The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

LM:
This research group is using equivalent genes in mice to try and find the root cause of MS. The reason we pick mice, and not reptiles or birds, is because we share a more recent common ancestory with mice.John Paul:
That is an assertion. Just because we and mice have some similarity in our DNA doesn't equate to common ancestry. Common Creator is just as viable.One thing you need to remember- there IS a huge difference between a change in allele frequency over time, mutations occurring and being passed on AND all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown LUCA.LM:
Also, I could point you in the direction of human-chimp-mouse pseudogene and gene comparisons that could lead to major breakthroughs in a host of genetic diseases.John Paul:
If these alleged pseudogenes represent evidence for common ancestry than that notion should fall very soon. We are now finding that DNA sequences we thought did nothing actually do something. The ToE was started out of our ignorance and it appears has stayed strong for the same reason.

LM:
This research group is using equivalent genes in mice to try and find the root cause of MS. The reason we pick mice, and not reptiles or birds, is because we share a more recent common ancestory with mice.John Paul:
That is an assertion. Just because we and mice have some similarity in our DNA doesn't equate to common ancestry. Common Creator is just as viable.One thing you need to remember- there IS a huge difference between a change in allele frequency over time, mutations occurring and being passed on AND all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown LUCA.LM:
Also, I could point you in the direction of human-chimp-mouse pseudogene and gene comparisons that could lead to major breakthroughs in a host of genetic diseases.John Paul:
If these alleged pseudogenes represent evidence for common ancestry than that notion should fall very soon. We are now finding that DNA sequences we thought did nothing actually do something. The ToE was started out of our ignorance and it appears has stayed strong for the same reason.

MrH:
The Intelligent Design creationistsJohn Paul:
Just for information- there are IDists and there are Creationists. The two are similar is some respects but by no means is there any group called "The Intelligent Design creationists". This is a blatant misrepresentation by those trying to discredit one or both groups in support of their own agenda- ie naturalism. They think that by directly linking Creationists to IDists they have won the war. Perhaps if they had compelling evidence for their own theory that would be enough.Disconfirming evidence? First try presenting some confirming evidence.

quote:

---

John Paul: Just for information- there are IDists and there are Creationists. The two are similar is some respects but by no means is there any group called "The Intelligent Design creationists". This is a blatant misrepresentation by those trying to discredit one or both groups in support of their own agenda- ie naturalism.

---

Nonsense. I have run into several true creationists who can spout the entire ID line. You will have to deal with them, someday, JP.

quote:

---

They think that by directly linking Creationists to IDists they have won the war. Perhaps if they had compelling evidence for their own theory that would be enough.

---

The evidence is available in thousands of papers on the subject. Just because you choose to reject the evidence does not mean that it does not exist.

quote:

---

Disconfirming evidence? First try presenting some confirming evidence.

---

Dodge noted.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul: Just for information- there are IDists and there are Creationists. The two are similar is some respects but by no means is there any group called "The Intelligent Design creationists". This is a blatant misrepresentation by those trying to discredit one or both groups in support of their own agenda- ie naturalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Nonsense. I have run into several true creationists who can spout the entire ID line. You will have to deal with them, someday, JP.John Paul:
I have explained this to you before several times and I will do it again here. ID is a set. Creation is a subset of ID. IOW you can be an IDist without being a Creationist. Creation is a specific subset. I know all about ID yet consider myself to be a Creationist. All one has to do is read AiG or the Discivery Institute to realize the difference. Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance is a shame.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They think that by directly linking Creationists to IDists they have won the war. Perhaps if they had compelling evidence for their own theory that would be enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
The evidence is available in thousands of papers on the subject. Just because you choose to reject the evidence does not mean that it does not exist.John Paul:
That is pretty much a lie. Please point out ONE paper that shows mutations culled by NS can lead to the scope of changes required if the ToE is indicative of reality.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disconfirming evidence? First try presenting some confirming evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Dodge noted.Translation:
There isn't any object evidence that would be considered as confirming the ToE. Please stop pointing that out.

quote:

---

John Paul: I have explained this to you before several times and I will do it again here. ID is a set. Creation is a subset of ID. IOW you can be an IDist without being a Creationist. Creation is a specific subset. I know all about ID yet consider myself to be a Creationist. All one has to do is read AiG or the Discivery Institute to realize the difference. Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance is a shame.

