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 10:35 AM
41 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,543 Year: 3,580/19,786 Month: 575/1,087 Week: 165/212 Day: 7/25 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
36NextFF
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 136 of 530 (527830)
10-02-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Peg
10-02-2009 1:12 AM


Simple tests for complex theories.
Peg, Christianity, like evolution, can be treated as a theory - a very ambitious 'theory of everything' that attempts to explain (all theories are "attempts to explain") everything observable in the universe. Like all good theories, it makes many predictions so that its validity can be tested. So, let us look at one of these predictions and compare it to the comparable prediction made by Darwin's theory of evolution.

Christianity's theory of disease is that all disease is a curse created by god to punish man for Adam's disobedience. This is a very reasonable and logical theory. God gives Adam many great gifts, including life and wife, and makes one simple, almost inconsequential request in return. Adam violates this request and god is quite justifiably pissed off and curses Adam, and all mankind, with disease. A simple, straightforward prediction can immediately be made from this theory: humans will have no immune system to protect them from disease. According to the Christian theory, for humans to have an immune system would be like sentencing a felon to be whipped, but then strapping a wooden board to his back so that he feels no discomfort, or imprisoning someone for some misdeed, but leaving all the gates and doors unlocked so that he is free to come and go as he wishes. I. e., this wouldn't be done and by the same token, there would be no immune system.

What does the theory of evolution predict? The theory of evolution predicts that if an immune system is a physiological and biochemical possibility, it will sooner or later evolve into existence since it would confer a very strong survival advantage to any individuals and species that possessed it. But the theory of evolution goes much further than this in making specific predictions. It predicts that if an immune system does come into existence, pathogens will then evolve to evade or neutralize that immune system, also for the survival advantage of doing so. And it predicts that the immune system will further evolve to counter the array of defenses that the pathogens have evolved for their survival. I. e., the theory of evolution predicts that any immune system that comes into existence will quickly (in geological time) evolve to be very flexible with the ability to blanket a whole host of pathogens in a great variety of ways.

Thus we have two very different theories that make two very different (diametrically opposed, really) predictions about how human physiology will react to the existence of disease. And reality can easily be checked to see which, if either, prediction is borne out. What does the evidence show? I'm sure that you yourself have recovered from some disease or other on at least several occasions and are therefor aware of the evidence. It shows that immune systems are physiologically and biochemically possible - almost every species of animal, plant, and even bacteria has several immune systems at its disposal - and the existence of all these immune systems falsifies the Theory of Christianity (ToC) and confirms in detail the Theory of Evolution (ToE).

Even more detailed and specific tests can be performed, for the ToC posits that forgiveness and redemption from god's wrath can be achieved by anyone who accepts Jesus as his personal savior and is born again in Christ. Thus, or so the theory would predict, at the moment one is baptized, anointed, or proclaimed to be born again, they should acquire an effective or enhanced immune system. This prediction is also subject to very easy testing. Just find some individuals who have seen the errors of their ways and are coming forth to be reunited with their savior and are also willing to have blood samples taken immediately before and immediately after their rebirth. Diagnostic procedures exist to test the quantity and quality of immune components in the blood and can be used to confirm or refute this further prediction of the ToC. Or we could just check the morbidity rates for Believer and non-Believer populations.

This is the kind of scientific research your creationist and intelligent design advocates should be conducting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Peg, posted 10-02-2009 1:12 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by pandion, posted 10-03-2009 1:00 AM AnswersInGenitals has responded
 Message 141 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:19 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1077 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 137 of 530 (527872)
10-03-2009 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by AnswersInGenitals
10-02-2009 7:14 PM


Re: Simple tests for complex theories.
This brings to mind "scientific" experiments into the efficacy of prayer. According to the "theory" of christianity, prayer is helpful. I have read of many such experiments, but when analyzed all have been found to be slanted in order to return a desired result, either that prayer works, or that it doesn't. The so called experiments were not blind or had no control.

There was even the case of the science fair project by a young student who planted and grew identical potted plants - in the case of one plant the student knelt and quietly prayed for the well-being of the plant; in the case of the other, the student leaned over the plant and insulted, demeaned and cursed it. The results were that the second plant did far better. The student concluded that she was not worthy in the eyes of her god.

But there has been one study about the efficacy of prayer that has been reveiwed and found to actually be scientific. This study involved coronary bypass patients. The patients were randomly placed into one of three categories. Category one were patients who were informed that they were being prayed for and who were submitted for prayer by a patient identifier to dozens of christian churches. Category two were patients who were informed that they were being prayed for but were not. Category three were patients who were neither told that they were being prayed for not told that they were being prayed for.

The results were judged by the incidence of post operation complications. Categories one and two fared almost the same. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative complications. Category three, however, had statistically significant fewer complications.

