|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where is the evidence for evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
No, I am not personally against you (because I am not molecular-savvy, I work like 18th century naturalists which collects animals in a preservation jar). I am curious of where your GUTOB will lead a taxonomist like me.
It seems that you acknowledge that redundancies can be eliminated to construct an irreducible complexity structures, and information quantity can increase. Thanks for your response
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Andya,
No, I am not personally against you (because I am not molecular-savvy, I work like 18th century naturalists which collects animals in a preservation jar). I am curious of where your GUTOB will lead a taxonomist like me. PB: I know you are not personally against me, you are simply curious how life works. Me too. It seems that you acknowledge that redundancies can be eliminated to construct an irreducible complexity structures, and information quantity can increase. PB: That is not what I try to convey. I say that all (an excess) info is already present in the MPG. Info gets activated and inactivated, but also gets lost or duplicated. But having info doesn't do the trick, it is the EXPRESSION of info on the right time, and on the right place.With the MPG differences between species can easily be explained. In my opinion, (sub)species is all their is, the others classifications is due to manmade subjectivity. And that in general the genes follow the pattern of the classification is because the complexity of similar organisms require the same protein-protein interactions. Thanks for your response Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David unfamous Inactive Member |
Design can be concluded from genetic redundancies. If they don't demonstrate association with gene duplication and do not change faster than essential genes they can be taken as proof for design. That's exactly what we see in life. So, the debate can be concluded: design.
How do you explain the genetic 'errors' - pseudogenes and retroposons - shared between different species (humans, gorillas, chimps), and that they somehow disprove evolution and prove ID? And how do you then use ID as proof of a supreme being?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Dave:
Read what the GUToB holds. It explains all these phenomena. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David unfamous Inactive Member |
Two things Peter, I can't find any references to the GUToB on the internet other than those made by your good self within this forum — am I on a wild goose chase?
And I'd still like you or Sonnike to explain why ID is evidence for a supreme being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I notice that sonnike urges you to read religious websites instead of science websites to learn about science.
This should tell you something right away. It actually tells you two things. 1) It tells you that sonnike thinks that religious websites are somehow more informed on science than science sites, which doesn't make sense at all. 2) It also tells you that sonnike doesn't want you to look at science websites at all. Note the use of the word "instead". This is not surprising. Many religious fanatics over the years have understood the danger and threat of science and rational scrutiny to their dogma. I would encourage you to look at all kinds of sites and to judge for yourself which ones have the most sound research and logic and verifiability behind them. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I'm coming to this debate late. This is a reply to the first message.
First, a disclaimer. I seem to have lost my patience with some Creationist positions. I don't know where it went. I used to have it, now I don't. If someone finds it please let me know.
drummachine writes: I'm new here. Can you please answer this question for me? This seems an incredibly uninformed question. No evolutionist ever comes in here and asks, "Where is this book that speaks of creation and Jesus?" You can believe that the evidence for evolution has been misinterpreted, and you can, like most people, be unaware of the less obvious evidence for evolution, but to ask "Where is it?" And to start threads asking questions and then never reply? Many people waste valuable time composing informed responses to uninformed questions like yours that the author never responds to. I hope you'll have the courtesy to reply at some point. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
schraf: "I notice that sonnike urges you to read religious websites instead of science websites to learn about science."
--------------- Nice try schraf. My websites are no more religious/non-science than yours are. Your religion is just different ie. evo-dogma. Calling a "car" a "bicycle", doesn't make it a bicycle. Don't try to pretend that evo-dogma is un-biased science. ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
sonnikke writes: A designer or designers, were involved in your information scenario. We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!! The February, 2003, issue of Scientific American includes the article Evolving Inventions which describes experiments in genetic programming (software modeled upon evolution) illustrating that random change combined with selection can produce quality designs, in some cases superior to those produced by people. Just as with evolution, there's no designer. Random change with selection is a natural process that can produce amazing results. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, if the sites you listed aren't religious, then why the constant references to God, Bible quotations, and in the case of at least one site, the descriptor "ministry" used to describe itself?
quote: The ToE is not dogma, because Biology, like all science, is tentative in nature. It changes in light of new evidence. There is also no appeal to a deity or any supernatural entity in science, and no unchanging doctrine that must be adhered to no matter what, unlike religion.
quote: Of course it is biased science. All good science is biased in favor of the observed evidence found in nature. You talk about bias as if it is always a bad thing. Isn't being biased in favor of the evidence a good thing? Being biased in favor of a particular part of a particular interpretation of a particular version of a particular religion's sacred text regardless of the observed evidence found in nature would be bad bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
schraf: "I would encourage you to look at all kinds of sites and to judge for yourself which ones have the most sound research and logic and verifiability behind them."
-------------------------------------------- This might be a once in a lifetime thing, but I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with that statement! Study BOTH sides, and see which makes more sense. Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Dave,
The GUToB is new, my friend. Did you check all 235 google hits? best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRC_Hans Inactive Member |
Peter Borger:
quote:Sorry for the late reaction, I dont come around this boar so often. Could you elaborate a bit on the above? I can understand that in principle, some changes in essential genes will be weeded out by selection, whereas this will probably not happen in redundant (or receeding) genes, but can you point to any documentation that this has been verified? To my knowledge, our decoding of genes is still very incomplete, so are we at present able to say with any certainty which genes are redundant? Have we verified the exact role of the seemingly redundant genes? Please, no abbeviations, I'm new here and I dont find it productive to guess at what various letter codes mean. Cheers, Hans
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: If you hang around long, here are some abreviations you'll see. ToE == the theory of evolutionGUToB == PeterBorger's pet theory == God-awful Unsupportable Tarradiddle of Bull NS == natural selection LOL == laugh out loud ROTFLMAO == rolling on the floor laughing my arse off-- prolly not used often enough Sometimes people's login IDs are abbreviated as well. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRC_Hans Inactive Member |
quote:LMAO, U got me there, heheh. The MRC thingy is an old handle with no relevance to boards like this. I just stick to it so old friends may recognize me. Yes, I later read up on GUToB. I hope Peter can educate me sometime, because off-hand I dont think it makes too much sense. Hans
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024