---

I never said anything to disagree here. I am only saying that there are YECs who adhere to ID as a saving theory. Those are the ones referred to. You can deny them all you want but you will have to deal with them someday.

quote:

---

John Paul: That is pretty much a lie. Please point out ONE paper that shows mutations culled by NS can lead to the scope of changes required if the ToE is indicative of reality.

---

The evidence for evolution. You have redefined evolution to suit your own agenda. I have indicated evolution according to the way most people view it. So, no, I did not lie.

quote:

---

Translation: There isn't any object evidence that would be considered as confirming the ToE. Please stop pointing that out.

---

Translation: I will continue to dodge the earlier question.

quote:

---

Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance is a shame.

---

So what are we supposed to call what you do, JP, since you've claimed since Day 1 that there's no evidence for evolution, evolution isn't scientific, scientists are biased, naturalism doesn't work, etc., etc. The shit-flinging that you think passes for rational discourse ignores the plethora of evidence that patient folks offer you.The irony isn't that we can't show you the evolution of humans from proto-bacteria before your eyes, JP, it's that even that wouldn't convince you that creationism is a crock. You could always claim that something else (pick a species, an organism, a biological structure) is the product of special creation. It's all or nothing.So where is your evidence (a paper, an experiment, whatever) that shows special creation is a valid mechanism? Oh, that's right, JP never has to offer any evidence. He just demands it of the evolutionists, then ignores it when it's presented.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

[Common ancestory between humans and mice] is an assertion. Just because we and mice have some similarity in our DNA doesn't equate to common ancestry. Common Creator is just as viable.

---

Common Creator is not viable, since a common creator doesn't include the same mistakes in different designs. It would be like a carmaker putting the same number of loose bolts under the floorboards of two different car models. ERV's and pseudogenes fit into the common ancestory theory. This theory could be falsified if the pattern of ERV and pseudogene mutations did not fit phylogenies constructed from the fossil record. The patterns do fit, and therefore the theory is viable. How do we potentially falsify the Common Creator theory? I have offered a potential falsification for common ancestory, it is only fair that you do the same for the theory you feel is also viable.

quote:

---

One thing you need to remember- there IS a huge difference between a change in allele frequency over time, mutations occurring and being passed on AND all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown LUCA.

---

No difference, just a matter of degree. We can trace common ancestory by mutations, and differentiation in allele distributions. No amount of whining will change this fact.

quote:

---

If these alleged pseudogenes represent evidence for common ancestry than that notion should fall very soon. We are now finding that DNA sequences we thought did nothing actually do something. The ToE was started out of our ignorance and it appears has stayed strong for the same reason.

---

Some pseudogenes do have a function, but the origination of the gene is still very obvious. For instance, if the pseudogene for vitamin C synthase was found to have a function, its previous life as a broken gene is still very obvious. A pseudogene with function is much like a vestigial organ. As an analogy, if you used your computer keyboard to pound in a nail, would that make the keyboard a hammer? Of course not, and using the same logic, functional pseudogenes are still very important in tracing common ancestory. Common ancestory gains more evidence the closer we look at DNA sequences between extant and extinct organisms, it is far from falling.

