Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:21 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Science rejects Abiogenesis
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 31 of 40 (19006)
10-03-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Bart007
09-30-2002 8:43 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart007:
[B]Bart007 wrote: "In 1981 [A.E, Wilder-Smith] wrote "The Natural Sciences know Nothing about Evolution". In 1993 he wrote: "The Time Dimension: Its Relationship to the Origin of Life". I highly recommend you get these books ..."

SLPx "Yes, a creationoist, Wow. I am impressed that an avowed creationist would write a book with such an asinine title."

Let us test whether or not the title of that 1st book I mentioned is, as you put it, "Asinine".

You probably believe that science has established Evolution (i.e. all creatures extant and extinct share a common ancestry)as a fact. If you do not believe this, please set the record straight.

If so, then you must know that science knows a lot about evolution and it is extremely affirmative.

Perhaps you can share something specific that science knows about Evolution that affirms Evolution. If you can come up with, let say, 3 or 4 that science KNOWS about Evlution, then perhaps we can agrre that Wilder-Smith's Title was Asinine. But let's focus on one at a time. [/quote]

Sure. Read my paper:

Page, S.L., and Goodman, M. Catarrhine Phylogeny: Noncoding DNA Evidence for a Diphyletic Origin of the Mangabeys and for a Human-Chimp Clade. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2001 Jan;18(1):14-25

One of the datasets used in that paper can be seen here:

http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm

The observable pattern of synapomorphy is indicative of descent. This is premised on a few extremely simple premises, two of which follow:

Mutations happen, and are heritable.

Patterns of inherited mutation can be used to infer relationships.

The methodologies empoloyed have been tested on knowns and found to assurately reconstruct the relationships.

I assume that molecular biology falls under the umbrella term "Natural Science"?

quote:

SLPx wrote: "I suggest that you read some non-biased, intelligent sources. And re-read them. And keep re-reading them unitl you understand how ridiculous, dishonest, and incompetent creationist propagandists are."

Debate me. Let's see if I'm a "... ridiculous, dishonest, and incompetent creationist...".


Have you written vanity press books targetted at scientifically illiterate like-minded individuals?

Do you host a web site jam packed with disinformation?

If not, then I was not referring to you, unless you consider yourself a creationist propagandist. Perhaps I hit too close to home? I can document some of what makes it easy to conlcude that what I wrote about creationist propagandists is true.

quote:

But if your gifted at ridicule, browbeating, and insults; and ad-hominem attacks and other sophistries are all you are about, then it's best you do not reply at all. Otherwise, I welcome your comments, thoughts and arguments.

Well, I am gifted at ridicule, thank you very much.

Oh - what sophistries did you have in mind?

Maybe something like insisting evolution rises or falls on whether or not abiogenesis happened? Something like that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 8:43 PM Bart007 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Bart007, posted 10-06-2002 6:09 PM derwood has responded

    
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 40 (19015)
10-03-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by derwood
10-03-2002 4:21 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by SLPx:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart007:

SLPx, said I copied from a "Thompson" fellow. Who are you claiming I copied from, Anne.?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Your reading comprehension is inversely proportional to your overconfidence.

I never said any such thing, as I have reiterated and should have been obvious.

I found several sentences from your original bombast in the posts of others made some time ago - verbatim.

As should have been painfully obvious, I wrote that I had 'shamelessly stolen' Tim Thompson's words - that is, I made a blatant attribution to the original author of what I posted.

Please at least re-read the posts in question.

[/B][/QUOTE]

ROFL Well, Well, Well, So you are the one who has been shamelessly stealing from Tim Thompson.

I had thought the first part of your post was accusing me of stealing what I had written from Tim Thompson. I tried clicking on the web site below the "Shamelessly stealing from Tim Thompson." namely:

Shamelessly stolen from a post by Tim Thompson
here:http://www.creationweb.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3ca9
f47d3adcffff;act=ST;f=26;t=443

but clicking on it did not pull up any WEB page. But since the name of the website was "Creationweb", I figured Tim Thompson was a Creationist who must have written something very similar to me. Therefore I did not associate the abstracts that followed as being from him, but rather, as being from you.

