Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 9:07 PM
28 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, Tanypteryx (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,928 Year: 4,965/19,786 Month: 1,087/873 Week: 443/376 Day: 74/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
22232425
26
27Next
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 376 of 396 (587580)
10-19-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


They are no different than the patterns observed in crystals. Interesting, complex, but not particularized (specific).

Crystals aren't organized in a specific arrangement of ions/molecules? Chlorate ions get to pick how they will stack in a left-handed crystal of sodium chlorate? Really?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16344
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 377 of 396 (587602)
10-19-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:17 PM


Just being real writes:

Just looking at the circles we see a complex pattern, but we do not recognize the pattern as fulfilling any specific purpose.


"Purpose" seems like a highly subjective way of determining whether or not something is designed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 378 of 396 (587604)
10-19-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:17 PM


Because the information in the article on the phenomenon tells us that they are formed by a process of water collection, freeze, and thaw in a natural cyclic weather pattern.

So why can't these processes produce particularized patterns?

That means that for an observer to tell if it is particularized, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience.

So what independent experience leads us to conclude that a protein is particularized?

Just looking at the circles we see a complex pattern, but we do not recognize the pattern as fulfilling any specific purpose.

Then ice crystals are particularized. Their specific purpose is to exclude salt creating denser, cold water that helps to create the thermohaline cycles in the world's oceans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Just being real has not yet responded

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


Message 379 of 396 (587646)
10-19-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:17 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Lets look at how the conversation went. It started with hooradmouth claiming that brainless tobacco plants displayed intelligence by adjusting their flowering times to twort catipllar attacks. (See post 270) And thereby threw a wrench in my whole apc concept. To which I pointed out that the changes did not take place within the same generation, but through the natural selection process of choosing alleles that probably already existed in the population but were just not dominant. (See post 278)

Yes and I cited the Lenski studies, which demonstrate that random mutation is capable of producing new functional alleles. This is not an example of NS simply selecting from pre-existing alleles, it is a case of a new alleles emerging in the lab.

None of this has a single thing to do with abiogenesis.

And you are also clearly using them as evidence to suggest that evolution is the explanation for the "origins" of these alleles.

Yes, because that's what happened. No-one guided the mutations in those E Coli , they simply arose by mutation.

That means it would be on the shoulders of the person using this as "evidence," to prove that the mutations did not occur at a rate that was too high for random mutations to produce.

Nonsense. If you want to claim that the mutation rate was "too high" for NS, you need to demonstrate that. What does "too high" even mean; how many mutations do we need to consider it too many. This "too high" idea is something you have chosen to introduce.

The Bacteria mutated. They then developed the ability to metabolise citrate. The germ lines developed the ability to metabolise citrate entirely under their own power. If you want to invoke some mysterious designer, perhaps you might like to explain how he snuck into the lab each night to work his DNA magic upon the E coli.

I keep asking about this, but you keep deflecting; how exactly is this "designer" supposed to intervene with the bacteria, whilst they were sealed in a lab? I'm serious. How is this supposed to be accomplished?

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 374 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 380 of 396 (587647)
10-19-2010 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:17 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as complete bullshit
To which I pointed out that the changes did not take place within the same generation, but through the natural selection process of choosing alleles that probably already existed in the population but were just not dominant.

And having carefully examined the process that you are discussing, your evidence that proves that all the scientists who actually did the experiment and observed the results are wrong is as follows ...

My comment was that creationists argue that these alleles were likely designed into the species for just such a purpose, from creation (their origins).

And having carefully examined the process that you are discussing, your evidence that proves that all the scientists who actually did the experiment and observed the results are wrong is as follows ...

You were obviously referring to Lenski's studies here because that was what you brought up when you were challenged. And you are also clearly using them as evidence to suggest that evolution is the explanation for the "origins" of these alleles. So again, the burden of proof falls directly upon the one using the studies in this manor.

In the first place, you mean "manner" and in the second place SCIENTISTS WATCHED IT HAPPEN.