Various evidence has been presented to you many times. The power of your perspective is measured by it's ability to persuade others, and not by your persistance at denying that anyone's presented you evidence for evolution. To be effective, you either have to challenge the evidence on the merits, or you have to present your own evidence, and preferably both.--Percy

Irreducible complexity is disconfirming evidence for modern synthesis. Bacterial flagella is but one of many IC systems we observe in biological organisms. To date only hand-waving can get around IC.Percy:
Various evidence has been presented to you many times.John Paul:
Yes and this evidence is neither compelling or exclusive. The fossil record: it does not support gradualism and that is why paleos have submitted punk eek. Stasis followed by (geologically) rapid changes are what we see in the FR. Genetic similarities- explained very well on AiG as evidence for a common Creator. The fact that life exists, exhibits IC and SC AND the fact that all of our current knowledge says that IC and SC = intentional (intelligent) design. And to conclude:As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.To me it is obvious as to who is ignoring the evidence.

MrH:
So what are we supposed to call what you do, JP, since you've claimed since Day 1 that there's no evidence for evolution, evolution isn't scientific, scientists are biased, naturalism doesn't work, etc., etc.John Paul:
That is NOT what I have claimed. There is evidence for evolution however there isn't any evidence for the claims made by evolutionists pertaining to the grand sweep of the ToE.MrH:
The shit-flinging that you think passes for rational discourse ignores the plethora of evidence that patient folks offer you.John Paul:
Exposing you as ignorant is not shit-flinging. It is an obvious observation that you don't know what ID is about. Education cures ignorance. try it. BTW I know what you guys think is evidence for the ToE. I also know that it is only evidence for the ToE if the ToE is already assumed to be indicative of reality.MrH:
The irony isn't that we can't show you the evolution of humans from proto-bacteria before your eyes, JP, it's that even that wouldn't convince you that creationism is a crock.John Paul:
That would convince me and I am sure the whole Creationist community. However you can't even show us proto-bacteria to bacteria, procaryotes to eucaryotes or single- celled to metazoan. IOW all you can show us is variations. Even when evidence such as irreducible complexity is put before your eyes all you can do is cry "it isn't so", wah, wah, wah.BTW if you want to play on an even field, which is obvious you don't, we should keep the discussion to the ToE, as it stands today, vs. the Creation ToE, which basically states that all of life's diversity arose from some originally Created Kinds. How those Kinds were Created has as much relevance to that theory as abiogenesis has to your ToE.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Common ancestory between humans and mice] is an assertion. Just because we and mice have some similarity in our DNA doesn't equate to common ancestry. Common Creator is just as viable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Common Creator is not viable, since a common creator doesn't include the same mistakes in different designs.John Paul:
First, how do you know they are mistakes seeing we haven't deciphered any genome? Second how do you know those alleged mistakes were included and aren't the result of mutations culled by selection?Do we really know that the alleged ERVs are in all actuality ERVs? Just because somatic cells are infected it doesn't follow that the sex cells would be. We can look at HIV. Does it infect the sex cells? No. The virus is not always passed on and is only passed on via the transfer of somatic cells.LM:
We can trace common ancestory by mutations, and differentiation in allele distributions.John Paul:
Yet when looked at we see the same % of difference in some molecules in bacteria and all other organisms. Cytochrome C comes to mind. Not exactly what the ToE would predict.And if these alleged pseudogenes do NOT have a function then why were they kept and passed on?

quote:

---

First, how do you know they are mistakes seeing we haven't deciphered any genome? Second how do you know those alleged mistakes were included and aren't the result of mutations culled by selection?

