Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 100 (18866)
10-02-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by octipice
09-30-2002 11:19 PM


octipice,
Thanks for posting this.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by octipice, posted 09-30-2002 11:19 PM octipice has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 100 (18886)
10-02-2002 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by acmhttu001_2006
10-02-2002 12:19 PM


"True Creation,
I will get back to you later on this one. It is not becuase I am avoiding the question, but it is becuase I have a class in about 30 minutes and do not have time to write it out.
But, I will respond to this question, since it is fairly asked."
--Quite understandable, please do so when time allots.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-02-2002 12:19 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 100 (18922)
10-02-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by acmhttu001_2006
10-02-2002 12:23 PM


Anne
I've have my own copy of Genome that I've read.
But that is not how this BBS works. If you want to prove something you summarize it. You don't just quote book titles. If you do that you'll find you wont get responses from people around here.
There are no peer reviewed papers showing systematic links between distinct protein families. This is a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-02-2002 12:23 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2002 10:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 100 (18924)
10-02-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by acmhttu001_2006
10-02-2002 12:25 PM


Anne
I do not deny that you have many additional reasons you don't beleive in flood geology or creation but that characature is an accurate one with regards to effort made to see where we are coming from.
Not once has anyone said:
"Yes, the earth could have had a shallow global marine covering that has eroded at high ground" or "Yes, genomic proteins do fall into distinct families that is suggestive of creation".
although I have admiited many times that some evidence is suggestive of macroevolution.
You all prefer to paint the false picture that we are sticking our heads in the sand. All we are doing is taking a fresh look at the data with an alternative set of hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-02-2002 12:25 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 100 (18933)
10-02-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 9:26 PM


"There are no peer reviewed papers showing systematic links between distinct protein families. This is a fact."
--I have observed, with considerable interest you continue to iterate this phenomenon of apparent phylogenetic non-ancestry from protein family data. Is there a text I could refer to which includes an introduction to such an observation. I'm looking for more of an 'out of the box' look at protein families in biology rather than a topic which applies what is known about protein families to come to conclusions such as yours.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:26 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 11:59 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 100 (18942)
10-02-2002 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by TrueCreation
10-02-2002 10:40 PM


TC
A paper on this would be a 'non-result' and anti-evoltuionary so it is unlikely to exist. Of course non-results are almost as important as results but they get published far less frequently.
The evidence that what I am saying is true is the systematic lack of papers illustrating evolution between protein families.
Having said that I'll try and track something down.
One of the best ways to prove to yourself that what I am saying has merit is to look at papers on the genome of Mycoplasma Genitalium. It has around 250 or so genes that fit into about 80 (?) fold families. There is no paper anywhere explaining how these 80 families could have evolved from each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2002 10:40 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by TrueCreation, posted 10-03-2002 12:07 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 98 by derwood, posted 10-04-2002 1:14 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 100 (18943)
10-03-2002 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 11:59 PM


--Just to make sure I clarified it rightly, what it is I am looking for is any 'data' on what protein folds are, and how they work, just in the way a bio text-book would explain the mechanics and characteristics of mitochondria, ribosome's, etc.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 11:59 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 98 of 100 (19081)
10-04-2002 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 11:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
One of the best ways to prove to yourself that what I am saying has merit is to look at papers on the genome of Mycoplasma Genitalium. It has around 250 or so genes that fit into about 80 (?) fold families. There is no paper anywhere explaining how these 80 families could have evolved from each other.
Therefore, because there is no presently published paper providing evidence - and it has to be evidence that creationists accept, remember - indicating exactly how these gene families evolverd, they MUSTA been creation as is by the deity described in the bible.
Of course! Why haven't I seen the Light before!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 11:59 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 100 (19095)
10-05-2002 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by acmhttu001_2006
10-02-2002 12:19 PM


Bump
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-02-2002 12:19 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 100 (19252)
10-07-2002 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by acmhttu001_2006
10-02-2002 12:19 PM


One more bump.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-02-2002 12:19 PM acmhttu001_2006 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