Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

AnneThe point is that you're belief in the origin of new genes is exactly that - a belief.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002]

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

AnneI'm not playing any word games - your post I responded to does not even contain the word 'belief' anyway.All I was saying is that you can believe that new genes turned up due to random processes and you can even believe that future evidence of this will be found but at this point it is belief.I believe that God created the genes and they have since drfited and diverged. You believe they all turned up naturally. Belief either way.Natural selection is fact.
Viral drug resistence is fact.
Natural origin for hemoglobin? That's a belief.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]AnneI'm not playing any word games - your post I responded to does not even contain the word 'belief' anyway.All I was saying is that you can believe that new genes turned up due to random processes and you can even believe that future evidence of this will be found but at this point it is belief.I believe that God created the genes and they have since drfited and diverged. You believe they all turned up naturally. Belief either way.Natural selection is fact.
Viral drug resistence is fact.
Natural origin for hemoglobin? That's a belief. [/QUOTE]JM: You and Borger should get together. You both claim to have Ph.D.'s and to be practicing 'real science' and then you post gems that are straight out of high school or creationist rags. Show us the science behind your position and stop the 'ord lek'. Better yet, why not get together with Borger and actually publish something? He says he has an idea, but doesn't know where to publish it and you have no ideas, but seem familiar with the literature. You'd make a great team. You guys claim to be scientists, show us.CheersJoe Meert

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

"I have as yet to meet a creationist who can give satifactory asnwers or proofs to my questions."
--Could you post your questions again, I'd like to nibble on them a while."Now, I understand that you cannot prove the thoery of evolution or creation, but there should be evidence for the correct thoery."
--See here for my confusion on your use of a 'creation theory'.http://EvC Forum: General Theory of Evolution -->EvC Forum: General Theory of Evolution"What do you think?"
--I don't necessarily think the question is whether there exists evidence, rather it is what the evidence adds up to.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-30-2002]

quote:

---

--I don't necessarily think the question is whether there exists evidence, rather it is what the evidence adds up to.

---

TC,I think this is what they're after. What IS the hypothesis exactly, what IS the evidence that (adds up) in support of that hypothesis. I'm sure you can anticipate the "where are the predictions", "how can you falsify that" type stuff.....MarkMark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"I think this is what they're after. What IS the hypothesis exactly, what IS the evidence that (adds up) in support of that hypothesis. I'm sure you can anticipate the "where are the predictions", "how can you falsify that" type stuff....."
--Yeah, I think I understand the methodology of the response required, however what the topic of study and specific phenomena do they would like a theoretical explanation for.------------------

AnneI think we agree about 'belief'.My evidence that the genes were created is that they undeniably fall into distinct families. If protein families evolved from each other to speed up evolution (since only one in 10,000 random sequences fold) then one would have expected tell-tale signs of protein family relationships. These categorically do not exist. So we have two options - gene families were created or they evolved from random DNA. The evidence is consistent with both. In that sense the evidence points to creation or evolution. But detailed studies by creaitonist PhDed molecular biologists on evolution from random DNA suggest that this process would be far too slow.PS - and what is your evidence that the first members of gene families arrived naturally?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002]

We don't need that many new ideas about C vs E Joe.It is actually very simple.Geology has been misinterpreted as gradual rather than flood.
Microevoluiton has been unjustifiably extrapolated to macroevoltuion.We have put forward the science many times. Here's a snapshot of what we present and how you et al react:Geo eg:
US: The geo-col has evidence that much of the continents have been simulataneously covered
YOU et al: But not all of them simulataneously
US: But marine sediments in the highlands would be the first to be eroded. It is possible that there was a gobal covering.
YOU et al: There is no evidence for a global covering.
US: But you admit that it is possible there was a global covering?
YOU et al: There is no evidence that there was a global covering.
US: Loop back again to unanswered question
YOU et al: You're looping back
US: You didn't answer our questionBio eg:
US: Organisms and genes occur in distinct families as if they had been created
YOU et al: But there are obvious homologies that allow us to form an evoltuonary tree
US: But that tree is a similarity tree it doesn't prove evoluiton
YOU et al: Yes it does
US: It doesn't because the real issue is where the novel anatomical, biochemical and genetic features came from - the features that distinguish groups, not the feautres in common
YOU et al: They arrived through mutations
US: But the gene families are distinct
YOU et al: We can't trace their origin due to drift
US: But you admit that the distinct gene families could also have been created and diversified via microevolution and hybridization?
YOU et al: The genes evolved via mutations
US: Loop back to previous question
YOU et al: You're looping again
US: You didn't answer our question againWe butcher no true science. We butcher your extrapolations and your interpretations. In the above characatures of our discussions we use genuine scientific arguement to show that the data points to and is consistent with the Bible. But I make no claim the data proves anything.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002]

What I meant about learning was that the process of learning is similar in principle to that of evolution. Essentially, trial and error. When you stick your finger in an electrical socket, you quickly learn not to do that again. With learning, you try and keep only what works, as with evolution.As far as physics goes, everything is inconclusive and all-encompassing. Physics is the set of rules that governs the behavior of all matter, by my definition, of course, and one of those on dictionary.com "that branch of science which treats of the laws and properties of matter, and the forces acting upon it". What I mean to say is that physics is that which governs all, yet we do not yet fully understand it. It is inconclusive in that we have only clues and have not yet solved the mystery, which may be unsolvable. Basically, I believe that evolution is a natural process dictated by the laws of physics, and when one looks at it from that perspective, it tends to make a bit more sense; though it also gets extremely complicated.

True Creation,I will get back to you later on this one. It is not becuase I am avoiding the question, but it is becuase I have a class in about 30 minutes and do not have time to write it out.But, I will respond to this question, since it is fairly asked.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Tranquility Base,The first chapter of the book Genome by Matt Ridley, as well as other chapters that have to deal with this topic.This should be nice for starters. I could give you others, but rather than write a whole list, in which you are probably not going to consider I will only write the first one on that list. And if you can present to me that you have intelligently and honestly read and thought about above said reference, then I will continue the conversation.Otherwise, it proves how you are not willing to look at the facts and just persist in a belief system that is established out of man's desires.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

T.B.Yes but you leave out very conveintly the statements that we say during these questions, that you have no answer for.We base ours off of science and evidence. We do not justify our beliefs by manipulating science.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day