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 12:13 AM
93 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 91 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,536 Year: 3,573/19,786 Month: 568/1,087 Week: 158/212 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
26Next
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 301 of 385 (565104)
06-14-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Coyote
06-11-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Insults?
quote:
Check the scientific findings in areas of the world where there is no strong biblical tradition. Any of those scientists come up with a young earth idea? Or is it pretty much limited to biblical literalists? (Rhetorical question.)

Yes you already know the answer. This is simply proof that there is more than one way semi-coherent way to interpret the evidence. Two questions to ask yourself about a set of beliefs:

1) Is it (to a high degree) internally consistent?
2) Does it (to a high degree) match what it observed around us?

I can answer both those questions with a resounding "Yes" for YEC. I suspect you would answer them "Yes" as well for darwinian evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2010 6:08 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 5:00 PM BobTHJ has responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 302 of 385 (565113)
06-14-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Coragyps
06-11-2010 6:10 PM


quote:
When was the last time you used your vomeronasal organ, Bob? I'll bet it's been a while.

(snip)

Can you suggest a creationist scenario where this makes even a particle of sense?


Easily. In the creationist model the baranomes have decayed over time (via mutation and information lost via natural selection due to speciation). It is not at all unlikely that one or more parts of the human body are no longer functional due to loss of information. I'll even go so far as to predict that more presently functioning organs will become non-functioning in the future. Creation is doomed to a bitter end (well, without supernatural intervention anyway).

Thanks for bringing this up though - because this highlights one of the uglier sides of darwinian evolution: The host of vestigial organs that Darwin predicted simply aren't there. The already small list grows smaller every time we learn the function of another organ. Appendix is out. Spleen is out. No problem though - we'll just replace that hypothesis with Junk DNA! Oh wait....so much for that one too.

Interestingly - the insistence upon vestigial organs and junk DNA to support darwinian evolution has actually hindered the advancement of science. When entire organs and sections of the genome are written off as evolutionary remnants there ceases to be a concerted attempt to find their function.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Coragyps, posted 06-11-2010 6:10 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2010 4:27 AM BobTHJ has responded
 Message 308 by Coragyps, posted 06-15-2010 1:10 PM BobTHJ has responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 303 of 385 (565114)
06-14-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Taq
06-11-2010 6:28 PM


quote:
The fact of the matter is that ERV's can be pulled out of genomes and made into viable retroviruses

This would seem to add evidence for the baranome/VIGE hypothesis. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The ERV or the retrovirus?

quote:
I have a good test for retroviral function.

I'm not going to reply to this here. I am looking deeper into this topic to investigate the level that ERVs fall into the evolutionary nested heirarchy - and if Dr. Borger's baranome hypothesis can provide a suitable explanation. When I do respond (which I intend to) it will likely be in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Taq, posted 06-11-2010 6:28 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 4:09 PM BobTHJ has responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 304 of 385 (565140)
06-15-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Otto Tellick
06-11-2010 10:33 PM


quote:
Yup, there's overlap, for sure. But that's not the only problem with those lists (which, like so many of the references you've been providing, are all too familiar and easily debunked).

Here's a very informative video regarding lists of scientists who support creationism (or dispute evolution or believe in a young earth or think vaccination causes autism or deny global warming or firmly recommend homeopathic remedies or ...)


You discredit one list by posting a video debunking a different list? Seems there is a disconnect somewhere. Anyway, I didn't post the lists so you could go over them with a fine-toothed comb (though feel free to if you wish). I posted them to demonstrate that there are SOME scientists who subscribe to YEC. Yes, I understand darwinist dogma doesn't allow the words "creation" and "science" to go together - and you are free to live in your deluded world if you wish.

quote:
That last question brings to mind those Christian revival meetings -- I've been to a few, in the distant past -- where attendants are invited, implored, all but coerced to stand up, step to the front, declare their sins, accept Jesus, start speaking in tongues, grovel on the floor or whatever. Bob, did you ever go to meetings like that? Have you ever gone to the front? This sort of thing doesn't really happen at science meetings, but what if... right here, now, at EvC, Bob. Science is trying to reach you. Trying to save you. Science wants you to find the truth, wants you to accept the truth that will set you free. Free yourself now, Bob! Renounce your YEC sins! Come on up front! Prove to yourself, for yourself, that you can do this!

OK, sorry, that was a cheap shot. No offense intended.


I've seen the light! I'm ready to give my mind over to Darwin! I no longer wish to question assumptions that are made by the scientific majority! Lobotomize me and set me free!

