Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 976 of 1311 (815552)
07-21-2017 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 971 by Faith
07-21-2017 8:20 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
You object to his use of colors and fonts?
I read it as pointing our the colors and fonts and sizes distract from the fact that all he has is unsupported assertion.
How about commenting on the substance of his post?
OK, I will.
CRR: Show us the evidence and analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 971 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 8:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 977 of 1311 (815562)
07-21-2017 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 965 by CRR
07-21-2017 1:26 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Don't cop out. Show me the quote.
Regardless though, my point stands: a single occurrence of spontaneous generation is not required for universal common ancestry.
Care to address that point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by CRR, posted 07-21-2017 1:26 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 982 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2017 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 999 by CRR, posted 07-21-2017 11:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 978 of 1311 (815571)
07-21-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 960 by Dredge
07-20-2017 11:57 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example.
There is an example in the paper I already cited for you:
quote:
We selected a well-characterized protein family, the adenosine-5‘-monophosphate (AMP)/adenosine deaminase family, for evaluation of SIFTER's predictions against a gold standard set of function annotations. We assessed these using experimental annotations that we manually identified in the literature, accepting only first-hand experimental results that were successful in unambiguously characterizing the specific chemical reaction in question. References are provided in Dataset S1 for each protein characterized in this way. The gaccuracyh percentages presented here reflect the product of the percentage of proteins that received a prediction and, of those, the percentage that were gcorrect,h i.e., had the same GO terms as the gold standard test set.
The AMP/adenosine deaminase Pfam family contains 128 proteins. Based on five proteins with experimental annotations from the GOA database, we ran SIFTER to make predictions for the remaining 123 proteins. Of these remaining proteins, 28 had experimental characterizations found by the manual literature search. SIFTER achieved 96% accuracy (27 of 28) for predicting a correct function against this gold standard dataset. SIFTER performed better than BLAST, GeneQuiz, GOtcha, GOtcha-exp (GOtcha transferring only experimental GO annotations), and Orthostrapper (75%, 64%, 89%, 79%, and 11% accuracy, respectively). The comparative results are summarized in Figure 1A. The complete data for these analyses are available in Dataset S1.
We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5′-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 960 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2017 11:57 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1006 by Dredge, posted 07-23-2017 4:53 AM Taq has replied

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


Message 979 of 1311 (815572)
07-21-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 961 by Dredge
07-21-2017 12:27 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption.
It's a conclusion drawn from evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 12:27 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 993 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 10:34 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 980 of 1311 (815573)
07-21-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by Dredge
07-21-2017 1:18 AM


Dredge writes:
It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age there are educated adults who believe that dead matter can somehow produce life.
How do you think life came about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 1:18 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 994 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 10:39 PM Taq has replied