That's why I have placed more faith in the skill of my surgeons than in any prayers. One 7 hour surgery with two surgeons doing a tag team, each doing their speciality, succeeded marvelously. I just said thank you to all of those who said they were praying for me. Another surgery, my burst appendix, resulted in no infection. It was the skill of the surgeon and the massive doses of antibiotics, and not prayer that prevented any subsequent infection. I know this because no one knew of my burst appendix until after the fact. There were no prayers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-02-2009 7:14 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-03-2009 1:43 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 138 of 530 (527875)
10-03-2009 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by pandion
10-03-2009 1:00 AM


Re: Simple tests for complex theories.
So much for "...ask and it shall be given..." Perhaps prayer is like all those paranormal phenomena that only work when no skeptics are there to observe them.

Can anyone think of any other testable predictions that the Theory of Christianity makes? If Buzsaw were still posting here he would propose a whole slew of biblical prophesies, although the tests demonstrating the fulfillment of those prophesies have been somewhat equivocal. Does the apparition of the Virgin Mary in a potato chip count? It's really the proponents of the ToC that should be proposing and performing such tests.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by pandion, posted 10-03-2009 1:00 AM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by AdminNosy, posted 10-03-2009 10:42 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 139 of 530 (527901)
10-03-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coyote
10-02-2009 1:18 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Coyote writes:

For example, the Creation Research Society has the following in its Statement of Belief:

1.the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

Would you say that their members, who ascribe to this statement of belief, would be able to do actual science?

Yes i think they would be able to and there are many who do.

the three things you mention above all are evidence based.

1. genesis presents a general order of creation which is very close to what is seen.

2. the fossil record shows sudden appearances of fully formed creatures. No intermediaries or no large numbers of mutations have been left behind.

3. the evidence for the flood is seen in how deserts are riddled with seashells, fissures and caves in high mountains have been found full of large varieties of animals, fossils mostly form under wet conditions by being burried suddenly such as in a time of a flood for instance.

So in line with this thread, there are reasons to doubt evolution. If you want to start a new thread refuting such evidence then do so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Coyote, posted 10-02-2009 1:18 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2009 10:13 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Parasomnium, posted 10-03-2009 10:31 AM Peg has responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2565 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 140 of 530 (527903)
10-03-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Coyote
10-01-2009 11:27 PM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
"False in several ways. The harmful mutations go away! They are eliminated from the gene pool. What do you think natural selection does, anyway? It eliminates those harmful mutations immediately. They do not "contribute to the degeneration of animal" because the animals that have them either are not born or die soon after. It is a creationist religious belief that the genome is deteriorating, and a false one that is not supported by scientific evidence"

Coyote, let's evolve a new gene!

The average gene is around 1300 base pairs in size, but we'll make ours a little smaller at 1000 bps.

To give ourselves a flying start, we'll say there was a gene-duplication event in this particular genome, and the duplicate gene is already 98% similar to the gene we want to evolve. Of course, natural selection won't apply to a duplicate gene, so we'll need to evolve it to a point where natural selection can take it to completion. Let's say we have to improve it by just 0.5% for NS to kick in. So the new gene is 20 bps away from completion, with just 5 bps required to enable natural selection.

Let's hit our new gene with 25 random mutations. On probabilities, there's a 1 in 2 chance that one of these mutations will land in our 2% target area. Of course, there's only a 1 in 4 chance it will be the correct one, given that there are 4 different nucleotides.

But let's say that this is a really lucky gene! It gets not 1 but 5 mutations in the target area, and -believe it or not- all of these mutations are the right ones! The odds of 5 mutations in the target area are 1 in 105 = 1/100,000. And then of course, if we
want them all to be correct, thats 1 in 45 = 1/1024. So the actual chance of this happening is 1 in 102,400,000. But like we said, this is a really lucky gene!

So lucky, that it's now got the 5 correct mutations it needed to improve by 0.5% and reach that magic figure of 98.5% completion. Now natural selection can take it the rest of the way!

Or can it?

What happened to the other 20 mutations? Well, logically, they must have landed on the "already complete" part of the gene. Oh dear! Did they do any damage?

Well, let's see. On probabilities, 1 in 4 would be correct anyway, causing no change. That leaves 15 that logically...must be incorrect. So the number of base pairs that are now incorrect would be 30. The gene is now only 97% correct!

So...

DESPITE having a duplicate gene to work on that was already 98% complete...

DESPITE requiring only 0.5% improvement to be rescued by natural selection...

DESPITE a favourable accident at odds of more than 100 million to one...

...evolution has actually gone backwards.


