Victory for evolution in Texas

[spursncowboys]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

[ElNono]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".[21] Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.[22]
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[23]

From Specified Complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity)

[Leetonidas]

I don't believe in evolution. And I called and asked my mom if I'm a stupid fuck and she said no.

She's probably a stupid fuck too, and so are you. You're welcome for the confirmation.

Evolution is definitely true, you can see it in nature, I don't see how any idiot could deny it unless he's a bible thumping dumbfuck who believes the earth was created a few thousand years ago and God made the first female out of a dude's rib

[baseline bum]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/sciencespecial2/20cnd-evolution.html


In his opinion, the judge said he found the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, very persuasive. She had presented evidence that the authors of an intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People, merely removed the word "creationism" from an earlier edition and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.

[Blake]

lol. I think I've seen you provide and source information a grand total of once, but whatever. We've had that discussion enough.

My sourcing information once in this thread was enough to show you are full of shit. That's what this discussion is about. lol.

[Blake]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No.

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

lmao intelligentdesign.org

[fyatuk]

My sourcing information once in this thread was enough to show you are full of shit. That's what this discussion is about. lol.

Stating you did a google search isn't even providing information, let alone sourcing it.

That is why I don't take you seriously. You'd never take that sort of statement from anyone else and demand a much higher burden of proof for others than you do yourself. Makes me laugh.

[RandomGuy]

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=1579

Intelligent Design = Creationism

If you believe this isn't the case, as you seem to be implying, you have bought into a lie, and a rather thin, cynical one at that.

The when the ID people were attempting to make that claim in an actual court, the judge didn't buy it, because of the direct statements of the IDers themselves.

It is a very cynical attempt to put a thin veneer of secularism on a very religiously-based set of arguments.


The Wedge, a fund raising document from the Center for Science and Culture that set forth the group's "Governing Goals":

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.


"An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching
About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism"
(full pdf of that decision here)
http://ncse.com/webfm_send/73

These people have every motivation to lie to fence sitters, and have provably been lying when they attempt to claim that it isn't, because their own words that clearly state their intentions, when brought out at an actual trial made that abundantly clear.



http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

It goes on:



1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the
editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the
Bible, which begins, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.”
(11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a “ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.” (11:50-53 (Forrest); P-386; P-390).

Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at
705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other
scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.


What does it say when they say one thing publicly, and a completely opposite thing to sympathetic insiders?

[spursncowboys]

She's probably a stupid fuck too, and so are you. You're welcome for the confirmation.

Evolution is definitely true, you can see it in nature, I don't see how any idiot could deny it unless he's a bible thumping dumbfuck who believes the earth was created a few thousand years ago and God made the first female out of a dude's rib
I'm not denying it. I'm saying it hasn't been proven or factual. I guess anyone who disagrees with you must be less intelligent. Way to show, not only your intelligence but your ability for respectful discourse. The fact that you are so unwilling to even discuss the factual basis of the THEORY of evolution just shows you are no better than the "bible thumpers". You are also an idiot for assuming I called my mom for confirmation. However if it was just to use an excuse to make a personal attack - then good job. Very witty. Your cowardly attack for no reason is definitely a help for your cause. Your entire post shows that you not only did your homework on the topic, but that you have something to add to the discussion.

[RandomGuy]

One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

:rolleyes



The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html


Testible indeed.

It has failed every test.

We have yet to find anything that is "irreducibly complex", because every time an ID "scientist" latches on to something they think fits the bill, like the flagellum, actual scientists test that item and find, to no one's real surprise, that it is indeed the sum of many incrimental steps.

Not only has everything that was "irreducibily" complex not been "irreducible", the evidence found when looking at the item *reinforces* evolutionary theory, because it identifies the evolutionary pathways that one would expect.

What does one do in real science with a testible hypothesis that never pans out?

[LnGrrrR]

Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

Like?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not denying it. I'm saying it hasn't been proven or factual.

It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I don't mean that in a legal sense or anything, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

The only way one can conclude that it hasn't "been proven" is if one hasn't done enough reading, no offense, or if one simply wants to believe, despite all this evidence, logical argument, and testible evidence, in creationism.

Evolutionary theory has been used to make a lot of testible predictions about observed phenomena that have panned out. The predictions that didn't pan out always, in the end, supported the theory, because they hinted at some new or misunderstood mechanism of evolution.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think anyone here denies that. The questionable aspect of evolution is how did everything evolve without help. One spontaneous change at a time is understandable. Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

Hmm. I had missed that too Lngrr.

Please give a specific example of "some things".

Sounds an aweful lot like irreducible complexity.

(please say bacterial flagellum... oh please....)

[LnGrrrR]

Yet if you ask our forum agnostics... most of them likely consider the depravation of our society's 'moral fabric' as progress...

I can't even count how many logical fallacies you crammed into that short sentence. Bravo.


They are blind to the overall loss in the strength of the 'family unit' as well as the consequences that this has had on the infrastructure of our society...

*wringing hands pitifully*


not that they care, because they seem to be content with a society that harbors and condones unnecessary abortions, the legitimizing of the homosexual lifestyle, rampant drug use, the increase in the spread of STDs, an increasing suicidal rate, the loss of innocence at far younger ages, an increasing disdain for authority, vulgar and crass vocabulary, and the general lack of respect for others, etc

In order:

Define "unnecessary". Unnecessary to who?

Homosexuals are legitimate. Sorry your book says otherwise.

Define "rampant"? And humans have been using illicit substances since Adam and Eve. Wasn't that apple a mind-altering substance?

I don't know anyone content with an increase of STDs, or suicide rate.

Define "loss of innocence".

Disdain for which authority? Yours?

Vulgar and crass vocabulary... ok, fair enough. I don't really care if you swear, as long as you do it in the right settings.



Microevolution = adaptation ~ micro-speciation... <-- These processes can be certifiably proven at a genetic level and the evidence we find to support them is rather extensive...

Yes...


Macroevolution = Class Speciation... <-- These processes cannot be certifiably proven at a genetic level and the evidence to support them is built on speculative and observational conjecture...

What "proof" would you accept?


Few experiments (such as Richard Lenski's) are structured to look for proof that the derivation of new genetic code can provide biological advantage, but even his experiments start and end with the same species (no speciation observed)... Furthermore, his findings cannot conclusively state that new code (and a new function) was not already hard-wired within the genome of the E.coli strains he was reproducing... in other words, the premise that new, advantageous code can be developed from mutation alone cannot be conclusively stated until he can trace the exact mechanism which produced the new code... fortunately for his team, he still has the E.coli cultures prior, during and after the genotypical change (i.e. the 'mutation') so that he can identify, isolate, and retrace the mechanism... the scientific world will wait until he does...

It's hard to provide proof when you don't have a way to fast foward a few million years. This experiement is a decent proxy though.


Evolutionists still have to contend with the little problem of abiogenesis from which life itself began in their GOD-less universe (considering biogenesis is a proven law - always confirmed, never proven otherwise)...

Again, you stuff such a short amount of logical fallacies into small areas. It's impressive.

Evolution can stand on its own, with or without abiogenesis.

And one can always believe that we were created, but not by God (say aliens, for instance.)

Of course, it's impossible for life to have just appeared, but the same rule doesn't apply for any omnipotent beings. :)


of course, short of contemplating a multiverse with infinite probability (using the constants in Drake's equation) can they overcome the infinitely low probability that the ad-hoc creation of life's genetic molecules (DNA/RNA precursors) could occur from scratch... they resort to working with undefineds in order to justify their beliefs... I would liken that approach to faith... yet they will always deny that this is the case...

Because that isn't the case. If I called you a hamster and you denied it, I wouldn't say that you have "faith" that you're not a hamster.


Folks here can flaunt their intellectual independence all they want... they can claim that they have it all figured out... they can exclude and mock GOD in the process...

I'm sorry you feel that anything that runs counter to what the Bible says is an insult.


Don't you all tire of rehashing this tired subject once a quarter?

Whatever... to each their own... I'm out.

You don't, why should we?

Nice drive-by. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Evolutionary theory has been used to make a lot of testible predictions about observed phenomena that have panned out. The predictions that didn't pan out always, in the end, supported the theory, because they hinted at some new or misunderstood mechanism of evolution.

See! That proves that it's just a "theory" and not TRUE science, because they can just make up a new "mechanism" whenever the facts don't fit!

[Blake]

Stating you did a google search isn't even providing information, let alone sourcing it.

The sources I found in the google search confirmed enough for me that your statement was bullshit.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=god%27s+own+image&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=feaaa0b9740f0d75&biw=1366&bih=587

the number references to "God's own image" meaning "free will" was rather weak......nearly non-existent.


That is why I don't take you seriously. You'd never take that sort of statement from anyone else and demand a much higher burden of proof for others than you do yourself. Makes me laugh.

Your bullshit in this thread has made me laugh. Thanks. :tu

[fyatuk]

The sources I found in the google search confirmed enough for me that your statement was bullshit.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=god%27s+own+image&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=feaaa0b9740f0d75&biw=1366&bih=587

the number references to "God's own image" meaning "free will" was rather weak......nearly non-existent.

See that works better than "I did a google search." Not that I'll bother looking at it anyway ;)


Your bullshit in this thread has made me laugh. Thanks. :tu

Works for me. If I'm entertained, and you're entertained, then I'm accomplishing what I set out to do. I've said it before, message boards are for entertainment purposes only ;)

[Wild Cobra]

Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.

TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.

Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.

A sequence mutation doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)

At some point, the second copy gets a mutation.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)

The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.

New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.


:p:
What happens with GATTAGA?

[Wild Cobra]

After all this discussion of Intelligent Design and Evolution... again, anyone change even part of their viewpoint?

[ElNono]

After all this discussion of Intelligent Design and Evolution... again, anyone change even part of their viewpoint?

Talking about questions, a couple of posters asked you to back up your contention. Whenever you have a minute...

[fyatuk]

After all this discussion of Intelligent Design and Evolution... again, anyone change even part of their viewpoint?

Of course not. No one's really interested in an honest, open-minded discussion of the subject, so no one is going to change their mind.

[ElNono]

If what you're looking for is changing opinions, you're missing the point.

A lot of us made up our minds about this stuff a while ago (i.e.: I had my catechism classes when I was growing and realized they're FOS). Not that certain events and discoveries might not sway my opinion on the subject, but the bar is set a lot higher than the stuff brought up here. I mean, over half of the people here criticizing evolution started complaining that "it doesn't explain where things came from". That's a pretty basic misunderstanding of what the evolution theory attempts to solve.

If anything, some people got informed...

[LnGrrrR]

Of course not. No one's really interested in an honest, open-minded discussion of the subject, so no one is going to change their mind.

Which discussion are we talking about here? Religion or evolution?

I've had some decent discussions on religion here. I think most discussions on evolution don't go anywhere, because unless you're a scientist, you're using the internet to back up your words. And if you don't believe in evolution by now, links off the internet probably won't sway you.

[fyatuk]

If what you're looking for is changing opinions, you're missing the point.

A lot of us made up our minds about this stuff a while ago (i.e.: I had my catechism classes when I was growing and realized they're FOS). Not that certain events and discoveries might not sway my opinion on the subject, but the bar is set a lot higher than the stuff brought up here. I mean, over half of the people here criticizing evolution started complaining that "it doesn't explain where things came from". That's a pretty basic misunderstanding of what the evolution theory attempts to solve.

If anything, some people got informed...

Quite true. I know my own opinions on the subject were formed from a lot of research, meditation, and introspection, so there's not really any sway room there.

And yes, trying to combat a theory by going out of bounds of that theory is a faulty strategy. Personally, I find it odd that someone would even refute evolution after all these years, even if they believe in God.

RandumGuy and LnGrrr, and a couple others brought in some interesting information, but there's not even much of that in this thread (which is fine with me, since I still had my fun).

[fyatuk]

Which discussion are we talking about here? Religion or evolution?

I've had some decent discussions on religion here. I think most discussions on evolution don't go anywhere, because unless you're a scientist, you're using the internet to back up your words. And if you don't believe in evolution by now, links off the internet probably won't sway you.

I've never had a good religion discussion with people I haven't spoken to in person before. I've had plenty of excellent discussions and debates on the subect in person. I had a couple JW's come by every week for a while to discuss it, even though they gave up on converting me ;)

And I've never seen an effective discussion on evolution when any party disagrees with it. The discussion just completely devovles.

[RandomGuy]

What happens with GATTAGA?

???

Typo for:

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/gattaca/

(GattaCa?)

FWIW:

Amino acids are generally coded for with three letters. A seven letter word would not code for anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_codon_table

[RandomGuy]

I've never seen an effective discussion on evolution when any party disagrees with it. The discussion just completely devovles.

Clever turn of phrase FTW. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

???

Typo for:

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/gattaca/

(GattaCa?)

FWIW:

Amino acids are generally coded for with three letters. A seven letter word would not code for anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_codon_table
LOL..

Yes, I misspelled it. Have you seen the movie?

I don't know...

6 is the number of man, 7 is the number of God!

[fyatuk]

Clever turn of phrase FTW. :tu

Believe it or not, accident...

[RandomGuy]

After all this discussion of Intelligent Design and Evolution... again, anyone change even part of their viewpoint?

That depends on whether you want to try and prove irreducible complexity.

Please, oh please, say "flagellum".


The questionable aspect of evolution is how did everything evolve without help. One spontaneous change at a time is understandable. Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

:eyebrows

[RandomGuy]

LOL..

Yes, I misspelled it. Have you seen the movie?

I don't know...

6 is the number of man, 7 is the number of God!

Yup. Great movie. The bit at the end with the tech who lets him pass is my favorite part.

We will have to be considering such things, as designer kids, well, now actually.

[LnGrrrR]

I've never had a good religion discussion with people I haven't spoken to in person before. I've had plenty of excellent discussions and debates on the subect in person. I had a couple JW's come by every week for a while to discuss it, even though they gave up on converting me ;)

And I've never seen an effective discussion on evolution when any party disagrees with it. The discussion just completely devovles.

I've had a few on messageboards. Calvinists are interesting, infuriating people. :lol Of course, I don't expect anyone to say, "You win! I don't believe in God!"

But I figure it's a win if oyu can get peope to critically reexamine their beliefs, and determine if they are logical or at the very least, non hypocritical.

FWIW, I like the Jewish version of religion the best. Founded in legality, and while it has its dramatic flair, it doesn't have the bible-thumping that Christianity sometimes has. (It's replaced by Jewish guilt.)

[Wild Cobra]

Yup. Great movie. The bit at the end with the tech who lets him pass is my favorite part.

We will have to be considering such things, as designer kids, well, now actually.
Intelligent design can be dangerous... At least in Science Fiction.

Have you ever watched Star Trek Deep Space Nine? Notice the background story of Dr. Julian Bashir? He was illegal genetically altered at conception.This becomes known in:

Doctor Bashir, I Presume? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708527/)

He came out OK, but the next season deals with some who didn't:

Statistical Probabilities (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708606/)

Then we shouldn't forget about Khan, or Dr. Soong's Augments:

Space Seed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708447/)

The Wrath of Khan (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/)

Borderland (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0572179/)

[Wild Cobra]

Please, oh please, say "flagellum".

You mean three times fast?

[Blake]

See that works better than "I did a google search." Not that I'll bother looking at it anyway ;)

I set it up for you before with "I put 'God's own image' in the Google search box."

lol lazy and full of shit. The combination is duly noted.


Works for me. If I'm entertained, and you're entertained, then I'm accomplishing what I set out to do. I've said it before, message boards are for entertainment purposes only ;)

You enjoy posting lies and bullshit, I very much enjoy exposing liars and bullshitters.

You should come around these parts more often for such grand entertainment. :tu

[ElNono]

Intelligent design can be dangerous... At least in Science Fiction.

And that's where it should stay, tbh.

[Phenomanul]

Debunked already.

Lenski did observe speciation, and it was not the only case of observed speciation in the lab or in nature, since we have started to look.

He ended up with an entirely new species.

