|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 10 Categories of Evidence For ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: DNA is found in organisms...but it is not found in all organisms i.e. many viruses are RNA viruses. Prions can transmit information without any nucleic acid component at all. The genome has a grand total of about 1.5% genes. The rest is a combination of pseudogenes, junk DNA, endogenous retroviruses, and other retroelements. Thus, much of the information is either junk or does not contribute to the phenotype of the organism (which also indicates pretty lousy design but fits very well with evolutionary theory where just being better at reproducing gets you through..not great design). ID cannot predict that DNA is intelligently designed as ID has not proposed a testable and falsifiable hypothesis which would allow one to make predictions. All ID does is pre-supposes a designer. Although unstable as building blocks, DNA can persist in fossils for thousands of years and RNA has been obtained from flu patient remains from the early 1900's. Science. 1997 Mar 21;275(5307):1793-6. Related Articles, Links
quote: quote: Conclusion: You have not demonstrated that DNA must be designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I was keeping it simple for Mr. Bauer and only taking into account protein coding sequences. I am aware that functional RNAs and even transcripts derived from retroelements have an impact on phenotype. However, the majority of the genome and the transcriptome is composed of background noise. For example recently, a large scale deletion study of "junk DNA" showed no impact on mouse phenotype
Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93. Related Articles, Links Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. Nobrega MA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM. DOE Joint Genome Institute Walnut Creek, California 94598, USA. The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:Why would the point be moot? Different organisms and proto-organisms have different methods of spreading their information from one generation to the next. Your premise began with DNA occurs in all organisms..this is false...and then you proceeded from this false premise into other nonsensical points. quote:You have frequently errored in equating genes and genomes. Secondly, the genome is a mess only paralleled by the random noise in the transcriptome. This accumulation of junk DNA and retroelements that do not have an effect on phenotype is hardly indicative of a well thought out planned design but are nice evidence of random muation and evolution. In addition, for some of these elements, they have been shown within the human population to still be actively increaseing or decreasing the size of the genome randomly by transposition...this can be observed directly and unless you consider every act of sexual reproduction careful genome design, it hardly demostrates intelligent design. In summary, most of the genome has nothing to do with morphology or function and is just there by mutation and drift (which has been direcly observed) in non-selected sequences...hardly a compelling case for design...where is that direct observation of intelligence in population genetics that you were just about to show me quote: Unfortunately for you and all IDists this is not my opinion..it is exactly the problem with ID in the first place. In any actual field of science, every hypothesis is testable and falsifiable. No IDist has ever proposed a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID. Thus, you cannot make predictions that make any sense. I could replace disigned in your sentence above with "made by a sentient tube of toothpaste" and it would not change it or make it valid. You guys are no different from creationists who claim "goddidit" but replace it with "intelligencedidit"..wow, what a breakthrough
quote: This had to do with the stability of RNA and DNA which you implied was relatively poor. try getting rid of DNA contamination in a lab..that is DNA floating around in the air...it is very stable and a pain in the butt to get rid of. In any case, your claim is nonsense. The flu's origin can be traced and lo and behold, the flu virus came from related strains of flu that mutated...not poof bang designed and implanted independently in the 20 million people who died during the 1918 flu epidemic. Your claim amounts to your saying so in the face of the evidence..not providing evidence. What is the evidence that the RNA genome of the 1918 flu was designed?
quote: You should be a comedian...at least this type of statement is enough to make me laugh. Now you want me to prove a negative? Thank you. You have now demonstrated that ID is creationism i.e. invoking the supernatural to explain (without any effect) natural phenomenon. You claimed to have positive evidence that DNA was designed. Not a single one of your assertions is supported by fact. Now you attack me for not showing that DNA is not designed? I'll tell you what, before you even try to provide evidence for ID, why not tell us what the testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID is in the first place? I see a mutation passed on from parent to offspring and map it to a specific base change in a specific gene and show that it changes a specific protein such that it fails to bind a second protein efficiently. Show me how in such a case you would test for this occurrence being an intelligent design decision? How would you falsify that intelligence was involved? Scientists know broadly but not in all details how DNA replicates, how it is transmitted from one generation to the next, how the it mutates, with what frequency DNA and RNA polymerases incorporate errors, how resultant mutations spread among families, within species and among them. From this data alone, not counting other independent lines of inquiry, the parsimonious conclusion is random mutation and natural selection for some sequences and random mutation and drift for others. This can be demonstrated in the lab in multiple organisms from viruses to primates. All hypothesis of genetics, genomics, evolution can be tested and falsified. How does saying, "an intelligence did it" in any way add to the information that we have? Where is the intelligence in DNA replication. How would you falsify that any intelligence was involved? Until you can do test and falsify ID, it is merely a religious belief and has no place in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Ok, then it is even more incorrect technically...DNA is also found outside of organisms...and often found floating in the vicinity of those trying to extract neandertal DNA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: This argument does not make sense. Some specific sequences are increasing in number, some are decreasing. In some organisms, repetitive DNA is for the most part, not tolerated...so are you then saying that bacteria and viruses are the only species evolving because their genomes are streamlined relative to other organisms? There is no evidence that organisms have degraded. In fact, the expansion of our species across the planet is indication of a higher relative fitness as compared to many other species...though again, bacteria have us beat.