<b>Kaich</b>
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2009 11:27 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:22 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 150 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2009 10:04 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 153 by Theodoric, posted 10-03-2009 10:23 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 10-04-2009 7:07 PM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 141 of 530 (527904)
10-03-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by AnswersInGenitals
10-02-2009 7:14 PM


Re: Simple tests for complex theories.
AnswersInGenitals writes:

the existence of all these immune systems falsifies the Theory of Christianity (ToC) and confirms in detail the Theory of Evolution (ToE).

how do you suppose it does that?

Do you really think that the theory you posed in paragraph 1 is an actual theory? (i've never heard of it hence why im not sure if you made it up for argumens sake)

.

AnswersInGenitals writes:

ToC posits that forgiveness and redemption from god's wrath can be achieved by anyone who accepts Jesus as his personal savior and is born again in Christ. Thus, or so the theory would predict, at the moment one is baptized, anointed, or proclaimed to be born again, they should acquire an effective or enhanced immune system. This prediction is also subject to very easy testing. Just find some individuals who have seen the errors of their ways and are coming forth to be reunited with their savior and are also willing to have blood samples taken immediately before and immediately after their rebirth. Diagnostic procedures exist to test the quantity and quality of immune components in the blood and can be used to confirm or refute this further prediction of the ToC. Or we could just check the morbidity rates for Believer and non-Believer populations.

This is the kind of scientific research your creationist and intelligent design advocates should be conducting.

ok so are you trying to use this as way to measure/test christianity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-02-2009 7:14 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 142 of 530 (527905)
10-03-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 9:11 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
*edited*

i'll put on my glasses and try to read twice before commenting in future

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:11 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2009 9:39 AM Peg has responded
 Message 145 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:53 AM Peg has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 143 of 530 (527906)
10-03-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Peg
10-03-2009 9:22 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Er... did you not understand the post?

Kaichos Man has posted on your side.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:22 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:48 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 144 of 530 (527908)
10-03-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Jack
10-03-2009 9:39 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Oh crikey!

i though he replied to me lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2009 9:39 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2565 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 145 of 530 (527909)
10-03-2009 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Peg
10-03-2009 9:22 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
What's this, Peg? Friendly fire? I think you may have mistaken me for someone else!

Cheers,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:22 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:56 AM Kaichos Man has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 146 of 530 (527910)
10-03-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 9:53 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
im sorry i was on auto pilot

i did click onto how you were pointing out that mutations do not support evolution

i'll be happy to have someone take over on this one for a while...my head hurts lol

PS, i'd be interested to see what reply's you get

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:53 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:59 AM Peg has responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2565 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 147 of 530 (527911)
10-03-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Peg
10-03-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
No worries, Peg.

I don't think Coyote is around, so I don't know if anyone else wants to jump in and try to save our poor "devolving" gene?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:56 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 10:01 AM Kaichos Man has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 148 of 530 (527913)
10-03-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 9:59 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
wow, first post and you've jumped right in there there and taken the bull by the horns

whats your science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:59 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:10 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 149 of 530 (527914)
10-03-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Peg
10-01-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Peg writes:

from what i've read , every field of science produces evidence that discounts [evolution]

The question is then, have you read source material directly from these fields of science, or have you read digests prepared by creationists with a hidden agenda? You should really try to get closer to the sources. I've asked you before if you've read Darwin's "Voyage Of The Beagle", or his "Origin Of Species". They may seem daunting books to read, but I assure you, Darwin wrote very clear and understandable prose, quite modern for his day. I heartily recommend giving it a try, even if you'd do it only to better understand what it is you're opposing.

Geology for instance shows sudden appearances in the fossil record rather then a continual and progressive change from one species to another.

But I said: if it were the only evidence, you'd have a point, "it" being the fossil record. You probably glanced over it too quickly, because now you mention it again. Well, never mind.

the evidence shows that mutation doesnt drive evolution

It might help to look at it this way: mutations are the raw material that natural selection works on. So, indeed, mutations do not drive evolution, they're the fuel. Natural selection is what drives evolution, weeding out harmful mutations and letting neutral and beneficial mutations slip through. Even if only 1 per cent of all mutations is beneficial, in the long run they will pervade the population. Remember, evolution means change in populations over time, not individual hopeful monsters overnight.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 10-01-2009 10:21 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:03 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 150 of 530 (527915)
10-03-2009 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 9:11 AM


There is not a target mutation
So lucky, that it's now got the 5 correct mutations it needed to improve by 0.5% and reach that magic figure of 98.5% completion. Now natural selection can take it the rest of the way!

(emphasis mine)

It doesn't work this way. There aren't "correct mutations", evolution is not searching toward a single "correct" sequence of nucleotides. Because the assumptions behind your calculations are wrong, your results are meaningless.

Edited by Mr Jack, : tag fix


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:11 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:25 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
36NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019