Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Logic" of the creationist....
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 69 (15206)
08-11-2002 1:55 PM


John Paul writes on the Baptist Board:
quote:
John Paul:
It was easy to substantiate Walter’s assumptions on language, speech and upright posture. Our current knowledge pertaining to those topics show his assumptions are good (under the evolutionary scenario). That is what I found from Internet searches and have provided links to. No one knows how, when or why these adaptations came to be. All we have is speculation based upon the assumption they did. Hopefully in the foreseeable future we will have such an understanding of genomes that we will be able to make the determination if in fact changes to the DNA can effect the changes required by the ToE.
I have yet to see anything posted, nor have I found anything via the Internet, that would give us any reason to doubt those assumptions. If someone knows of such information please post it.
Here are the links Joe provided:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Human/chimp DNA similarity: Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
by Don Batten
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 19(1):21—22
December 1996—February 1997
http://www.infres.enst.fr/confs/evolang/actes/_actes24.html
Why linguists and anthropologists should be interested
in the aquatic ape theory for the origin of speech.
Karl Diller
And
| Academic Technology for FAS
Psychology 1357: Evolution of Language Instructor: W. Tecumseh Fitch
Batten’s article is riddled with errors and refers to ReMine’s book — a circular argument is Joe ever presented one.
Batten engages in equivocation, some misrepresentation, question begging — the works. But nowhere does he discuss adaptive mutations, except in reference to ReMine’s book (the veracity of which is in question). And, of course, he, like Fred Williams, equates the total number of bp differences between chimps and humans with the ‘Haldane limit’ of 1667
The Aquatic Ape theory page is interesting, but it too, does not once mention anything about numbers of mutations.
If anything, that could be used as evidence AGAINST ReMine’s premise, for it discusses preadaptations — a preadaptation would, by definition, remove the necessity for the 1667 to account for it! Did Joe Gallien even READ his links?
The third link Joe provides purporting to support ReMine’s claims is a syllabus outline for a class on the evolution of language.
It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required. Again, Did Joe even read these links?
Or did he just punch in some words in Google and link to whatever came up?
Conclusion: Joe Gallien provides absolutely ZERO support for ReMine’s claims, contrary to Joe’s assertion.
Strike one!
quote:
Choosing to play the numbers game does not equal the premise I was trying to defend Walter’s argument pertaining to Haldane’s Dilemma. Even Walter can see it doesn’t.
You don’t get to choose the mutations. In this method the criterion for selection is a long-range goal when in direct contrast the criterion for natural selection must be short-range. Even when something looks good on paper there still comes a time when you must consider if it is indicative of reality. I would concede your falsification to be valid only if reality was an intelligently guided designed process. That is the only way I see 1667 mutations as being enough- if it was meant to and had no other choice. But then again in that scenario Haldane’s Dilemma wouldn’t be.
Strike two!
Faulty logic. Looking at an event that already happened, we have no choice but to choose the adaptive changes that DID occur in order to assess them! What the creationist is doing here is setting up a classic win-win scenario, as indicated by his illogical third from last sentence.
Analogy:
Forrest runs from NYC to Seattle. Forrest kept a diary in which he recorded his route, and TV crews interviewed him along the way, so there is verification. Upon arrival in Seattle, there is a group opposed to Forrest — and watching TV - who claim that Forrest could not possibly have run form NYC. They say this because there is no way to know which route he took. They explain that if he went this way, he would end up in Mexico. If he went that way, he would end up in Maine. But Forrest says Here is my diary — I wrote the way I took.
Well, says one of the Opposers, Anyone can stand here in Seattle and conjure up the route one took. That doesn’t mean that is the way you did go. You can’t pick your route after you ran it!
Strike two is sufficient You’re OUT!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 08-11-2002 2:53 PM derwood has replied
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 5:09 PM derwood has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 69 (15208)
08-11-2002 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
08-11-2002 1:55 PM


Would not then a more accurate topic be 'The "Logic" of a creationist....'? To be less general of course. I have no problem with your accusations against JP as you have assessed.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 08-11-2002 1:55 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 08-14-2002 7:14 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 08-16-2002 2:01 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 69 (15307)
08-12-2002 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
08-11-2002 1:55 PM