quote: This is a bit of a different argument. On the one hand you are saying you do not accept evolution but now you are talking about abiogenesis. Do you know what the difference between the two are?Nobody here is going to say we have much information on abiogenesis...but it is still a science as different conditions and scenarios can be tested for their ability to generate replicators i..e one can form a hypothesis about the conditions necessary for the formation of self replicating molecules and test them. Evolution only deals with life once it exists and has nothing to say on the matter of the first replicator. In any case, if the precursor of life was RNA, why would you look to form DNA spontaneously? quote:which would you like? That related species should be more similar genetically than non-related species? This is tested all the time and could be falsified easily if say a worm was more similar genetically to humans than chimps are to humans. quote:So, every meiotic event requires design? I did not realize how intelligent an ameoba is when it divides and intelligently assorts each and every base pair after carefully thinking about it. Seriously, DNA synthesis is a simple chemical reaction..why does it require a designer much less an intelligent one every time conception occurs? quote: Pre-programmed? I do not know that it is designed. I don't assume some magic fairy suddenly created the DNA in my parents so that they could pass it on to me......it was passed on in a chain since the last common ancestor of all replicators. That we don't know what that last common ancestor was is not evidence that at any point intelligent design was involved.
quote: Chemistry is a field not a hypothesis. Pick any current hypothesis in chemistry and you will find it is testable and falsifiable. Intelligent design is the hypothesis that biodiversity can only be explained by an undefined intelligence. This is niether testable nor falsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: This does not make sense. Single cell organisms appear much much earlier in the fossil record than multicellular organisms. According to you, all genomes have been devolving since they sprung magically into existence by design. However, bacteria maintain streamlined genomes while at the same time continuing to evolve and acquire new traits. So from your concept of ID, bacteria and viruses are the supreme beings on earth..all hail lambda phage! Please point out in the paper you cited where they show any indication at all that the human genome has been devolving. Are you going to cling to this distortion or actually read the paper and concede that it does not support your point (or more honestly that you did not understand the paper)?
quote: Then it is extremely odd that you have several times conflated abiogenesis and evolution and have demonstrated some faily profound misunderstandings of evolutionary biology. This is not meant to be insulting but merely an observation. You telling me that you know abuot the science is not very compelling when you make very big mistakes involving the basics.
quote: First, a key part of science is tentativity...nobody knows anything for sure. But I digress, under some circumstances you can make DNA form...RNA certainly shows this property. The key issue for abiogenesis research is to find a set of conditions in which self replicating molecules can form and demonstrate the principle. If it is not exactly how it happened billions of years ago as one can surmise the conditions but cannot know them 100%. However, it is at least something that can be tested i.e. forming self replicting molecules under different environmental conditions...how exactly do you test for an intelligent thingamagigy suddenly designing replicators?
quote: It is not common sense. It was not known until relatively recently how closely related chimps are to humans. It was a hypothesis that was tested and found to be supported by multiple independent lines of evidence i.e. a scientific hypothesis. If ID could do the same it would be science to...but it apparently cannot. In any case, if everything is designed by intelligence, why would there be any reason for chimps and humans to be genetically similar? First you don't define what the intelligent designer is and now you are already limiting how god..ahem, intelligent designer..does the designing? And why wouldnt every single meiotic event require design? If on the one hand you claim that natural causes cannot explain biodiversity at higher levels why do you believe they are sufficient to explain the generation of biodiversity even within a family i.e. why do you accept (assuming you do) the conclusions drawn from molecular forensics?
quote:I disagree with the intelligence part. Where is the intelligence in reproduction whether it be ameoba or human? Have you ever seen an intelligent piece of DNA? quote: And this is typical creationism...I do not think the genome arrived as is poof bang ex nihilo. I would expect that very simple replicators formed naturally and then grew more complex over time. One can see this even now in the lab with simple precursor replicators that can under selection form much more complex functions. Really, your logical thinking seems to be totally blinded by your religion.