Debunked??? :lol I love how you make these bold assertions that sound like you have a grasp of the material as a means of denigrating the opposing viewpoint… they don’t make your claim anymore true… the so-called “incipient species” that Lenski claims to have produced are merely different strains of the same species, which, he believes (on purely theoretical grounds), “might” eventually become a new species. The production of new strains of already existing species was occurring long before Darwin ever published The Origin of Species. Nothing new here…

So I hate to break it to ya… but unfortunately for your claim that ‘speciation has been observed’ all of Richard Lenski’s test bacteria are still E. coli bacteria…

Unless you want to ‘move the goal posts’ and make the claim that the change of two or three differing genes is what constitutes the change from one species to another… Is that where you want to go? Lenski himself refers to the citrate tolerant E. coli populations as ‘variant strains’ throughout his published paper (a paper which I’ve forced myself to read on two different occasions within the past 3 years after dealing with our resident atheists during the last half-decade :shootme), knowing fully well that there is a fine line he would have to cross in order to define the resulting strains as a new species… as noted above, he occasionally refers to these strains as “incipient species”…

In reality however, he extrapolates successive changes like the ones that produced the Cit+ variant genes and considers the hypothetical extrapolated succession of similar changes as speciation… the actual genetic changes leading to his variants however are only “a microstatic view of speciation in progress,” not proof of speciation itself… there is a difference…

For that matter, I don’t know if you realize that genes allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, but are built to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: mutations can very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a differing species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life… I can’t work with a dolphin genome and expect to change it to a horse simply by tweaking 5,000 of its genes…

So even in ‘Lenski’s experiment’ even after mutations have occurred, no macroevolution (speciation) has taken place…. Again, Evolutionary theory requires that mutations occur - in order to add the information needed to push evolution “uphill.” But the mutations that we observe generally are neutral (i.e., they do not alter the information or the “message” of the DNA code [for any number of reasons; but mainly because the mutation often occurs in exons, genetic segments which aren’t typically transcribed]), or else the mutations are deleterious (i.e. they go “downhill” from an informational standpoint), which results in the loss or corruption of information… In addition, the rare “beneficial” mutations that do occur and that do confer some type of survival advantage (such as the non plasmid aided transfer of citrate across the cell membrane of E. coli bacteria in a mostly citrate environment), still result in the loss of information, and thus are headed in the wrong direction, from an evolutionary vantage point…

Neither mutations nor DNA transposition has altered the fact that bacteria remain exactly what they have always been - down to their very genus and species. No true (organic) evolution has occurred, or been proved. Mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the organism... And the loss of genetic information cannot be used as evidence for the ascendance of a “lowly” creature to a “higher” creature - something that, by definition, would require an increase of information... So scientists like Lenski and others have not produced anything “new.” E. coli still remains E. coli, and Drosophila (another popular test subject) still remains Drosophila. The organisms may be mutated or considered variant strains of E. coli or Drosophila, but they are still E. coli and Drosophila nevertheless…



He traced the exact mechanism through rather painstakingly cataloguing every step in the evolution from his original strain to the ending strain he published about.

For those who care:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair


LOL at your inclusion of a biased website like ‘rationalwiki’ into your argument… (a website having to claim objectiveness, means that it likely isn’t there)… it’s just as bad as if I tried posting a ‘Conservapedia’ link to bolster any of my arguments…

That said, I have read that particular exchange before and actually side with Lenski himself… Like I said, I consider Professor Lenski’s experiment to be one of the foremost experiments on the subject given the methods, the length of the experiment itself and its structure… That whole exchange could have been handled differently if the ‘skeptic’ had been a bit more open about his intentions…

As for Lenski's claim (and yours by proxy) that the exact mechanism of the change was identified, however, it seems rather premature considering that most E. coli have a dormant ability to process citrate anyways… So at some point in its past, E. coli must have chemically digested citrate… and this well before Lenski decided to grow them on citrate agar solutions as a starting point for his experimentation… He should have been completely novel and fresh about it and used something like Tetraethylene-glycol or 1-phenol, diethanolamine…

In other words the ability to process citrate is not new at all... chew on that for a second.



Repeating lies the 999,999th time does not make them any more true than they were the 1st time.

Sorry.


That your willingness to believe that “speciation has been proven” is clouding your judgement does not make my disagreement with that belief a lie; I simply disagree with the claim. The claims are subjective and not authoritative… This is the umpteenth time you’ve called my disagreement with your stance a lie… I don’t think you understand the nature of my objections… I’m not here trying to claim Lenski is a liar… I have a disagreement with his conclusions from the data… Your approach in attacking me rather than my objections is indicative of your bias…

Sorry, :rolleyes






Evolutionists still have to contend with the little problem of abiogenesis from which life itself began in their GOD-less universe (considering biogenesis is a proven law - always confirmed, never proven otherwise)...

Strawman in the very classic sense.

Evolution, as it is currently understood, does not *require* a God, as you would conceive Him, but it is not central to the theory that there *is* no God.

That is a construct entirely of your own.

The rest of it, is the same tired "God in the gaps" bit where the goalposts are constantly moved in yet another exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Abiogenesis is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but is not central to the idea that organisms change over time.

Strawman logical fallacies, outright lies, and intellectual dishonesty are not the ways to debate science, and although people like you don't generally see that, it is fairly obvious to anybody with some common sense and sense of fairness.

Fairness… fairness??? Since when were you, or any of the other resident agnostics here the metric by which all others’ viewpoints are to be evaluated??? :lmao :lmao :lmao

We’ve discussed the above argument countless times… I’ve no qualms with your statement that, “Abiogenesis is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but is not central to the idea that organisms change over time.” I’ve told you as much on several occasions… that you would try to point out my comment as some argumentative fallacy in order to invalidate my objections is rather annoying… I’m not making the argument that Evolution = Abiogenesis… I’m stating that those who believe in Abiogenesis (most of which are neoDarwinian Evolutionists) have a problem trying to justify that claim (Abiogenesis).

Of course, you’re going to dissect my response in a million sections, insult me along the way, steer each rebuttal in multiple directions – creating multiple fronts of your attack on my position… It’s tiring, and getting quite old… add to that, the fact that most of the forum atheists just love hacking away at my posts as if somehow I’m required to provide a research paper-type post for every one of my disagreements with the ‘established viewpoint’… (you all love ganging up on my posts – and I can’t in all practicality respond to all of them)… My frame of mind is simply different than most of yours… Science looks at the origins issue with the premise that a designer is not involved… so in the event that this were the one true answer to the origins riddle, Science is inherently not equipped to uncover it because said hypothesis is continually tossed out as the potential answer… how can this approach be considered unbiased? You’ve all have been indoctrinated under this stance and don't even consider the posibility that bias has been engrained in your origins viewpoint… No amount of shouting "I'm objective, I'm objective, I'm objective..." will change that.... Eh… whatever.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm out.

[Phenomanul]

I'm out


I'm not allowed to leave a thread at my own disposition? I do have work I have to attend to... I don't sit around glued to the forum, like others here seem to be...

You're a moderator.... Nice of you to notice a vague statement, such as that one... Are you going to ban me from participating in further discourse?

I'm out [I have to hit the gym, take a shower and eat... if that's alright with you Mr. Forum police]... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

There's nothing vague about it. given the context of the previous tirade in that post.

You're back.

You'll be back again.

[Blake]

No amount of shouting "I'm objective, I'm objective, I'm objective..." will change that.... Eh… whatever.

so awesome....

[LnGrrrR]

Science looks at the origins issue with the premise that a designer is not involved… so in the event that this were the one true answer to the origins riddle, Science is inherently not equipped to uncover it because said hypothesis is continually tossed out as the potential answer…

Funny. I thought they threw that out because it's unverifiable/unfalsifiable. How would you go about proving/disproving the existence of God?

[ElNono]

For that matter, I don’t know if you realize that genes allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, but are built to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: mutations can very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a differing species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life… I can’t work with a dolphin genome and expect to change it to a horse simply by tweaking 5,000 of its genes…

So even in ‘Lenski’s experiment’ even after mutations have occurred, no macroevolution (speciation) has taken place…. Again, Evolutionary theory requires that mutations occur - in order to add the information needed to push evolution “uphill.” But the mutations that we observe generally are neutral (i.e., they do not alter the information or the “message” of the DNA code [for any number of reasons; but mainly because the mutation often occurs in exons, genetic segments which aren’t typically transcribed]), or else the mutations are deleterious (i.e. they go “downhill” from an informational standpoint), which results in the loss or corruption of information… In addition, the rare “beneficial” mutations that do occur and that do confer some type of survival advantage (such as the non plasmid aided transfer of citrate across the cell membrane of E. coli bacteria in a mostly citrate environment), still result in the loss of information, and thus are headed in the wrong direction, from an evolutionary vantage point…

But that's a pretty simplistic view of genetics and wrong too.
There might be some things we still don't know and some that are just being found out (such as the discovery a couple of years ago of the REST protein being central in the process of turning genes on and off).
One thing we know is that genomes do evolve over time. The "uphill" route is normally provided by duplicate genes with a cumulative effect, which create a distinctive phenotype.

You also skip over the fact that salient genetic mutations are a process that takes millions of years. Duplicate genes average 0.01 per gene per million years (which is considered a 'high-rate', even though it looks like forever). Extrapolating experiments is not a choice, but the only option.
That doesn't mean the experiments are wrong, or that the observations are incorrect. We do have a flora and fauna that dates back in cases to millions of years, and as such, they've been the focus of studies. Technological advances in fossil research has also contributed in strengthening the theory, and has allowed to advance the study of genetics evolution.

There's still debates as to whether evolution is strictly genetic or is dominated by entire organisms. Different types of speciation are fairly well documented (ie: Insular dwarfism), which would indicate that environmental constrains have also some sort of part in it.

Lenski did the micro view because that's the only thing that's doable in a lab setting within a lifetime. He used that micro view to test ideas seen in the macro view, and that has been researched through fossils, etc, which is the only current humanly possible way to get that information. Those results actually strengthened the theory, they didn't find fault in it.

[mingus]

The problem with this thesis are the churches and the general Protestant belief that God rewards faith with money and material wealth.

Also FWIW:

"false idolatry" is bad grammar. The word idolatry encompasses the concept of "false", so putting that word in front of it is redundant. It is a pretty common mistake.

I don't know enough about Protestantism or Protestants for that matter to judge. There aren't many where I live. The churches I've attended and the Catholics I know who are many don't believe that.

[mingus]

There's some shit that can't be explained. Here me out.

About 10 years ago my mom was doing an essay at the university on the virgin Mary of Guadalupe. The day she completed the 10 page essay, she took a picture of my sister with a polaroid camera before her first dance class. A striking image undeniably in the form of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe (even with a pattern of stars on her dress) was standing next to my sister in the picture once it came out. It's amazing.

Is this a coincidence?

[ElNono]

There's plenty of things we don't know about. That doesn't mean it's automatically 'shit that can't be explained'. I don't know the details about your mom's photo, but there's plenty of cases of 'seeing what you want to see'. We already know the brain processes welcome/unwelcome information in a different way (as seen in confirmation bias studies).
That's how you end up with illusory correlation, or why some beliefs persist after all evidence is removed from them.

[RandomGuy]

Mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the organism... .


Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.

TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.

Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.

A sequence mutation doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)

At some point, the second copy gets a mutation.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)

The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.

New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.

This is just ONE method by which mutations of all kinds add to genomes, and change them over time. Your claim is simply not bourne out by modern genetics.

I also pointed out that we have several instances of entirely new species arising in the short time we have been aware enough to be paying attention, mostly plants, because their ability to add new chromosomes (polyploidy) is greater than that of animals.

All that is required to make new species is geographic isolation and time. Take one species, and move one part to one area, and another to someplace far away, as happens natually through simple movement, and eventually you get two populations of creatures who can no longer interbreed.

English is a germanic language. Old High German and Old High English were close enough to be mutually understood. Given enough time and isolation, modern English speakers, und moderne Deutsche Spraecher, koennen nicht einander verstehen.

Genetic information in this regard is similar to the way new languages develop.

[RandomGuy]

This is the umpteenth time you’ve called my disagreement with your stance a lie…

It isn't your disagreement with me that causes me to accuse you of lying.

It is that you constantly state things that are contrary to fact that cause me to accuse you of lying. The things you state are provably wrong.

The worst thing you do in terms of lying is to distort the argument and assertions of others.

I have repeatly shown exactly how you commit these strawman arguments and pointed you to the logical structure of these fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Specifically you commit, as if it is second nature, these two specific logical fallacies on a repeated and constant basis:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Your post here is filled with them.

[Blake]

There's some shit that can't be explained. Here me out.

About 10 years ago my mom was doing an essay at the university on the virgin Mary of Guadalupe. The day she completed the 10 page essay, she took a picture of my sister with a polaroid camera before her first dance class. A striking image undeniably in the form of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe (even with a pattern of stars on her dress) was standing next to my sister in the picture once it came out. It's amazing.

Is this a coincidence?

The devil works in mysterious ways

[RandomGuy]

We’ve discussed the above argument countless times… I’ve no qualms with your statement that, “Abiogenesis is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but is not central to the idea that organisms change over time.” I’ve told you as much on several occasions… that you would try to point out my comment as some argumentative fallacy in order to invalidate my objections is rather annoying… I’m not making the argument that Evolution = Abiogenesis… I’m stating that those who believe in Abiogenesis (most of which are neoDarwinian Evolutionists) have a problem trying to justify that claim (Abiogenesis).

First case in point.

Your original claim was:
"considering biogenesis is a proven law - always confirmed, never proven otherwise"

Evolutionary scientists don't claim it is a proven law. It is strongly implied by the theory of evolution, but is not some central law. For you to suggest otherwise is a direct distortion of what the theory of evolution says.

If you want to walk back from 'proven law' to 'problem' that is fine I guess. You are at least getting closer to reality.

I would agree with "problem". The exact mechanism by which life arose on our planet is not currently known, and will likely neveer be known.

It is a problem to be solved, but not unknowable, and certainly not some fatal flaw.

[RandomGuy]

That your willingness to believe that “speciation has been proven” is clouding your judgement does not make my disagreement with that belief a lie; I simply disagree with the claim.

Define "species". If you disagree with the claim, then you MUST have a definition of what a new "species" would be.

[baseline bum]

There's some shit that can't be explained. Here me out.


I don't get the logic of "This can't be explained... so here's the explanation".

[MannyIsGod]

I don't get the logic of "This can't be explained... so here's the explanation".

:lol

[Phenomanul]

Funny. I thought they threw that out because it's unverifiable/unfalsifiable. How would you go about proving/disproving the existence of God?

I’ve asked this on several occasions; how can the natural tools provided by the scientific toolset prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural GOD? Again, you’re just reinforcing the notion that Science is ill-equipped (unequipped) to answer the origins riddle, if in fact a Creator were the one true answer (unfalsifiable or not).



But that's a pretty simplistic view of genetics and wrong too.
There might be some things we still don't know and some that are just being found out (such as the discovery a couple of years ago of the REST protein being central in the process of turning genes on and off).
One thing we know is that genomes do evolve over time. The "uphill" route is normally provided by duplicate genes with a cumulative effect, which create a distinctive phenotype.

You also skip over the fact that salient genetic mutations are a process that takes millions of years. Duplicate genes average 0.01 per gene per million years (which is considered a 'high-rate', even though it looks like forever). Extrapolating experiments is not a choice, but the only option.
That doesn't mean the experiments are wrong, or that the observations are incorrect. We do have a flora and fauna that dates back in cases to millions of years, and as such, they've been the focus of studies. Technological advances in fossil research has also contributed in strengthening the theory, and has allowed to advance the study of genetics evolution.

There's still debates as to whether evolution is strictly genetic or is dominated by entire organisms. Different types of speciation are fairly well documented (ie: Insular dwarfism), which would indicate that environmental constrains have also some sort of part in it.

Lenski did the micro view because that's the only thing that's doable in a lab setting within a lifetime. He used that micro view to test ideas seen in the macro view, and that has been researched through fossils, etc, which is the only current humanly possible way to get that information. Those results actually strengthened the theory, they didn't find fault in it.

Wait, wait, wait... that's fresh... most of what you all do here is simplify the processes involved in genetics. If anything, I'm the one trying to assert that genetics is thousands of times more complicated than the way your typical Evolutionist would wish to view it. Afterall, many of them simply accept the theory without ever having taken multiple, or even a single course in either microbiology, molecular genetics, or organic chemistry (some more fallacy of consensus gentium for our resident argumentative fallacy expert, RG)...

My whole qualm with RG's bold "debunked" claim is that:

No, I don’t believe that Lenski has created a new species... his variant strains are still E. coli bacteria, down to the genus and species...

