Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
61 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,321 Year: 5,967/14,102 Month: 115/438 Week: 47/112 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 16 of 294 (844671)
12-03-2018 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
11-30-2018 7:06 PM


Porkncheese writes:

The question is how common or rare are advantageous functional sequences among the possible combinations of the DNA code? The answer is 1x10^77. That’s a 10 with 77 zeros. Those odds are so big that even billions of years could not produce that many outcomes.

There are about 7 billion advantageous combinations of DNA kicking around right now for just humans. Your math is obviously wrong.

If only 1 out of 10^77 DNA mutations was advantageous, then humans shouldn't exist. There are only 3 x 10^9 bases in our haploid genome. This would mean that none of the 40 million or so mutations that separate us from chimps would be advantageous, which is also obviously not true. Any probability that is greater than 3 x 10^9 is obviously wrong.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 11-30-2018 7:06 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 26 of 294 (844705)
12-04-2018 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Porkncheese
12-03-2018 10:08 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Porkncheese writes:

For example the fossils presented to me don’t show evidence for a common ancestor. I can’t see where the evolution takes place.

How about this?

"A" is a chimp and "L" is a modern human. The rest are laid out in chronological order. This sure looks like macroevolution to me. If you disagree, please tell us what features these fossils are missing that you would need to see in order to accept it as evidence for macroevolution.

Another perplexing statement. One guy copied and pasted a whole book, isn’t that the same? How are public school kids drawing conclusions? Aren’t they concluding evolution as fact? It’s what the atheists are concluding.

That's what both atheists and theists are concluding. Scientists of all religious beliefs have accepted the theory of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory, not an atheist theory.

And with the probability these aren’t the only guys that have come up with probabilities there are a few different ones all with different outcomes. But if go ahead and believe that its probable how does it all arrange itself from atom to a living creature like in the diagram? How many more processes are needed? Can DNA mutation alone account for all of it?

The physical differences between chimps and humans is due to the DNA sequence differences found between their genomes. So yes, mutations can account for it.

Can we demonstrate macro ToE in experiments? Make an animal turn into another type? Why not?

We can demonstrate macroevolution in experiments. All you have to do in the experiment is to test for a phylolgenetic signal in the morphological and genetic data, and see if there is a statistically significant correlation between them. That's the experiment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Porkncheese, posted 12-03-2018 10:08 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 56 of 294 (844792)
12-05-2018 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Porkncheese
12-04-2018 6:18 PM


Re: Atheism
Porkncheese writes:

Atheism. The mindless destruction of western civilization

Atheism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Porkncheese, posted 12-04-2018 6:18 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 59 of 294 (844795)
12-05-2018 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Diomedes
12-05-2018 11:58 AM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
Diomedes writes:

I think its likely the word 'science' is being somewhat overloaded, which is causing a bit of a problem. I often looked at engineering as a discipline which utilized various practical techniques to employ scientific concepts and principles. One could argue that makes it different. But being that one can get a PhD in engineering leads me to believe it technically could be a science per se.

The distinction that most people are making is between theory development and applied theory. The experiments that Maxwell did to figure out how eletromagnetism works is theory development. Applying those principles to build a circuit is applied theory. Figuring out how the universe works is "science".

I would also agree that it can be an arbitrary distinction. There is a lot of theory development going on in materials science, for example. The main question to ask is if your work is giving us new knowledge about how the universe works, or are you using that knowledge to build new things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Diomedes, posted 12-05-2018 11:58 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 71 of 294 (844903)
12-07-2018 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Porkncheese
12-06-2018 9:36 PM


Re: Fossil Record
We need to see a list of criteria you are using to determine if these fossils are transitional or not. If you can't list these criteria, then it is pretty obvious that all you have is straight denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Porkncheese, posted 12-06-2018 9:36 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 104 of 294 (847428)
01-22-2019 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

How does this....

demonstrate macroevolution?

It demonstrates intermediate forms between humans and other apes which is evidence for evolution and common ancestry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 105 of 294 (847430)
01-22-2019 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 2:28 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieB writes:

Even if we accept that the pictures are in chronological order, you cannot make any inference that there is any ancestor/descendant relationship. You can infer a relationship based on homology, but you cannot state that is is due to any parent/child link. It might be parent/child, or it might be a distant cousin linkage, or it might be an experiment by aliens, or it might be some other form of ID. My point is you are assuming some evolutionary linkage, but you do not have enough data to do so.

