised in the last couple of pages of this thread that there is not target in evolution. The goals of agribusiness are much more narrow and more defined than the range of potentially beneficial mutations for a natural population. (Oh, and as a matter of fact the main reason that mutation breeding is being dropped from agriculture is not that it doesn't work: it does, as any wheat field you've ever walked through attests but because considerably more powerful methods are now available) On to your second point:
Now if you think about the sheer complexity of DNA, you cant possibly imagine that such a structure could come into existence without direction and intelligence. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20/100 One in 20/100? That's 1 in 0.2, or 5 times certainty! Wow! I never knew they were so probable! Snark aside, how is the "chance" of forming a histone remotely relavant to anything? Histones were not formed by chance, they evolved. Even the simplest histone forms found in Eukarya probably took a billion years to evolve, and the complex forms found in our nuclear DNA took longer still. The much simpler (but homologous) histones of Archaea doubtless took less time to emerge. And bacteria, of course, manage just fine with not a single histone to their name as does the mitochondrial DNA found in every cell of your body. Histones are not needed for DNA function, and thus certainly not needed for life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes: A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998). are they still mosquitos?
Theodoric writes: Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991). c'mon, the cells are still the same cells they always were. And i read thru that whole article and the only mention of evolution was right in the last paragraph
quote: So what has it got to do with evolution? The cancer cells are still cancer cells. And its no miracle that they are still alive today considering scientists have been breeding them!! how is that evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5238 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
Just to reply specifically to your comment:
Peg writes:
A black widow is a spider, yes? A tarantula is a spider, yes? If they are both spiders, are they different species? are they still mosquitos? Sure two different species of mosquitoes are still mosquitoes. The point is that speciation has occurred. A mosquito population isn't going to speciate into a population of bears or alligators. A mosquito population of one species will eventually become another species of mosquitoes given time and isolation and that's what was shown. You asking whether or not it is still a mosquito is either disingenuous on your part because you are unwilling to consider the evidence or lack of understanding because you are ignorant of what a species is. If you disagree with the evidence provided, discuss the merits of the evidence. Asking a question like that does nothing for the debate. Hint: You could ask questions like -1) How do we know it isn't a previously unidentified species of mosquitoes that moved into the London Underground? 2) In what ways is it a new species and not a variation of the original species? Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Huntard writes: But we have DNA. Since by your own admission, DNA exists, saying that we have to doubt evolution because we need DNA for it, is kinda stupid. yeah i might be stupid in the eyes of someone who believes in evolution but that is not the issue of this thread...the reasons for doubt are that said, there are many reasons to doubt evolution and those doubts dont only come from people like me who believe in creation...they come from the mouths of the evolutionists themselves...the only difference is they ignore them whereas others do not. I dont get my quotes from creationist websites btw...i use my own reference book entitled 'Life-How did it get here? By evolution or creation' published by the WT org. I dont think its avail online but if you want one you could send them an email and they'll send you one for free.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
that said, there are many reasons to doubt evolution and those doubts dont only come from people like me who believe in creation...they come from the mouths of the evolutionists themselves... But, as we have noted, this is not actually true.
I dont get my quotes from creationist websites btw...i use my own reference book entitled 'Life-How did it get here? By evolution or creation' published by the WT org. Ah, I see. Not a creationist website, a creationist pamphlet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Izanaqi writes: A black widow is a spider, yes? A tarantula is a spider, yes? If they are both spiders, are they different species? no, for the reason that they are both spiders. the are different 'types' of spider. I would say different species would be a fly and a spider...they are different species.
Izaniqi writes: Sure two different species of mosquitoes are still mosquitoes. The point is that speciation has occurred. the variety within a species is very great...we see that in the selective breeding of domestic animals. Today there are many different types of dog, yet they are still from the one species. Some types/breeds cannot breed with other types becasue they are too different. an example might be a Chawaa and a doberman....size makes it impossible for them to mate. But this thread is about Darwinian evolution and the theory that all life evolved from the simplest forms of life, into the great variety we see including man. thats what this thread is about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
Perhaps. This however has nothing to do with my position. You argued that one of the reasons one could cite for doubting evolution, was the lack of genetic material, when, only one or two sentences before, you talk about that very genetic material. So, when we have genetic material, citing the lack of it as a doubt for evolution is completely nonsensical, whether you're a creationist or not.
yeah i might be stupid in the eyes of someone who believes in evolution but that is not the issue of this thread...the reasons for doubt are
Yes, and this is not one of these reasons. In fact it could be argued from your "logic" that evolution can't be doubted, as we have the genetic material for it.
that said, there are many reasons to doubt evolution and those doubts dont only come from people like me who believe in creation.
Yes, yes they do. I don't know anyone who doesn't believe in a creator and that has studied evolution, that doubts evolution.
they come from the mouths of the evolutionists themselves...the only difference is they ignore them whereas others do not.
We ignore ourselves? Would you be so kind as to explain how that is possible? Also, could you give some examples of people who don't believe in a creator, are biologists, and doubt evolution? And this better be more than one or two examples as well, since there are hundreds of thousands taht don't doubt evolution, and some of them even believe in a creator.
I dont get my quotes from creationist websites btw...i use my own reference book entitled 'Life-How did it get here? By evolution or creation' published by the WT org. I dont think its avail online but if you want one you could send them an email and they'll send you one for free.
That's just as bad as creationist sites then. And probably filled with the same rubbish as the quotes are anything to go by. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DrAdequate writes: Ah, I see. Not a creationist website, a creationist pamphlet. No, its not a pamplet its a 251 page hard cover with over 200 cited references in it bibliography well researched and well written is what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Huntard writes: Perhaps. This however has nothing to do with my position. You argued that one of the reasons one could cite for doubting evolution, was the lack of genetic material, please provide the msg where i stated this and i'll have a look at it again...it doesnt sound like what i said at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
well researched and well written is what it is. No, it's not, it's dishonest, misleading rubbish. You can find a critique here if you wish; it's pretty damning. But that's rather an aside. To me, posts like yours are the real sadness of Creationism, it's not just that you're wrong it's the time and effort you and people like you are putting into reading the wrong sources. Rather than studying real science, and real biology, you're lapping up lies and misinformation. That's really sad. There's a world of books on biology out there, catering to all levels of knowledge. If you put half the effort into studying them you do into absorbing this bullshit you'd have learnt so much about the world. Instead you're rattling around inside an echo chamber of misinformation. I think that's tragic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
Gladly. please provide the msg where i stated this and i'll have a look at it again...it doesnt sound like what i said at all. It's about your Message 194 where you first talk about DNA:
Peg writes:
(You also have that weird statistic of 1 in 0.2 there, meaning a certainty of 5 will happen) Now if you think about the sheer complexity of DNA, you cant possibly imagine that such a structure could come into existence without direction and intelligence.Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20/100 Then you say this:
Peg writes: And without the genetic code, there can be no reproduction in the first place. This fact makes the ToE impossible for without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select. But there is genetic material, as you yourself have said. Like I said, completely illogical. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4509 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
Sorry Mr Jack.
Put it down to the fact that it's a bit cumbersome trying to express unwieldy fractions. It's supposed to be read as: "Four to the thousandth power, minus one, divided by four to the thousandth power". So that's a really huge number, minus one, over the same really huge number.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024