SLP:
It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required.
John Paul:
The links I posted were NOT supposed to discuss mutations. The context of the discussion was whether or not the alleged ancestor (10 million years ago) had any of the adaptations observed only in modern humans- language, speech & upright posture.
What the links do is to show we have no idea how these adaptations came to be. We only assume they evolved because we assume humans did evolve from some primitive ancestor.
The only one with faulty logic is you and your buddy Robert. Again. YOU don't get to choose the mutations. Robert's "test" was faulty. Excuse me for exposing it.
It is also not my problem that you and your ilk can't understand logical reasoning.
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 08-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 08-11-2002 1:55 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 08-12-2002 10:52 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 5 by peter borger, posted 08-13-2002 2:39 AM John Paul has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 4 of 69 (15327)
08-12-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
08-12-2002 5:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required.
John Paul:
The links I posted were NOT supposed to discuss mutations. The context of the discussion was whether or not the alleged ancestor (10 million years ago) had any of the adaptations observed only in modern humans- language, speech & upright posture.
Then I have to wonder why they were presented as support for ReMine's claims re: 1667 fixed beneficial mutations... After all, ReMine's claims about posture and such are all premised on his unfounded and baseless assumption that 1667 fbms is too few...
Thanks, TC....
Oh - and who said anything about 'choosing' the mutations? More of that 20/20 hindsight logic from Joey? The ones that account for human evolution form an ape-like ancestor are the ones that are presumed to have occurred. We are 'choosing' the ones that happened.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 5:09 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 08-15-2002 12:15 PM derwood has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 5 of 69 (15339)
08-13-2002 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
08-12-2002 5:09 PM


dear JP,
You state:
"It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required."
Actually it just depends on the gene or DNA region of the primates one studies. There are genes that are (almost) identical between chimp and human, but there are also genes that are very, very distinct (indicating a directed mechanism). If you have a careful look at the chromosomes and DNA sequences of both species it is highly questionable whether a random mechanism is involved. One might as well assume creation.
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 08-12-2002 5:09 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 08-13-2002 12:38 PM peter borger has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 6 of 69 (15376)
08-13-2002 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by peter borger
08-13-2002 2:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear JP,
You state:
"It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required."
Actually it just depends on the gene or DNA region of the primates one studies. There are genes that are (almost) identical between chimp and human, but there are also genes that are very, very distinct (indicating a directed mechanism). If you have a careful look at the chromosomes and DNA sequences of both species it is highly questionable whether a random mechanism is involved. One might as well assume creation.
Peter

Actually, n o it doesn't. Perhaps you can provide us with some examples of what you speak.
What you see as a 'directed mechanism' those with experience see as the result of either selection of of the physicochemical properties of the DNA sequence in question. More undue extrapolations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by peter borger, posted 08-13-2002 2:39 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 08-13-2002 10:17 PM derwood has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 69 (15384)
08-13-2002 5:49 PM


Unless there's an objection, this thread will be moved to the Evolution forum within a day or so.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 8 of 69 (15395)
08-13-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by derwood
08-13-2002 12:38 PM


dear SLPx,
I will look into my weird-stuff-literature and I will let you know what gene I referred to (it was a very recent Nature or Science article). Next, we can calculate a bit on it and find out what mechanism is involved. I go for a non-random/directed mechanism. I presume you go for randomness and selection.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 08-13-2002 12:38 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by derwood, posted 08-14-2002 7:14 PM peter borger has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 69 (15446)
08-14-2002 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
08-11-2002 2:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Would not then a more accurate topic be 'The "Logic" of a creationist....'? To be less general of course.
Agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 08-11-2002 2:53 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 10 of 69 (15447)
08-14-2002 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by peter borger
08-13-2002 10:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,
I will look into my weird-stuff-literature and I will let you know what gene I referred to (it was a very recent Nature or Science article). Next, we can calculate a bit on it and find out what mechanism is involved. I go for a non-random/directed mechanism. I presume you go for randomness and selection.
best wishes,
Peter

I will "go for" what the data indicates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 08-13-2002 10:17 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 08-15-2002 12:52 AM derwood has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 11 of 69 (15461)
08-15-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by derwood
08-14-2002 7:14 PM


