Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 5:24 AM
17 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 77 of 118 (1665)
01-07-2002 4:11 PM


quote:
slp:
JP tried it - I pointed out the contradictions and shadiness in his links, he flipped out and is now ignoring me.

John Paul:
I am ignoring you because you offer nothing to debate. You only think you found contradictions & shadiness in the links I provided. Big difference nbetween that and there actually being contradictions and shadiness


The usual assertions unsupported by facts.

All too easy to once again demonstrate erroneous information on JPs part:
From: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=34&p=3

JP provides these links:

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/junkdna031901.htm

and

http://www.idthink.net/arn/shap/index.htm

to support his claims regarding junk DNA.

In my response, using quotes from the very sites that JP linked to, I post the following:

“I am at a loss as to explain why you chose those links. Did you even bother to read them? They contradict each other on many points. From:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/junkdna031901.htm

“The junk comes in several varieties, the most common of which are repetitive segments. There are short repetitive segments, such as the pieces that Schmid studies, consisting of 272 base pairs; and there are long repetitive segments of 6,000 base pairs. Both segments pop up repeatedly in human DNA, collectively accounting for 20 percent of the entire genome, Schmid said.”

Yet from http://www.idthink.net/arn/shap/index.htm:

“And what plays the crucial role in this organization is the repetitive DNA (commonly called "junk DNA").”

So, is junk DNA just repetitive segments, as Mike Gene clearly indicates, or are repetitive segments just one type of ‘junk’? The distinction is important.

Gene also condescendingly writes:

“In the future, the non-teleological revisionism will try to make it seem as if non-teleologists have always known "junk DNA" wasn't junk. Every time you see a non-teleologist using junk DNA in this way, copy and save it, for history's sake.”

And yet what do we see in the ARN article?

“The idea that the junk may not be junky hearkens back to the early days of molecular biology. The prevailing view once was that all DNA was useful to the body. Then, two different teams of scientists published commentaries in the journal Nature in 1980 suggesting that some DNA is "selfish" -- that it exists simply for the sake of existing.”

It seems that for at least 21 years, real scientists have suspected – even ‘known’ – junk DNA wasn’t simply ‘junk’.
Instead of saving such claims for ‘history’s sake’, I suggest keeping the self-serving rantings of ‘teleologists’ for history’s sake.

I think two examples are enough to show contradictions between the two. JP, of course, will simply refuse to accept that one link claiming that junk DNA is all sorts of things, the other clearly implying it is only repetitive elements, is not a contradiction. He will insist that one link showing that biologists knew 21 years ago that junk DNA has functions while the other claims that ‘non-teleologists’ are just now finding this out is not contradictory.

He has to.

Shadiness?

In the same thread, JP links to Richard Deem’s web site.

I post the following:

**********************************************************

As an aside, I would be a bit cautious in referring to the 'work' on the godandscience.org site.
Much to my astonishment, the author - lab tech Richard Deem - STILL has an extremely deceptive bit on his website, despite the fact that I pointed it out to him nearly 3 years ago!
On his page:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/news.html#07
on the very bottom thetre is a blurb entitled "Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism."
In this blurb, he refers to this article
Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112.
Deem quotes Sharp "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."
Deem, however, leaves out several key points.
Here is a post that I made at the BOTCW board about a year ago, after again seeing Deem's site:
*************************
Richard Deem, Apologist, at http://www.jps.net/bygrace/evolution/news.html#07 writes:
Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism
Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt[sic] to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."
7.Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112.
The page this appears on is dated March 29, 2000. This is especially interesting to me because more than a year ago, I contacted Deem, for the second time, to inform him how deceptive and dishonest his characterization was (is).
You see, as I write this, I am looking at two things – the same 2 things I was looking at when I challenged Christian Apologist and lab tech Deem more than a year ago –
A photocopy of the Sharp article and a reprint of the research article that Sharp referred to from the same issue of Nature. Yes, Sharp did write: “"Attempts to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." But he also wrote, and Christian Apologist Deem fails to mention, this: “One apparent success concerns the enzyme lysozyme in Primates.”, referring to a paper in that very journal. More importantly, Deem deceives by omission – as I mentioned, the Sharp article is from the news section of Nature, it was not a research report itself. It provided, as these essays usually do, a bit of background for an actual research report in the journal. And that is the other thing I am looking at – the actual paper titled “Episodic adaptive evolution of primate lysozymes,” Messier and Stewart. 385:151-154, 1997. This Deem fails to mention at all. Nor does Deem anywhere mention the other bits of molecular evidence for selection.
I first broached this topic when Deem appeared on the old Internet Infidels Evolution Discussion board some 2 years ago. He provided links to his site, boasting about how well documented his ‘essays’ disproving ‘Darwinism’ were. I pointed out the Sharp deception at the time – he ignored it. The subject came up again some time later, when another discussion board poster referred to Deem’s site. I visited, only to see the same disinformation being presented. I wrote about it on a discussion board, and Deem made a brief appearance, claiming to have ‘corrected’ his error, but still insisting that he was right. Visiting his site, I saw a half-baked attempt to cover his tracks. A quickly written, typo-riddled addendum claiming that there was an article in the journal, but that it still didn’t ‘prove’ Darwinism.
I gave up, and had completely forgotten about it until I read creationist-engineer Fred Williams refer to one of Deem’s ‘well referenced’ articles in an email/online debate at his propaganda web site ( http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/bdka_mypost2.htm : “Here's a well referenced online article refuting junk DNA.”).
I went to the link, and checked out Deem’s (very impressive) site. And to my surprise, the ORIGINAL bit of disinformation was again present!
How can one characterize this other than as a bit of propagandistic nonsense? Of disinformation? Of LYING for Christ? He KNOWS that the wording of that asinine little blurb is misleading – indeed, if he did not, he would not have changed it once.
It is extremely informative that this self-described Apologist feels the need to lie and mislead to sway the flock….
***************************
Reading the site today, I see that Deem has actually removed his addendum, leaving the original misrepresentation intact. This is not an isolated event:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gencode.htm
from the introduction:
(Note from the owner of this site: When this page was initially placed on the internet, Richard Deems removed from his internet pages, the paper which the below criticized. Now it has come to my attention that Deems has placed the old, flawed and uncorrected paper back on the internet. I have changed the link below to make sure that the reader can see the original document. It is sad that Deems does not seem open to change.--GRM)

