Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

LOL,I mispell things quite frequently too.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I have just gotten into this thread quite recently.I have some questions for you?Do you discount the genome? Do you discount that something defines all the chracteristics passed down from generation to generation on a molecular level? What is your theory for the "substance" that defines life? What do you call this "substance"?I will agree with you in saying that the person you are replying to could have brought her langauge to a langauge you could understand. And yes, I am sorry for some of us who resort to higher unfamiliar words to base our arguments off of. It is totally unfair. When I use a word in a debate, I do not think everyone will understand, I define it.And, it is quite easy to get led off by string of words that you do not completely understand, such as the case here."To my way of thinking, even the concepts "gene" or "protein" are merely convenient labels which constrain our understanding even as they enable it. "We could label them any way we want, but as gene or protein this is the consensus mathod or name that we label these things. We have explained them the best and this is what modern scientist call them. Everyone across the Magesterium of Science knows what a gene or protein is. They by nature have to be convenient labels, or else there would be confusion.QUESTION: How could something contrain our understanding while at the same time enable it?Interested in your reply------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I am evolutionist, as has been made clearly several times."After millions of lab experiments, let alone simulations, we know that switching off a gene is much easier. Just compare two species (ie in the same genus) of Bacillus. Hundreds of gene losses relative to each other (as well as horizontal transfer gains). Do the mainstream scientists claim the non-transferred genes were gained or lost? Lost of course! They know how hard it is to get new genes. All those artifical evolution experiments do not end up with new genes - they end up with genes with a few SNPs either switching of a gene or enhancing pre-existing binding."If new experiments are not yielding new genes, then how did we get the genetic code in the first place? Do the laws of today still hold for the laws that were governing the earth billions of years ago?For my ignorance, becuase quaulitative and quantatative can be defined so differently under several contexts, would you mind defining them the way you are using them?Thanks------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Can you think of another exmample to back up your argument?We can not base the whole argument our positions on just one aspect. We need to base it off a whole spectrum of things.Just wondering.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Love it,I shall use this next time, the opportunity comes up.I love reading your posts.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

"Whether we're talking lab evoltuion in irradiated organisms or viral resistance or phage display combinatorial chemistry we have learnt that new genes is a hard ask. Only one in 10,000 sequences fold let alone funciton"Awww, but evolution did not happen in a lab. We cannot reproduce the exact conditions of earth long ago. We cannot reproduce the actual processes of evolution. Do NOT get me started in an argument of probability, I probability, but I will use if if necessary [means more math for me]. Personally, I would rather stick to the theoretical hard mathematics."But regardless of that protein families are distinct. We don't find two protein families with essentially the same fold and sequence with one family having one catalytic site for, eg, phophorylation and the other with a site for glycosolation. It is not somehting we systematically, or even at all, see. When an enzyme sequence is shared, so is the catalytic function"Ok, need more research or need to go and look this up in my biology book. I am not sure whether I agree with you, but before I make a judgement, I need to gather facts.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Interesting site. Will have to peruse it when I have more time."I do not see, at the margins, a clear distinction between living and non-living systems. One can identify what is clearly living, but such definitions fail in hard cases."That would be why scientists have given characteristics of living things. Hard cases? Example would help. And at the margins, it is not rigoursly defined by above said characteristics?"My concern was not that I could not understand - it was that the writer did not understand the implications of what they were actually saying."Ooops. Sorry.Have you read 1984 by George Orwell. It postulated that by decreasing vocabulary it would actually limit the thinking of Oceania's citizens. Having more words do not limit, I think, it expands thought. Sure it might limit what you can call an object or concept, but it allows room for more expansion. That is the beauty of our langauge, it grows to incorporate new ideas and concepts. The Chinese langaust is a pretty limiting one, but English is very flexible.I would agree with you in a given context but not as a generality.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I hope you know more than I do at probability, becuase I do think this is where it is heading too.Guess, I have to go and pull out my books with probability in them, in preparation.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

"I do understand that this was not addressed to me, however I do feel that I should ask about it. I actually have two questions. First: What is life? Second: What "substance" defines life?"First off, there is no simple definition that we can apply to life. If anyone tries to "define" life then we seriously limit life.This is why we give "characteristics" to living things. By observing these characteristics we can deduce whether something is living or non-living. It is the consensus of scientists to accept the characterisitcs for establishing whether something is living. You can find these listed in any standard college text of biology.Substance that defines life, again there is nothing that can define life, yet life can be present on this substance. I believe DNA or RNA[in some cases] has the code of life on it. Without DNA or RNA life would not be ocurring. This is what I was trying to establish.

I would agree with most of your post. But in translations you do lose words. I am merely talking within one language.Yes, I think that by me calling an object a "cat" there is not other name we can call it. But I believe that we ourselves, and not the language have the power to expand or limit ourselves. More on this if asked. Basically, we can choose to grow and learn more and more and thus expand, or we can choose to be content or apathetic and not grow anymore, thereby limiting ourselves.To thy ownself by true. You have a choice.Does anyone out there agree with this?------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I agree. It is good that we have people in here like you that play the lawyer. It keeps me on my toes and accountable for every word that I say.You have posted some pretty thoughtful posts, and thanks. Keep posting."and excludes many principles that are essential to understanding evolution"Other prinicpiles? Such as emotions, intelligence, or what other principles are you referring to. INtersted in this one,I would agree, if you focus on the trees you will not see the glorious forest in front of you,------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Learning, where does that ability come from? That is interesting to consider. I began piano at the age four, when I could play by ear the perfect harminazations of a song along with its melody. I believe the ablility to learn is passed down generations. I do not know where it came from?NOTE: When I am using believe, I mean my conclusion after looking at facts and the thoery in general.Does anything control physics? What is your guess? And, I think that physics does not have all the answers. I do not think the laws of physics govern all things. But I shall see if I can come up with an exception for this rule, before I postulate that it is true.Intersting. Thanks for replying, I kind of am on a time crunch, so I know why you replied late.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Tranquility Base,Well, well, well. We did obviously did not read the definition. It is totally opposite of the blind faith that so many religionists take on. I was merely stating that my belief is well grounded in facts and data and accepted consenus.Perhaps belief is a bad word to use, I do not know of any other. Perhaps, I should say in light of the consequences of the proof of the data, ext. my view which is not biased would be this......Too wordy, that is why the word belief.My, my taking my words out of context again. But then again, I am sure you creationists are quite used to that. IT's ok. It's one of your characteristics.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Tranquility Base,I am sorry if I did take offense. What I was doing in the last post was simply defining what the word meant. And yes it is a belief no matter how you look at it.But what I was trying to get across is that belief is based on evidence and data."I believe that God created the genes and they have since drfited and diverged. You believe they all turned up naturally. Belief either way."Okay, is there any evidence that God created the genes, outside the bible? It he did, then there should be evidence in other disciplines as well as the Magesteria of Religion? What the difference in my belief and yours, is that yours is based on blind faith. Am I correct? Can you define the word belief for me, and maybe we can clear up this miunderstanding.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Joe,My problem with T.B. and Borger, is that they just use words or interpret what we say into something they want. When we ask for proof they do not show it or they slaughter some science to make it prove what they want to prove.I have as yet to meet a creationist who can give satifactory asnwers or proofs to my questions.Now, I understand that you cannot prove the thoery of evolution or creation, but there should be evidence for the correct thoery.What do you think?------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day