Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fact Theory Falacy
toff
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 136 (3628)
02-07-2002 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 5:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Here are the FACTS:"
--Lets see what we got.
"Organisms are related to each other to a greater or lesser degree (this is obvious, a zebra is more closely related to a horse then to a dandylion)."
--To a degree yes this is fact.
"Organisms demonstrate that they have common descent (morphology, genetics, fossil record)."
--No, this is not fact, this is interperetation of the evidence in contrast with the un-observable past.
"Allele frequencies in populations can and do occur in response to envrinmental changes (the famous peppered moths)."
--Yup, natural selection.
"Organisms reproduce, and have more offspring then can possible survive. THe offspring had inherited genes from their parents, so that they are very similar but also unique. The expression of some of these genes may improve certain individuals' chances of survival given current conditions."
--To a degree this is true.
"Mutations can and do occur that are beneficial, or can even endow an organism with something totally new (like the bacteria that was observed to have developed an enzyme capable of digesting nylon due to a missing base pair in a DNA sequence for an existing gene)."
--You almost had it right, untill you said that it created something new, and then contredicted yourself when you said 'due to a missing base pair', something was missing for this to take place it seems.
--So would these be the potential facts?

No, these would not be 'potential' facts - these are facts. The theory of evolution is a theory which attempts to link these facts together. This theory has been sufficiently researched to the point where it, too, is fact (ie., a scientific fact - something sufficiently demonstrated/evidenced that it would be perverse to deny it).
And on your last point, the original poster was quite correct. Something new can easily occur due to mutation, including (for example) a missing base pair. Many genes have the effect of preventing things from occurring; the absence of this effect allows the thing to occur - and viola, something new!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 5:43 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-07-2002 3:42 PM toff has replied
 Message 40 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 11:09 PM toff has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 33 of 136 (3653)
02-07-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 9:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
There has been some discussion on what you would consider a Fact, and it seems that it is, I ask the more of specifics on what they would call a fact, that it resembles the relevance of a theory rather than a factoid. What is the definition and views on the differences of fact and theory?

Personally I would have thought this was a pretty simple question.
A THEORY is an explanation for the existence of a number of observable
phenomena (FACTS).
Evolution IS a theory ... not a fact. No matter how many observations
of the world support it, it will always be a theory. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the diversity of life on earth, and as
Darwin's title says the origin of species.
A belief (no matter where it comes from) is NOT fact.
I believe that Evolution is a feasible, well supported explanaiton
for the diversity of life on earth. This is because it plausibly
explains many FACTS which can be observed.
What facts? A couple would be:
Anatomical similarities between ALL vertebrates.
The fossil record (whatever you believe about it fossils DO exist).
I'm not arguing what those facts are at the moment, I'm discussing the nature of FACT and THEORY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 9:03 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 7:54 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 136 (3702)
02-07-2002 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by joz
02-06-2002 8:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Um bud we have millions of years in our model......

You misunderstood me a bit.
1. Millions of mutations would have to occur to create the present diversity.
2. These mutations would have to INCREASE information.
3. Give me an example of a mutation that INCREASES information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 02-06-2002 8:04 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 3:48 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 136 (3704)
02-07-2002 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by toff
02-07-2002 4:25 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by toff:
Many genes have the effect of preventing things from occurring; the absence of this effect allows the thing to occur - and viola, something new!
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well evolution needs to explain how the information got there BEFORE it was removed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 4:25 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 2:55 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 136 (3706)
02-07-2002 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cobra_snake
02-07-2002 3:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
You misunderstood me a bit.
1. Millions of mutations would have to occur to create the present diversity.
2. These mutations would have to INCREASE information.
3. Give me an example of a mutation that INCREASES information.

From:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/doolittle.html
quote:
...the process of gene duplication can occur in a number of ways, and the most common mechanisms are well understood. Sexual organisms, for example, have two sets of chromosomes (one from each parent) which line up during the cell division process called meiosis. As it happens, the very long DNA threads are constantly breaking and being rejoined. The rejoining process is not 100 percent accurate, however, and often one of the chromosomes comes away with a little more of the DNA than its pairee, which will have correspondingly less. The lucky gametes that come away with the more are said to have had a "gene duplication," although the amount of DNA may amount to only a part of a gene or maybe a whole string of genes. The process can be seen in action in that there are people who have certain diseases as a result of having pieces of genes missing and other people, usually healthy, who have exactly the missing parts extra!
Thus, the result of such gene duplication is that a creature may have an old gene that encodes some protein and a new one that, under normal circumstances, has nothing much to do. Most of the time one of the duplicates will simply wither away as a result of the relentless rain of amino acid replacements that are constantly being inflicted on all proteins; natural selection cannot, after all, operate on idle proteins, but only on those that are being used. Occasionally, however, the occurrence of a new protein can be of fortuitous advantage, and it is preserved: we already have a very long list of proteins that are clearly the products of gene duplications. Indeed, one of the major goals of molecular evolutionists is to trace the family pedigree of proteins back through time in an effort to identify the small number of genes that must have been present in the earliest organisms.
Consider hemoglobin, a protein Dr. Behe has worked on professionally, and that he discusses in his book. Almost everybody knows that hemoglobin is the protein packed into red blood cells that carries oxygen around to the tissues. Behe notes that it consists of two different types of protein chain. He calls them "analogous," steadfastly refusing to call them "homologous"--a term that indicates common ancestry, and that everyone else uses. Certainly no thinking biochemist doubts that these two chains, referred to as "alpha" and "beta," are the results of a gene duplication. They are composed of 141 and 146 amino acid units, respectively, and 63 of them are exactly the same, which is to say their amino acid sequences are about 45 percent identical.
It is also well known that the foetus has a different hemoglobin in its red cells. The alpha chains are the same as the "adult" kind, but the other chain comes from another duplicated gene called "gamma." The gamma chain is also 45 percent identical with the alpha, but 70 percent identical to the beta (they share 107 amino acid units). Clearly, the gamma chain has shared ancestry more recently with the beta than it has with the alpha. It also has one very advantageous physiological property: when combined with the alpha chain it binds oxygen more tightly than does the adult hemoglobin. As a result, the foetus, which won't breathe on its own until birth, is insured of the flow of oxygen moving in its direction from the maternal circulation. As it happens, humans actually have several genes for hemoglobins, some being expressed only at embryonic stages, and one only in tissues.
We can make another family tree from hemoglobin sequences by using species comparisons instead of the duplicated genes. The tree could be based on alpha or beta hemoglobins, for example. And when we do that something interesting is observed. Because the rates of change in sequence are fairly uniform, we can gauge when the gene duplications occurred that gave rise to the alpha, beta, and gamma chains, as well as the others. It is apparent that earlier diverging animals ought not to have all the hemoglobin genes that humans have, because they diverged before particular duplications occurred. In fact, we know that jawless fish, which are the most primitive vertebrates extant, have single-chained hemoglobins in their red blood cells, because they diverged before the pivotal duplication that separated the alpha and beta chains.

IOW the original gene was duplicated then changed enough to assume a function (the duplicate had no function before as the original kept its own role), Does that qualify as new information to you?
Oh and how is kingpenguin doing on that proof of 1+1=2?
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-07-2002 3:35 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 37 of 136 (3739)
02-07-2002 6:17 PM