I appreciate you clearing this up and I'm sorry I misunderstood your intent and misrepresented that in follow up posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 4:21 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3110 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 33 of 40 (19068)
10-04-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bart007
09-15-2002 10:51 PM


The issue (aka) evolution seems to me to be rather how can we communicate "statistical significance" on discussion of evidence presented pro or con but because statistical techniques are themselves at part of the dispute of the most sophisticated views it is rarely possible even to recognize in a correlation if the skwed from nomality (symmetry) is an artifact or not and using only words to do the reasoning makes discussing this equationally a bit more difficult. Moving the significance a point futher can often be much harder than proposing the thesis.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bart007, posted 09-15-2002 10:51 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

    
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 40 (19174)
10-06-2002 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by derwood
10-03-2002 4:35 PM


Sure, I'll read your paper. I'll probably have to order it via the library system. Is it available on the internet?

Meanwhile, I suggest you read A.E. Wolder Smiths two books I mentioned [A.E, Wilder-Smith] "The Natural Sciences know Nothing about Evolution". and, "The Time Dimension: Its Relationship to the Origin of Life". The science in it is impeccable.

SLPx writes:

>"Well, I am gifted at ridicule, thank you very much."

>"Oh - what sophistries did you have in mind?"

>"Maybe something like insisting evolution rises or falls on whether >or not abiogenesis happened? Something like that?"

This is not a sophistry. If there is no electricity at any of the distribution panels of a skyscraper, then there is no need to be checking every outlet to see if any one has electric power.

If the spontaneous generation of life in scientifically unfeasible, and it is, then the only reasonable alternative is to deduce that an intelligent Creator, using wisdom and know-how, put boundary conditions on the laws of Physics and chemistry to create life.

Once you acknowledge the existence of a Creator, the best explanation for the diversity of all known life is Intelligent Design by the Creator. This is evident to Robert Jastrow.

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

Here is a challenge for you in response to your premise "Mutations happen, and are heritable." It is not as trite as you suggest.

"The frequency with which a single non-harmful mutation is known to occur is 1 in 1000.The probability that two favorable mutations will occur is 1x10e3 x 10e3 = 1x10e6, 1 in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the formation of separate structural elements. There are as many as 30 - 40 genes involved in a single wing structure. It is most unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown to the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favourable mutations occurring within the a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero.

Let us consider the alternative possibility that five mutations occur spontaneously within a large population of interbreeding organisms. They will have to be brought together eventually in a single organism, if they are to generate the structure of a new level of complexity, favourable for natural selection.

According to our definition, each of the genes we are considering is due to a mutation which will give rise to hitherto unknown structure of additional complexity once it meets the other four genes in the fertilized egg cell. It would be indeed be surprising of any [one alone] of these mutations could, at the same time, modulate an existing structure in the manner that it would be selected favourably by natural selection. It is only when the five genes find themselves together that a selective advantage will emerge. They are more likely to be present independently, within the population, as so called neutral genes. ... In the absence of selective advantage, the probability of the five genes coming together simultaneously within a single organism is extremely small." [about i in 1x10e15].

"Improbability increases at an enormous rate as the number of genes Increases."

Evolutionist and cell biologist E.J. Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World", Ellis Horwood, 1982, pp 120-121, 123.

[This message has been edited by Bart007, 10-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 4:35 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-07-2002 4:18 AM Bart007 has not yet responded
 Message 37 by derwood, posted 10-07-2002 10:52 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 40 (19195)
10-07-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bart007
10-06-2002 6:09 PM


Non-harmful mutation only 1 in 1000? Remold and Lenski found 12% (120 in 1000) in their studies of E. coli!

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/20/11388

"Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bart007, posted 10-06-2002 6:09 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 7:50 AM Andya Primanda has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3272 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 36 of 40 (19203)
10-07-2002 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Andya Primanda
10-07-2002 4:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Non-harmful mutation only 1 in 1000? Remold and Lenski found 12% (120 in 1000) in their studies of E. coli!

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/20/11388

"Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor."