No, seriously - that part of your post was funny. I LOLed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2010 10:33 PM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 305 of 385 (565156)
06-15-2010 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by BobTHJ
06-14-2010 7:05 PM


Interestingly - the insistence upon vestigial organs and junk DNA to support darwinian evolution has actually hindered the advancement of science. When entire organs and sections of the genome are written off as evolutionary remnants there ceases to be a concerted attempt to find their function.

Care to give us anything to substantiate this other than just your word? Given that 'Junk DNA' was a term only coined in the 1972 and by 1992 there was already a growing body of research into functional elements in what had been termed 'Junk'.

By the far the bigger barrier to genetic research has been technical limitations. When Ohno coined the term 'Junk DNA' there was basically no sequencing technology whatsoever, the following year it was a big deal when 25 base pairs were sequenced. Nowadays centres like the Sanger sequence entire human genomes in a day.

So where exactly was this hinderance to the advancement of science? in the 20 odd years between Ohno publishing his paper and functional elements in non-coding DNA being widely recognised? It seems to me that our understanding of the functional aspects of all elements of the genome have only been held back by our technical abilities not any theroretical framework of genetic function.

As to vestigial organs, there is already a thread discussing those , 'Vestigial Organs?'. The simple answer though is that what you and other creationists mean by 'vestigial' is not what Darwin and other biologists mean by 'vestigial', it doesn't simply mean functionless.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 7:05 PM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 12:32 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 306 of 385 (565172)
06-15-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Percy
06-12-2010 5:10 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
What is the evidence that there is any such thing as VIGEs?

Taken simply as a term there are in fact several well characterised Variation Inducing Genetic Elements (VIGEs). The most well studied ones are probably the repetetive transposable elements such as LINE-1 and SINE. Between them LINE-1 and SINE elements make up ~27% of the genome. There are ~100 LINE-1 elements which still have reverse transcriptase activity allowing for their own reintegration when they are expressed, or the integration of certain other elements expressed at the same time.

Such retroinsertions have been shown to have effects on the regulation of gene expression (Han et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2008) and along with other retrotransposon mediated activity are thought to have played a significant role in genome evolution (Xing et al., 2006;Santangelo et al., 2007; Han et al., 2008;Faulkner and Carninci, 2009). These are relatively recent papers on the topic but such research stretches back to Barabara McClintock's initial discovery of transposition in the 40's and 50's (McClintock, 1950).

Borger hasn't just made all these things up off the top of his head. He's just done what so many creationist/ID proponents do, taken the hard evolutionary research done by actual practicing biologists and tacked on his own specious ad hoc bits to try and fit his favoured scenario.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Percy, posted 06-16-2010 7:56 AM Wounded King has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 307 of 385 (565194)
06-15-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by BobTHJ
06-14-2010 2:57 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
Hi Bob,

There was a majority of nazis in Germany during WWII (or at least those non-conforming were silent to the issue) - does this mean we should have supported nazism were we to live there in that time? This isn't a scientific argument - of course we should not go along with a belief simply because that belief is held by a majority.

No, that isn't a scientific argument, nor is it the argument I was making. You have the wrong end of the stick.

I am not arguing that evolution is true by making an argument from popularity. What I am saying is that the vast majority of professional biologists and palaeontologists, those best qualified to understand the data, think that life looks evolved. I'm only talking about appearance here.

Now I understand that you do not think that evolution/universal common ancestry is real. So effectively, what you are suggesting is that an entire body of scientists has got it wrong. Not only that, your ideas demand that these scientists are so stupid, so breathtakingly incompetent, that they believe in evolution even though it doesn't even look true.

Is that really what you think? Isn't it more likely that evolution - even if false - does look rather convincing? Even you have admitted that "Darwinism" as you call it, looks good from a distance; all I am saying is that the view from close-up is pretty convincing too. Whether it is true or not, evolution holds out as a hypothesis beyond a mere superficial examination. In fact, it is convincing enough to have fooled almost every biologist on Earth.

One of the tasks a new scientific hypothesis must perform is to explain why any previous (mistaken) hypothesis looked so convincing. YEC fails this test. The failure is especially glaring given that you refuse to accept an omphalist god.

I do not see evidence that overwhelmingly makes the earth look old or evolution look true.

With all due respect, that is because you are deeply ignorant of the (amongst other things) the evidence of the fossil record. Your comments make this obvious.

