Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 331 of 396 (585921)
10-10-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 10:05 AM


BarackZero writes:
There is no "separate form of science," as you claim.
That's the point of the thread. If creationism/ID was science, there would be a whole raft of examples you could give of experiments that they have done already. And yet, none of you even seems to be able to suggest an experiment that could be done to demonstrate creationism/ID.
All creationists ever do is re-interpret data that has been collected by the very scientists that they revile. No experiments = no science.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 10:05 AM BarackZero has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 332 of 396 (585924)
10-10-2010 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 10:05 AM


* Vacuous rhetoric snipped *
Golly, you waste a lot of your time on this stuff.
Let that sole, unique card sequence be representative of an amino acid sequence in a polypeptide. Nothing else will work. Nothing.
This is, of course, untrue, as you would know if you had yourself taken any interest in the subject on which you now wish to lecture others.
Now for each stage where a precursor is "selected" through the sieve you all know so very well, please provide some plausible use for that intermediary. What does it do to help the organism survive better? Each step requires this function - this survival mechanism.
So name them, however many thousands that will be.
As the theory of evolution does not predict that we should be able to do this, this does not constitute a test of the ToE.
Those are your experiments.
Perhaps if you wish to continue posting on this thread, you should find out the meaning of the word "experiment".
You should also notice that the title of this thread is "Creation Science" experiments, not Freeform Whining About Science And The People Who Understand It. Maybe at some point you'd like to contribute to the topic.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 10:05 AM BarackZero has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 333 of 396 (586231)
10-12-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by AZPaul3
10-04-2010 1:04 PM


Re: CASE CLOSED!
Typical creationist. Get your teeth kicked in then declare victory anyway. Yes, the case is closed. You and your creationist brethren have shown us all that you have no idea what science is or how it works. Your "examples" were all failures, as has been abundantly shown. Enjoy your hollow victory.
Well I waited a few days to see if you were going to post something with a little more substance than this, but no, you left it at that. I have to admit that that "getting my teeth kicked in" comment left me with a tummy ache from laughing so hard. Though I don't particularly care for your colloquialism, in my opinion if anyone "lost any teeth" it was my opposition.
As for enjoying any victory, my purposes here are not by any means to make a name for myself or gloat over anyone else. Even if I had the wisdom of all men and angels in my words, what would that profit me if I have no love for those I wish to reach? My intentions are simply to give a reason for the hope that I have within me, for a place I have yet to see, and a home I have yet to lay my head. I realize that I may not change the minds of many, but there are some who pass by and see my posts, that will realize that there are logical reasons to have faith. That you don't have to abandon your brain to put trust in an unseen but real God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by AZPaul3, posted 10-04-2010 1:04 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 2:50 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 338 by Nuggin, posted 10-12-2010 5:08 AM Just being real has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 334 of 396 (586233)
10-12-2010 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Just being real
10-12-2010 2:24 AM


