Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 1 of 136 (2636)
01-21-2002 9:03 PM


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?
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 3:11 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 02-07-2002 10:35 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 136 (2775)
01-25-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
01-22-2002 3:11 PM


Ok Great, now how is this definition consistant with Evolution?
What part of Evolution is Fact, what part is Theory? Why is it so.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 3:11 PM nator has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 136 (3544)
02-06-2002 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Late_Cretaceous
02-05-2002 11:34 PM


"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?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Late_Cretaceous, posted 02-05-2002 11:34 PM Late_Cretaceous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 4:25 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 136 (3597)
02-06-2002 10:51 PM


Is there evidence to substantiate a plausable evolutionary ideal observable mechenism by which we can view a single-celled organism on its way with evolutionary guidance? Thus falsifying the fellow creationist implication that you cannot get anything new out of 'e'volution, and that it is nothing more than a devolving process if any change (evolution simply meaning change).
------------------

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 136 (3599)
02-06-2002 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by joz
02-06-2002 8:04 PM


"Um bud we have millions of years in our model......"
--The thing is, is that we need mutations and natural selections to co-opt with our theories on anatomical, biological, and botinal diversity, speciation, and variation. It seems as we observe today, things are getting more specialized, simply losing and scrambling what we already have, this is well represented in variations in Dogs, think about it, 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.
------------------

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 29 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 11:03 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 30 by joz, posted 02-06-2002 11:43 PM TrueCreation 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

  
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

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 136 (3845)
02-08-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by lbhandli
02-08-2002 12:22 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?"
--Hm.. this is a bit tough to define, lets see what we can do. I guess it would go a little something like this:
You have:
AGTTACCCTCAAGTTC
--Mutation involves this sequence of mistranslations:
AGTTAC|CCTC|AAGTTC|
A mutation takes place and is re-arranged:
AGTTAC|GTTC|CCTCAA|
This happens ofcourse, this is another example of something that happens:
Your sequence:
GTTACTTCCCATATCCGGTGGCCAGGG
GTTACTTCCCATA|TCCGG|TGGCCAGGG|
A peice is removed and this is your product from mutation:
GTTACTTCCCATA|TGGCCAGGG|
or:
GTTACTTCCCATA|TCCGG
--This is basically what you need:
This:
AGGTCTCAACTAGTCTGGAGGCTGA
And By mutational effects get this:
|-New information-|
AGGTCTCAACT|-CTAG-|TGGA|-AGT-|TGA|-AGTAACTACCTGTG-|
--By my knowledge this seems to be what you need for new 'information' to come about.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 12:22 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 1:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 136 (3850)
02-08-2002 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mark24
02-08-2002 1:15 PM


"Not sure what you're driving at TC, perhaps a definition of new information is in order?"
--See above, I gave examples on what new information would be as a string of bases, this is what new information is to my knoweldge that 'E'volution needs.
quote:
This:
AGGTCTCAACTAGTCTGGAGGCTGA
And By mutational effects get this:
|-New information-|
AGGTCTCAACT|-CTAG-|TGGA|-AGT-|TGA|-AGTAACTACCTGTG-|
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 1:15 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 1:46 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 1:51 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 136 (3853)
02-08-2002 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by joz
02-08-2002 1:46 PM


I can't find where it makes relevance to something new observably coming about, could you point it out to me? It seems they are talking of how they could have come about from a previous ancestor, not giving an example of this new information coming about.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 1:46 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 2:46 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 136 (3854)
02-08-2002 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by mark24
02-08-2002 1:51 PM


Is there an example?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 1:51 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 2:01 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 136 (3905)
02-09-2002 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by joz
02-08-2002 3:31 PM


"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 wasn't what I was really doing, I was actually trying to push the converstion, I was asking you what in there talks of an observed example of new information, I find the link that mark24 gave me very interesting, I wish I was a biologist, but I'll have to look at some stuff before I am able to reply to it. But what I asked you Joz is what is the example they state? I am trying to push the conversation, not stop it with 'well that isn't what I am looking for' I won't make such an assertion definantly as of yet.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 3:31 PM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 136 (3906)
02-09-2002 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by mark24
02-08-2002 2:46 PM