---

First, how do you know that these pseudogenes and ERV's have function? The fact that most of these genes are not transcribed into mRNA should tell you something. The fact that these genes are not transcribed, but very similar sequences in other organisms do have function, it is easy to see where the pseudogenes and ERV's came from. Could a pseudogene come about by chance to resemble a functional gene in another organism? Given a 2,000 base pair sequence, this is very doubtful. Could ERV's be non-viral related. Given that the partial genome and long terminal repeats take up about 20,000 base pairs, no. Are pseudogenes and ERV's (both somatic and germ line ERV's) beneficial, harmful, or neutral? All three, hence they are described as random mutations (changes in genome sequence without regard to benefice or lack thereof). The only theory that is able to describe the presence of pseudogene and ERV patterns in different organisms is common descent and evolution. Since pseudogenes and ERV's can be a benefice, neutral, or harmful, maybe you could answer this multiple choice question:The Common Designer uses pseudogenes and ERV's to ____________:a) Cause disease.
b) Cause design.
c) Add useless junk DNA.Also, one ERV sequence has been found to be involved in mammalian placental development. This sequence and protein product are found in all mammals tested so far. ERV's are responsible for some functions, but the vast majority are not transcribed. ERV's can be culled by natural selection, and the mutations seen in these genes follows already established (by fossil record) lines of ancestory. ERV's could have falsified evolution, but they haven't. Instead, they support common ancestory and evolution.

quote:

---

Do we really know that the alleged ERVs are in all actuality ERVs?

---

Yes, since they share homology to known retroviruses, including env, pol, and gag genes, not to mention long terminal repeats found in almost all retroviruses known.

quote:

---

Just because somatic cells are infected it doesn't follow that the sex cells would be.

---

Why? Cells are cells, and DNA integration is not affected by a diploid or haploid DNA structure.

quote:

---

We can look at HIV. Does it infect the sex cells? No.

---

YES. You might actuall want to do some research. http://www.pubmed.com is a great place to start.

quote:

---

Yet when looked at we see the same % of difference in some molecules in bacteria and all other organisms. Cytochrome C comes to mind. Not exactly what the ToE would predict.

---

It is not the percentage difference, but the pattern of differences. Until you can understand the process of constructing genetic phylogenies, this discussion will be fruitless. As an analogy, think of a civilization that splits up. They share the same myths, but these myths will change overtime, with different changes being made in each separate culture. This process proceeds over many civilizations and creation of new civilizations. The ancestory of these myths (if there is a written record) can help us trace the ancestory of each civilization. Language can also help us trace the roots of each civilization (again, with a written record of the languages). The same can be said for DNA sequences. Immediately after a speciation event, the DNA sequences between the two new species is very similar. Over time, the two separate gene pools will accrue different mutations, but will still have sequences in common. It is the pattern of mutations, not mutations themselves, that allow us to trace common ancestory. The differences in cytC is exactly what the ToE predicts. Given that not every organism has been sequenced for cytC sequence, there is still the possibility that the ToE could be falsified. Finding the same cytC sequence in a fish and mammal would do just that. Maybe you should talk to your creation science friends and do a survey and prove the ToE wrong.

quote:

---

And if these alleged pseudogenes do NOT have a function then why were they kept and passed on?

---

Because they have no affect on the organism, other than creating more DNA bases. Pseudogenes are often used as molecular clocks to give us the mean mutation rate in certain taxa. This is because any mutations that occur in the pseudogenes are neutral. Why would a commmon creator include junk DNA that resembles functional DNA to such a high degree? Is it a joke of some kind? Or is God just deceptive, in that he set up pseudogenes and ERV to reflect how he planted the fossils in the ground?

Indeed? Please present the data about differences in Cytochrome C among various organisms and discuss how it differs from ToE predictions.

quote:

---

ohn Paul:
Yes and this evidence is neither compelling or exclusive. The fossil record: it does not support gradualism and that is why paleos have submitted punk eek.

---

Ummmm, which is STILL evolution, AFAIK. I can understand why you would want to redefine terms to your advantage, though.

quote:

---

Stasis followed by (geologically) rapid changes are what we see in the FR.

---

And the problem is?

quote:

---

Genetic similarities- explained very well on AiG as evidence for a common Creator. The fact that life exists, exhibits IC and SC AND the fact that all of our current knowledge says that IC and SC = intentional (intelligent) design.

---

Okay, then, who is the designer? If your scenario is scientific, you should have a mechanism. What is it? What is your evidence, other than personal incredulity?