Re: CASE CLOSED!
I have to admit that that "getting my teeth kicked in" comment left me with a tummy ache from laughing so hard.
If this is actually true, then I wish that you would share the joke with the rest of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 2:24 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 335 of 396 (586234)
10-12-2010 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by bluegenes
10-04-2010 1:53 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
You have assumed that the "apc" (or "specified complexity") that is contained and exhibited by unintelligent organisms is the indirect product of intelligent design in order to prove that to be the case.
No that's not an assumption, its an observation. We have only observed specified complexity come from intelligent sources. There are no known examples of observed specified complexity originating from a natural unintelligent source. It may very well be that a lightning strike in a pool of goo, created me and you. But currently we have never observed any natural process produce such specified complexity as we see in the DNA molocule.
It's also impossible to attempt to explain "specified complexity" from observation by evoking intelligence, because observed intelligence is packed full of specified complexity however you define it, thus leaving "specified complexity" unexplained, and merely pointing out that it can produce itself, which we all know.
You are conflating two separate things here. The fact that biological organisms (intelligent or otherwise) display specified complexity within their makeup, and the fact that only specified complexity has been observed originating from an intelligent source. For example frako mentioned robots displaying a kind of artificial intelligence. Their ability to learn and create specified complexity would be a separate issue from their specified complex construction.
It would make no sense to try and say that because a robot is itself constructed in a specified complex way, that their own creation of specified complexity was not real or significant. It is a far different thing for a machine to only run a series of programmed subroutines that allow it to reproduce, than it is to think and produce intentional specified complexity that it was not pre-programmed to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 1:53 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by hooah212002, posted 10-12-2010 9:19 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 341 by bluegenes, posted 10-12-2010 11:58 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 343 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 12:04 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 344 by Taq, posted 10-12-2010 1:37 PM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 336 of 396 (586238)
10-12-2010 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Granny Magda
10-04-2010 6:12 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
This seems to be no more than a pointless distractionary tactic on your part. You admit, implicitly, that if not all the mutations were in plasmid DNA, then at least some were in the chromosomal DNA. This is a non-point. The point is that an unguided biological process can originate and new trait. No designer needed, contrary to your claims.
Well I understand your desire to trivialize this as a "distraction," but bacteria have a definite biological need to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources. As I said, one of the main ways that they appear to have been designed to do this, is through plasmid mutations. And no, I don't at all deny that some have had beneficial mutations take place within the chromosomal DNA. But I think the exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment. A conclusion which is drawn in part by the fact that the mutation rate occurred at a much higher rate than random mutations could produce.
And even though most of these chromosomal mutations involves certain environmental conditions that make these mutations phenotypically beneficial, they frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems and functions. Therefore they require the prior existence of the targeted cellular systems, rather than providing a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of biological systems or functions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Granny Magda, posted 10-04-2010 6:12 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Nuggin, posted 10-12-2010 5:01 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 339 by Granny Magda, posted 10-12-2010 6:14 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 342 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 11:59 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 345 by Taq, posted 10-12-2010 3:35 PM Just being real has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 337 of 396 (586242)
10-12-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Just being real
10-12-2010 4:02 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Well I understand your desire to trivialize this as a "distraction," but bacteria have a definite biological need to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources. As I said, one of the main ways that they appear to have been designed to do this, is through plasmid mutations. And no, I don't at all deny that some have had beneficial mutations take place within the chromosomal DNA. But I think the exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment. A conclusion which is drawn in part by the fact that the mutation rate occurred at a much higher rate than random mutations could produce.
And even though most of these chromosomal mutations involves certain environmental conditions that make these mutations phenotypically beneficial, they frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems and functions. Therefore they require the prior existence of the targeted cellular systems, rather than providing a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of biological systems or functions.
You've made a number of gross assumptions and unfounded leaps in your claims here.
#1) Not all bacteria rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources. Some do. Some don't.
If this is your criteria for design, then they ALL must behave as if designed to do so. You can't have them be designed so that some do and some don't, seemingly at random. That's not design.
#2) You are claiming that the results suggest a "directed mutation" because a mutation arises which "fits" an environment. In order to make this assertion, you would have to be able to sample ALL the mutations which occur in an entire population of bacteria over and given time period and check them against ALL POSSIBLE mutations which potentially could occur.
Only then can you conclude that -
a) Only beneficial mutations occurred, or that they occurred at a SIGNIFICANTLY higher rate than neutral or negative mutations.
b) That the BEST POSSIBLE mutation occurred rather than a seemingly random adaptation which happens to work out better than average.
Once you can demonstrate BOTH of these, repeatedly, in multiple experiments, with multiple kinds of bacteria, in multiple environments -- THEN we can talk about your results.
#3) You are drawing a conclusion based on: "the fact that the mutation rate occurred at a much higher rate than random mutations could produce. "
Have you provided evidence which examines ALL potential source of mutation? Where is your control group? How do you determine what the random mutation rate is and what it can produce? How have you measured your alternative mutation rate and determined that it is higher? How much higher?
This sounds exactly like a claim you've made up out of whole cloth and are trying to pass off as fact. Where's the EXHAUSTIVE research demonstrating the claim?
#4) You claim that mutations "frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems or functions".
What do you mean by "frequently"? 50% of the time? Have you demonstrated this?
Again, in order to make this judgment you have to know ALL the mutations which occur in a given population over time.
If the ONLY mutation which occurs does this and no other mutations occur, then great. That's very supportive of your claim.
However, if in a population of a billion bacteria, 50,000 mutations do what you are saying and 125,000,000 mutations don't. That's pretty damning.
The ONLY way to accurately judge is to decode the DNA of the parent bacteria from which the population spawns, and ALSO have each and every member of subsequent generations decoded to monitor changes.
Now, that's not impossible - in theory.
The problem is, the proponents of ID have absolutely no interest in running ANY experiments, let alone expensive intense experiments which would prove their claim.
You know why? Because they don't care about the facts. The ID movement is a religious/political movement. All they want to do is "raise questions" and "teach the controversy". It's totally irrelevant to them that they are 100% wrong on the issue.
Why bother collecting evidence which MIGHT prove you wrong when you can just make a baseless claim for free and hope the public can't tell the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 4:02 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:05 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 338 of 396 (586243)
10-12-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Just being real
10-12-2010 2:24 AM