quote: How do I not have evidence? Every single genetic study of every species from bacteria to humans demonstrates the vertical transmission (sometimes horizontally) of genes from parent to offspring. Multiple studies both within and among species (look up cichlids for example) support this in the form of population genetics i.e. changes in allele frequency over time aka evolution. Above you even said you believe in evolution...but here you claim you do not. In any event, given one can connect species phylogenetically using multiple characters both molecular and morphological, I see this as support for my position. It is no different than doing forensics, paternity tests, or tracking disease alleles in a population just at different time scales. I do not see spontaneous creation or intelligent intervention however. You must bring evidence that genetics suddenly stops and an intelligent agent intervenes..otherwise, I have no reason to assume that the natural processes acting now were not acting the same way in the past.
quote:Then please "find" this form me... what is the testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID? I know why you are persistently avoiding this challenge..do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Besides getting suspended, you are remaining inconsistent. According to your, all genomes must degrade...yet bacteria and viruses show no sign of this (niether does the human genome but Ill get to it later). So you are inconsitent...either things are designed and degrade as you claim has to happen and have been harping on in your confused 2LOT arguements or you have found your supreme being in lamda phage...or are you the type that picks out what they want to see and ignores the inconsistencies?
quote:There s a thread now dedicated to your math errors. But you still have not shown where the authors imply in any way the de-evolution of the genome. I will take your evasive answer as a concession that you do not understand the paper quote:This is a typical creationist response. If you conflate two different fields you demonstrate that you do not know the difference yourself. Do you know what the ToE is? quote: Im sorry for you but science that does no testing will not tell you anything...this is why you fail. You do not know what science is. A non tested hypothesis is speculation and a non testable hypothesis is a fairy tale..like ID.
quote:Actually, many people thought our closest relatives were gorillas or even orang-utans. But this demonstrates again that you have no working knowledge of the fields you are debating as the human-chimp-gorilla split work was exceptionally high profile work in molecular biology...look up Alan Wilson some time. quote:Why would a desinger keep using a similar design? There is no reason for this as if it is intelligent it can do whatever it wants to..there are after all, organisms with non-DNA genomes. Do you have supporting evidence or a testable hypothesis that would support this constraint? quote:I don't think Windows XP and replicators are a valid comparison. And since I never claimed that a complex code was the original replicator it is really a nonsense question that reflects your own confusion. Your appeals to the number of people who are ignorant of science not accepting this or that are irrelvant. It just shows that there are lots of ignorant people in the US. quote:Since every time I have presented papers you have then cried like a spanked puppy that it is unfair of me to post papers that you cant get or the dog ate your homework or some such nonsense, you can go do your own homework. Again, their is a thread in the suggestions and questions forum addressing your unwillingness to access papers (which you shuold know about given your claims of knowledge). Resolve your issues and how you want information presented or else do your own homework. quote:Same problem as above..if I post the relevant literature will you read it or just shrug it off? I actually do scientific work so will only spend a limited amount of time on your remedial biology education..and none if you will just outright evade argument and dismiss the data that exists because it conflicts with your opionion as you have been doing. I am really quite surprised that you do not know about any of these subjects and cannot list a few papers on your own on this subject. You said you would blow me away with science and when I summarize work that has been done (that my youngest students know by heart) you say you are unaware of the work and want to see it. Are your really telling me you do not know what horizontal transfer is? quote:Why? Because even you deep down recognize that you dont really know very much about science but are engaging in this argument because you are a creationist and are afraid science. Otherwise you would give a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi WK,
Yes, I meant that thread...I was in a rush so did not link it. I know it was not specifically about Jerry but since he was exhibiting behavior that was the inspiration for that thread I brought it up. In any case, it seems that since Jerry cannot defend his assertions with evidence he is resorting to taunting theAdmins in the hopes that he will be banned and go home feeling that he is a martyr a la John Davison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:I will take this as an admission on your part that you are not familiar with any of the relevant experiments pertaining to evolutionary biology or the thousands of articles that describe them. This is clearly evident from your posts but you have now indicated as well that you have no interest in learning any science but are more comfortable pretending that not knowing about science is evidence for your position. Pity...it would have been nice to encounter an so called IDist who actually has an interest in the subject they debate...maybe we will get one here one day. quote:this is a statement of faith and not a scientific hypothesis. You can neither test for this nor falsify it. That you fail to realize this is why you will never be a scientist nor understand science in any form. You might regurgitate a few definitions here and there (though everything you have stated about genes and genomes has been incorrect) but you really do not understand science at all. That would be ok but coupled with your lack of interest in actually learning how it works makes you a mere internet troll. You can re-state your position as much as you like, you can misquote and mischaracterize current research as much as you like, you can ignore studies (which are avialable to anyone with an internet connection) as much as you like. None of it strengthens you position and without a testable and falsifiable hypothesis for ID you will spin in circles endlessly...Your last two posts to me have been completely evasive so I will let you go as you clearly are in over your head with the molecular biology being discussed...have fun, and don't get to dizzy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024