You all can yell all you all want but the fact remains that for NeoDarwinian speciation to be proven true one would have to produce a new species [with characterization at a genetic level]... Don't give me any of this "in transit" crap evidence, because frankly, it isn’t enough... and an honest look from the Scientific Method itself would assert as much, and require more than just extrapolated speculation...

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate [regardless of the fact that the dynamics for beneficial gamete mutation and propagation in sexual organisms are far more restrictive than the propagation dynamics found in asexual organisms], and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!! Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…

Again, you all are touting the observations of Lenski's experiments, but don't really understand the ramifications it would have on your very own evolutionary models...




This is just ONE method by which mutations of all kinds add to genomes, and change them over time. Your claim is simply not bourne out by modern genetics.

I also pointed out that we have several instances of entirely new species arising in the short time we have been aware enough to be paying attention, mostly plants, because their ability to add new chromosomes (polyploidy) is greater than that of animals.

FYI… Polyploidy is a perfect example of microevolution that conveniently borrows ‘pre-existing’ genetic information… Evolution contends that the incorporation of new information is what allows a species to evolve… if the information is [I]pre-existing it can’t also be new.



All that is required to make new species is geographic isolation and time. Take one species, and move one part to one area, and another to someplace far away, as happens natually through simple movement, and eventually you get two populations of creatures who can no longer interbreed.

So by your logic North Koreans will eventually be unable to breed with the rest of the world’s population?




English is a germanic language. Old High German and Old High English were close enough to be mutually understood. Given enough time and isolation, modern English speakers, und moderne Deutsche Spraecher, koennen nicht einander verstehen.

Genetic information in this regard is similar to the way new languages develop.

Except that genetic information is more than just a language… it is a programming language… Far more complex and completely cross-linked with itself… our DNA code does far more than simply convey a message; it is able to create function, design and form.



It isn't your disagreement with me that causes me to accuse you of lying.

It is that you constantly state things that are contrary to fact that cause me to accuse you of lying. The things you state are provably wrong.

The worst thing you do in terms of lying is to distort the argument and assertions of others.

I have repeatly shown exactly how you commit these strawman arguments and pointed you to the logical structure of these fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Specifically you commit, as if it is second nature, these two specific logical fallacies on a repeated and constant basis:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Your post here is filled with them.

OPINION: I said Lenski’s experiment had not definitely proven speciation.

OPINION: You called me a liar and said his experiment had indeed proven speciation.

FACT: I then elaborated that despite your claim Lenski still had E. coli cultures in his lab, not some new species…

You now resort to pointing out my argument is built on a strawman? How so? Proof of speciation [or lack therof] is the argument itself. I recognize the beauty and elegance of Lenski’s experiment, but even I know that the claims from his data set can be of a subjective nature… You want to take them as authoritative fact. While that’s your prerogative, you can’t claim that my rejection of his claim is “provably wrong” when the claim itself is subjective…



Define "species". If you disagree with the claim, then you MUST have a definition of what a new "species" would be.

Ah… so now you see why the claim is subjective…

Now we’re getting somewhere…

Now do your semantical magic... :rolleyes

[MannyIsGod]

Ah yes, the old Phenomenal supernatural argument. Why believe things occur within one set of rules when you can just create some magical new rules instead? :tu

[mingus]

I don't get the logic of "This can't be explained... so here's the explanation".

LOL. I get your point man. But it's my explanation. Not the explanation. And my experience that I posted led me to believe that.

I mean some people will do everything and anything they can to justify a disbelief in God. "you see what you want to see." is that necessarily always the explanation? I can just as easily say you'll choose not to believe what youve conditioned yourself not to believe or been conditioned not to believe.

[Blake]

I’ve asked this on several occasions; how can the natural tools provided by the scientific toolset prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural GOD?

you've gotten an answer on numerous occasions. You just don't like the answer regarding "disproving God"


Ah… so now you see why the claim is subjective…

Now we’re getting somewhere…

Now do your semantical magic... :rolleyes

lol getting somewhere.

[spursncowboys]

I don't know enough about Protestantism or Protestants for that matter to judge. There aren't many where I live. The churches I've attended and the Catholics I know who are many don't believe that.

That's a huge generalization on protestants from a molestation of the teachings of old school calvinists. It's very extreme. However this is pretty common for people to think that. That is where the "Protestant work ethic" phrase comes from. I don't know if any actually use that or teach that. I know that churches I have gone to and friends of different Christian faiths all feel that God wants you to have a good work ethic and tithing is one of the most important things to do as a christian. That's not to mean tithe to the church, but to any kind of activity that is from god's teaching. Voluteer, charity, etc.

[Blake]

LOL. I get your point man. But it's my explanation. Not the explanation. And my experience that I posted led me to believe that.

I mean some people will do everything and anything they can to justify a disbelief in God. "you see what you want to see." is that necessarily always the explanation? I can just as easily say you'll choose not to believe what youve conditioned yourself not to believe or been conditioned not to believe.

It didn't take much conditioning for me to lol at seeing Jesus in a tortilla.

[mingus]

It didn't take much conditioning for me to lol at seeing Jesus in a tortilla.

Some of that a lot of that is definitely bogus, but said picture was so moving and the said circumstances around it so amazing that my aunt and cousins became religious after seeing it. They were athiests before that.

And there are plenty, plenty of personal, private experiences\encounters people have had with God. My story is only one.

[Winehole23]

Ridicule of (outgroup) with pointed fingers is a distinctly simian activity. So is laughing at others. You sure that's not conditioned?

[Blake]

Some of that a lot of that is definitely bogus, but said picture was so moving and the said circumstances around it so amazing that my aunt and cousins became religious after seeing it. They were athiests before that.

And there are plenty, plenty of personal, private experiences\encounters people have had with God. My story is only one.

does Mary only show up for Catholic events, or is she also available for Bar Mitzvahs?

[Proxy]

Some of that a lot of that is definitely bogus, but said picture was so moving and the said circumstances around it so amazing that my aunt and cousins became religious after seeing it. They were athiests before that.

And there are plenty, plenty of personal, private experiences\encounters people have had with God. My story is only one.

It's all in your mind. If you grew up not knowing of Jesus, or Christianity, you wouldn't label those things you saw. I doubt that all of the people who claim to see Jesus are lying... but just because you see it, doesn't make it real.

[Blake]

Ridicule of (outgroup) with pointed fingers is a distinctly simian activity. So is laughing at others. You sure that's not conditioned?

instinctive behavior in this case, imo

[Winehole23]

hmm

[RandomGuy]

[long post omitted for sake of brevity]
Ah… so now you see why the claim is subjective…

Now we’re getting somewhere…

Now do your semantical magic... :rolleyes


I noticed you have glossed over, at least twice here, this bit:

---------------------------------------------
Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.

TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.

Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.

A sequence mutation (click here for link fully explaining this process) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication) doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)

At some point, the second copy gets a point mutation. (click here for an explanation of this process) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation)
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)

The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.

New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.
-----------------------------------------------

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

[clambake]

has he brought up the ouija board yet?

[RandomGuy]

All that is required to make new species is geographic isolation and time. Take one species, and move one part to one area, and another to someplace far away, as happens natually through simple movement, and eventually you get two populations of creatures who can no longer interbreed.


So by your logic North Koreans will eventually be unable to breed with the rest of the world’s population?

Well this isn't *my* logic specifically it is one of the more commonly understood methods of speciation.

The answer to your question, is yes, eventually North Koreans would be unable to breed with the rest of the worlds population.

Assuming:
1) No genetic exchange with the rest of humanity.
2) Prolonged genetic isolation.

This sets aside that any period of isolation long enough to produce a new species of human is highly improbable, given human lifespans.

There are also cases where different groups of organisms, although *able* to produce viable offspring, don't produce hybrid offspring simply because of sexual selection. Insects that rely on phermones are a good example. If a potential mate produced the wrong kind of phermone, it would not be appealing to members of the opposite sex. Such cases, while not representing an absolute barrier to hybridization, represent a practical barrier unlikely to be crossed. Most working definitions of "species" would call the two populations of bugs to be different species, although they would be similar in form and genetics.

[RandomGuy]

Wait, wait, wait... that's fresh... most of what you all do here is simplify the processes involved in genetics. If anything, I'm the one trying to assert that genetics is thousands of times more complicated than the way your typical Evolutionist would wish to view it. Afterall, many of them simply accept the theory without ever having taken multiple, or even a single course in either microbiology, molecular genetics, or organic chemistry (some more fallacy of consensus gentium for our resident argumentative fallacy expert, RG)...

The specific logical fallacy would be:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html


Appeal to Belief:
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

1) Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2) Therefore X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

1) "consensus gentium" is not a specific logical fallacy, it is a theory of truth from what I read.
2) When an overwhelming number of scientists who have studied something their entire lives in great detail, building on entire other lifetimes of study, all think that a particular theory is the one most likely to be representative of reality, that does indicate to any rational person that there is a pretty good likelihood the theory is a good one.

I rely on the advice and opinion of experts all the time, simply because they are experts, and believing them is reasonable, given no contravening evidence.

[Phenomanul]

I noticed you have glossed over, at least twice here, this bit:

---------------------------------------------
Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.
TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.

Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.

A sequence mutation (click here for link fully explaining this process) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication) doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)

At some point, the second copy gets a point mutation. (click here for an explanation of this process) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation)
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)

The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.

New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.
-----------------------------------------------

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

Your simplification in this exercise it exactly what I'm arguing against...

Genes aren't translated/transcribed only linearly... they are cut up by other genes, or as a response to environmental factors and expressed in many more ways than just the one... Recent discoveries of these gene networks (which apparently exist in all organisms) have made the evolutionary 'uphill' climb far steeper than we originally thought...

For example, your exercise above looks only at the forward translation of that short genetic segment, but does so without assessing the consequences it may have on how it is translated after other genes try to give it more instruction...

While the information IS "new" under the narrow context you've provided... you don't know if the change is actually deleterious or not. Where deleterious refers to whether or not the change is harmful to the organism, and not whether information was 'deleted' from the genome...

BTW I didn't gloss over this post... you must admit that your inclusion of this cut/paste argument was rather facetious when you first posted it... it wasn't even a direct response to my contention that Macroevolution remains unproven... To me at least, this argument was initially a tangent...

I wasn't purposely trying to ignore you... In fact, when you consider all the people that demand responses from me you would have to understand the fact that I can only address so much, and can't physically respond to everything... good thing I have posters such as Blake on ignore in these threads... His posts amount to nothing more than personal attacks... You at least tend to remain civil [when you're not calling me a liar and the such :p:]...

[RandomGuy]

Your simplification in this exercise it exactly what I'm arguing against...

Genes aren't translated/transcribed only linearly... they are cut up by other genes, or as a response to environmental factors and expressed in many more ways than just the one... Recent discoveries of these gene networks (which apparently exist in all organisms) have made the evolutionary 'uphill' climb far steeper than we originally thought...

For example, your exercise above looks only at the forward translation of that short genetic segment, but does so without assessing the consequences it may have on how it is translated after other genes try to give it more instruction...

While the information IS "new" under the narrow context you've provided... you don't know if the change is actually deleterious or not. Where deleterious refers to whether or not the change is harmful to the organism, and not whether information was 'deleted' from the genome...

BTW I didn't gloss over this post... you must admit that your inclusion of this cut/paste argument was rather facetious when you first posted it... it wasn't even a direct response to my contention that Macroevolution remains unproven... To me at least, this argument was initially a tangent...

I wasn't purposely trying to ignore you... In fact, when you consider all the people that demand responses from me you would have to understand the fact that I can only address so much, and can't physically respond to everything... good thing I have posters such as Blake on ignore in these threads... His posts amount to nothing more than personal attacks... You at least tend to remain civil [when you're not calling me a liar and the such :p:]...

"I don't like simplification" is not an answer to what I asked.

The example, although shortened, VERY clearly adhered to known methods of mutation, as the links demonstrated.

Now, answer the question as asked.

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

[Phenomanul]

Ah yes, the old Phenomenal supernatural argument. Why believe things occur within one set of rules when you can just create some magical new rules instead? :tu

Ahem... the word supernatural existed long before you and I were born...

And by its very definition, it implies exactly what I posted above... sorry if I'm the one that has to break it down for you...

Can the natural laws govern something/anything which by very definition supercedes it? Absolutely NOT.

Nice drive by BTW... :tu

[DarrinS]

"I don't like simplification" is not an answer to what I asked.

The example, although shortened, VERY clearly adhered to known methods of mutation, as the links demonstrated.

Now, answer the question as asked.

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?


Uh, he said yes.



While the information IS "new" under the narrow context you've provided... you don't know if the change is actually deleterious or not. Where deleterious refers to whether or not the change is harmful to the organism, and not whether information was 'deleted' from the genome...
...

[Phenomanul]

"I don't like simplification" is not an answer to what I asked.

The example, although shortened, VERY clearly adhered to known methods of mutation, as the links demonstrated.

Now, answer the question as asked.

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

I did answer... very clearly, in fact... [hand to the face... "I hate it when he does this condescending, speaking to a 'child' crap..." - you do this every time...]


While the information IS "new" under the narrow context you've provided...


You apparently don't understand the genetic ramifications of your own example, and or the significance of the word 'deleterious' in genetic context... who's the one glossing over arguments here?

[Phenomanul]

Anyways, I've got a couple of errands I need to run... I'm out [I guess I need ChumpDumper's permission to do so?]

[ElNono]

Wait, wait, wait... that's fresh... most of what you all do here is simplify the processes involved in genetics. If anything, I'm the one trying to assert that genetics is thousands of times more complicated than the way your typical Evolutionist would wish to view it. Afterall, many of them simply accept the theory without ever having taken multiple, or even a single course in either microbiology, molecular genetics, or organic chemistry (some more fallacy of consensus gentium for our resident argumentative fallacy expert, RG)...

With all due respect, that's a very silly argument. We all profess different things based on expert testimony and evidence. Should we want to dig deeper, we're all free to go into the minutiae and re-examine how those conclusions were made. Either by need or curiosity or just liking the field and liking to learn. A big reason why we can rely on certain claims on science have everything to do with the rules of the scientific process, where you're able to discern between factual building blocks and experimental building blocks. That said, what's asked of you in order to dismiss the experimental is to falsify it's claim(s).


My whole qualm with RG's bold "debunked" claim is that; no, I don’t believe that Lenski hasn't created a new species... his variant strains are still E. coli bacteria, down to the genus and species

You all can yell all you all want but the fact remains that for speciation to be proven true one would have to produce a new species [with characterization at a genetic level]... don't give me any of this "in transit" crap evidence, because frankly, it isn’t enough... an honest look from the Scientific Method itself would assert as much, and require more than just extrapolated speculation...

But that's not really true. The actual scientific definition of bacterial species is fairly recent, and there are some authoritative papers that go at lengths about said topic (i.e. this one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142474)).

Under those definitions (best we have right now, unless you can propose better), one of the populations did go through speciation:

Based on their phylogenetic history and independent evolutionary trajectories, S and L fulfill one set of criteria for being different asexual species.

link (http://www.cns.fr/spip/Escherichia-coli-mechanisms-of.html)


BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate [regardless of the fact that the dynamics for beneficial gamete mutation and propagation in sexual organisms are far more restrictive than the propagation dynamics found in asexual organisms], and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!! Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago… [I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]

Here is where you extrapolate and miss the forest for the tree. It's easy to see why you reach the wrong conclusions, and it's the fact that you forget that this is a controlled experiment.

1) E.Coli is used because it 'only' has 4.6 million base pairs on it's genome (as opposed to over 3 billions for humans). Smaller genome means less information to track and less susceptibility to gene mutation.
2) Only E.Coli is used, again, to remove interactions with other organisms.
3) A small sample set of E.Coli is used.
4) Only one environment is used, again to remove more interactions.
5) Because even after removing all those layers that add complexity, the information is still fairly large, populations are cryogenically frozen and the experiment is conducted on one population at a time.

In nature, the environmental impact on mutations is well documented, and over the years we've had very significant environmental changes. Also, the interaction with other organisms (such as bacteria) also dictates different mutation and selection routes. And to top it off, the whole things happens all at the same time over an incredible amount of different DNA.

Since you know the experiment manipulates those variables to remove complexity, the proper way to extrapolate would be to multiply such effect by the level of complexity at any given time. It's obvious that by doing so you would get a much richer gene interaction and the mutation process will be much faster and diverse (including much better odds of mutations into duplicate genes).