The theory of evolution predicts that there were species in the past who had a mixture of human and ape features, and these fossils fit those predictions. When a theory makes a prediction and the facts bear out those predictions then those facts are evidence for the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:28 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 3:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 106 of 294 (847431)
01-22-2019 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 12:42 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

Secondly, as to published research and evidence for ID, you appear to be quite unaware. There is quite a lot of research a out there (including peer-reviewed papers), as well as a number of books, websites, talks, etc. One was linked in the first post of this thread. More recently, there was a major mathematical paper released - http://bio-complexity.org/.../main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.4

Bio-Complexity is an ID vanity journal whose sole purpose is to publish papers that wouldn't pass real peer review in a real scientific journal. On top of that, all the paper demonstrated is that you can't get a specific function if mutations occur in specific spots in a protein. It didn't evidence anything beyond that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:42 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 107 of 294 (847436)
01-22-2019 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 2:07 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

So you claim. But how about a recent article Parenteau, J. et al. (2019), “Introns are mediators of cell response to starvation,” Nature. that is more supportive of an ID view of things and puts another nail in the coffin for the 'Junk DNA' view that is common to Darwinian evolution.

Yeast are not humans. Also, there is more junk DNA than just introns.

Then I guess you do not understand at all what Axe's paper is about. His paper provided a challenge to how Darwinian evolution is supposed to act. It estimates how rare amino acid sequences are that generate functional protein folds, and as a measure of the content of specified complexity within enzymes that is very relevant to questions of ID.

Axe didn't demonstrate any of those claims.

1. Axe didn't model evolution because he used a derived sequence instead of an ancestral sequence. He tried to mutate one modern gene sequence into another modern gene sequence. That isn't how evolution works. He should have derived the ancestral sequence from consensus sequence, but he didn't.

2. Axe didn't determine if the protein had function. Axe only determined if it had beta-lactamase activity. Using Axe's criteria, none of the proteins in the human genome have function because they all lack beta-lactamase activity.

3. Axe didn't measure specified complexity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:07 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 5:54 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 110 of 294 (847441)
01-22-2019 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 3:19 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

I agree with everything you said here. But you are missing the point.
The presentation of skulls is evidence of relation. And yes, if assuming the progression in time is true (realistically there are some problems with the picture, notably the starting skull), evolution predicts the progression and could be the process behind it. But ID can equally predict the progression (each could be designed that way) and it could be the process behind it.

What ID doesn't predict is a nested hierarchy.


"The history of life: looking at the patterns

The central ideas of evolution are that life has a history — it has changed over time — and that different species share common ancestors.

Here, you can explore how evolutionary change and evolutionary relationships are represented in "family trees," how these trees are constructed, and how this knowledge affects biological classification. You will also find a timeline of evolutionary history and information on some specific events in the history of life: human evolution and the origin of life."
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_03

Your cars will not fit into the same nested hierarchy. Instead, different parts will be mixed and matched in different models with no discernible nested hierarchy.

When the pattern of shared and derived features matches the pattern that evolution would produce then this is evidence for evolution. This is how the scientific method works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 3:19 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 5:23 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 111 of 294 (847442)
01-22-2019 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 3:37 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

It hasnt been demonstrated that Axe is wrong. In the critique you cite, Hunt is not really arguing with Axe over the science, but just his conclusions based on the science. He really is just quibbling over a possible difference between rarity and isolation of protein sequences that lead to a functional protein fold. Axe showed that Hunt's conclusions were unwarranted in his response.

Axe tests for beta-lactamase activity to determine if a protein has function. If Axe used the same test on human proteins he would conclude that no proteins in the human genome have function because none of them have beta-lactamase activity.

Do you see the problem?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 3:37 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 127 of 294 (847477)
01-23-2019 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 5:23 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieB writes:

Of course ID can account for a nested hierarchy. Makes me think you do not understand what ID is? Ever hear of common design?

Cars, paintings, buildings, and other human designs have common designers. Those designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Obviously, it is you who doesn't understand what a nested hierarchy, nor do you understand intelligent design.