Re: CASE CLOSED!
but there are some who pass by and see my posts, that will realize that there are logical reasons to have faith.
There can be no "logical reason" to "have faith".
Faith is, by definition, the belief in something without evidence.
You don't have "faith" that gravity holds you to the Earth. It's observable. It's testable. There's evidence for it.
You _know_ that gravity holds you.
You have "faith" that there is a magical wizard somewhere outside of the Universe pulling strings because you can't _know_ it. You can't _know_ it because it's not observable, it's not testable and there's no evidence to support it.
You have "faith" that your religion is right. Meanwhile, everyone else in every other religion which exists or has ever existed also has "faith" that their religion is right.
You all have the exact same lack of evidence. You all have the exact same certainty. And, for most of history, you've all been killing one another over who's lack of evidence is better than the next guys.
Perhaps it's time to stop taking things on "faith", and more importantly, to stop trying to replace things we _know_ with things we want to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 2:24 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:05 AM Nuggin has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 339 of 396 (586247)
10-12-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Just being real
10-12-2010 4:02 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Hi JBR,
Well I understand your desire to trivialize this as a "distraction," but bacteria have a definite biological need to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources.
Yes, And as Nuggin correctly points out above, some of them succeed in this whereas others fail and die. Just as one would expect from an unguided system. Why does your touted designer pick only some to survive? On what basis do you think these decisions are made?
As I said, one of the main ways that they appear to have been designed to do this, is through plasmid mutations. And no, I don't at all deny that some have had beneficial mutations take place within the chromosomal DNA.
Well there we are then. My only point was that mutations have been demonstrated to produce function, without direction. You have conceded this. I don't see what value exists in dragging this out.
But I think the exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment.
Which results were these again? How exactly do they suggest direction?
A conclusion which is drawn in part by the fact that the mutation rate occurred at a much higher rate than random mutations could produce.
Citation? How do we know how many mutations random mutation can produce?
And even though most of these chromosomal mutations involves certain environmental conditions that make these mutations phenotypically beneficial, they frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems and functions.
Citation?
Therefore they require the prior existence of the targeted cellular systems, rather than providing a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of biological systems or functions.
This is a non-statement. All mutation has to work with what is has, build upon what already exists. This is not news.
In fact, this argues very much against a designer. If a designer were interfering with our DNA, she might just as easily wipe the slate clean and start from scratch, with brand new DNA all round. The fact that mutation can only build upon what is already there implies pretty strongly that the process is unguided.
The fact that this designer appears to be invisible, intangible undetectable and seems to have a whole suite of unspecified magic powers also seems to argue against the whole business as well. Just how do you think the magic designer gets into those bacteria in order to diddle with their DNA anyhow?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 4:02 AM Just being real has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 340 of 396 (586263)
10-12-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Just being real
10-12-2010 3:02 AM