Again, you all are touting the observations of Lenski's experiments, but don't really understand the ramifications it would have on your very own evolutionary models...

I think some of us do. I don't think you thought through or understood what was entailed in the Lenski's experiments, however.

[RandomGuy]

I did answer... very clearly, in fact... [hand to the face... "I hate it when he does this condescending, speaking to a 'child' crap..." - you do this every time...]



You apparently don't understand the genetic ramifications of your own example, and or the significance of the word 'deleterious' in genetic context... who's the one glossing over arguments here?

So, in short, the answer is yes, using known methods of mutation it is possible to add new information to a genome.

It is less condescending than simply adversarial. I simply want an answer to my question, as asked, not the way you would like to answer it. Take it as condescening if you like, it was not meant that way. When I want to be really condescending, I will make that very clear.

Deleterious does not mean "delete" in genetics. It means harmful.

In this case, consideration of fitness was not relevant.

Your statement:


Mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the organism... .

Is quite provably false when it can be shown that mutations can, and do, result in an increase in information, as a very basic example showed, by your own admission.

[Blake]

Can the natural laws govern something/anything which by very definition supercedes it? Absolutely NOT.


strawman nonsense

[MannyIsGod]

Ahem... the word supernatural existed long before you and I were born...

And by its very definition, it implies exactly what I posted above... sorry if I'm the one that has to break it down for you...

Can the natural laws govern something/anything which by very definition supercedes it? Absolutely NOT.

Nice drive by BTW... :tu

When it was created is irrelevant to the fact that its your favorite cop out. However, I'm going to go ahead and coin EXTRA SUPER NATURAL which by definition will supercede your super natural laws. Now your set of laws will be incomplete and therefor unable to account for what my SUPER EXTRA NATURAL rule set says about the universe and its creation.

As for it being a drive by, I've read enough of your posts on these subjects to know your arguments quite well by this point. Your argument boils down to exactly what BB posted above.

[DarrinS]

Deleterious does not mean "delete" in genetics. It means harmful.


Are you even reading his posts?



Where deleterious refers to whether or not the change is harmful to the organism, and not whether information was 'deleted' from the genome...

[Blake]

However, I'm going to go ahead and coin EXTRA SUPER NATURAL which by definition will supercede your super natural laws.

:spit coke on screen

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Are you even reading his posts?

Yes, it was simply a quick verbal nod to show we were both talking about the same thing and meant the same thing. I know what he is going to get at, but would prefer to take things in smaller steps.

I generally don't regard "Yes, but..." answers as very clear either, especially when the obvious intent is obfuscation of a very clear concept at the heart of a matter.

Edit:


You apparently don't understand the genetic ramifications of your own example, and or the significance of the word 'deleterious' in genetic context

It was a demonstration that I am cognizant of what the word means in the context, contrary to what was claimed.

Do you even read his posts? :p:

[ElNono]

A mutation being 'deleterious' (or harmful) not in all cases ends up having an impact in the organism, given that cells themselves can sometimes repair such DNA damage, and still move on.

[RandomGuy]

A gene being 'deleterious' (or harmful) not in all cases ends up having an impact in the organism, given that cells themselves can sometimes repair such DNA damage, and still move on.

That's where he is going with the "gene network" thing, btw.

(misnomer for gene regulating network) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

The argument will go:

Look cells have this repair mechanism that fixes mutations. That must mean that mutations don't cause evolution.

or something similar.

This argument fails, simply because it relies on ignorance of what such networks do. It is grasping at a straw, or if one prefers throwing shit at a wall to see if it sticks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

Such regulatory mechanisms will act *at times* to stop some mutations, but not others. About all it does is determine which kinds of mutations will be more common than others.

[ElNono]

That's why I said "not in all cases"...

[LnGrrrR]

There's some shit that can't be explained. Here me out.

About 10 years ago my mom was doing an essay at the university on the virgin Mary of Guadalupe. The day she completed the 10 page essay, she took a picture of my sister with a polaroid camera before her first dance class. A striking image undeniably in the form of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe (even with a pattern of stars on her dress) was standing next to my sister in the picture once it came out. It's amazing.

Is this a coincidence?

Certainly.

The human mind naturally seeks out patterns; it's what we're wired to do the day my mother's friend died, she heard the friend's favorite song playing on the radio as she was driving home from work. Does that mean it was a sign from God that her friend was alright? She thinks so. I disagree.

[LnGrrrR]

I’ve asked this on several occasions; how can the natural tools provided by the scientific toolset prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural GOD? Again, you’re just reinforcing the notion that Science is ill-equipped (unequipped) to answer the origins riddle, if in fact a Creator were the one true answer (unfalsifiable or not).

Well, by definition, a supernatural creator would be out of nature. Pretty sure that would make it untestable. Of course, you couldn't then use natural phenomena to prove His existence either. You tried to sneak in unfalsifiable OR NOT, but it's just unfalsifiable. (Excluding God from philosophical arguments for the moment.)

And the obvious rejoinder to your North Korean language argument is not that they will be unable to breed, but unable to understand each other's language. Which obviously does happen if two sets of people are separate by enough time and distance.

[RandomGuy]

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

...Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate, and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…

[I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]



You mean tweak it like you tweaked it to make it conveniently *unfeasible*?

Let's dissect this here, as I think it is pretty symbolic of the kind and quality of arguments being made.

Facts stated:

1) "Two genes were altered in an asexual organism after 31,500 generations"
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"
3) "it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…"

Assumptions made to complete calculation:


1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)
2) a human generation to be all of 20 years

Calculation:
20*31500= 630,000


humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

I will grant, assumption #2, and fact #3.

The rest of it, will require some facts to be confirmed to fully see if this calculation has been "tweaked". I think the fatal assumption in this calculation is the first one, that an asexual bacteria will mutate as fast, generationally speaking, as a sexually reproducing (vive la difference!) human being. It is a very messy, flawed assumption, as far as I can tell.

Bullshit has been called. Back up fact 1 and 2, and show me on what you base assumption 1.

We will see who is tweaking what.

[Phenomanul]

That's where he is going with the "gene network" thing, btw.

(misnomer for gene regulating network) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

The argument will go:

Look cells have this repair mechanism that fixes mutations. That must mean that mutations don't cause evolution.

or something similar.

This argument fails, simply because it relies on ignorance of what such networks do. It is grasping at a straw, or if one prefers throwing shit at a wall to see if it sticks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

Such regulatory mechanisms will act *at times* to stop some mutations, but not others. About all it does is determine which kinds of mutations will be more common than others.

Look I don’t have time to respond to everything here… Like always, it seems that for every post I type, I have to argue against 10 different posters… it’s beyond my physical capability to tend to the forum, and to do everything else I need to do in my day…

Anyways, I’ll address this post because your speculative ‘putting arguments’ in my mouth is beyond ridiculous…

That’s not even remotely close to why I referenced gene networks. NOT EVEN CLOSE…

Though I guess I should give you kudos for googling “gene networks” to try and pretend you knew what that meant as a means of staying in the argument. (Yes, I understand this is an ad hominem attack… but your rebuttals are literally lined with them too…)

I actually explained my argument in an earlier post… but you’re too busy trying to respond that you’re not even reading my posts at all… seems like you only react to bits and pieces, phrases here and there… statements you feel can corner me into an,”a-ha, I got you now!” moment… Case in point, you spent several posts arguing over the fact that mutations can provide new information without the context of why I stated that they typically don’t – in other words, you placed your emphasis on trying to prove that new information can indeed be generated, when that wasn’t even the emphasis of my argument at all; the subjective nature involved in the classification of new species was my argument from the get-go <-- specifically in regards to using Lenski’s experiments to claim that neoDarwinian Evolution has been proven fact… but keep latching on to such semantical tangents…

In response to my original qualm ElNono posted links showing that the definition for the classification of bacterial species has recently changed... Does anybody else here not see the utter convenience in such a move? (moving goal posts anyone?) Yeah... the changes might be better suited to classifying bacteria now, but to say that we've observed a bacterium change into another life-form entirely is not even remotely close to anything we've seen in nature, lab or otherwise... Macroevolution would require such a change be confirmed... even while we continue to find evidence for microevolution... Evidence I've never denied has existed....

Anyways, so why did I even reference gene networks?

Put another way….

One protein producing gene segment can be translated in as many as 3 different ways to produce more than just the one protein it is linearly coded to produce (i.e. the same gene segment can produce several different proteins altogether!)… These other pathways are set in motion at the direction of other genes that call for this specific gene to be pulled from a cell’s genome [read that again, THIS specific gene segment].

Hence, IF you were to mutate the code in that gene segment (or spliced it incorrectly) you would be messing with the fidelity of those 3 other translation processes as well. You might also damage its ability to 'call' other gene segments of its own. The NET result is that you’ve likely damaged some of that gene’s function… Again, genetic code is a programming language… not simply “a language”… So what one might initially label a beneficial mutation (on the surface), might end up causing a NET detrimental change. And a researcher trying to assess as much wouldn’t know how to classify the change unless he knew how all of the gene interactions with his segment were affected by such a mutation…

Your wiki articles, while interesting, don’t negate the point I tried to make originally several posts ago… though I wonder if you even understand them…

[ChumpDumper]

Anyways, I've got a couple of errands I need to run... I'm out [I guess I need ChumpDumper's permission to do so?]When you put yourself on the cross, how to you get that last nail in?

[Phenomanul]

When it was created is irrelevant to the fact that its your favorite cop out. However, I'm going to go ahead and coin EXTRA SUPER NATURAL which by definition will supercede your super natural laws. Now your set of laws will be incomplete and therefor unable to account for what my SUPER EXTRA NATURAL rule set says about the universe and its creation.

As for it being a drive by, I've read enough of your posts on these subjects to know your arguments quite well by this point. Your argument boils down to exactly what BB posted above.

How disingenuous... :rolleyes

I'm not the one making the rules... Only the Creator [or alleged creator in your world view] is capable of setting the bounds for the natural laws HE himself created... If HE made them, HE very well can supercede them... in doing so, HIS very essence is (again, by definition) supernatural...

Go ahead and coin anything you want... you're still bound by the natural laws of our universe. Nothing changes that...

[Blake]

When you put yourself on the cross, how to you get that last nail in?

Supernaturally

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

How disingenuous... :rolleyes

I'm not the one making the rules... Only the Creator [or alleged creator in your world view] is capable of setting the bounds for the natural laws HE himself created... If HE made them, HE very well can supercede them... in doing so, HIS very essence is (again, by definition) supernatural...

Go ahead and coin anything you want... you're still bound by the natural laws of our universe. Nothing changes that...

I'm not bound by any natural laws. I told you I invented the EXTRA SUPER NATURAL laws earlier. I'm not even bound by those, tbh, because I can invent the MEGA NATURAL LAWS when I'm tired of just being EXTRA SUPER NATURAL.

[RandomGuy]

Though I guess I should give you kudos for googling “gene networks” to try and pretend you knew what that meant

If you are going to do shit like that, quit bitching about *anybody* being condecending. Hypocrisy is annoying.

[MannyIsGod]

Its his schtick. He loves to play the martyr while lobbing bombs while hiding behind God's supernatural skirt.

[RandomGuy]

Case in point, you spent several posts arguing over the fact that mutations can provide new information without the context of why I stated that they typically don’t – in other words, you placed your emphasis on trying to prove that new information can indeed be generated, when that wasn’t even the emphasis of my argument at all; the subjective nature involved in the classification of new species was my argument from the get-go

You got pissy because I called you a liar.

I found a lie, and a rather clear, provable one.

That is a rather important aspect of establishing how much emphasis to place on your claims in general.

I think the part that galls you most is that you got caught.

Is it central to your arguments? Nah.

That would be

"You are just being petty and arguing semantics. Now let's all concentrate on how subjective the defintion of "species" is."

:rolleyes

[ElNono]

In response to my original qualm ElNono posted links showing that the definition for the classification of bacterial species has recently changed... Does anybody else here not see the utter convenience in such a move? (moving goal posts anyone?)

You're making a claim of skepticism without actually providing a basis for it.
I don't really see a problem with it unless you can claim that such change had to do with accommodating certain interest and not actual advances in the understanding of bacteria, it's components, etc. Let's not forget that actual hands-on genetic technology is fairly contemporary (as such, Lenski's experiment also is) and that bacteria analysis and study is a field that's been heavily researched lately in order to better understand bacterial pathogen agents, and their ability to adapt. It's one of those fields where better understanding can significantly help in fighting disease.


Yeah... the changes might be better suited to classifying bacteria now, but to say that we've observed a bacterium change into another life-form entirely is not even remotely close to anything we've seen in nature, lab or otherwise... Macroevolution would require such a change be confirmed... even while we continue to find evidence for microevolution... Evidence I've never denied has existed....

Because that type of change is understood to take a very, very long time, and we don't really have a way to accelerate the process. That's why in order to study such type of evolution we go to fossils and compare between different samples at different eras (within our ability to find and classify such fossils), and observe the mutations that have taken place. The type of change you're claiming we need to observe in a lab setting is comparable to a 'dolphin evolving in a horse', not a 'homo erectus evolving into a human'. And that's a completely artificial bar you've set up without any specific basis for it.

Don't forget that from the functional DNA standpoint, human DNA and chimpanzee DNA is almost 98.5% identical, and that the genetic difference between them is fairly documented (including gene loss, protein evolution, etc). On the gene loss department, about 80 genes were lost since humans split from the common ancestor with chimpanzees, and 36 of those were for olfactory receptors alone (To put it in perspective, humans have roughly 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes and the latest estimates puts that gene loss occurring in a 6 million years span).

[LnGrrrR]

How disingenuous... :rolleyes

I'm not the one making the rules... Only the Creator [or alleged creator in your world view] is capable of setting the bounds for the natural laws HE himself created... If HE made them, HE very well can supercede them... in doing so, HIS very essence is (again, by definition) supernatural...

Go ahead and coin anything you want... you're still bound by the natural laws of our universe. Nothing changes that...

And Manny posited that there was a Creator for the Creator, and that this Super Creator was not bound even by supernatural laws. Not too hard to follow.

And technically speaking, if he can interact with nature, then some part of him isn't supernatural.

[Phenomanul]

Its his schtick. He loves to play the martyr while lobbing bombs while hiding behind God's supernatural skirt.

Schtick or not... nothing can change the fact that you're always an asinine jerk everyday of the week and twice on Sunday...

I respond tit-for-tat, in kind... you all aren't the most accommodatingly kind crowd, not by a long shot. That said, I can't recall 'lobbing bombs' at any poster who hadn't already thrown one at me... people like yourself, however, do so repeatedly (as if getting a rise out of others somehow validates your bitter existence).

For the most part my jabs tend to be subtle (and yes, sometimes overt as necessary), but those in your camp tend to throw vicious and spiteful crap in my direction all the time... Martyr??? Give me a break...

How's this for choice (a Mouse classic :lol ):

Of all the people here, I know why someone like yourself fervently upholds the Evolutionary banner... I mean come on, you look at yourself in the mirror daily and effortlessly see the reflection of the "missing link"...

[Blake]

Schtick or not... nothing can change the fact that you're always an asinine jerk everyday of the week and twice on Sunday...

I respond tit-for-tat, in kind...

at least you can admit that you are an asinine jerk, in kind.


For the most part my jabs tend to be subtle (and yes, sometimes overt as necessary), but those in your camp tend to throw vicious and spiteful crap in my direction all the time... Martyr??? Give me a break...

":cry I just throw the viscious and spiteful crap some of the time :cry"


the Evolutionary banner

lol your camp vs evolutionary camp

our camp has a cool RV.

[RandomGuy]

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

...Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate, and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…

[I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]



You mean tweak it like you tweaked it to make it conveniently *unfeasible*?

Let's dissect this here, as I think it is pretty symbolic of the kind and quality of arguments being made.

Facts stated:

1) "Two genes were altered in an asexual organism after 31,500 generations"
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"
3) "it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…"

Assumptions made to complete calculation:


1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)
2) a human generation to be all of 20 years

Calculation:
20*31500= 630,000


humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

I will grant, assumption #2, and fact #3.

The rest of it, will require some facts to be confirmed to fully see if this calculation has been "tweaked". I think the fatal assumption in this calculation is the first one, that an asexual bacteria will mutate as fast, generationally speaking, as a sexually reproducing (vive la difference!) human being. It is a very messy, flawed assumption, as far as I can tell.