I stand corrected. I'll revise: Most mainstream creationists do not subscribe to Omphalism - though it may have been more prevalent in the past.

There is no such thing as "mainstream creationism". There is no consensus within creationism that can compare to the consensus that exists within the sciences regarding the reality of evolution and an old Earth.

YECs have several hypotheses for the distant starlight problem that do not involve Omphalism - but a discussion of those hypotheses are beyond the scope of this thread.

You are wrong about this. The arguments that people like AiG put forward on the starlight issue are just as omphalist as ever, they just lie about it, to hide the unfortunate ramifications. The idea that the speed of starlight has speeded up for instance, is just as much an omphalist argument as the "created in transit" one. It means that God must have set up the universe in such a way that it should look older than it really is - omphalism.

Wow....it looks like to me they found exactly what they set out to find. Consider the assumptions that were made:
* The imprints on the fossil are feathers (I'm not seeing it - but I don't look at fossils all day either)

Right, You are not an expert on identifying fossils. Your opinion is not worth much here. Also, you chided me for making what you thought was an argument from popularity a moment ago; now you are content to make an argument from incredulity? Come now. That is not a scientific argument either.

The fact of the matter is that dinosaur feathers have the same structure as modern bird down. They have two lines of filaments extending from a central rachis, just like bird feathers. They closely resemble the feathers of some modern birds, such as the kiwi. Can you think of a more parsimonious explanation? There is no assumption here. There is only a hypothesis which provides a reasonable explanation for the facts.

* The carbon-structures found in the impressions look like melanosomes under a microscope so they must be melanosomes

This is not assumed, it is the hypothesis of the paper in question. Can you think of a more parsimonious explanation for the presence of these structures? And if your god is so unfailingly honest, why would he create a structure that so closely resembles evidence for bird/dinosaur transition?

* the impressions may contain melanosomes - bird feathers also contain melanosomes - so they must be feathers (nevermind that many other organisms contain melanosomes).

This is not assumed. The presence of melanosomes is strong evidence that the structures are feathers. It is also incompatible with the idea that the structures are non-feather filaments. If you want to make this sort of accusation, then I suggest that you go back to the original paper and point out the "assumptions". Your examples are all false.

And yes, other organisms contain melanosomes. But the melanosomes in Sinosauropterix and Sinornithosaurus were identical to modern bird melanosomes, not any other kind.

So, to recap, you believe that God put structures identical to bird melanosomes into a dinosaur, in fact, into the same type of dinosaur that is suspected to be an evolutionary link between avians and non-avian dinosaurs. But this does not in any way resemble the appearance of evolution. Hmm...

As for the other so-called feathered dinosaurs? The evidence seems to be equally scant. I think Dr. Wile has just cause for his statement.

I have told you, I am not going to address bare links. Please stop it. Doing it at all is bad enough; doing it when you have been asked dozens of times to stop is simply childish. It makes you look dishonest and thus tarnishes your argument.

Who knows though - maybe their wild assumptions are correct. Maybe there are feathered dinosaurs. I can live with that - it doesn't harm my scientific worldview.

Of course it doesn't. As I have said, the idea of the baramin is infinitely flexible. It makes no predictions and is thus unfalsifiable. You can just use post hoc reasoning to place the baramin's limits wherever you like. Unfortunately, that makes it completely useless as a scientific tool. It even makes it pretty poor as an apologetic.

The link was not bare

Trust me, by the standards of this board, that was an example of a violation of forum rules. Please stop it.

Not surprisingly, most genetic evidence also fits because organisms with similar morphological features often share similar genetic features.

Your experiences on the bat/dolphin thread should have taught you that this is false. Organisms that are thought to be closely related show far more similarity that those with similar morphologies that are less closely related. There is no reason for this to be the case, unless God is fucking with us. Or of course, unless evolution is true.

What is it about God's character, as revealed by scripture, that explains why no feathered mammals exist?

There is none. There are of course many topics that the Bible does not address in detail. Specifically when it comes to baraminology there are only a few relevant verses from which conclusions can be drawn - but there are some.

So when you say that the Bible can help us with defining our baramins, you were only talking about a tiny handful of examples. There are millions of species out there; the Bible mentions... what? A score? Maybe two score? I think you are going to need some other objective way of identifying a baramin, because the Bible sounds useless in over 99% of cases.

No no no. Let's get something straight: I'm not here to argue "The Bible tells me its true - so all of you are wrong!" I do believe the Bible to be 100% accurate - but I won't use that belief as the basis of my arguments here. I came here to debate scientific evidence - not theology.