"You provided an example that would mean that new information had been presented.
I concur, whether it codes for anything useful is irrelevant to your example. It was a standard set by YOU, not me or Joz. The point is it COULD.
Joz has provided you with an example of entire genes being duplicated, mutating, & being useful, to his example I would add myoglobin, that stores oxygen in muscle tissue."
--I am not against the biological mutation as there being possibly beneficial, I find this not as a fallacy in creationist material, but a neccessity.
"Is there an example of point mutations creating new functional protein?
Yes.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche. They don't work at all on the bacterium's original food - carbohydrates. And this type of mutation has even happened more than once!"
--I found the article very interesting, I also found this, I quote form an AiG rebutal towards an e-mail they received regarding nylon digesting bacterium:
AiG - That depends on what your definition of information is - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp
[QUOTE] Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids
--Unfortunatelly I can't locate the reading they sighted so wouldn't be able to get more information regarding it, but I found this quote interesting.
--Also note, I am wishing I were more knowledgable in the biological field, because I am almost positive that this is going to bring in a considerably molecular biological debate, thus involving my intelligence on the subject, I'll go to the best of my ability though.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 2:46 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 7:33 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 136 (3918)
02-09-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mark24
02-09-2002 7:33 AM


"But, again, there is no definition of what information is, let alone new information.
TC, you have already given me the requirements that genetic information would need to display to exhibit new information, I have shown that it does occur by mutation, by your definition. You cannot now move the goalposts by defining information differently. What is the point of a discussion, when the person who has his definition of new information proven, then cries "that's not the correct definition!"."
--I will stick to my definition of new information as I did in the past post, now with the example you have given me, it seems this would be new information, now all we have to do is figure out what was the method of this new information, ie, can it cooperate with a creationists response to 'new information' as new information should be able to be a short mirror image of evolution taking place. For instance, I can take human DNA and put it into a bacterium or somthing of that nature and wouldn't that be new information? Technically yes, but it has previously existed, that would be one example that would not quallify. I'm not ready to cry and say 'thats not the correct definition!'.
--The only thing I am worried about is getting myself stuck in a rut by means of getting into something that I may not have the knowledge to easily participate in, as you may. Though this does not confine my interest in the subject of new information.
"I have asked many times for creationists to define "new information", now you know why they don't, because that definition could show new information, as a result of mutation. At least you had the balls to try."
--And hey, mabye I have the balls to carry on! Lets just hope they don't get splatterd.
"New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids is like saying digestion of starch is due to chromosomes."
--Sorry, I was just mentioning the comment, obviously it claims to be significant, so I thought I would propose it. I don't actually have the article though I would love to get ahold of it .
"What this shows is an example of not understanding the issue in hand. What is being inferred is that the gene was gained from another bacteria, via interspecial recombination, which does occur."
--So the gene was taken from another bacteria?
"However, the ORIGINAL carbohydrate gene has been sequenced, as has the new nylon one This shows the addition of a Thymine nucleotide, causing frame shift. No amount of wriggling will get away from this, it is a repeatable experiment. I repeat, the only difference in over 400 nucleotides is a single thymine addition."
--Its a repeatable experiment, how was it observed, and how was the experiment carried out?
"Now, back to new information. The problem I have with creationist definitions of the above, is that they deliberately try to be so narrow, so as to exclude new functional proteins as being derived from new information. For example, when I asked for a definition of new information, I got this :
A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon),
Can you not see our frustration? Does this definition allow new information to be gleaned by a book? Morse code? Pictures? No, it’s ridiculously narrow a definition. A simple, all encompassing definition is all we want. Then, armed with this, we can check definitions of new information that exist at different levels of information. ie What is & isn’t new information in a genetic context, but I want a general definition first."
--I must say I don't have the highest knowledge in the field of genetics or molecular biology, so that is my main problem. I would have to say though, that new information, doesn't really have to have a functional use to a sertain degree. But if thats all they can find, non-functional use, then thats a problem that Evolution on the the macro-scale will have to figure out. I would still like to have a somewhat discussion on this, I have the feeling I won't be able to carry on later though, I may not know genetics like you may. (hey at-least I have the 'balls' to admit it).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 7:33 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 7:27 PM TrueCreation 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