|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "Logic" of the creationist.... | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
John Paul writes on the Baptist Board:
quote: 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 interestedin 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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Agreed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I will "go for" what the data indicates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: And? For one, they don't really do that, either. How does ReMine know how many mutations were required to account for those adaptations? If he doesn't know (and he doesn't), then he has no rational or logical basis to claim that these adaptations - even if arising de novo, are too much to be accounted for (assuming - and I know how you hate assumptions - that ReMine's numbers are correct to begin with). To borrow one of your new pet phrases - What is your objective test for this belief? Better yet, what is your evidence?quote: AGAIN, who said anything about choosing mutations? If one looks back an event and discusses the probabilities and events surrounding the occurrance, would you warn them that they cannot choose what already happened?quote: What a bizarre statment! What 'method' are you talking about? There is no goal. Do you even have a beginner's grasp of evolutionary theory, or do you just blurt stuff out in an ad hoc fashion to suit your needs? Do you understand anything about the cumulative nature of evolution?quote: Whaaa? Does ANYBODY here follow this supposed logic? Amazing - let me try, hopelessly, I am sure, to break this down. The 1667 number stems from an application of a mathematical model to the evolution of humans from an unknown ancestor. The model has several constraints that make it inapplicable to many, probably most real-world populations (such as a constant population size - a growing population size, which is more realistic, negates the speed limit to a large extent).As YOU claim, the numbers seem to be higher than that. These results are form DNA sequence analysis. Again, this is in contrast to a mathematical model. The creationist chooses to reject actual data in favor of a largely inapplicable mathematical model, for the obvious reasons. There is no need to 'choose' anything in this topic, any more than there is a need ot 'choose' the events that have taken place in one's life as one reminisces. You should probably stop reading ReMine. He pollutes even the brightest [sic] creationist mind...quote: Yes. Genomics 2002 May;79(5):657-62 Search for genes positively selected during primate evolution by 5'-end-sequence screening of cynomolgus monkey cDNAs. Osada N, Kusuda J, Hirata M, Tanuma R, Hida M, Sugano S, Hirai M, Hashimoto K. Division of Genetic Resources, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan.osada@nih.go.jp It is possible to assess positive selection by using the ratio of K(a) (nonsynonymous substitutions per plausible nonsynonymous sites) to K(s) (synonymous substitutions per plausible synonymous sites). We have searched candidate genes positively selected during primate evolution by using 5'-end sequences of 21,302 clones derived from cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis) brain cDNA libraries. Among these candidates, 10 genes that had not been shown by previous studies to undergo positive selection exhibited a K(a)/K(s) ratio > 1. Of the 10 candidate genes we found, 5 were included in the mitochondrial respiratory enzyme complexes, suggesting that these nuclear-encoded genes coevolved with mitochondrial-encoded genes, which have high mutation rates. The products of other candidate genes consisted of a cell-surface protein, a member of the lipocalin family, a nuclear transcription factor, and hypothetical proteins. That is, mutations provide variation upon whihc selection acts. Let me guess - this is not exactly precisely what you had in mind, so it does not count. Or there is no production of a new limb or something, so it doesn't count. or some such nonsense. What, again, are your objective tests for divine creation? What are your objective tests for in-kind variation and no more? What is your evidence for anything you believe in? [This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
"...even a tiny number of DNA mutations -- can lead to hugely important physical differences." FK[/B][/QUOTE] Silly FK - we cannot CHOOSE the mutations after the fact!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: What is your evidence for the occurrance of 'directed mutations'? What is your evidence that these mutations occur in multicellular eukaryotes? What is your evidence that the 'information' already exists in the genomes? What are your objective tests for these hypotheses? Keep in mind - phenotypic variation within species is not evidence for directed mutations. Also, keep in mind that any objective test will need to have sequenced the genes in question in the origanisms prior to and after the application of phenotype altering stresses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Oh - one other thing. "Rewriting" a theory to accommodate new evidence is the hallmark of real science. Refusing to alter one's foundatinal premises (e.g., special creation of original kinds as is) regardless of what evidence indicates is quite antiscience, and quite irrational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]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. ..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
[B][/QUOTE] Can't wait to see your analysis. I suggest you read up on genomics before posting them, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Why is that the 'goal'? How do you know that this was goal? Whose goal was it? What is your evidence that there was a goal, and that something had it?I don't think you even know what you are arguing for/against any more... quote: Well, gee - I must be stupid because I don't see how a course syllabus or a laughably inept hatchet job by an AiG front man or a page on the nutty aquatic ape theory has anything to do with 1667 mutations being too few. It appears that you think that because an ancestor mught not have been full-time bipedal or could not sing an aria that therefore Wally Kuckoo's unsupported claims are really true. How about supplying some logical defense of that postion? AGAIN, none of the links said anything about how many mutations are 'required.' The link I posted posits only a few mutations may have been required to allow for greater muscle control - what other effects they have I don't know. Of course, you don't either. That some say other genes are involved is a given.Maybe 100 other mutations are required to get articulate speech capability from an ancestor(doubtful). Maybe it takes 500 to get full bipedality (highly doubtful). Maybe it takes another 500 to get the brain development required (doubtful). That leaves only a few outward phenotypic alterations. Let's see your list. Surely. Wally Kuckoo must have a list of the exact number of mutations required to account for specific phenotypic changes. I mean, not knowing that and claiming - asserting over and over ad nauseum - that some number is too few is just plain idiotic.quote: Wow. Thanks so much for clarifying that for me. Maybe you can also provide the objective tests showing that those numbers have merit, can be applied to real-world populations, and specifically, to Primate populations. I would also like to see the data for these tests. I would also like to see how, exactly, it was determined that extinct populations met these criteria. And, mnost importantly, I would like to see the data and objective tests for the notions regarding the numbers of mutations required to exact certain phenotypic changes.