Fair enough. Although I must admit, if you are willing to acknowledge Biblical errors, I am at a loss as to why you would cling so stubbornly to something as false as creationism. The universe wasn't made in six days. that is an error. Admitting this would save you a lot of time and mental effort.

I was stating that the YEC model (and its hypotheses) are based upon an interpretation of the Bible. It certainly isn't the only interpretation, but theologically it seems to be the most sound (vs. old-earth creationist models or theistic evolution). Just because the model is originated from the Bible doesn't mean it can't be scientifically examined. You wouldn't suggest that the ToE is unscientific simply because it originated from Darwin would you?

No. But then, I don't hold Darwin up as an infallible authority whose holy writ cannot be questioned. Indeed, in my experience, evolutionists are very comfortable criticising Darwin. It's only creationists who seem to think that criticising Darwin is relevant to modern biology.

Please don''t pretend that it is not normal practise for creationists to hold up the Bible as an infallible authority. You may not believe it, but for many YECs the mantra "God said it, I believe it, That settles it." is their bottom line. It is used by AiG and they are the largest creationist presence online. You are by no means a typical YEC (if there can be such a thing) if you reject biblical infallibility.

I've answered this multiple times.

No you haven't. You say that you've answered it, but you carry on making glaringly false statements, like "darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life". This is total bullshit. I just separated them, right in front of your eyes. The ToE is compatible with pretty much any origin story you like. Pretending otherwise just makes you look as though you are sticking your head in the sand - something that you intimated you would not do.

If you want to stop answering these points, stop saying untrue things about them.

The short answer is: Yes. The long answer is off-topic.

Ooh, please treat me to the long answer some time. I would love to hear it. I am yet to see a creationist interpretation of the fossil record that wasn't hilariously wrong.

Flawed reasoning. There is no causation between naturalism and scientific advance.

So it's just a co-incidence that supernatural explanations have a millennia-long history of failure, whereas naturalistic ones have a much more successful history? In fact, naturalistic explanations for things like disease, weather, cosmology etc, have a history of over-throwing supernatural explanations. But that is just a co-incidence. Along with the fact that the advent of modern evidence-based medicine ushered in a new era of cures and treatments at about the same time that methodological naturalism took hold. That's co-incidence too is it?

Supernaturalism had millennia to make progress and it failed dismally. Bringing it back is going to get us nowhere.

Nope - you are still making the assumption that genetic similarity implies common ancestry. The dismal track record of supposed transitional "human ancestor" fossils over the years doesn't help you here. If the consensus among other posters is that an examination of those fossils is on-topic then I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth.

Don't let me stop you. I would love to see you explain the mechanics of the human and ape baramins.

I've never heard of the site you referenced - but suffice it to say there will probably be some disagreement and minority viewpoints among creationists when classifying creatures into kinds. This is irrelevant to your argument against the validity of baraminology.

I'm just making a point. If there is no objective means of identifying a baramin, how are we to know whether your version is correct, or someone else's - like the one I linked to - is correct? Without such objective measures, how can we even say that the baramin exists? I say it does not exist. Prove me wrong.

Conclude whatever you would like - Baraminology is worthless to those who have no reason to assume the supernatural. I've gone into this in detail previously.

Yes, you have said that. What I think you fail to realise is just how strongly this removes baraminology from the realm of science. Supernatural ideas are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are not science. In suggesting that we use baramins, you are essentially suggesting that we throw out the entire science of biology and replace it with vague, half-formed superstition.

For those of us who do subscribe to Baraminology - it is important to identify the limits of a baramin. There is work currently being done by multiple creation scientists to do exactly that. Baraminology (the modern variant anyway which incorporates factors such as genetics) is a relatively new field of study, and creation scientists don't have the same numbers or backing to support the advancement of their research, so it naturally moves at a slower pace.

The term baramin gained its modern sense in the 1940s. Since then, there has been no serious advancement. We are no closer to seeing an objective method for identifying baramins. I would say that marks baraminology out as being a damn great waste of time.

In the meanwhile, real biologists have discovered genetics, millions of new fossils, tens of thousands of new living species, and generally refined and diversified their craft. There is no contest here. Evolutionary biology is the norm and it is thriving. Baraminology meanwhile his yet to offer us any new knowledge whatsoever.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 2:57 PM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 308 of 385 (565199)
06-15-2010 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by BobTHJ
06-14-2010 7:05 PM


Easily. In the creationist model the baranomes have decayed over time (via mutation and information lost via natural selection due to speciation). It is not at all unlikely that one or more parts of the human body are no longer functional due to loss of information. I'll even go so far as to predict that more presently functioning organs will become non-functioning in the future. Creation is doomed to a bitter end (well, without supernatural intervention anyway).

