Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 6 of 136 (3511)
02-06-2002 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 12:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1 + 1 = 2
I don`t doubt 1 + 1 = 2 for a second but as an exercise in understanding the nature of proof can you prove it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 12:16 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 8:40 AM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 136 (3517)
02-06-2002 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by gene90
02-06-2002 8:40 AM


hows 1 + 1 = 2 outside mathematics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 8:40 AM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 6:08 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 136 (3565)
02-06-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 6:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i meant that it is easy to observe and it doesnt have any parts left to be filled in. those parts cannot be filled in by opinions, assumptions, beliefs, etc.
Actually you replied to something I said to gene if you look up 2 posts you will find that I asked you if you could prove 1+1=2.
So can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 6:08 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 7:48 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 136 (3572)
02-06-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cobra_snake
02-06-2002 7:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
An example of a mutation creating something new would be interesting, since it would take millions of these to create the diversity of life as we see it today.
Um bud we have millions of years in our model......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-06-2002 7:56 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 8:07 PM joz has replied
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 10:55 PM joz has replied
 Message 34 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-07-2002 3:35 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 136 (3575)
02-06-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 8:07 PM


He said it would take millions of years I pointed out that we have millions of years (hundress of millions in fact)....
So any assumptions were Cobra`s not mine...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 8:07 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 136 (3576)
02-06-2002 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 8:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
your also assuming that a mutation occurs every year or so. which you know damn well that it doesnt.

Yes your quite right they happen rather more freqeuntly than 1 a year....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 8:07 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 136 (3585)
02-06-2002 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 8:13 PM


From:
http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~hollidac/mutationrate.html
quote:
For example, Postgate's calculation can be used to show that each of us produces 20 x 10^9 (20 billion) E. coli each day and that E. coli mutates at the approximate rate of one mutant gene per 1 x 10^7 (10 million) bacteria. Thus we can calculate that in each of our guts each day there are two thousand mutations in E. coli genes. I wonder if Jeremy Rifkin has ever considered the fact that, each time he travels to give a public lecture on the alleged dangers of genetic engineering, he is releasing two thousand or so mutant strains of E. coli from his own gut into the local public sewer system (I'm assuming here that he spends one day in the city where he speaks and that he is a regular guy). It is very unlikely that the research labs Rifkin is so fond of excoriating release such a number of mutant bacteria into the environment in a year. Should his movements be restricted on the grounds that he is releasing 730,000 mutant bacteria per year into the environment?
I`d say rather more than 1 mutation a year eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 8:13 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 02-06-2002 8:58 PM joz has not replied
 Message 26 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 10:14 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 136 (3612)
02-06-2002 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The chuawa for instance, all that work to create a perfectly useless dog, any more variation in the chuawa, its in the shallow gene pool.

First that is Chihuahua not chuawa....
second this is a bloody dumb example in case you did not realise chihuahuas are a domesticated breed of dog i.e. natural selection (apart from terribly lethal mutations) takes a back seat to selective breeding by us humans....
If chihuahuas had evolved sans human influence you might have a point as it is you don`t.....
Just for reference what is your opinion of poodles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 10:55 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 136 (3622)
02-07-2002 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 7:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i dont fully understand what your asking.
Simply prove that 1+1=2 (it can be done)
This is a good exercise for you in the nature of proof...
1+1=2 is an a priori statement which may or may not be true (I`m not saying it isn`t) untill you prove it mathmaticaly it is no more valid than saying 1+1=3......
(hint: the first step is to define 1, then define addition, then define 2 all that is left then is to bring it all together)
I`m just aking you to do this so that you learn the difference between 1+1=2 as an a priori statement that seems to work and 1+1=2 as a mathmaticaly proved statement.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 7:48 PM KingPenguin 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

  
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

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 136 (3842)
02-08-2002 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 12:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
This seems to be a decline, which does happen, is there an example of incline?
Posted this earlier but here we go again....
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 12:20 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 136 (3851)
02-08-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 1:20 PM


TC you seem to have missed my earlier post so once again I refer you to post 47 at the top of this page for an example of new information....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:58 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 136 (3855)
02-08-2002 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 1:59 PM


Are you being deliberately obtuse TC?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:59 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 3:19 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 136 (3862)
02-08-2002 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by KingPenguin
02-08-2002 3:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
there we go again. wooooo sarcasm/jerkism. now im too distracted to even start reading again.
It was a serious question, despite providing exactly the sort of example TC required i was met with an answer of no it isn`t....
I was asking TC in all seriousness whether he was deliberately choosing to gainsay the very evidence he had earlier stated would be relevant....
(added by edit FYI KP I posted proof of 1+1=2 on Mooses thread of the same name last night...)
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 3:19 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 1:23 AM joz 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