quote: "I" have to do that? You mean that now evolutionists have to PROVE that a creationists assertion is true? Wow...Creationists get wackier by the minute...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: A regular genetics wizard in our midst! Read: Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma.Grant and Flake. 1974. PNAS 71(10)3863-3865 This one ios good because it falsifies several of ReMine's claims. No wonder he didn't cite it in his pulp fiction... The cost of selection and the imprecvision of adaptation. 1977. Darlington. PNAS 74(4) 1647-1651.This one gives 6 different scenarios in which real populations can exceed Haldane's 'limit'. Also not cited in ReMine's book. There are others, but until the creationist understands that Haldane's model - the 'dilemma' - isn't what they make it out to be, they are just making moot points.quote: See the above papers, for starters. Even in Haldane's model - clearly you haven't read his papers - mutant alleles are presumed to be initially detrimental, and only when an a change in environment warrants it does it become beneficial. Haldane also posited that most evolutionarily significant mutatnts would be dominant. You know about dominance, right?quote: Or better yet, you can start a thread explaining why it IS a 'dilemma'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Please provide the evidence that human ancestors had a 20 year generation time.quote: Who would have thought? An example of hyperbole from St.Helen? Some "70 genes" may have been directly compared, but the amount of intergenic sequence and the fact that those "70 genes" comprise lots of flanking and intronic sequence makes it much more than implied. Also, DNA-DNA hybridization studies, which coimpare the enttire single-copy genomes, has been done. You should know this, Joe, as you linked to that Batten hatchet-job wherein he ignores previous publications and instead harps on Sibley and Ahlquist (for obvious reasons - of course, Batten downplays the tiny differences.. ). Please provide the evidence or even the logic that we should expect some major trend shift as we sequence more of the chimp genome. The trend being the high sequence identity and continued phylogenetic hypothesis confirmation (glad you gave up that error-fest).[/quote] Page Not Found | University of Chicago [/b]*, [/quote] Intersting that you keep citing that paper. Did yo read it? if so, why not a nice synopsis of what is explains - besides your largely out of context soundbite?By the way - you do realize, do you not, that the "70 genes" were just the ones analyzed in that paper. right? quote: Yup - keep pushing back the time at which you have to give up. Helen's well-known for that sort of thing. By the way - you might want to hook up with Fred and work out your strategy - you see, he has a fit when such nuymbers are used. Especially when I can provide quotes of his own showing that he argues out of both sides of his mouth.quote: Didn't you already post this whole message at BB? Why should anyone care what a creationist computer scientist says about proteins? Do you also agree with Plaisted that Haldane's dilemma isn't?quote: The "common creator" would not be inferred because there is no logical reason to do so, as has been explained to you on numerous occasions. At least you are now using that quote in a more or less proper way. But what about this one? "The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade." Gee - I can only guess why you did not use this quote....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: You also never provided a link or even an explanation for your 'quadrillion years' to get a beneficial mutatiosn spiel....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: First, it is foolish to take anything Helen wriotes with anything more than a passing smirk.. Now, since actual data gives numbers in the 1400-200 range (which, by the way, seems to include the 1667 number), perhaps you would like to be the first "Haldane-hawk" to provide the evidence that Haldane's model applies to this issue. Also please provide the objective tests used to determine this.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024