So can I take this to mean that gorillas, chimps, and humans are more sinful, or at least groan more under the weight of sin, than tarsiers or New World monkeys? And why take away our VNOs and AOBs in the same way in humans and in the other great apes?

And I ask again: when, Bob, did you last use your vomeronasal organ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 7:05 PM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 3:22 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 309 of 385 (565234)
06-15-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by BobTHJ
06-14-2010 7:13 PM


This would seem to add evidence for the baranome/VIGE hypothesis. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The ERV or the retrovirus?

Which came first, meteors or the craters on the moon? Obviously, retroviral activity came first since the ERV's carry the genes necessary for integration into the genome, reverse polymerase, and capsid proteins necessary for making a viron. ERV's are without a doubt the result of retroviral insertion SINCE THAT IS WHAT RETROVIRUSES DO.

If you want to claim that they were magically poofed into the genome by a supernatural deity then it is incumbent on you to supply the observations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 7:13 PM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 3:35 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 310 of 385 (565239)
06-15-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Percy
06-12-2010 5:10 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
quote:
What is the evidence that there is any such thing as VIGEs?

Where in the genome are these "partially or fully disabled" VIGEs


I stated this twice - please read my posts. Borger coined the term VIGE's to refer collectively to insertion sequences, ERVs, transposons, and other mobile genetic elements. There has been some recent evidence showing that at least some of these mobile elements are not selfish and random (as originally believed) but instead have very specific function to activate and deactivate dormant genes (pseudogenes). These functions have been observed when the cell goes into a starvation state - the mobile elements begin to shift causing the activation of previously dormant genes. In bacteria domant genes were activated allowing the synthesis of new sugars available in the artificial lab environment. I'll locate and link the appropriate studies if you'd like.

Borger's hypothesis is that the mobile genetic elements we see today are what's left of VIGE's. Many seem to have been damaged by 6k+ years of mutation and so don't function as originally intended.

quote:
What is the evidence for "rapid adaptation and speciation" 4500 years ago (in other words, since the flood)? What is the evidence that they operated by "activating and deactivating various genes."

There is circumstantial evidence - the ability of organisms to rapidly adapt and evolve - far faster than darwinian evolution would predict. The current level of diversity in life we witness today matches with the 4500 year timeframe since the flood - assuming base kinds were transported on the ark.

As to activating and deactivating genes, Borger quotes this in Part 4 of the Baranome hypothesis:

As cryptic genes are not expressed to make any positive contribution to the fitness of the organism, it is expected that they would eventually be lost due to the accumulation of inactivating mutations. Cryptic genes would thus be expected to be rare in natural populations. This, however, is not the case. Over 90% of natural isolates of E. coli carry cryptic genes for the utilization of beta-glucoside sugars. These cryptic operons can all be activated by IS [insertion-sequence] elements, and when so activated allow E. coli to utilize beta-glucoside sugars as sole carbon and energy sources

The quote is taken from Hall, B.G., Transposable elements as activators of cryptic genes in E. coli, Genetica 107:181187, 1999. He also provides several other examples demonstrating mobile genetic elements acting with purposeful altruistic intent.

quote:
How many human/guidea pigs genes were identical "at creation?" You know what it means if too many of their genes were identical, don't you?

Not what you'd think. The bulk of genetic function seems to be in the regulatory portions. It is quite possible that similar organisms all shared very similar genes with the functional differences being in how and when those genes were expressed.

quote:
But the important question concerns evidence. Do you have any evidence that human and guinea pig GULO genes were identical at any time in the past?

No, I don't have any evidence - I was postulating. Do you have evidence?

quote:
You've just added to the amazing thigns VIGEs can do. Not only can they "cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes," but they can also make actual changes to genes. What is the evidence that anything like this has ever happened?

See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 5:06 PM BobTHJ has responded
 Message 350 by Percy, posted 06-17-2010 7:51 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 311 of 385 (565240)
06-15-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by BobTHJ
06-14-2010 6:43 PM


Re: Insults?
Yes you already know the answer. This is simply proof that there is more than one way semi-coherent way to interpret the evidence.