Seems Deem is more interested in the ends than the means...
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com[/URL] - Percy
*******************************************

The fact that Deem reposts articles that he must know are deceptive is, in my book and the books of any rational person, a shady occurrence.

JP cannot see this. Shame.

What do I add to the discussion?

Well, I can formulate my own opinions – fact based opinions – rather than mindlessly link to articles that I have convinced myself prop up my cause.

I add reality. The creationist adds myth, condescension, arrogance, mockery, and intimidation.

But, that is the nature of the debate.

Isn’t it?


  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3361 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 79 of 118 (1668)
01-07-2002 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Fred Williams
01-07-2002 11:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark: 1/ What is the receiver of genetic code?

Fred: I already told you. The Ribosome for one (and accompanying structure, to be completely specific). This apparatus (including tRNA) needs to know how to interpret the mRNA to bring about the construction of the desired amino-acid string (protein).


Very well, ribosomes & accompanying structures it is. I outlined in message 65 that ; The DNA, ribosome etc. are a product of the parent DNA & are part of the same sending, ie cell division. That is to say, The DNA is coded in such a way that it sends itself, plus enough information to begin decoding.

To clarify, are you saying the message/code transmission receives itself?

Is there any other natural, or non-natural process where a transmission receives itself?

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark: 2/ Please define "new information.

Fred: A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.


This definition of “new information” is incredibly narrow & specific, & only applies to codons.

I’m really after a textbook definition that applies universally. To new information received from the TV, a book, radio, morse code, or even new information that I discover myself by direct observation of my environment, ie, no message whatsoever, if possible please.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Fred Williams, posted 01-07-2002 11:55 AM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Fred Williams, posted 01-09-2002 9:41 PM mark24 has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 118 (1691)
01-08-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by skibum_theory
01-07-2002 12:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by skibum_theory:
hey i'm new here, I'm a biology student at MSU. In response to the topic, can creationists show evolution never happened, I say no; but evolutionists can't show creation never happend too, its a double edged sword. My experience and research i have done shows that there is more evidence for an intelligent designer. The complexity of intracellular activities forces me to lean on intellignet designer side. big scale evolution, more than one cell, is easy to correlate and find similaries between differnt organisms, but how the molecular and chemical evoluion formed gradually, step-by-step is beyond me, and science so far. But lets get this part straight, stating one believes in an intelligent designer does not make them a religious, blind faith fanatic; they may just have weighed both sides of the scale and found one side more heavy. as incoherent as it may sound.

Are you saying that you think that ID is scientific?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that ID is simply a modern way to say "God of the Gaps?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by skibum_theory, posted 01-07-2002 12:49 PM skibum_theory has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 12:53 PM nator has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 118 (1695)
01-08-2002 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
01-08-2002 12:37 PM


schraf:
Are you saying that you think that ID is scientific?

John Paul:
I would say it is as scientific as any ToE presented to date.

schraf:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that ID is simply a modern way to say "God of the Gaps?"