i still dont know why i have to and i dont know what you mean by it. but in my original statement i meant for the answer you would supply would have to be as blunt and precise as 1+1=2. you take a molten rock and then find another molten rock, move it to that rock and you have a pile of two rocks. theres no question to how the pile was formed and theres no question as to how the rocks were formed. that is how it happened.
however you cannot see 2 rocks and automatically know exactly how they got together in a pile without doing it yourself. any assumptions you made would be a general guess and you wouldnt have any support of it.
which inevitably means nothing can be entirely proven.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-07-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-07-2002 6:42 PM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 39 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 8:45 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 38 of 136 (3744)
02-07-2002 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by KingPenguin
02-07-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
i still dont know why i have to and i dont know what you mean by it. but in my original statement i meant for the answer you would supply would have to be as blunt and precise as 1+1=2. you take a molten rock and then find another molten rock, move it to that rock and you have a pile of two rocks. theres no question to how the pile was formed and theres no question as to how the rocks were formed. that is how it happened.
however you cannot see 2 rocks and automatically know exactly how they got together in a pile without doing it yourself. any assumptions you made would be a general guess and you wouldnt have any support of it.
which inevitably means nothing can be entirely proven.
I havn't investigated 1+1=2, but I suspect it is a fundimental assumption on mathematics, that hasn't been proven. I may be wrong.
The other part - You have wandered into geo-territory! What are you talking about? Make it clearer, and I'll try to respond.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by KingPenguin, posted 02-07-2002 6:17 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 136 (3749)
02-07-2002 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by KingPenguin
02-07-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i still dont know why i have to and i dont know what you mean by it. but in my original statement i meant for the answer you would supply would have to be as blunt and precise as 1+1=2. you take a molten rock and then find another molten rock, move it to that rock and you have a pile of two rocks. theres no question to how the pile was formed and theres no question as to how the rocks were formed. that is how it happened.
however you cannot see 2 rocks and automatically know exactly how they got together in a pile without doing it yourself. any assumptions you made would be a general guess and you wouldnt have any support of it.
which inevitably means nothing can be entirely proven.

Actualy i gave you a series of steps to follow in order to prove 1+1=2 (yes Moose it can be done!) they are as follows:
Step 1) Define 1.
Step 2) define addition.
Step 3) define 2.
Step 4)combine steps 1 through 3.
Your example is flawed in that if you combine a pile of molten rock withanother pile of molten rock the product is one big pile of molten rock.... i.e 1+1=1 not quite right eh?
If your rocks were not molten then you would have 1 rock plus another rock is a pile of 2 rocks BUT you have not proven 1+1=2 you have merely demonstrated that in this specific case two rocks are two rocks....
So if you cannot prove 1+1=2 i suggest you stop using it as an example of a fact....
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by KingPenguin, posted 02-07-2002 6:17 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 136 (3778)
02-07-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by toff
02-07-2002 4:25 AM