dear SLPx,
The article I refered to can be found in:
Nature 2001 Oct 4;413(6855),p514-9.
Let's have a carefull look at this gene family and whether a random non-directed mechanism can hold.
Positive selection of a gene family during the emergence of humans and African apes, by johnson ME et al.
Gene duplication followed by adaptive evolution is one of the primary forces for the emergence of new gene function. Here we describe the recent proliferation, transposition and selection of a 20-kilobase (kb) duplicated segment throughout 15 Mb of the short arm of human chromosome 16. The dispersal of this segment was accompanied by considerable variation in chromosomal-map location and copy number among hominoid species. In humans, we identified a gene family (morpheus) within the duplicated segment. Comparison of putative protein-encoding exons revealed the most extreme case of positive selection among hominoids. The major episode of enhanced amino-acid replacement occurred after the separation of human and great-ape lineages from the orangutan. Positive selection continued to alter amino-acid composition after the divergence of human and chimpanzee lineages. The rapidity and bias for amino-acid-altering nucleotide changes suggest adaptive evolution of the morpheus gene family during the emergence of humans and African apes. Moreover, some genes emerge and evolve very rapidly, generating copies that bear little similarity to their ancestral precursors. Consequently, a small fraction of human genes may not possess discernible orthologues within the genomes of model organisms.
For your information:
PMID: 11586358 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I recommend anyone who wants to participate in the discussion to read the article very carefully. I will soon send in my comments that demontrate where it clashes with NDT.
For now, focus your attention to the latter two sentences of the abstract. Will this paper provide a cover for future genes that will not be found in the great apes, but will be present in the human genome?
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 08-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by derwood, posted 08-14-2002 7:14 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2002 5:15 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 08-16-2002 5:25 PM peter borger has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 69 (15472)
08-15-2002 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by peter borger
08-15-2002 12:52 AM


Peter B: I, for one, will be absolutely fascinated to see your comments inre how variable rates in the evolution of morpheus falsifies the NDT. Especially since I just finished (before reading this thread) posting another "rapid evolution" reference on a D. melanogaster gene (Sdic). Obviously, the occurance is well-known and documented.
BTW: Thanks for providing another example that refutes Tranquility Base's contention about the impossibility of novel gene evolution. The part in your abstract concerning "Moreover, some genes emerge and evolve very rapidly, generating copies that bear little similarity to their ancestral precursors." quite nicely adds additional weight to my rebuttal of HIS assertion. (ID, attempting to trump evolution, instead trumps YEC. Whee.)
[edited for typo]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 08-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 08-15-2002 12:52 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 08-15-2002 12:23 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 69 (15484)
08-15-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by derwood
08-12-2002 10:52 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
It, too, says nothing of the numbers of mutations required.
John Paul:
The links I posted were NOT supposed to discuss mutations. The context of the discussion was whether or not the alleged ancestor (10 million years ago) had any of the adaptations observed only in modern humans- language, speech & upright posture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott:
Then I have to wonder why they were presented as support for ReMine's claims re: 1667 fixed beneficial mutations... After all, ReMine's claims about posture and such are all premised on his unfounded and baseless assumption that 1667 fbms is too few...
John Paul:
What is your problem? Like I said the ONLY thing those articles were supposed to show is that our alleged primitive ancestor did NOT have the adaptations ReMine stated would have to come about in the time frame given.
Scott:
Oh - and who said anything about 'choosing' the mutations?
John Paul:
You don’t get to choose the mutations. In this method the criterion for selection is a long-range goal when in direct contrast the criterion for natural selection must be short-range.
If we have millions of base pairs that are different, less than 2000 key genes, and some 225,000 coding positions that are different, that would tell me that more mutations took place than 1667. That said the ONLY way to get a human from some primitive ancestor in 1667 mutations would be to choose them. And by assuming common descent we are assuming that mutations can do the trick. Any evidence to support that assumption?
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 08-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 08-12-2002 10:52 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-15-2002 8:46 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 08-16-2002 5:11 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 69 (15485)
08-15-2002 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
08-15-2002 5:15 AM


Q:
BTW: Thanks for providing another example that refutes Tranquility Base's contention about the impossibility of novel gene evolution.
John Paul:
Taken in context Creationists state that is impossible only in the random mutation scenario. Directed mutations- by the designed genome's built-in ability to sense and react to environmental pressures- refutes the ToE. Actually it wouldn't. The ToE would just be re-written to accomodate directed mutations.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2002 5:15 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 08-15-2002 12:48 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 20 by derwood, posted 08-16-2002 5:20 PM John Paul has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 69 (15486)
08-15-2002 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by John Paul
08-15-2002 12:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Q:
John Paul:
Taken in context Creationists state that is impossible only in the random mutation scenario. Directed mutations- by the designed genome's built-in ability to sense and react to environmental pressures- refutes the ToE. Actually it wouldn't. The ToE would just be re-written to accomodate directed mutations.

JP,
Try telling Peter Borger that! I wish you luck
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 08-15-2002 12:23 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024