How far can denial go?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 598 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 381 of 396 (587659)
10-20-2010 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:17 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
My comment was that creationists argue that these alleles were likely designed into the species for just such a purpose, from creation (their origins).

I'm having trouble following.

In the case of Lemski, the new mutations were NEW mutations. They didn't exist in the bacteria PRIOR to the generation in which they first appeared.

So, unless this programming was in the form of invisible fairy DNA which can't be seen, I have to assume that the claim is that the DNA was "designed" to mutate.

So, if I'm reading this right:

Scientists: "Evolution occurs because mutations cause changes and natural selection causes some changes to flourish while others die out"

Creationists: "Evolution is false because magic causes mutations which cause changes and natural selection causes some changes to flourish while others die out."

It seems to me that the Creationists (who've spent 150 years claiming evolution is 100% false) are now just saying that evolution is 100% true but are adding the word "magic" in to the middle of the equation and pretending like they've won.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 382 of 396 (587691)
10-20-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by slevesque
09-17-2010 12:07 AM


Re: Experiment
''but I think the dating methdos are flawed''

How is it that each of the dozen or so radiocarbon dating methods are flawed in such a way that they return consistent results for a single sample?

That seems unlikely in the extreme, don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 09-17-2010 12:07 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 2:32 PM nator has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 383 of 396 (587696)
10-20-2010 9:40 AM


Summaries....
Please post your summaries about the successes or failures to provide Creation/ID science experiments in this thread. I think nearly 400 posts is sufficient to establish either sides best possible argument on this matter for now.

Most of the on-topic discussion at this point seems to be about the 'apc' experiment from Message 257

quote:
compare {the genetic} information with natural patterns to see if it differs in a way that can only be described as an abstruse and particularized form of communication

If interest in discussing the merits and flaws of this particular experiment is still there - then I think, perhaps, that it would be deserving of a thread in its own right.

1 more post each please. If you made a reply and submitted without seeing this post, please edit that post to include your summarising statements (If I have time, I'll be hiding text in subsequent posts). Closure will probably not be for a few days, so don't panic.


Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by nwr, posted 10-20-2010 10:15 AM AdminModulous has not yet responded
 Message 385 by Just being real, posted 10-20-2010 10:36 AM AdminModulous has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 384 of 396 (587699)
10-20-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by AdminModulous
10-20-2010 9:40 AM


Re: Summaries....
I only have a few posts in this thread, though I have been following it.

My conclusion: The sensible suggestions for possible experiments on "creation science" appear to have all come from the evolutionist/scientist participants. I see only hand-waving and special pleading arguments from the creationists.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by AdminModulous, posted 10-20-2010 9:40 AM AdminModulous has not yet responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 2042 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 385 of 396 (587702)
10-20-2010 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by AdminModulous
10-20-2010 9:40 AM


Re: Summaries....
Please post your summaries about the successes or failures to provide Creation/ID science experiments in this thread. I think nearly 400 posts is sufficient to establish either sides best possible argument on this matter for now... 1 more post each please.

Very well then. My last post here will simply be to reiterate what I said in post #316 regarding the threads original challenge. I did match and meet the requirements as set forth by the originator. That was to demonstrate some sort of ID science experiment. Getting some of you here to actually define what qualifies as science in your eyes, was like pulling teeth, but finally you did. I then was able to demonstrate how the theory of ID does qualify as a scientific theory. I actually even presented several examples of ID experiments, some of which had even been published in mainstream science journals. Therefore again for all intents and purposes...THE CASE IS CLOSED!

One side question I have for AdminModulous. I ask that you take a careful look at the language used in post #367 and advise me as to whether or not this is common and accepted behavior here at EvC forums? You can let my know via private message.

Thank you to you and all the staff for providing me this opportunity to participate in these threads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by AdminModulous, posted 10-20-2010 9:40 AM AdminModulous has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 386 of 396 (587704)
10-20-2010 10:41 AM


So far EVERY "Creation Science" experiment has...
So far EVERY "Creation Science" experiment has shown that the current explanations are the better answer. Not one has supported "Creationism", the existence of "Design" or a "Designer", or that there ever was a "Biblical Flood".