But currently we have never observed any natural process produce such specified complexity as we see in the DNA molocule.
I guess 4 people telling you to define your term isn't enough? The example I gave you thus far (tobacco plant) you waved off as "being a good design".
This spider also looks specifically complex (since you now use specified complexity in lieu of your "apc"):
It is the ravine trap door spider
What about phorid flies being used to control fire ant populations?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 3:02 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:06 AM hooah212002 has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 341 of 396 (586294)
10-12-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Just being real
10-12-2010 3:02 AM


The Origins of "Specified Complexity".
Just being real writes:
No that's not an assumption, its an observation. We have only observed specified complexity come from intelligent sources. There are no known examples of observed specified complexity originating from a natural unintelligent source.
You keep saying this, but I've pointed out that both intelligent and unintelligent organisms can be said to originate it. Think of termite mounds (air conditioned buildings that contain farms), the bee dances you mentioned, and the chemical codes micro-organisms use for communication. What we really observe is "specialized complexity" reproducing itself.
But my main point is that, if you're attempting to explain the existence of "specified complexity", then you would need to define it in a way that excludes intelligence itself in order to formulate an "intelligent design theory of the origin of specified complexity".
You would need to demonstrate that an intelligence which had no specified complexity could exist and design the first thing that contained "specified complexity".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 3:02 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:06 AM bluegenes has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 342 of 396 (586295)
10-12-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Just being real
10-12-2010 4:02 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
But I think the exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment.
Some citations would be nice.
But I've seen a lot of creationists pull out this card. Er ... you realize that if this is true it makes the theory of evolution even more plausible, don't you?
No, apparently you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 4:02 AM Just being real has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 343 of 396 (586296)
10-12-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Just being real
10-12-2010 3:02 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
No that's not an assumption, its an observation. We have only observed specified complexity come from intelligent sources. There are no known examples of observed specified complexity originating from a natural unintelligent source.
But this is simply, flatly, untrue.
Consider, for example, the genome of a tiger. How was it produced? By an unintelligent process involving two other tigers making sweet sweet love.
If you will admit that the genome of a tiger possesses "specified complexity" then you have your counterexample right there. And if you will not admit this, then your mistake is not even a creationist argument.
We know for a fact that the very things you're trying to explain by a supernatural intelligence were in fact produced by a natural and unintelligent process.
You know this too.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 3:02 AM Just being real has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 344 of 396 (586309)
10-12-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Just being real
10-12-2010 3:02 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
We have only observed specified complexity come from intelligent sources. There are no known examples of observed specified complexity originating from a natural unintelligent source. It may very well be that a lightning strike in a pool of goo, created me and you. But currently we have never observed any natural process produce such specified complexity as we see in the DNA molocule.
So what observation, if made, would falsify these statements?
If I observe that random mutations produce a novel and functional protein would that falsify it? If not, why? How do we determine if something has specified complexity to begin with? If I showed you two DNA sequences could you determine how much specified complexity each one contains, if any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 3:02 AM Just being real has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 345 of 396 (586335)
10-12-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Just being real
10-12-2010 4:02 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Well I understand your desire to trivialize this as a "distraction," but bacteria have a definite biological need to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources. As I said, one of the main ways that they appear to have been designed to do this, is through plasmid mutations.
What experiments can we run to determine that bacteria were designed to do this?
And no, I don't at all deny that some have had beneficial mutations take place within the chromosomal DNA. But I think the exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment.
Which results are these?
And even though most of these chromosomal mutations involves certain environmental conditions that make these mutations phenotypically beneficial, they frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems and functions. Therefore they require the prior existence of the targeted cellular systems, rather than providing a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of biological systems or functions.
You mean something like descent with modification, otherwise known as evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 4:02 AM Just being real 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