And that's BENEFICIAL mutations, it hasn't factored in the neutral mutations, which would be required to arrive at a "non-harmful" figure.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-07-2002 4:18 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-07-2002 11:20 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 37 of 40 (19221)
10-07-2002 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bart007
10-06-2002 6:09 PM


I have no intention of reading yet another creationist book that is beyond reproach. The same was said of Sarfati's, and Wells', and ReMine's, etc., and yet as I read each of those, I saw nothing but repeated assertion and shoddy scholarship.

Why should I expect this chap's to be any different?

Of course, I a mnot the least bit impressed with the 'awe factor' of Jastrow or any other religious scientist.

Nor do I believe that 'spontaneous generation' has any impact on evolution.

quote:
Here is a challenge for you in response to your premise "Mutations happen, and are heritable." It is not as trite as you suggest.

Did some digging to find that perfect quote, I see...

Well, let's see if this mined quote has any actual bearing on what I wrote:

quote:

"The frequency with which a single non-harmful mutation is known to occur is 1 in 1000.The probability that two favorable mutations will occur is 1x10e3 x 10e3 = 1x10e6, 1 in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the formation of separate structural elements. There are as many as 30 - 40 genes involved in a single wing structure. It is most unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown to the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favourable mutations occurring within the a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero.

Let us consider the alternative possibility that five mutations occur spontaneously within a large population of interbreeding organisms. They will have to be brought together eventually in a single organism, if they are to generate the structure of a new level of complexity, favourable for natural selection.

According to our definition, each of the genes we are considering is due to a mutation which will give rise to hitherto unknown structure of additional complexity once it meets the other four genes in the fertilized egg cell. It would be indeed be surprising of any [one alone] of these mutations could, at the same time, modulate an existing structure in the manner that it would be selected favourably by natural selection. It is only when the five genes find themselves together that a selective advantage will emerge. They are more likely to be present independently, within the population, as so called neutral genes. ... In the absence of selective advantage, the probability of the five genes coming together simultaneously within a single organism is extremely small." [about i in 1x10e15].

"Improbability increases at an enormous rate as the number of genes Increases."

Evolutionist and cell biologist E.J. Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World", Ellis Horwood, 1982, pp 120-121, 123.


Ah - as I suspected.

No, it doesn't.

You see, the creationist ALWAYS tries to spin their way into a direction that they think they can score some points on.

You, being an engineer of some sort and not a biologist of any sort, failed to understand the real meaning of the 'trite' statement I gave.

You see, I did not say whatthe mutations were. I did not mention good, bad, or indifferent.

I had no need to.

I was not referring to gains of function, body parts, or anything else.

Sorry, barty, mutations do happen, and yes, they are heritiable, and yes, it IS that trite.

Phylogenetic analyses do not care one way or the other as to the character of the mutations.

I suspect that you have been reading too much of that pharmacist Wilder-Smith.

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 10-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bart007, posted 10-06-2002 6:09 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

    
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 40 (19225)
10-07-2002 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mark24
10-07-2002 7:50 AM


Mark,
Don't want to ruin your fun but Remold & Lenski's studies found that the rest of the mutations seem to decrease fitness. This is their graph:

...but the again, it doesn't matter, right?

[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 10-07-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 7:50 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 39 of 40 (20723)
10-24-2002 3:17 PM


Barty?
    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3110 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 40 of 40 (20737)
10-24-2002 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by acmhttu001_2006
10-01-2002 2:12 AM


Look, why not use I Bernard Cohen's "sprit" of discussing 'spirit' of Newton which had by theMaster adjectives elastic and electric. Cohen seems to have argued that the elastic is downplayed (my guess by Michelson Morely (but looking at the controversy between one of the them and Einstein) it is not certain that the diffent discussion of "Laws" can rather not be discussed al la me, that seems to have been said; so try Newton to whom I would prefer to defer than my "ego". But still in response to this history no one seems to have found anything in the vainty of Faraday's seeking which at least Maxwell and to an extent the contemporary Wolfram appreciates.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-01-2002 2:12 AM acmhttu001_2006 has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019