Bullshit has been called. Back up fact 1 and 2, and show me on what you base assumption 1.

We will see who is tweaking what.

(edit)
Although it is ultimately YOUR responsibility to back up YOUR claims and assertions. If you can't, or won't, try after a few days, I will do so myself, so don't bitch at me for getting something wrong, when you can't be bothered to back up your claims.

[RandomGuy]

Before you accuse me of arguing semantics or avoiding your "central point", not that I have been able to figure out what exactly that is, you have called me out on "tweaking" calculations, and essentially accused me of being dishonest.

There will always be time to get to your central point, if it emerges, but since I am not allowed to "tweak" this calculation, it is your responsibility to show that it was a valid exercise in the first place.

If not, then you cannot reasonably fault anyone for attempting to "tweak" your calculations to get a more reasonable and realistic picture.

[clambake]

"I believe there are demons, bent on confusing mankind"

[MannyIsGod]

Schtick or not... nothing can change the fact that you're always an asinine jerk everyday of the week and twice on Sunday...

I respond tit-for-tat, in kind... you all aren't the most accommodatingly kind crowd, not by a long shot. That said, I can't recall 'lobbing bombs' at any poster who hadn't already thrown one at me... people like yourself, however, do so repeatedly (as if getting a rise out of others somehow validates your bitter existence).

For the most part my jabs tend to be subtle (and yes, sometimes overt as necessary), but those in your camp tend to throw vicious and spiteful crap in my direction all the time... Martyr??? Give me a break...

How's this for choice (a Mouse classic :lol ):

Of all the people here, I know why someone like yourself fervently upholds the Evolutionary banner... I mean come on, you look at yourself in the mirror daily and effortlessly see the reflection of the "missing link"...

Like I said, Martyr complex.

PS How Christian of you, Hector.

[Phenomanul]

If you are going to do shit like that, quit bitching about *anybody* being condecending. Hypocrisy is annoying.

My issue with your posting style is that you're one of the few people here that repost the same exact post (multiple times often) demanding that it be addressed immediately...

"Answer this NOW!!!"

That's what I was referencing as being condescending, and tbh that tactic is annoying as hell... I can't think of others here that do that as often as you. That we insult our viewpoints along the way... I've come to accept that as the M.O. for these topics... There's no hypocrisy in understanding we've made this topic such an adversarial one...

Just look at this thread alone...

You quoted Blake's mocking statement, "Phenomanul itching to jump in" and launched your first argumentative attack... I hadn't even posted in the thread yet... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

My issue with your posting style is that you're one of the few people here that repost the same exact post (multiple times often) demanding that it be addressed immediately...

"Answer this NOW!!!"

That's what I was referencing as being condescending, and tbh that tactic is annoying as hell... I can't think of others here that do that as often as you. That we insult our viewpoints along the way... I've come to accept that as the M.O. for these topics... There's no hypocrisy in understanding we've made this topic such an adversarial one...

Just look at this thread alone...

You quoted Blake's mocking statement, "Phenomanul itching to jump in" and launched your first argumentative attack... I hadn't even posted in the thread yet... :lolNice stall.

[Phenomanul]

Like I said, Martyr complex.

I give you mad props in other topics such as the atmospheric sciences...

When it comes to microbiology, however, sorry if I can't extend the same consideration... you've rarely addressed my arguments, simply the manner in which I make them...

BTW that was a mouse's facetious reference, not mine... Can't say that I'm sorry it hurt your feelings, though... seeing as you've never cared how your posts affect others...

[ChumpDumper]

you've rarely addressed my arguments, simply the manner in which I make them...Much like your last post to RandomGuy.

[LnGrrrR]

I like the "I'm not lobbing bombs at anyone" part, a few posts after he denigrates all the atheists on the board.


Yet if you ask our forum agnostics... most of them likely consider the depravation of our society's 'moral fabric' as progress... They are blind to the overall loss in the strength of the 'family unit' as well as the consequences that this has had on the infrastructure of our society... not that they care, because they seem to be content with a society that harbors and condones unnecessary abortions, the legitimizing of the homosexual lifestyle, rampant drug use, the increase in the spread of STDs, an increasing suicidal rate, the loss of innocence at far younger ages, an increasing disdain for authority, vulgar and crass vocabulary, and the general lack of respect for others, etc... To them America is better off this way, the 'American Dream' is "all about the Benjamins" all about "me, me, me..." and not about building each other up...


Certainly, no bombs there. That was the epitome of an insightful, nuanced stance which does equal duty to understand both sides of the debate.

[Phenomanul]

You mean tweak it like you tweaked it to make it conveniently *unfeasible*?

Let's dissect this here, as I think it is pretty symbolic of the kind and quality of arguments being made.

Facts stated:

1) "Two genes were altered in an asexual organism after 31,500 generations"
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"
3) "it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…"

Assumptions made to complete calculation:


1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)
2) a human generation to be all of 20 years

Calculation:
20*31500= 630,000



I will grant, assumption #2, and fact #3.

The rest of it, will require some facts to be confirmed to fully see if this calculation has been "tweaked". I think the fatal assumption in this calculation is the first one, that an asexual bacteria will mutate as fast, generationally speaking, as a sexually reproducing (vive la difference!) human being. It is a very messy, flawed assumption, as far as I can tell.

Bullshit has been called. Back up fact 1 and 2, and show me on what you base assumption 1.

We will see who is tweaking what.

(edit)
Although it is ultimately YOUR responsibility to back up YOUR claims and assertions. If you can't, or won't, try after a few days, I will do so myself, so don't bitch at me for getting something wrong, when you can't be bothered to back up your claims.

Well now that you've actually gone through the trouble of breaking down this exercise I will address your qualms with it despite the fact you're going down a tangential road again... BTW I'm pretty sure that's what I called it, an exercise - LOL treating this as if it were my central argument in this thread (I clearly stated what that was - see bottom of this post in case you've forgotten it)]...

First, I will point out that your contention with assumption No. 1 (given the factors that ElNono posted somewhere above [and I never got around to addressing his rebuttal]) was only loosely defined as a starting point. I believe I clearly stated that the propagation dynamics of beneficial mutations between sexual organisms and asexual ones were markedly different. (Again, are you even reading my posts?) The implication being that sexual organisms have more numerical probability hurdles to overcome before their mutations are successfully passed down to the next generation.

The fact that I would then use the gene mutation rate from Lenski's experiment to represent the propagation rate for that of sexual organisms would be a conservative assumption, not one that helps my cause... NOTE: I was using the documented rate produced by Lenski's asexual organisms, because that's all we can use given his methods, and his results... To speculate as to why the rate should be higher, while valid, has not been confirmed in the lab setting... EVEN THEN, the resulting numbers from this quick exercise aren't favorable to the timeframe that is generally accepted for the evolutionary model of human descent...

Second, the 40 million base pairs difference figure (approximate genetic difference between Humans and Chimps) was obtained from one of the articles I have in my office. The reference is listed below:

Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map,” Science, 295:131-134, January 4.


And lest I forget, my central argument in this thread has been:

That the classification of new species to validate the process of macroevolutionary speciation is subjective... Especially for bacteria (which is why new classification strategies have been developed).

I then introduced Lenski's experiment to counter the claim that neoDarwinian Evolution has been proven fact (a claim many posters in this thread were making well before I jumped in)… Because even if his experiment, as elegantly structured as it was designed cannot conclusively make that claim, then none of us can... Of course, you balked with a "Debunked already" objection and spun off on other rants rather than address my contention that his claim is subjective and not authoritative...

[Phenomanul]

I like the "I'm not lobbing bombs at anyone" part, a few posts after he denigrates all the atheists on the board.

Certainly, no bombs there. That was the epitome of an insightful, nuanced stance which does equal duty to understand both sides of the debate.

I didn't say LnGrrR, or ElNono, or RandomGuy here you go... bombs away...

Typically however, many of you all have argued in favor of those other issues...

That rant was a bit boutons-esque... I'll admit that much. But it wasn't a direct personal attack on any one poster...

[Phenomanul]

Much like your last post to RandomGuy.

Except RandomGuy actually addresses the arguments themselves... even if sometimes they're tangential ones...

MIG enters these topics scoffingly, from the get-go. He might not like it if I respond in kind... but whatever.

Keep defending your folks moderator... good job! :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Except RandomGuy actually addresses the arguments themselves... even if sometimes they're tangential ones...

MIG enters these topics scoffingly, from the get-go. He might not like it if I respond in kind... but whatever.

Keep defending your folks moderator... good job! :tuKeep playing the martyr... good job! :tu

[Phenomanul]

Keep playing the martyr... good job! :tu

Keep launching unsubstantiated and subjective one-liners... [and keep ignoring the actual discourse content, like you always do...] :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Keep launching unsubstantiated and subjective one-liners... [and keep ignoring the actual discourse content, like you always do...] :tuI don't have a dog in this particular fight. Watching you whine and avoid answering direct questions is entertaining. Keep it up. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

I give you mad props in other topics such as the atmospheric sciences...

When it comes to microbiology, however, sorry if I can't extend the same consideration... you've rarely addressed my arguments, simply the manner in which I make them...

BTW that was a mouse's facetious reference, not mine... Can't say that I'm sorry it hurt your feelings, though... seeing as you've never cared how your posts affect others...

Hurt my feelings? The day monkey references hurt my feels will be the day Jesus comes out of the clouds and says Phenomanul is my homeboy. Nice of you to add lying to the list, though. Mouse may have said it, but you made it your own when you used it in a manner intended to hurt. Man up to your actions.

I never claimed to be a microbiology expert nor even moderetly versed in the subject for that matter. Don't believe I ever engaged anyone here on the subject.

There's no point in engaging you in any of this. The moment you can't explain things, you chalk it up to supernatural. Like I said, we've been down this path before.

[Phenomanul]

I don't have a dog in this particular fight. Watching you whine and avoid answering direct questions is entertaining. Keep it up. :tu

I don't know, seems like you've entered one... I've responded to what I can... you can't claim to be just another bystander... :lol

[clambake]

dad really fucked you up.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know, seems like you've entered one... I've responded to what I can... you can't claim to be just another bystander... :lolRight, you got me. I claimed that you whine and play the martyr.

Your response was to whine and play the martyr.

Good talk. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

Except RandomGuy actually addresses the arguments themselves... even if sometimes they're tangential ones...

MIG enters these topics scoffingly, from the get-go. He might not like it if I respond in kind... but whatever.

Keep defending your folks moderator... good job! :tu

RG most definitely has more patience than me. I ran out with you a LONG time ago.

[ChumpDumper]

I have said before that all these arguments merely come down to matters of faith which simply can't be debated. There's a line where some will simply throw up their hands and say "God did it." and that's all that's going to be said after that.

We know where that line is with you, Phenomanul. All the rest is your personal Christ-like martyrdom. You could have picked a worse roll model, but I don't think Jesus was so emo.

[RandomGuy]

My issue with your posting style is that you're one of the few people here that repost the same exact post (multiple times often) demanding that it be addressed immediately...

"Answer this NOW!!!"

That's what I was referencing as being condescending, and tbh that tactic is annoying as hell... I can't think of others here that do that as often as you. That we insult our viewpoints along the way... I've come to accept that as the M.O. for these topics... There's no hypocrisy in understanding we've made this topic such an adversarial one...

Just look at this thread alone...

You quoted Blake's mocking statement, "Phenomanul itching to jump in" and launched your first argumentative attack... I hadn't even posted in the thread yet... :lol

If I can't get an straightforward answer to a simple yes or no question, I will ask until I get something that I feel is sufficient to answer it.

If I ask the question:

Do you want pickles on your sandwich for lunch?

The answer is not a 5 paragraph rambling polemic.

I will refrain from being deliberately condescending going forward, but will ask a simple question as many times as it takes to get what I feel is a straight answer.

If you choose to imply that I am either stupid, or ignorant, I will tell you in no uncertain terms to fuck off. Unfortunately for you, I am neither.

[RandomGuy]

Well now that you've actually gone through the trouble of breaking down this exercise I will address your qualms with it despite the fact you're going down a tangential road again...

It ceases becoming tangential when you accuse me of dishonesty. "RG will tweak the numbers so it changes".

Then it becomes rather important, so, again, stop bitching about it. We can get to your central idea in due time. The internet ain't going anywhere.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't say LnGrrR, or ElNono, or RandomGuy here you go... bombs away...

If I said something along the lines of, "All Christians are idiots, and they deserve to have their voting privileges taken away", would that NOT be a bomb because I didn't name anyone specifically?


That rant was a bit boutons-esque... I'll admit that much. But it wasn't a direct personal attack on any one poster...

Thanks for the admittance. While it wasn't a direct personal attack, it still was an attack. I take umbrage to being lumped into one category and then skewered on the basis of that category.

[Phenomanul]

Hurt my feelings? The day monkey references hurt my feels will be the day Jesus comes out of the clouds and says Phenomanul is my homeboy. Nice of you to add lying to the list, though. Mouse may have said it, but you made it your own when you used it in a manner intended to hurt. Man up to your actions.

I never claimed to be a microbiology expert nor even moderetly versed in the subject for that matter. Don't believe I ever engaged anyone here on the subject.

There's no point in engaging you in any of this. The moment you can't explain things, you chalk it up to supernatural. Like I said, we've been down this path before.

That's the point... no one here can explain origins... at least not scientifically (because it's an ABSOLUTE event that happened in the past). Yet the implication people here always make is that we should just assume life happened, that it was a chance process, and here we are...

I've never denied that my belief that "a Creator was involved in this process" is a faith-based argument.

My contention has been that those on the other-side-of-the-fence, have indirectly built their scientific world view on the premise that the origins of life question can be answered naturalistically... But that hasn't happened yet, nor I believe it can be proven. While that perspective is entirely up to you all... you can't honestly sit here and mock the intellectual capacity of others simply becuase they don't conform to that belief...

[Phenomanul]

It ceases becoming tangential when you accuse me of dishonesty. "RG will tweak the numbers so it changes".

Then it becomes rather important, so, again, stop bitching about it. We can get to your central idea in due time. The internet ain't going anywhere.

I only said that because it is your M.O. to do so (and have done so to some of my other back-of-the-envelope calculations in the past)... you're our resident mathmatician...

Dishonesty??? hmmm not so much my implied accusation... more so along the lines that I know you look at every problem with a different set of glasses...

[MannyIsGod]

That's the point... no one here can explain origins... at least not scientifically (because it's an ABSOLUTE event that happened in the past). Yet the implication people here always make is that we should just assume life happened, that it was a chance process, and here we are...


No, thats not the implication at all. The implication is that we don't know.



I've never denied that my belief that "a Creator was involved in this process" is a faith-based argument.

My contention has been that those on the other-side-of-the-fence, have indirectly built their scientific world view on the premise that the origins of life question can be answered naturalistically... But that hasn't happened yet, nor I believe it can be proven. While that perspective is entirely up to you all... you can't honestly sit here and mock the intellectual capacity of others simply becuase they don't conform to that belief...

Ok.

[Phenomanul]

If I said something along the lines of, "All Christians are idiots, and they deserve to have their voting privileges taken away", would that NOT be a bomb because I didn't name anyone specifically?

I typically don't respond to all such references... people here make opinionated comments such as mine, or your example above, all the time...



Thanks for the admittance. While it wasn't a direct personal attack, it still was an attack. I take umbrage to being lumped into one category and then skewered on the basis of that category.

Fair enough... it was an exaggerated generalization, I know...

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously, Phenomanul you insult people without quite a bit and whether its you not realizing it or just ignoring it you really should drop the martyr act. Don't take my word for it, ask others.

[RandomGuy]

Assumptions made to complete calculation:

1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)


First, I will point out that your contention with assumption No. 1 was only loosely defined as a starting point. I believe I clearly stated that the propagation dynamics of beneficial mutations between sexual organisms and asexual ones were markedly different. (Again, are you even reading my posts?) The implication being that sexual organisms have more numerical probability hurdles to overcome before their mutations are successfully passed down to the next generation.

The fact that I would then use the gene mutation rate from Lenski's experiment to represent the propagation rate for that of sexual organisms would be a conservative assumption, not one that helps my cause... NOTE: I was using the documented rate produced by Lenski's asexual organisms, because that's all we can use given his methods, and his results... To speculate as to why the rate should be higher, while valid, has not been confirmed in the lab setting... EVEN THEN, the resulting numbers from this quick exercise aren't favorable to the timeframe that is generally accepted for the evolutionary model of human descent...