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Panda
Member (Idle past 1819 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 387 of 396 (587707)
10-20-2010 11:19 AM


The only experiment (suggested by a creationist) that I can see amongst all the obfuscation is:
Pick something up.
Do you recognise it?
No => You are ignorant
Yes => Do you know what it is for?
No => You are ignorant
Yes => It is designed

If DESIGNED = true Then GOD = true

It is just the usual assertion that 'order' = 'design' followed by "I'll know it when I see it".

Is this ordered and designed?


Is this ordered and designed?

It appears we will have to wait a while longer before creationists figure out a way to tell the difference.
Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2010 12:16 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 388 of 396 (587723)
10-20-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Panda
10-20-2010 11:19 AM


Trick questions.
Have I ever told you how much I hate trick questions? Those are two pictures of the same thing.

Is your point with the pictures that creationists have made pareidolia into a 'science'?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Panda, posted 10-20-2010 11:19 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

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


(1)
Message 389 of 396 (587725)
10-20-2010 12:29 PM


Thread Closed, Case Still Open
Just Being Real claims that the case is closed. He claims that he has provided us with a number of papers that support Intelligent Design.

I actually even presented several examples of ID experiments, some of which had even been published in mainstream science journals. Therefore again for all intents and purposes...THE CASE IS CLOSED!

I have no doubt that JBR sincerely believes this to be true, but he is sadly mistaken. The articles cited by JBR as being "ID experiments" are in fact nothing of the sort. Certainly all of them could be used to bolster an ID style argument (if one is willing to ignore the alternative explanations) and this is what authors such as Doug Axe have done. The problem however, is that none of these articles actually tests the proposition that there is a designer.

Axe for example, claims that enzyme folding provides evidence of design. Naturally, this is disputed by many. Axe is entitled to his view on the matter, but what his paper does not do is to rigorously test for the existence of a designer. Axe makes no mention of any designer in his abstract. This is typical of ID papers; their authors claim that they support design, but in the actual papers themselves, they make little or no mention of any such possibility, at least not directly.

JBR has provided us with papers that can be viewed as being consistent with ID but he has been entirely unable to provide us with any direct test for the presence of a designer, save for his own, self-created terminology, "APC", which is fundamentally flawed, amounting to little more than affirming the consequent and "I know it when I see it".

It even seems that JBR feels the need to deny the results of experiments that plainly show random mutation and natural selection creating new functional alleles right in front of researchers' eyes. He seems to be insisting that no new allele can ever arise by mutation (even though we know that they can and do) and further, that direct interference by a "designer" (plainly a convenient pseudonym for JBR's deity of choice) is needed for any and all functional change. This is a startling claim. It would require that the designer uses invisible, undetectable, essentially magical means to interfere in the development of every single living thing, everywhere, all the time. Apart from the fact that this claim is clearly supernatural and wildly unparsimonious, it is also rather sinister; I would not wish to believe that all life is overseen by such a grotesque control freak. Frankly I am glad that there is no reason to believe in such a being.

JBR would have us believe in a magical entity, which he refuses to identify and for which he has absolutely no evidence. He would have us believe this, whilst simultaneously denying the evidence of random mutation that is right in front of our eyes. It is clear to me that this is religion in action, not science.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16344
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 390 of 396 (587742)
10-20-2010 1:57 PM


In Conclusion...
Scientists do experiments every day. They do experiments to test the results of other experiments. They do experiments to decide which other experiments might be worthwhile doing.

If creationism was science, you'd think they'd have a backlog of thousands of ideas for experiments just waiting for funding. But no, creation "science" seems to rest on telling scientists that they're wrong about their own experiments. Creationists hardly ever do their own experiments and when they do, they get the same results as science does (e.g. RATE group).

Creationism is about as sterile as it can be when it comes to doing science or even understanding what it means to do science.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
RewPrev1
...
22232425
26
27Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019