" Message 32 of 39 02-07-2002 04:25 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Here are the FACTS:"
--Lets see what we got.
"Organisms are related to each other to a greater or lesser degree (this is obvious, a zebra is more closely related to a horse then to a dandylion)."
--To a degree yes this is fact.
"Organisms demonstrate that they have common descent (morphology, genetics, fossil record)."
--No, this is not fact, this is interperetation of the evidence in contrast with the un-observable past.
"Allele frequencies in populations can and do occur in response to envrinmental changes (the famous peppered moths)."
--Yup, natural selection.
"Organisms reproduce, and have more offspring then can possible survive. THe offspring had inherited genes from their parents, so that they are very similar but also unique. The expression of some of these genes may improve certain individuals' chances of survival given current conditions."
--To a degree this is true.
"Mutations can and do occur that are beneficial, or can even endow an organism with something totally new (like the bacteria that was observed to have developed an enzyme capable of digesting nylon due to a missing base pair in a DNA sequence for an existing gene)."
--You almost had it right, untill you said that it created something new, and then contredicted yourself when you said 'due to a missing base pair', something was missing for this to take place it seems.
--So would these be the potential facts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, these would not be 'potential' facts - these are facts. The theory of evolution is a theory which attempts to link these facts together. This theory has been sufficiently researched to the point where it, too, is fact (ie., a scientific fact - something sufficiently demonstrated/evidenced that it would be perverse to deny it).
And on your last point, the original poster was quite correct. Something new can easily occur due to mutation, including (for example) a missing base pair. Many genes have the effect of preventing things from occurring; the absence of this effect allows the thing to occur - and viola, something new!"
--Something new in the scence as you describe yes, but not in the scence of evolution taking place, to put it simply 'viola!' you just proved a theory on creation in biological diversity.
--The one fact that has fallacy as I indicated previously, is the "Organisms demonstrate that they have common descent (morphology, genetics, fossil record).", and as you just stated, this is the conclusion that some people would come up with after examining the other facts that they presented in the first post.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 4:25 AM toff has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 136 (3786)
02-08-2002 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Cobra_snake
02-07-2002 3:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well evolution needs to explain how the information got there BEFORE it was removed.
That is precisely what evolution DOES explain. As so often happens, when creationists get an answer they don't like, they merely shift the goalposts. Mutation is possible to have accounted for all 'information' being there and being removed/modified.
-----------------------------------------------------------
--Something new in the scence as you describe yes, but not in the scence of evolution taking place, to put it simply 'viola!' you just proved a theory on creation in biological diversity.
I fear you have understood neither the original post nor my reply to it. A missing base pair (for example), occurring by mutation, can easily create something new (to that organism) in the organism that possesses it. This is precisely evolution taking place, and has nothing to do with creation, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-07-2002 3:42 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 02-08-2002 5:32 AM toff has replied
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 12:19 PM toff has replied
 Message 57 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 3:18 PM toff has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 42 of 136 (3790)
02-08-2002 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by toff
02-08-2002 2:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
That is precisely what evolution DOES explain. As so often happens, when creationists get an answer they don't like, they merely shift the goalposts. Mutation is possible to have accounted for all 'information' being there and being removed/modified.
Yes ... and according to geneticists you can see this in modern
birds.
The genes exist in modern birds for teeth, but are 'switched off'.
The information is there, but other factors stop it from being
used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 2:55 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 6:57 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied
 Message 45 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 12:20 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 136 (3793)
02-08-2002 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peter
02-08-2002 5:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Yes ... and according to geneticists you can see this in modern
birds.
The genes exist in modern birds for teeth, but are 'switched off'.
The information is there, but other factors stop it from being
used.

Exactly. There are any number of other examples, which can be found by anyone who cares to do the research. Genetic mutation (in its various forms) can (at least in theory) result in virtually any change in the host. That is something that not even creationists could disagree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 02-08-2002 5:32 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 136 (3839)
02-08-2002 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by toff
02-08-2002 2:55 AM


"I fear you have understood neither the original post nor my reply to it. A missing base pair (for example), occurring by mutation, can easily create something new (to that organism) in the organism that possesses it. This is precisely evolution taking place, and has nothing to do with creation, sorry."
--Well then I would have to say evolution takes place if this is your accusation, evolution in a scence as I depict it out of the Creation theory, this is exactly what is needed for diversity from a less specialized kind. According to what you said you can do this:
Take a Chain that is this long:
----------------------------
Remove a peice of it so that it is this long:
------------------------
And mabye along the line of these mutations, someday you will get one this long:
-----------------------------------------
You need something else in there to make evolution a more plausable explination than is depicted from your accusation of this is all 'E'volution needs.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 2:55 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 3:29 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 136 (3840)
02-08-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peter
02-08-2002 5:32 AM


"The genes exist in modern birds for teeth, but are 'switched off'.
The information is there, but other factors stop it from being
used."
--This seems to be a decline, which does happen, is there an example of incline?
--Basically what you need is Fish to Philosopher, not Philosopher to Fish.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 02-08-2002 5:32 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 12:22 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 47 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 12:23 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 136 (3841)
02-08-2002 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 12:20 PM


Nylon digestion by bacteria has been observed naturally and then replicated in the lab. Of course, the words you are using are rather difficult to define. How exactly are you defining information and measuring it? What is incline and decline in a manner that is quantifiable?
Details, details...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 12:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 12:33 PM lbhandli 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