This is a bit less than clear. To my reading you are saying a couple of contradictory things here, so let's see if I get this right:

You are saying that, the of rate of beneficial mutations, per generation, for bacteria is greater than that, per generation of a single line, sexually reproducing human?

i.e. bacteria rate > sexually reproducing rate

And your assumption of 3 per 31,500 generations was intended to be overly generous?

[LnGrrrR]

If I ask the question:

Do you want pickles on your sandwich for lunch?

The answer is not a 5 paragraph rambling polemic.


"You see, pickles are really just cucumbers. So when you ask me if I would like pickles on my sandwich, what you're really asking if whether or not I would like a modified cucumber.

Interestingly enough, cucumbers of themselves are not popular lunch condiments, but pickles tend to be. Of course, since pickles ARE cucumbers, in essence, cucumbers ARE popular, but not in their unmodified format.

So when someone asks me if I want pickles, what they're also asking is if I want a form of cucumber. The two can't be fully separated, even though their tastes are separate. Also (even though it's a tangent), I noticed no price given for said pickles. Am I to assume these pickles are free? Technically, nothing in this world is "free" as it requires some form of investment, whether it be time, money, or even brain processing power to answer the question. Without knowing the true cost of these mofidied cucumbers, I'm stuck in a conundrum, perhaps wanting them but unsure fully.

Finally, the relevancy of wanting pickles on my sandwich lies predicate upon which sandwich I pick, and ultimately, whether I even want a sandwich or not! If I choose not to partake of the sandwich, could I still have the modified cucumbers? Usually, pickles are sliced, and rarely does one eat sliced pickles without some other form of food upon which they are placed. You could be offering me a full pickle, but then how would one fit that on a sandwich?

Ultimately, the answer is predicated on a long list of unanswered questions that may SEEM extraneous but are an inherent part of any bread-based food-layered item for consumption, and these questions must be answered before any further progress on the yes-or-no-edness of my answer can be determined."

[Phenomanul]

Right, you got me. I claimed that you whine and play the martyr.

Your response was to whine and play the martyr.

Good talk. :tu

So says you...

Good talk indeed... :tu

[LnGrrrR]

I typically don't respond to all such references... people here make opinionated comments such as mine, or your example above, all the time...

Yes, but the people who do that tend to be regarded as dolts. Which is why I try to refrain from it most of the time.


Fair enough... it was an exaggerated generalization, I know...

:toast

[ElNono]

EVEN THEN, the numbers aren't favorable when compared to the accepted timeframe of the evolutionary model of human descent...

I don't agree with this. Specifically because the ~6 million year wasn't a number just thrown into the air, but actually tested by two different methods: immunological antigens and then more recently and with higher precision using molecular genetics from recovered fossils. They both pretty much match in numbers even though they're two pretty distinct methods.


Second, the 40 million base pairs difference between Humans and Chimps was obtained from one of the articles I have in my office. The reference is listed below:

Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map,” Science, 295:131-134, January 4.

This is were you're confused (wouldn't want to think you were intentionally misleading). You don't need '40 million changes' as in '40 million positive mutations'. Humans have over 3 billion base pairs, but outside of what's called junk DNA, that only makes up 20,000 to 25,000 actual protein coding genes. Meaning, a single mutation (good or bad) on one gene affects more than just a single base pair. You also need to understand that since mutation rate is fairly constant, about half of those changes happened in the human lineage alone.

You also seem to think that organisms don't evolve with gene loss, and that's another concept that's wrong. For example, losing certain gene functionality is reap for selection to act on. Furthermore, losing certain genes can actually change the protein coding in a way that's beneficial for the organism (look up research on the long lost CASPASE12 gene).

There's actually documented that humans lost roughly 80 genes from the common ancestor with chimps.

Obviously, there's more than just genetic mutations that are involved in evolution. RNA also has a hand with it's own evolution process.


And lest I forget, my central argument in this thread has been:

Some rant about atheists and how people should live their lives

I kid, but you did blast the door open that way. My understanding of your take is that you're proposing a bar of evidence that it's simply unattainable (at least at this point in time), and it's not the same bar used by the scientific community to conduct their research or invalidate their findings. It's a convenient position to put yourself in, but it isn't a position taken by science in general, and I frankly see little reason why anybody else should.

[ElNono]

That's the point... no one here can explain origins... at least not scientifically (because it's an ABSOLUTE event that happened in the past). Yet the implication people here always make is that we should just assume life happened, that it was a chance process, and here we are...

There's some theories out there, like the Big Bang, the primordial soup, etc. You're free to subscribe to them or not, but what you can't do is propose a theory that's not falsifiable and try to sneak it in as 'science'. Which is what the point of the original article was all about.

I said a couple of times in this thread I have no problem with people believing in what they want to believe and teaching theology in theology classes. The problem I have is people trying to pass that up as science.

[Blake]

You quoted Blake's mocking statement, "Phenomanul itching to jump in"

luckily you have me on ignore so you can only see such hurtful and viscious posts when others quote me.

[Phenomanul]

This is a bit less than clear. To my reading you are saying a couple of contradictory things here, so let's see if I get this right:

You are saying that, the of rate of beneficial mutations, per generation, for bacteria is greater than that, per generation of a single line, sexually reproducing human?

i.e. bacteria rate > sexually reproducing rate

For the most part yes...

Off the top of my head, because:

1) The genomes of asexual organsims are typically not as advanced. They are not equipped with the genetic repair functions (genetic contingencies) that advanced sexual organisms such as 'the great apes' possess...

2) They are generally less protected against mutagens... (i.e. the gametes in a woman's ovaries or even our testicles are better shielded from mutagens than single celled organisms - as other systems in our bodies are designed to help eliminate the mutagens (ironically, including bacterial and viral mutagens)).

3) Reproductive selection factors aren't involved with asexual organisms.



And your assumption of 3 per 31,500 generations was intended to be overly generous?

My initial reference said "the ramifications of Lenski's experiment"...

I clearly stated that this was the documented rate that Lenski's particular experiment produced. A rate that has been elegantly confirmed.

Picking an exact propagation rate to be the catch-all, be-all, end-all would be speculative... given the stated context that the noted experiment had already provided one...

[Phenomanul]

There's some theories out there, like the Big Bang, the primordial soup, etc. You're free to subscribe to them or not, but what you can't do is propose a theory that's not falsifiable and try to sneak it in as 'science'. Which is what the point of the original article was all about.

I said a couple of times in this thread I have no problem with people believing in what they want to believe and teaching theology in theology classes. The problem I have is people trying to pass that up as science.

I specifically said, belief in a Creator is a faith-based argument... not a scientific one...

[Phenomanul]

I don't agree with this. Specifically because the ~6 million year wasn't a number just thrown into the air, but actually tested by two different methods: immunological antigens and then more recently and with higher precision using molecular genetics from recovered fossils. They both pretty much match in numbers even though they're two pretty distinct methods.



This is were you're confused (wouldn't want to think you were intentionally misleading). You don't need '40 million changes' as in '40 million positive mutations'. Humans have over 3 billion base pairs, but outside of what's called junk DNA, that only makes up 20,000 to 25,000 actual protein coding genes. Meaning, a single mutation (good or bad) on one gene affects more than just a single base pair. You also need to understand that since mutation rate is fairly constant, about half of those changes happened in the human lineage alone.

You also seem to think that organisms don't evolve with gene loss, and that's another concept that's wrong. For example, losing certain gene functionality is reap for selection to act on. Furthermore, losing certain genes can actually change the protein coding in a way that's beneficial for the organism (look up research on the long lost CASPASE12 gene).

There's actually documented that humans lost roughly 80 genes from the common ancestor with chimps.

Obviously, there's more than just genetic mutations that are involved in evolution. RNA also has a hand with it's own evolution process.



I kid, but you did blast the door open that way. My understanding of your take is that you're proposing a bar of evidence that it's simply unattainable (at least at this point in time), and it's not the same bar used by the scientific community to conduct their research or invalidate their findings. It's a convenient position to put yourself in, but it isn't a position taken by science in general, and I frankly see little reason why anybody else should.

I didn't imply 40 million changes were required... But, I'm pretty sure that this figure represents changes to more than just a handful of genes...

[ElNono]

I specifically said, belief in a Creator is a faith-based argument... not a scientific one...

I thought you were talking about origins, as in 'the origins of the universe/life, etc'.
My fault.

[RandomGuy]

Facts stated:
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"


Second, the 40 million base pairs difference figure (approximate genetic difference between Humans and Chimps) was obtained from one of the articles I have in my office. The reference is listed below:

Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map,” Science, 295:131-134, January 4.

This article oddly enough is widely quoted as a creationist rebuttal to the fact that humans and chimps share 98%+ of our genes. Surprise.

Read the article. It would appear that the 40 million base pair difference is a figure calculated by using some of the data presented.

The authors themselves do not clearly delineate how many base pair differences there were.

It is also somewhat dated, from 2001, and relies on the work then available to form conclusions. (Received for publication 8 August 2001. Accepted for publication 13 November 2001. )


Can you show me how you derived your 40 million base pairs figure using the information in the article?

Also, since your calculation involves only "beneficial" mutations, I assume this figure, if valid, is ONLY beneficial mutations? i.e. no "neutral" or deleterious ones.

I am of course, assuming you have participated in the calculation of this 40 million figure, and not simply repeating something you read somewhere. There are other problems with this, but I will leave it there for now.

[Blake]

"You see, pickles are really just cucumbers. So when you ask me if I would like pickles on my sandwich, what you're really asking if whether or not I would like a modified cucumber.

Interestingly enough, cucumbers of themselves are not popular lunch condiments, but pickles tend to be. Of course, since pickles ARE cucumbers, in essence, cucumbers ARE popular, but not in their unmodified format.

So when someone asks me if I want pickles, what they're also asking is if I want a form of cucumber. The two can't be fully separated, even though their tastes are separate. Also (even though it's a tangent), I noticed no price given for said pickles. Am I to assume these pickles are free? Technically, nothing in this world is "free" as it requires some form of investment, whether it be time, money, or even brain processing power to answer the question. Without knowing the true cost of these mofidied cucumbers, I'm stuck in a conundrum, perhaps wanting them but unsure fully.

Finally, the relevancy of wanting pickles on my sandwich lies predicate upon which sandwich I pick, and ultimately, whether I even want a sandwich or not! If I choose not to partake of the sandwich, could I still have the modified cucumbers? Usually, pickles are sliced, and rarely does one eat sliced pickles without some other form of food upon which they are placed. You could be offering me a full pickle, but then how would one fit that on a sandwich?

Ultimately, the answer is predicated on a long list of unanswered questions that may SEEM extraneous but are an inherent part of any bread-based food-layered item for consumption, and these questions must be answered before any further progress on the yes-or-no-edness of my answer can be determined."

when I go to Quiznos, I don't really know where the pickles come from, but I just look at my sandwich and know it was intelligently designed.

[ElNono]

I didn't imply 40 million changes were required... But, I'm pretty sure that this figure represents changes to more than just a handful of genes...

But you did. I can go back to look at the quote, but paraphrasing, you said it took Lenski's experiment 30,000+ generations for a qualitative mutation, and then you extrapolated that to assert that such slow rate had implications in the timeline from human to chimpanzee mutations, which have over 40 million 'changes'.

You were:
a) comparing apples to oranges (base pair changes vs constrained gene mutation)
b) implying that only qualitative mutations can advance the species
c) not taking into account that Lenski's experiment was controlled and specifically slowed down for studying
d) extrapolating such controlled experiment to real life while being fully aware that things like the environment have a major say on mutations

[Phenomanul]

Facts stated:
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"



This article oddly enough is widely quoted as a creationist rebuttal. Surprise.

Read the article. It would appear that the 40 million base pair difference is a figure calculated by using some of the data presented.

The authors themselves do not clearly delineate how many base pair differences there were.

It is also somewhat dated, from 2001, and relies on the work then available to form conclusions.

Can you show me how you derived your 40 million base pairs figure using the information in the article?

Also, since your calculation involves only "beneficial" mutations, I assume this figure, if valid, is ONLY beneficial mutations? i.e. no "neutral" or deleterious ones.

I am of course, assuming you have participated in the calculation of this 40 million figure, and not simply repeating something you read somewhere. There are other problems with this, but I will leave it there for now.

I've not participated in this research personally... seems like a rather unpractical and unreasonable request that I provide first hand data, when you could use your very own numbers (or maybe ElNono's... as one of you quoted a 98.5% difference between the two representative genomes [I've seen quoted figures as low as 95%, and 96%])... So given the representative size of our two genomes what would the difference in base pairs be?

Half of that figure... i.e. 20 million base pairs...??? 15 million base pairs...??? you pick a number... (like I said we usually set up our mathematical expressions differently)...

I still contend that these lower figures still represent more than just a handful of variant genes between the divergent lineages (err. allegedly divergent)...

[RandomGuy]

But you did. I can go back to look at the quote, but paraphrasing, you said it took Lenski's experiment 30,000+ generations for a qualitative mutation, and then you extrapolated that to assert that such slow rate had implications in the timeline from human to chimpanzee mutations, which have over 40 million 'changes'.

You were:
a) comparing apples to oranges (base pair changes vs constrained gene mutation)
b) implying that only qualitative mutations can advance the species
c) not taking into account that Lenski's experiment was controlled and specifically slowed down for studying
d) extrapolating such controlled experiment to real life while being fully aware that things like the environment have a major say on mutations

Pretty much. That's why I said it was a "messy" assumption.

I have identified a bit more that is wrong with his argument that I will get to in due time. As I said, I think it is representative of the quality of creationist arguments in general, i.e. very poorly reasoned, with no small amount of distortion of scientific fact/theory.

I am fairly confident I can show this, assuming, of course, that PM finishes what he started.

[Phenomanul]

But you did. I can go back to look at the quote, but paraphrasing, you said it took Lenski's experiment 30,000+ generations for a qualitative mutation, and then you extrapolated that to assert that such slow rate had implications in the timeline from human to chimpanzee mutations, which have over 40 million 'changes'.

You were:
a) comparing apples to oranges (base pair changes vs constrained gene mutation)
b) implying that only qualitative mutations can advance the species
c) not taking into account that Lenski's experiment was controlled and specifically slowed down for studying
d) extrapolating such controlled experiment to real life while being fully aware that things like the environment have a major say on mutations

It doesn't matter if it took 20+ years to obtain 31,000+ generations in his lab... or if this could have happened within 5 years in the wild...

His experiment already provides the number of generations...!!!

[Phenomanul]

Pretty much. That's why I said it was a "messy" assumption.

I have identified a bit more that is wrong with his argument that I will get to in due time. As I said, I think it is representative of the quality of creationist arguments in general, i.e. very poorly reasoned, with no small amount of distortion of scientific fact/theory.

I am fairly confident I can show this, assuming, of course, that PM finishes what he started.

Sure... as soon as you address why you claimed my central argument [in this thread] was invalid... especially after you stated on three occasions that I never clearly stated what that was... that it was obfuscated... :lol

Here I'll simplify it... "Macroevolution is not a proven fact. People should stop saying it is..."

[RandomGuy]

(duplicate post)

[RandomGuy]

2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"


Source?



Science 4 January 2002:
Vol. 295 no. 5552 pp. 131-134
DOI: 10.1126/science.1065199

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5552/131.full#T2


I read that article, it doesn't say "40 million base pair difference" anywhere, can you show me how you got that?


I've not participated in this research personally... seems like a rather unpractical and unreasonable request that I provide first hand data, when you could use your very own numbers (or maybe ElNono's... as one of you quoted a 98.5% difference between the two representative genomes [I've seen quoted figures as low as 95%, and 96%])... So given the representative size of our two genomes what would the difference in base pairs be?

Half of that figure... i.e. 20 million base pairs...??? 15 million base pairs...??? you pick a number... (like I said we usually set up our mathematical expressions differently)...

I still contend that these lower figures still represent more than just a handful of variant genes between the divergent lineages (err. allegedly divergent)...

So, the answer is, essentially, "No I cannot really support my figure, now that you have actually read my source and called me on it".

Moving on:
Your original comparison was comparing "beneficial mutations", yet you used a specific, unsupportable number of "base pairs".

Do mutations only ever affect one base pair at at time?