It is proof that the only reason one would conclude that the Earth is young is if their religious beliefs require it. Why else would you suggest that the Earth is young? Your "semi-coherent interpretation" requires us to throw out every known fundamental law of the universe, from radioactive decay to the speed of light. How is that semi-coherent? If you were defense attorney would you claim that leprechauns planting your client's fingerprints at the scene of the crime is a "semi-coherent interpretation of the evidence"? If not, then why is the unevidenced magical manipulation of the forces of nature any more coherent when it comes to young earth creationism?

1) Is it (to a high degree) internally consistent?

The problem is that YEC is not externally consistent. It is inconsistent with the evidence we find the external world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 6:43 PM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 3:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 312 of 385 (565243)
06-15-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by BobTHJ
06-15-2010 4:49 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
Borger's hypothesis is that the mobile genetic elements we see today are what's left of VIGE's. Many seem to have been damaged by 6k+ years of mutation and so don't function as originally intended.

1. What evidence, if found, would falsify Borger's hypothesis.

2. How did Borger determine what the original intention for these genes was.

3. How did Borger determine that "damage" started to accumulate in these genes just 6k years ago.

There is circumstantial evidence - the ability of organisms to rapidly adapt and evolve - far faster than darwinian evolution would predict.

Examples?

The current level of diversity in life we witness today matches with the 4500 year timeframe since the flood - assuming base kinds were transported on the ark.

Evidence please.

As cryptic genes are not expressed to make any positive contribution to the fitness of the organism, it is expected that they would eventually be lost due to the accumulation of inactivating mutations. Cryptic genes would thus be expected to be rare in natural populations. This, however, is not the case. Over 90% of natural isolates of E. coli carry cryptic genes for the utilization of beta-glucoside sugars. These cryptic operons can all be activated by IS [insertion-sequence] elements, and when so activated allow E. coli to utilize beta-glucoside sugars as sole carbon and energy sources

Sounds to me that natural selection is keeping these genes around.

It is quite possible that similar organisms all shared very similar genes with the functional differences being in how and when those genes were expressed.

Evidence please.

No, I don't have any evidence - I was postulating.

The problem here is that you are rejecting explanations backed with tons of evidence in favor of your unevidenced postulations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 4:49 PM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 4:07 PM Taq has responded

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 313 of 385 (565244)
06-15-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Modulous
06-12-2010 5:16 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
quote:
It could be, of course, mutational hotspots and common ancestry....

Other options you haven't considered are

3) Some other as yet unknown commonality.
4) common ancestry, and it is the rat's gene that has evolved.
5) something else.


Yes, it could be common ancestry - I don't think Woodmorappe's article is to disprove common ancestry so much as it is to demonstrate design as a reasonable explanation.

quote:
Indeed - we still haven't got a reasonable deep understanding of the big picture patterns we see. We agree on the smaller patterns indicate common ancestry (whether the ancestor is either the FIRST EVER (created kind) or not) - but you are just telling us what we knew: Common ancestry gives us explanations.

Fair enough. I don't have an answer at this point.

quote:
We have been discussing this hunt for the causes behind such circumstantial spiritual experiences over at Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?. I've detailed my experiences - I'd be interested in hearing yours. But be warned, we're being flagrantly atheist in that thread

Yes, I saw that thread - and I'm not sure I want to get into the thick of it, but thanks for the offer. As I've mentioned before my spiritual evidence of God's existence is circumstantial - and while adequate to convince myself - I highly doubt any circumstantial evidence would be taken seriously on these forums. Plus - it's not my job to convince all of you of God's existence - He can do that just fine Himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 06-12-2010 5:16 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 314 of 385 (565257)
06-15-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Percy
06-12-2010 5:35 PM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
And how do you explain trilobite (not trilobyte) remains atop Mount Everest?

Most YEC scientists agree that the flood caused widespread tectonic shift. Mount Everest is more recent than creation.

quote:
And how do you explain both large and small creatures being found in both early and late layers? Why are clams found above mammals in some places?

Some sedimentary layers have been laid down in the "slow and gradual" way post-flood - but this thread doesn't cover geology.

quote:
Where does this 95% figure come from?

It's 95%+ (as in greater than 95%), and it is an educated guess, nothing more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:35 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Percy, posted 06-17-2010 7:56 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 315 of 385 (565282)
06-15-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Percy
06-12-2010 5:46 PM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
Bob, there's no such thing as a baranome in the real world. Prove me wrong.

It's a hypothesis only. Dr. Borger puts forward a large body of circumstantial evidence in his series of articles on the subject - but there is nothing conclusive at this time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:46 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019