John Paul:
Nope. ID says nada about God.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 01-08-2002 12:37 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by joz, posted 01-08-2002 1:23 PM John Paul has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 118 (1698)
01-08-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by John Paul
01-08-2002 12:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Nope. ID says nada about God.

Um bud is there any other solution to the identity of this IDer than God? If so what? If not then ID does contain a very strong subtext of we dont understand it so Goddidit......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 12:53 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 1:57 PM joz has responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 118 (1699)
01-08-2002 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by joz
01-08-2002 1:23 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Nope. ID says nada about God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Um bud is there any other solution to the identity of this IDer than God? If so what? If not then ID does contain a very strong subtext of we dont understand it so Goddidit......

John Paul:
Hey bud! What does knowing the IDer give us to understanding what that IDer designed? Nothing unless the IDer is going to give us a ToK (transfer of knowledge) that will help us understand its purpose, function and how to maintain it. That is the purpose right? To understand how something functions so that it can be properly maintained?

Also maybe you infer a very strong subtext of 'Goddidit' but is not implied. The IDer could be aliens from a distant galaxy, could be the pink unicorns on Uranus (yours not mine, I have Klingons ) or could be any entity with the intelligence to Create life. Of course that does not stop people from inferring God was the IDer. People can infer what they want until evidence comes about that contradicts that.

bud read the following:

IDers are from Mars, ID critics are from Venus

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by joz, posted 01-08-2002 1:23 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by joz, posted 01-08-2002 2:32 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 89 by mark24, posted 01-08-2002 8:35 PM John Paul has not yet responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 118 (1702)
01-08-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by John Paul
01-08-2002 1:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Also maybe you infer a very strong subtext of 'Goddidit' but is not implied. The IDer could be aliens from a distant galaxy, could be the pink unicorns on Uranus (yours not mine, I have Klingons ) or could be any entity with the intelligence to Create life. Of course that does not stop people from inferring God was the IDer. People can infer what they want until evidence comes about that contradicts that.

Er bud unless you accept that all of these aliens, Unicorns and other assorted frolicsome beasties are not irreducibly complex you are back to square one with a hey nonny nonny and GODDIDIT all over the place.

Since IDers claim even the simplest organisms are IC then we can safely assume that they are postulating some sort of supernatural entity as the IDer, ergo they postulate Goddidit....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 1:57 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 2:43 PM joz has responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 118 (1703)
01-08-2002 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by joz
01-08-2002 2:32 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Also maybe you infer a very strong subtext of 'Goddidit' but is not implied. The IDer could be aliens from a distant galaxy, could be the pink unicorns on Uranus (yours not mine, I have Klingons ) or could be any entity with the intelligence to Create life. Of course that does not stop people from inferring God was the IDer. People can infer what they want until evidence comes about that contradicts that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Er bud unless you accept that all of these aliens, Unicorns and other assorted frolicsome beasties are not irreducibly complex you are back to square one with a hey nonny nonny and GODDIDIT all over the place.

John Paul:
Why? Because you say so? ID does not, repeat, DOES NOT, say anything about God.

joz:
Since IDers claim even the simplest organisms are IC then we can safely assume that they are postulating some sort of supernatural entity as the IDer, ergo they postulate Goddidit....

John Paul:
Good thing you don't get to tell IDists what they postulate. If you really think this way perhaps it is time you dive in and learn about ID.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by joz, posted 01-08-2002 2:32 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by joz, posted 01-08-2002 5:27 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 87 by joz, posted 01-08-2002 5:37 PM John Paul has responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 118 (1709)
01-08-2002 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by John Paul
01-08-2002 2:43 PM


Well I thought it was intelligent design that rules out any non sentient cause...

So what's left aliens which are NOT irreducibly complex, hence capable of evolving from scratch, or the supernatural aka GODDIDIT....

One of the key words is intelligent, either naturally occuring organism(s) or supernatural, tell me can intelligence come from anything else? Otherwise they are the only possible solutions to the question what is the designer.....

What other possible solutions can you think of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 2:43 PM John Paul has not yet responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 118 (1712)
01-08-2002 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by John Paul
01-08-2002 2:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
joz:
Since IDers claim even the simplest organisms are IC then we can safely assume that they are postulating some sort of supernatural entity as the IDer, ergo they postulate Goddidit....

John Paul:
Good thing you don't get to tell IDists what they postulate. If you really think this way perhaps it is time you dive in and learn about ID.


Sorry Pal I thought one of Behe`s arguments was to do with protein structure and how if some parts are missing the protein ceases to function... How does this not apply to anything which has a biochemistry which uses proteins?

On another note the ultimate IDer must be of supernatural origin otherwise ToE is still the best hypothesis of how a naturaly occuring intelligence came to be. Isn`t it? How else could it have happened?