[Phenomanul]

It doesn't matter if it took 20+ years to obtain 31,000+ generations in his lab... or if this could have happened within 5 years in the wild...

His experiment already provides the number of generations...!!!

Hence why a representative number for the span of a human generation is required...

[LnGrrrR]

It doesn't matter if it took 20+ years to obtain 31,000+ generations in his lab... or if this could have happened within 5 years in the wild...

His experiment already provides the number of generations...!!!

By "slowed down" I believe Elnono means that Lenski took great pains to eliminate outside factors which might cause mutation of genes.

[RandomGuy]

Sure... as soon as you address why you claimed my central argument [in this thread] was invalid... especially after you stated on three occasions that I never clearly stated what that was... that it was obfuscated... :lol

Here I'll simplify it... "Macroevolution is not a proven fact. People should stop saying it is..."

I have said repeatedly that I will get to it, and I will.

(edit)

Part of proving that is going through the assumptions and criticisms you have to see if they carry any weight.

If they don't, and appear to be based on either ignorance, distortions, misapplications of established science, then it is safe to conclude it has been proven to a much greater degree than you assert.

The "tangents" as you like to call them bear directly on your case, whether you like it or not.

On a related note, the conference calls that only dimly concern me are over, and I have a project to prepare for turning in, so my time here will be very limited in the next few days.

[ElNono]

It doesn't matter if it took 20+ years to obtain 31,000+ generations in his lab... or if this could have happened within 5 years in the wild...
His experiment already provides the number of generations...!!!

By slowed down I mean the experiment removed a lot of added complexity in order to make studying easier.

The experiment has no environmental changes, and E.Coli has much fewer base pairs than humans, and thus is much less room for mutations (and selection).

You also making the incorrect assumption that a meaningful mutation couldn't have happened before 30,000 generations have gone by. Mutations are random. It's selection the mechanism by which such random hand of cards are eventually arranged in a way to accommodate the organism into it's surrounding environment.

You started complaining about dubious extrapolation, but you're doing exactly the same thing.

[ElNono]

Hence why a representative number for the span of a human generation is required...

It doesn't matter. It's not linear. That it took Lenski 30,000 generations under his controlled environment doesn't mean it takes 30,000 generations under every environment. It can take only 1 generation with the right set of mutations.

[Landon Donofag]

The terms macroevolution and microevolution are inventions of Creationists to create an artifical distinction where in reality there is none.

The process of evolution, as defined by science, works the same no matter what timescales you are looking at.

Even taking that into account, evolution including speciation can and has been observed both "in the field" and in the laboratory.

The Theory of Evolution is one of the most robust scientific theories in existance, and despite being easily falsifiable it never has been, nor has any alternative scientific hypothesis ever gained any ground.

Indeed, the Theory of Evolution (by Natural Selection) as it relates to the fact of evolution is a more robust and more complete scientific theory than the Theory of Gravity as it relates to the fact of gravity. And yet, nobody seems to have a problem with the Theory of Gravity, nor do they posit the existance of "Intelligent Falling".

[Phenomanul]

It doesn't matter. It's not linear. That it took Lenski 30,000 generations under his controlled environment doesn't mean it takes 30,000 generations under every environment. It can take only 1 generation with the right set of mutations.

That's all his experiment can say... because his experiment confirmed it... any other rate conjecture outside of what he found would be mere speculation... your 1 generational 'speciation' wish would defy some pretty tough probabilities...

Again, my statement was: "the ramifications of Lenski's experiment..."

I'm pretty busy too, but I'll contend your notion that his experiment somehow slowed down the E. coli's mutative rate simply because certain factors were controlled...

Lest you accuse me of accusing you of "dishonesty"... it's more along the lines of stating that "a glass is half empty" or stating that "a glass is half full"... are both valid statements, and both could very well be supported - but they are nevertheless diametric assessments of the same picture...

So let's see what we have:

Lenski grew marked E. coli bacteria in citrate containing (citric acid) agar solutions... but continually fed them DM25 solution... hmmm... his bacteria populations were always fed something ensuring that his cultures would continually reproduce... not a given in nature.

He knew that his batches were not equipped with the plasmid aided mechanisms to deliver the citrate to the interior of the E. coli bacteria... So after his blooms confirmed that this particular constraint was finally overcome, via natural mechanisms alone... it became pretty obvious that there was a notable change...

I should note that since his cultures were rebooted every 75 days, competitiveness for 'food' wasn't a big factor preventing the growth of his cultures [granted the Cit+ strains tend to reach population density limitations that weren't previously attained by Cit- strains]...

I'll quote this from wiki:

"As of February 2010, the E. coli populations have been under study for over 50,000 generations, and are thought to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome should have occurred multiple times."

How is that considered a slow mutation rate, if the entire genome has had a chance to change every single one of it's base pairs given the cumulative size of the population involved...???

and

"Of the 12 populations, 4 developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains. Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated [U]hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with less than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population."

Note: Lenski's use of the word 'beneficial mutation' here is not to be confused with how we've been using it throughout this thread... he's talking about those that achieved fixation... which is another discussion altogether...

Of those mutations however, he identified two particular genes that were altered over time and that eventually allowed his cultures to utilize the citrate in his solutions...

This was the significant change that allowed his team to claim "evolution had been observed..."

FYI.... Freezing the bacteria was done only to help catalogue each generation for future studies (brilliant imo), but it shouldn't have interfered with the E. coli's ability to reproduce in it's comfy year round temperature of 37 °F (a perfect incubation temperature that each batch has had the benefit of 'growing' under)... You made it sound like the freezing process somehow slowed down their metabolism and by proxy their mutation rate...

[Phenomanul]

So, the answer is, essentially, "No I cannot really support my figure, now that you have actually read my source and called me on it".


I have the actual printed article... that online version (which is a revised edition BTW) doesn't include the accompanying graph from where I obtained the "40 million base pair" figure...

So exactly what are you callling me out on?

That I can't use a quoted value?

That you feel it is absolutely central to the exercise I introduced?

Like I said, feel free to use a value of 15 million base pair differences if you so desire... it doesn't make the results of my exercise any less telling...

but before you do consider this:



One of the downfalls of previous molecular genetic studies has been the limit at which chimpanzees and humans could be compared accurately. Scientists often would use only 30 or 40 known proteins or nucleic acid sequences, and then from those extrapolate their results for the entire genome. Today, however, we have the majority of the human genome sequences, practically all of which have been released and made public. This allows scientists to compare every single nucleotide base pair between humans and primates—something that was not possible prior to the human genome project. In January 2002, a study was published in which scientists had constructed and analyzed a first-generation human chimpanzee comparative genomic map. This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues “detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences between the two genomes” (2002, 295:131). In other words, the comparison revealed some “large” differences between the genomes of chimps and humans.

Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee sequences to human genomic sequences obtained from public databases. Of these, 36,940 end sequences were unable to be mapped to the human genome (295:131). Almost 15,000 of those sequences that did not match human sequences were speculated to “correspond to unsequenced human regions or are from chimpanzee regions that have diverged substantially from humans or did not match for other unknown reasons” (295:132). While the authors noted that the quality and usefulness of the map should “increasingly improve as the finishing of the human genome sequence proceeds” (295:134), the data already support what creationists have said for years—the 98-99% figure representing DNA similarity is grossly misleading, as revealed in a study carried out by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology (see Britten, 2002).

Exactly how misleading came to light in an article—“Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans”—published in the October 25, 2002 issue of Science. The first three sentences of the article, written by Elizabeth Pennisi (a staff writer for Science), represented a “that was then, this is now” type of admission of defeat. She wrote:

For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous sections of DNA that weren’t noticed in previous studies (298:719, emp. added).

Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox commented: “The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccups could disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin seems so distant” (as quoted in Pennisi, 298:721).

Britten analyzed chimp and human genomes with a customized computer program. To quote Pennisi’s article:

He compared 779,000 bases of chimp DNA with the sequences of the human genome, both found in the public repository GenBank. Single-base changes accounted for 1.4% of the differences between the human and chimp genomes, and insertions and deletions accounted for an additional 3.4%, he reported in the 15 October [2002] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Locke’s and Frazer’s groups didn’t commit to any new estimates of the similarity between the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high (298:721, emp. added).

While Locke’s and Frazer’s team was unwilling to commit to any new estimate of the similarity between chimps and humans, Britten was not. In fact, he titled his article in the October 15, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5%” (Britten, 99:13633-13635). In the abstract accompanying the article, he wrote: “The conclusion is that the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA” (99:13633, emp. added). The news service at NewScientist.com reported the event as follows:

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.

The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.

But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single “letter” differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.

But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. “Insertions” occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, “deletions” mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species.

Together, they are termed “indels,” and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.

When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.

But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences (see Coghlan, 2002, emp. added).

It seems that, as time passes and scientific studies increase, humans appear to be less like chimps after all. In a separate study, Barbulescu and colleagues also uncovered another major difference in the genomes of primates and humans. In their article “A HERV-K Provirus in Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, but not Humans,” the authors wrote: “These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans” (2001, 11:779, emp. added). The data from these results go squarely against what evolutionists have contended for decades—that chimpanzees are closer genetically to humans than they are to gorillas. Another study using interspecies representational difference analysis (RDA) between humans and gorillas revealed gorilla-specific DNA sequences (Toder, et al., 2001)—that is, gorillas possess sequences of DNA that are not found in humans. The authors of this study suggested that sequences found in gorillas but not humans “could represent either ancient sequences that got lost in other species, such as human and orang-utan, or, more likely, recent sequences which evolved or originated specifically in the gorilla genome” (9:431).

The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, Muchmore and colleagues discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals (1998, 107[2]:187). This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly “miniscule” difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind, we never should declare, with a simple wave of the hand, “chimps are almost identical to us” simply because of a large genetic overlap.


I know you would hate the thought of having to read that article directly from a (gasp!) apologetics website... but I would caution that before you dismiss it consider that most of the quoted researchers in the excerpt above are in fact neoDarwinian Evolutionists... not Creationists...



Moving on:
Your original comparison was comparing "beneficial mutations", yet you used a specific, unsupportable number of "base pairs".

Do mutations only ever affect one base pair at at time?

LOL @ my use of the '40 million base pairs' figure being interpreted by you as being a "specific" "fact"...

Had I said, say "40,123,456" <--- Now that is a specific number...

Anyways, I didn't jump to conclusions, you all did... I clearly stated 2 genes were identified as having mutated for Lenski's E. coli experiment to yield the Cit+ strain... Honestly, you want me to spell out the contextual specificity for every one of my statements...??? I know you know that I know that you know the association between base pairs, DNA segments and entire genes... we've discussed the matter countless of times... And even if I did include such specificity everywhere you all would further complain about the length of my responses [it's a no-win proposition for me to do so]... (see LnGrrR's satirical response to your other question)...

[Phenomanul]

Well, I too will be out of the forum for several days... I'm sure I'll come back to some more the same...

I know we will never see eye-to-eye on this matter... ah.. C'est la vie!!

Come on over RAIN!!!!

-Peace

[RandomGuy]

I don't agree with this. Specifically because the ~6 million year wasn't a number just thrown into the air, but actually tested by two different methods: immunological antigens and then more recently and with higher precision using molecular genetics from recovered fossils. They both pretty much match in numbers even though they're two pretty distinct methods.



This is were you're confused (wouldn't want to think you were intentionally misleading). You don't need '40 million changes' as in '40 million positive mutations'. Humans have over 3 billion base pairs, but outside of what's called junk DNA, that only makes up 20,000 to 25,000 actual protein coding genes. Meaning, a single mutation (good or bad) on one gene affects more than just a single base pair. You also need to understand that since mutation rate is fairly constant, about half of those changes happened in the human lineage alone.

You also seem to think that organisms don't evolve with gene loss, and that's another concept that's wrong. For example, losing certain gene functionality is reap for selection to act on. Furthermore, losing certain genes can actually change the protein coding in a way that's beneficial for the organism (look up research on the long lost CASPASE12 gene).

There's actually documented that humans lost roughly 80 genes from the common ancestor with chimps.

Obviously, there's more than just genetic mutations that are involved in evolution. RNA also has a hand with it's own evolution process.



I kid, but you did blast the door open that way. My understanding of your take is that you're proposing a bar of evidence that it's simply unattainable (at least at this point in time), and it's not the same bar used by the scientific community to conduct their research or invalidate their findings. It's a convenient position to put yourself in, but it isn't a position taken by science in general, and I frankly see little reason why anybody else should.

The funny thing is, I found out in my research that the 40 million base pairs figure is used to respond to the common assertion that humans and chimps share 98% or so of our DNA.

"Look we share most of our DNA, that means we are very close relatives"

The creationist rejoinder:

"Oh yeah, we differ by 40 million base pairs, so there, that's a HUGE difference"

Leaving out that 40M is 1.4% of 3.4Bn base pairs.

The point stands.

Given that the VAST majority of human DNA is junk, there is a good chance that most of that is in the junk parts.

The research done since 2001 has narrowed down the differences even more.

Most of the differences have to do with little more than *when* genes get expressed or turned on/off.

A bit longer for thumb development, a bit less for this a bit more for that.

Fascinating stuff, and precisely what one would expect from a common ancestor.

The vast amount of junk is actually one of the things that really reinforces the similarities. Few other animals seem to have as much junk in their DNA trunk as we do. That so much random noise is shared strongly implicates common ancestry.

[ChumpDumper]

That junk was intelligently designed!

[ElNono]

I know you would hate the thought of having to read that article directly from a (gasp!) apologetics website... but I would caution that before you dismiss it consider that most of the quoted researchers in the excerpt above are in fact neoDarwinian Evolutionists... not Creationists...

Have a look here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread47371/pg12

specifically the posts by amantine back in 2004.

Least you can do is a little research in this stuff. It's a google search away.

[RandomGuy]

I know you would hate the thought of having to read that article directly from a (gasp!) apologetics website... but I would caution that before you dismiss it consider that most of the quoted researchers in the excerpt above are in fact neoDarwinian Evolutionists... not Creationists...



Neat trick quoting "evolutionists". You can quote them all day long and draw all the bad conclusions you want.

More quotes does not equal better arguments, any more than longer DNA strands mean more complex organisms, one of your other rather frequent misstatements.

I could quote Einstein all day long while I am attempting to prove unicorns exist, but that doens't mean that the quotes mean what I say they do, or Einstein ever admitted believing in unicorns.

But I digress. Your attempt to deflect from your previous statements awaits.

[RandomGuy]

aGLWlCRlEhk

Evolution's predictive powers in action.

Either God made our DNA to look like it used to be common with chimps on purpose to fuck with us,

or

Evolution is true. :D

[RandomGuy]

Going back to the OP (shocking I know)

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/2592/teachmebothsides.jpg

[RandomGuy]

I have the actual printed article... that online version (which is a revised edition BTW) doesn't include the accompanying graph from where I obtained the "40 million base pair" figure[emphasis mine-RG]...

So exactly what are you callling me out on?

That I can't use a quoted value?

That you feel it is absolutely central to the exercise I introduced?



How convenient for you.

The answer to your question is no, I do not feel it is central to the calculation. It was merely a follow up fact you threw in, that needed to be verified before I would accept it as a given.

[DarrinS]

when I go to Quiznos, I don't really know where the pickles come from, but I just look at my sandwich and know it was intelligently designed.

Well, you could know everything about the organic chemistry of that sandwich, but you would never think those ingredients randomly organized themselves to form a sandwich, would you? I think you unwittingly made a good point.

[DarrinS]

At the end of the day, science can never truly answer the "why?" questions. What we "know" about the world is only models mapped to empirical phenomena.

[RandomGuy]

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

...Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate, and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…

[I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]






You mean tweak it like you tweaked it to make it conveniently *unfeasible*?

Let's dissect this here, as I think it is pretty symbolic of the kind and quality of arguments being made.

Facts stated:

1) "Two genes were altered in an asexual organism after 31,500 generations"
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"
3) "it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…"

Assumptions made to complete calculation:


1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)
2) a human generation to be all of 20 years

Calculation:
20*31500= 630,000


humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!
I will grant, assumption #2, and fact #3.

The rest of it, will require some facts to be confirmed to fully see if this calculation has been "tweaked". I think the fatal assumption in this calculation is the first one, that an asexual bacteria will mutate as fast, generationally speaking, as a sexually reproducing (vive la difference!) human being. It is a very messy, flawed assumption, as far as I can tell.