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


(1)
Message 981 of 1311 (815575)
07-21-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 972 by Faith
07-21-2017 8:45 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Faith writes:
I guess either can be called a superstition if that's your point, but Genesis 2:7 gives the essential difference between life spontaneously coming out of matter and God creating life by using matter, which is that, according to the Bible, the life doesn't come from the matter, God breathes life into the matter after He's formed the material body. Matter can't breathe life into itself, even if it could somehow come up with the material shell, which of course it couldn't without the life in it. In other words life is something entirely different from matter, matter is just the vehicle for life to be able to function in the physical universe.
A deity creating life from dirt is the very definition of superstition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 8:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 983 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 10:57 AM Taq has replied
 Message 995 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 10:44 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 1003 by CRR, posted 07-22-2017 10:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 982 of 1311 (815576)
07-21-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 977 by New Cat's Eye
07-21-2017 9:37 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Regardless though, my point stands: a single occurrence of spontaneous generation is not required for universal common ancestry.
We don't even have to go that far -- multiple roots of single cell life are now hypothesized with genes shared by horizontal transfer, a process that has been observed in living single cell organisms, even when not of the same "species" (genetic lineage). There is no reason to think this did not occur in early life forms, and I even find it more likely to occur before evolution got settled into genetic lineages. We can also say that the eukaryote cell is a fusion of two single cell organisms, where one is "swallowed" by the other:
quote:
Mitochondrion: There are two hypotheses about the origin of mitochondria: endosymbiotic and autogenous. The endosymbiotic hypothesis suggests that mitochondria were originally prokaryotic cells, capable of implementing oxidative mechanisms that were not possible for eukaryotic cells; they became endosymbionts living inside the eukaryote. ...
... The mitochondrial genome codes for some RNAs of ribosomes, and the 22 tRNAs necessary for the translation of messenger RNAs into protein. The circular structure is also found in prokaryotes. The proto-mitochondrion was probably closely related to the Rickettsia.
... which would mean that all eukaryotes have at least two common ancestors, if not several ...
AND, there is no reason to think that this horizontal transfer was not occurring in pre-biotic life structures, so that they could mix and match functional systems to develop a superior strain (or strains) for survival and reproduction.
The RNA structures could also be remnants of the RNA world, when only RNA was used before DNA evolved and outcompeted the RNA forms, consuming them, and incorporating some of them into the cell structure.
The DNA does not show that there had to be a single ancestor, just that all the various ancestral lineages that combined and used horizontal transfer ended up with DNA elements and RNA elements we all carry. That is basically 5 nucleic molecules, which then get rearranged into different patterns.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 977 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-21-2017 9:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 983 of 1311 (815577)
07-21-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 981 by Taq
07-21-2017 10:52 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Call it whatever you want but as I said it is NOT about "creating life from dirt," it clearly says that life CANNOT be created from dirt, that the principle of life is something other than dirt that must be added.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 10:52 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 984 by JonF, posted 07-21-2017 11:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 985 by Taq, posted 07-21-2017 11:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 984 of 1311 (815580)
07-21-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 983 by Faith
07-21-2017 10:57 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
it clearly says that life CANNOT be created from dirt
In English there is supposed to be an antecedent for a pronoun. To what does "it" refer? If the Bible, then it's not relevant in a science forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 983 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 10:57 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 10:54 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 985 of 1311 (815589)
07-21-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 983 by Faith
07-21-2017 10:57 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Faith writes:
Call it whatever you want but as I said it is NOT about "creating life from dirt," it clearly says that life CANNOT be created from dirt, that the principle of life is something other than dirt that must be added.
Then how did life come about, according to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 983 by Faith, posted 07-21-2017 10:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 986 of 1311 (815593)
07-21-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 968 by CRR
07-21-2017 4:15 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
CRR writes:
Dead matter can't produce life.
Humans can't produce life from dead matter.
Matter isn't dead. Some matter isn't alive and never was - e.g. an iron bar. Some matter is alive - e.g. a squirrel. Some matter used to be alive - e.g. a corpse. The corpse is dead but the matter isn't.
There's no fundamental difference between the matter in a living thing and the matter in a non-living thing. Life is just a different set of chemical reactions.
And it isn't even all that easy to tell whether something is alive or not. It's a fuzzy line.
So it's rather silly to proclaim that matter can't make a certain change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 968 by CRR, posted 07-21-2017 4:15 AM CRR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 987 of 1311 (815595)
07-21-2017 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 968 by CRR
07-21-2017 4:15 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Dredge writes:
Humans can't produce life from dead matter.
Just out of interest, would anything change for you if science could do that?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 968 by CRR, posted 07-21-2017 4:15 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 997 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 11:01 PM Tangle has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 988 of 1311 (815604)
07-21-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by CRR
07-20-2017 8:47 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
If you're trying to establish that abiogenesis is a founding assumption of evolution, you're doing it in an odd way.
Following the link on that page to lecture on speciation we find
"Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms."
ABIOGENESIS
That does, indeed, mention abiogenesis; but as you yourself point out it's not in the same place as where the author was describing the tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution. It's not even on the same page.
In the page where it is found, it's not part of the actual discussion of the topic (speciation). Rather, it's found in the introduction, where whoever wrote this is discussing the idea that the term 'evolution' is used also to mean 'change over time' in general, not only in the more restricted sense of biological evolution. He offers your quote above ('life has evolved from non-life') as an example of this; along with the evolution of stars and the evolution of religions and political beliefs.
The very same page lists two definitions of biological evolution; neither of which include abiogenesis.
quote:
Definition 1:
Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
Definition 2:
The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by CRR, posted 07-20-2017 8:47 PM CRR has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 989 of 1311 (815618)
07-21-2017 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 966 by dwise1
07-21-2017 1:33 AM


Re: Interesting question...
dwise1 writes:
So what's your assumption here? Blind random luck producing those results?
I've already told you. Why you no listen to Dredge? The facts that led to to the assumption/conclusion of common ancestry produced the results.
Yet more of your deceptive lies.
I was thinking of inviting you to my birthday party, but now I having second thoughts, as you keep calling me bad names and for no good reason.
And yet you continue to behave as if you believed that evolution contradicts the idea of a Creator.
I've stated elsewhere that evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of a Creator. However, millions of years of evolution is incompatible with the Bible.
Where do you get such nonsense from? I know where, from your creationist handlers who are feeding you lie after lie.
My "creationist handlers" go by the name of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who speak the truth. You would do well to listen to them.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 966 by dwise1, posted 07-21-2017 1:33 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1001 by dwise1, posted 07-22-2017 3:44 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 990 of 1311 (815619)
07-21-2017 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 967 by Minnemooseus
07-21-2017 2:36 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Minnemooseus writes:
Dredge writes:
It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age there are educated adults who believe that dead matter can somehow produce life.
Unless God is involved, I suppose.
Yes, since I'm a creationist, that's what I meant; sorry I didn't make myself clear.
Might not God have started a very simple form of life from "the dust of the ground"? (Theistic abiogenisis/evolution in action).
Certainly that would be possible, if God is omnipotent ... in which case, anything is possible. However, the Bible clearly indicates it didn't happen that way. For example, consider the quote you supplied:
Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." It says God formed "man" from the dust of the ground and the "man" became a living soul; it doesn't say God formed a unicellular bug from the dust of the ground and the unicellular bug became a living soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 967 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-21-2017 2:36 AM Minnemooseus 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