But as I said before, design can account for a nested hierarchy just as easily. The lines might be drawn differently and be inferring a different process behind it. In that case a dependency graph would be a better visual.

Then show how designed things fall into a nested hierarchy based on shared derived characteristics. I have yet to see an ID supporter do this.

How do you account for two (or more) similar traits in organisms that are not found in the ancestor - like echolocation in bats and dolphins?

Echolocation is a behavior, not an anatomical structure. The structures that dolphins and bats use for echolocation are entirely different as we would expect for adaptations that evolved independently in two different lineages.

Another thing about your nested hierarchy is that you are cannot use it to prove evolution since you are assuming evolution is the method. To do so would be circular reasoning.

That is entirely false. The theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy independently of the data. This is standard scientific testing.

What do you think a scientific hypothesis is? How do you think science tests a hypothesis?

I'm not sure how you can say this. Depending on the similarities you want to highlight, you can draw up a nested hierarchy just fine for Corvettes. And yes, there might be some parts that dont fit the pattern for a car, but we see the same thing happening with life.

Please show that a phylogeny based on parts found in Corvettes produces the same statistically significant phylogenetic signal found in life. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 5:23 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by WookieeB, posted 01-23-2019 2:38 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 128 of 294 (847478)
01-23-2019 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 5:54 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieB writes:

What are you talking about? There was no "derived sequence" and there was no reference to any "ancestral sequence". Are you on the right paper?

Axe used the gene sequence from two modern species which are both derived sequences. Modern species don't evolve from other modern species. Modern species evolve from a common ancestor who lived in the past. Both of the genes that Axe used had accumulated mutations since common ancestry, and neither gene represented the ancestral sequence that both of them evolved from. Therefore, Axe didn't model evolution because he didn't mutate the ancestral sequence.

Again I do not think you understand what he did. Beta-lactamase activity IS function. So he was determining function, duh!

There are other functions that proteins can have, DUH!!! You can't test for one single function out of possible millions and claim that a protein has no function, DUH!!!

It is basically a discussion on whether two islands in a sea have a stepping stone route between them.

Then Axe should have tested for functions other than beta-lactamase activity that could have served as an island, BUT HE DIDN'T!! He also didn't use the ancestral sequence that could have contained those islands, DUH!!

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 5:54 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by WookieeB, posted 01-23-2019 3:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 130 of 294 (847487)
01-23-2019 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 9:28 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:


Take Junk DNA as another example. Darwinian evolution predicted that junk DNA would be prevalent, most of the content of DNA. ID predicted that though there could be some junk, most DNA would prove to be functional. An lo and behold, as more evidence mounts the ID position is proving to be the correct one.

Darwin died before DNA was discovered, so what you describe is a fantasy.

What we can say is that only evolution can be used to accurately predict which parts of a genome have function. When we see sequence conservation across species this tells us that those sequences most likely have function. ID makes no such prediction, as shown by the insistence that massive amounts of non-conserved sequence in the human genome is claimed to have function according to ID supporters.

An lo and behold, as more evidence mounts the ID position is proving to be the correct one.

The evidence still points to 90% of the human genome not having function that affects fitness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 9:28 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 138 of 294 (847529)
01-23-2019 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by WookieeB
01-23-2019 2:38 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:


Please define what a nested hierarchy is. I think we have different ideas of this.
To me, in it's simplest form, it is groups within groups. Or a defined set that contains other defined sub-sets.

Nested hierarchies are groups within groups, and each group is defined by shared derived features, also called synapomorphies. These are often called cladograms or phylogenies:

Notice how each branch is defined by a shared derived feature. You never did that for your Corvettes. You just showed a bunch of pictures of Corvettes. If you want to claim that human designs also produce phylogenies with the same statistically significant phylogenetic signal that biological species do, then you need to actually show it. You may also want to brush up on your computational phylogenetics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_phylogenetics

Afterall, you wouldn't make the claim that common design produces the same phylogenetic signal as evolution unless you had already done the work, right? RIGHT????


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by WookieeB, posted 01-23-2019 2:38 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by WookieeB, posted 01-23-2019 5:08 PM Taq has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021