On another note you are posting somehow in a way that interferes with the reply/quote option have a look to see if you can`t sort it out will you........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 2:43 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 7:49 PM joz has responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 118 (1716)
01-08-2002 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by joz
01-08-2002 5:37 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
joz:
Since IDers claim even the simplest organisms are IC then we can safely assume that they are postulating some sort of supernatural entity as the IDer, ergo they postulate Goddidit....

John Paul:
Good thing you don't get to tell IDists what they postulate. If you really think this way perhaps it is time you dive in and learn about ID.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Sorry Pal I thought one of Behe`s arguments was to do with protein structure and how if some parts are missing the protein ceases to function... How does this not apply to anything which has a biochemistry which uses proteins?

John Paul:
And what does that have to do with what you said and I replied to? (see the reply quote you used)

ID does not postulate God. Period.

joz:
On another note the ultimate IDer must be of supernatural origin otherwise ToE is still the best hypothesis of how a naturaly occuring intelligence came to be. Isn`t it?

John Paul:
I'm just care about life on Earth. Once we get over that hurdle then we can press on. Did you run before you could crawl?

joz:
How else could it have happened?

John Paul:
Maybe once we get a handle on life here, we will be better able to answer that question.

joz:
On another note you are posting somehow in a way that interferes with the reply/quote option have a look to see if you can`t sort it out will you........

John Paul:
Yeah, I'll get right on it...

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by joz, posted 01-08-2002 5:37 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by joz, posted 01-09-2002 8:56 AM John Paul has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3361 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 89 of 118 (1721)
01-08-2002 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by John Paul
01-08-2002 1:57 PM


Excuse my ignorance, but whats IC?

Also, JP, regarding your Klingons, might I suggest a more abrasive toilet tissue?

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 1:57 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Quetzal, posted 01-09-2002 3:56 AM mark24 has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4038 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 90 of 118 (1731)
01-09-2002 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by mark24
01-08-2002 8:35 PM


Just a brief note, since I'm new here and ya'll appear to have some old business to finish up.

"IC" refers to Michael Behe's idea of "Irreducible Complexity". In essence, Behe postulates that there are certain cellular structures and biochemical processes that are impossible to reduce to simpler structures. As examples, he argues that bacterial flagella, the Krebs cycle, and blood clotting cascades would not work if all of their components did not exist simultaneously. It is one of the foundations of modern ID, since it allegedly falsifies a purely naturalistic explanation of evolution.

[edited as a sacrifice to the goddess typo]

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by mark24, posted 01-08-2002 8:35 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 01-09-2002 10:48 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

joz
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 118 (1738)
01-09-2002 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by John Paul
01-08-2002 7:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

joz:
Since IDers claim even the simplest organisms are IC then we can safely assume that they are postulating some sort of supernatural entity as the IDer, ergo they postulate Goddidit....

John Paul:
Good thing you don't get to tell IDists what they postulate. If you really think this way perhaps it is time you dive in and learn about ID.

joz:
Sorry Pal I thought one of Behes arguments was to do with protein structure and how if some parts are missing the protein ceases to function... How does this not apply to anything which has a biochemistry which uses proteins?

John Paul:
And what does that have to do with what you said and I replied to? (see the reply quote you used)

ID does not postulate God. Period.


I would of thought that it had everything to do with it If the IDer could not have been biological as proteins are IC then it leaves nothing but Goddidit (or some sort of sentient machine, and given the fact that Behe considers a five part mousetrap IC I cant see that as a possible solution)....

ID may not postulate God anywhere in any of its literature but it DOES infer that the IDer is of a supernatural origin.... Semantically equivalent to Goddidit....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 7:49 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 9:26 AM joz has responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 118 (1741)
01-09-2002 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by joz
01-09-2002 8:56 AM


joz:
I would of thought that it had everything to do with it If the IDer could not have been biological as proteins are IC then it leaves nothing but Goddidit (or some sort of sentient machine, and given the fact that Behe considers a five part mousetrap IC I cant see that as a possible solution)....

John Paul:
Perhaps you would care to show us that his 5 part mousetrap is not IC.

joz:
ID may not postulate God anywhere in any of its literature but it DOES infer that the IDer is of a supernatural origin.... Semantically equivalent to Goddidit....

John Paul:
Again I refer you to IDers are from Mars, ID critics are from Venus

This time read it.

Also ID doesn't infer anything. You do the inferring.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by joz, posted 01-09-2002 8:56 AM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Jimlad, posted 01-09-2002 10:19 AM John Paul has responded
 Message 96 by joz, posted 01-09-2002 10:23 AM John Paul has responded

Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019