Bullshit has been called. Back up fact 1 and 2, and show me on what you base assumption 1.

We will see who is tweaking what.

(edit)
Although it is ultimately YOUR responsibility to back up YOUR claims and assertions. If you can't, or won't, try after a few days, I will do so myself, so don't bitch at me for getting something wrong, when you can't be bothered to back up your claims.

So, going all the way back to this, I will take PM's word that the physical copy of the article he has in his office, different than the online version, supplied him with the figure. So we have fact 3 supported, in some round about way.

PM has also in some round about way stated that bacteria will mutate at a rate much faster than humans for a few reasons, on a per generation basis in any given single lineage. This will make his calculation a bit "generous". I will accede this, as I can buy his given reasons.

Now we get to the difference between "beneficial mutation" and "mutation".

The calculation here concerns "beneficial".

"Beneficial" had a very specific meaning in Lenski's experiment. It meant one thing, and one thing only. Did it increase the ability of the bacteria to reproduce on a medium with citric acid, and digest it.

If that were the ONLY "beneficial" trait that affected genes, that might mean something.

How many other "beneficial" genes were introduced that were not considered part of the experiment?

The environment determines what is "beneficial" and what isn't, for both humans and bacteria.

Evolutionary theory states that selective pressures are the other shaper of change.

Lenski very actively selected for only one trait.

Did past human environments only select for ONE trait and the genes that affected that trait?

Did the bacteria exibit other changes that would, in a more complex environment have also changed genes?

PM himself acknowledged that mutations happen all the time at VERY high rates for bacteria. Gotta get going. That is enough for today.

[RandomGuy]

Well, you could know everything about the organic chemistry of that sandwich, but you would never think those ingredients randomly organized themselves to form a sandwich, would you? I think you unwittingly made a good point.

You are way out of your depth here.

[DarrinS]

You are way out of your depth here.

Do I have to be an accountant, like you, to join the argument? LMFAO. Seems the ability to add and subtract makes one an expert in numerous fields. I believe in evolution. I haven't even been arguing against it, but you are probably smart enough to pick up on that.

[Landon Donofag]

At the end of the day, science can never truly answer the "why?" questions. What we "know" about the world is only models mapped to empirical phenomena.

God of the Gaps :tu

We don't know why, therefore god did it!!

:lmao

[DarrinS]

God of the Gaps :tu

We don't know why, therefore god did it!!

:lmao

You completely misunderstood.

[DarrinS]

Life apparently can evolve. Why?

[Proxy]

Life apparently can evolve. Why?

Donnie, shut the fuck up! You're out of your element!

[DarrinS]

Donnie, shut the fuck up! You're out of your element!

Good answer. You do make a strong case for our close relationship to chimps.:lol

[Proxy]

Good answer. You do make a strong case for our close relationship to chimps.:lol

:depressed

[SnakeBoy]

Do I have to be an accountant, like you, to join the argument?

I think he has said he was an insurance salesman before.

[ElNono]

Life apparently can evolve. Why?

We'll probably know better when we can definitely answer "how" it evolves. Evolution is the closest we have, and so far as withstood every challenge.

People used to ask "why does the moon move"? Once we figured out how does it move, that question was answered too.

[DarrinS]

We'll probably know better when we can definitely answer "how" it evolves. Evolution is the closest we have, and so far as withstood every challenge.

People used to ask "why does the moon move"? Once we figured out how does it move, that question was answered too.


Yes, we have a Newtonian model to explain our observation of celestial mechanics, but it doesn't explain why such mechanics exist.

[ElNono]

That's all his experiment can say... because his experiment confirmed it... any other rate conjecture outside of what he found would be mere speculation... your 1 generational 'speciation' wish would defy some pretty tough probabilities...

I can agree that statistically speaking, there's probably long odds it can happen in one generation. Obviously, the smaller the genome, the biggest the odds, even if they're still pretty long.

But don't forget that you're also talking about only one specific event (the development of the Cit+ phenotype). The thing is, there's all sorts of other events that take place on almost every generation, that might not be as notable as that but are just as important (ie: interacting better with other E.Coli, etc).


Again, my statement was: "the ramifications of Lenski's experiment..."

I'm pretty busy too, but I'll contend your notion that his experiment somehow slowed down the E. coli's mutative rate simply because certain factors were controlled...

Lest you accuse me of accusing you of "dishonesty"... it's more along the lines of stating that "a glass is half empty" or stating that "a glass is half full"... are both valid statements, and both could very well be supported - but they are nevertheless diametric assessments of the same picture...

I don't see it like that at all. If you want to say there's certain aspects of evolution that have not been verified yet, that's fine and I agree. That's why it's still a theory and being actively researched. Research that's done not just to verify, but to potentially falsify said aspects of the theory too.

Now, when you try to discredit said research by imposing some bar that's currently unattainable and not even the researchers are imposing, AND, on top of that your alternative is some unverifiable claim that we're supposed to accept without any evidence bar whatsoever, I think you're just deluding yourself.


So let's see what we have:

Lenski grew marked E. coli bacteria in citrate containing (citric acid) agar solutions... but continually fed them DM25 solution... hmmm... his bacteria populations were always fed something ensuring that his cultures would continually reproduce... not a given in nature.

True.


He knew that his batches were not equipped with the plasmid aided mechanisms to deliver the citrate to the interior of the E. coli bacteria... So after his blooms confirmed that this particular constraint was finally overcome, via natural mechanisms alone... it became pretty obvious that there was a notable change...

Sure, probably the most notable change so far.


I should note that since his cultures were rebooted every 75 days, competitiveness for 'food' wasn't a big factor preventing the growth of his cultures [granted the Cit+ strains tend to reach population density limitations that weren't previously attained by Cit- strains]...

What do you mean 'rebooted'? The only thing they do every 75 days (500 generations) is take a mixed-population sample and store it in a freezer so at any given point in time they can both calculate the mean fitness relative to the ancestor and could also be used to re-start the cultures at that point in time if desired in order to conduct specific experiments with the population at that time. It's basically a freeze-frame of the evolution process at that point.

The actual populations used as base keep evolving, and AFAIK, were never 'rebooted' back to the ancestor.


I'll quote this from wiki:

"As of February 2010, the E. coli populations have been under study for over 50,000 generations, and are thought to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome should have occurred multiple times."

How is that considered a slow mutation rate, if the entire genome has had a chance to change every single one of it's base pairs given the cumulative size of the population involved...???

Because it's genome is relatively small at 4.6 million. According to Lenski, there were about 22 billion mutations observed in all populations at the 30,000 generation mark. That's good enough to determine that at least every base pair has mutated from the ancestor at least once. However, it's a drop in the bucket when looking at different combinations that might be present at a given generational change. Not to mention that with each generation, new selection is applied based on factors such as environment, current mutation state, etc. and also that RNA evolves all at the same time.


and
"Of the 12 populations, 4 developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains. Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated [U]hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with less than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population."

Note: Lenski's use of the word 'beneficial mutation' here is not to be confused with how we've been using it throughout this thread... he's talking about those that achieved fixation... which is another discussion altogether...

Of those mutations however, he identified two particular genes that were altered over time and that eventually allowed his cultures to utilize the citrate in his solutions...

This was the significant change that allowed his team to claim "evolution had been observed..."

Which is understandable. Lenski took an organism that reproduced very fast (because one of the issues with studying evolution is how long it takes to appreciate noteworthy change), while at the same time using a fairly low-complexity genome and removing as much extra complexity from the environment as possible so he could actually track the changes. It's pretty much the only way to go. If he would've kept the environmental changes you see in real life, he'll probably have ended up with much larger diversity and much harder to track population.


FYI.... Freezing the bacteria was done only to help catalogue each generation for future studies (brilliant imo), but it shouldn't have interfered with the E. coli's ability to reproduce in it's comfy year round temperature of 37 °F (a perfect incubation temperature that each batch has had the benefit of 'growing' under)... You made it sound like the freezing process somehow slowed down their metabolism and by proxy their mutation rate...

I didn't mean it as a metabolism slowdown, but as an extra step where they gather even more information from those frozen samples (my memory about that was a little fuzzy, but after reviewing Lenski's publications today due to what we're discussing, I can say I was wrong about them conducting experiments on one population at at time).

[Proxy]

We'll probably know better when we can definitely answer "how" it evolves. Evolution is the closest we have, and so far as withstood every challenge.

People used to ask "why does the moon move"? Once we figured out how does it move, that question was answered too.

"how" in terms of what exactly? I was under the impression that it was, in simple terms, due to genetic mutations that helped whatever species in terms of survival of the fittest....

that being said, all 'living' things evolve for one purpose, and that is to flourish in a reproduction sense by surviving and adapting. Everything that we feel as a human, from physical pain to mental emotion can be sourced to evolution. Our perception of this world we live in, and our intellect and range of emotion is evolutionary advantageous to our species.

tl;dr - random genetic quality+advantage=evolution
- reproduction(surviving)=reason for evolution

[ElNono]

Yes, we have a Newtonian model to explain our observation of celestial mechanics, but it doesn't explain why such mechanics exist.

Actually, the Newtonian model doesn't quite explain the celestial mechanics. It's been basically superseded by General relativity, which goes to greater details. In general, why such mechanics happen is due to gravity, a geometric property of space and time.

[ElNono]

"how" in terms of what exactly? I was under the impression that it, in simple terms, the "how" of evolution was due to genetic mutations that helped whatever species in terms of survival of the fittest....

that being said, all 'living' things evolve for one purpose, and that is to flourish in a reproduction sense by surviving and adapting. Everything that we feel as a human, from physical pain to mental emotion can be sourced to evolution. Our perception of this world we live in, and our intellect and range of emotion is evolutionary advantageous to our species.

tl;dr - random genetic quality+advantage=evolution
- reproduction(surviving)=reason for evolution

What I mean by 'fully explain how' is in terms of scientifically advancing some key theories from theory to law, by being able to fully verify them. Take natural selection. All of our observations point to being mostly correct about the functionality, but there's still too much work to be done to be able to predict the selection process by understanding all the mechanics involved.

[LnGrrrR]

Life apparently can evolve. Why?

"You ask why, I ask why not?"

[DarrinS]

Actually, the Newtonian model doesn't quite explain the celestial mechanics. It's been basically superseded by General relativity, which goes to greater details. In general, why such mechanics happen is due to gravity, a geometric property of space and time.


Newtonian mechanics model large-scale dynamics well. Atomic-level stuff, not so much. General relativity is just another model.


All this still doesn't address my previous point.

[Proxy]

What I mean by 'fully explain how' is in terms of scientifically advancing some key theories from theory to law, by being able to fully verify them. Take natural selection. All of our observations point to being mostly correct about the functionality, but there's still too much work to be done to be able to predict the selection process by understanding all the mechanics involved.

Well, I do know that the words, 'theory' and 'law' are different in non-formal conversations, but in the science world, they are nearly identical. Theory, in scientific terms, does not point to lack of proof. The only difference law has, is that it can be proven in more terse examples... Evolution is fully verified, or it would still by a hypothesis.... tell me if I'm wrong, but that is my current understanding of the whole, theory vs law vs hypothesis argument.

Nothing comes to mind on what I've read on predicting the selection process, but I'll assume that would only be possible by studying and predicting whatever environment the subject was living in... from there I assume the studies of similar species' patterns would allow us to make reasonable scientific hypotheses... since the species that adapts to it's environment succeeds in the selection process... you would be predicting many things.

Like all things in science, if proven wrong, it will be discarded immediately. That hasn't happened for evolution. Evolution is set in stone just as deep as gravity is.

[Proxy]

Newtonian mechanics model large-scale dynamics well. Atomic-level stuff, not so much. General relativity is just another model.


All this still doesn't address my previous point.

I addressed it. It happens so we can successfully reproduce.

[ElNono]

Newtonian mechanics model large-scale dynamics well. Atomic-level stuff, not so much. General relativity is just another model.

Newtonian mechanics are still local. Not wrong, but simply inadequate to deal with the the variety of celestial mechanics that we can observe.


All this still doesn't address my previous point.

Sure it does. It's just another instance where the "how" explains the "why".

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, we have a Newtonian model to explain our observation of celestial mechanics, but it doesn't explain why such mechanics exist.

No religion I know of explains why either. You can ALWAYS ask why.

[ElNono]

Well, I do know that the words, 'theory' and 'law' are different in non-formal conversations, but in the science world, they are nearly identical. Theory, in scientific terms, does not point to lack of proof. The only difference law has, is that it can be proven in more terse examples... Evolution is fully verified, or it would still by a hypothesis.... tell me if I'm wrong, but that is my current understanding of the whole, theory vs law vs hypothesis argument.

From a purely academic standpoint, an hypothesis is an idea that is not testable (such as ID). A theory (aka empirical hypothesis, scientific hypothesis) is an idea that proposes one or more testable propositions, sometimes some contingency for some of those propositions, and remains a theory until every proposition has been decided as true of real experience.
At that point, it stops being a theory and 'graduates' into a scientific law.

As far as the 'weight' a theory carries, it's really dependent on how many of those tests have been conducted, and been determined true. There's obviously some propositions that remain inconclusive for some time because there's no way to test them (only last year NASA was able to verify a claim in Einstein's theory of relativity). What makes theories like Relativity or Evolution stand out, is that even after new technology has come forward and allowed to test more of the claims, they've remained unfalsifiable.

Bottom line is that creating a theory that's FOS is really easy. I could make the same claims as ID, and propose that god is only observable when traveling at 3/4 the speed of light. It would be a 'valid' scientific theory that would remain inconclusive for a very, very long time. I don't particularly think the theory would gain much traction however.


Nothing comes to mind on what I've read on predicting the selection process, but I'll assume that would only be possible by studying and predicting whatever environment the subject was living in... from there I assume the studies of similar species' patterns would allow us to make reasonable scientific hypotheses... since the species that adapts to it's environment succeeds in the selection process... you would be predicting many things.

Like all things in science, if proven wrong, it will be discarded immediately. That hasn't happened for evolution. Evolution is set in stone just as deep as gravity is.

Well, logically speaking, if you fully understand how selection operates, then given different scenarios, you should be able to predict what the outcome will be. Obviously, the complexity is mind boggling right now, but at some point 100 years ago, genetics was mind boggling too. The idea here is that actual significant advances are made when theories are either falsified or verified. So the more claims are verified the closer you get to the "how". The more claims that are falsified also advance the field, in that it makes you stop wasting time with an invalid proposition and forces you to reformulate it, which, in a way, also gets you closer to the definitive "how".

[RandomGuy]

Do I have to be an accountant, like you, to join the argument? LMFAO. Seems the ability to add and subtract makes one an expert in numerous fields. I believe in evolution. I haven't even been arguing against it, but you are probably smart enough to pick up on that.

This just doesn't seem like your cup of tea.

By all means, knock yourself out. My post, now that I re-read it, seems a bit harsher than intended.

Better:
This discussion has gotten a bit long and convoluted, so it is hard to pick up in the middle and know what is going on.

[Proxy]

From a purely academic standpoint, an hypothesis is an idea that is not testable (such as ID). A theory (aka empirical hypothesis, scientific hypothesis) is an idea that proposes one or more testable propositions, sometimes some contingency for some of those propositions, and remains a theory until every proposition has been decided as true of real experience.
At that point, it stops being a theory and 'graduates' into a scientific law.

As far as the 'weight' a theory carries, it's really dependent on how many of those tests have been conducted, and been determined true. There's obviously some propositions that remain inconclusive for some time because there's no way to test them (only last year NASA was able to verify a claim in Einstein's theory of relativity). What makes theories like Relativity or Evolution stand out, is that even after new technology has come forward and allowed to test more of the claims, they've remained unfalsifiable.

Bottom line is that creating a theory that's FOS is really easy. I could make the same claims as ID, and propose that god is only observable when traveling at 3/4 the speed of light. It would be a 'valid' scientific theory that would remain inconclusive for a very, very long time. I don't particularly think the theory would gain much traction however.



Well, logically speaking, if you fully understand how selection operates, then given different scenarios, you should be able to predict what the outcome will be. Obviously, the complexity is mind boggling right now, but at some point 100 years ago, genetics was mind boggling too. The idea here is that actual significant advances are made when theories are either falsified or verified. So the more claims are verified the closer you get to the "how". The more claims that are falsified also advance the field, in that it makes you stop wasting time with an invalid proposition and forces you to reformulate it, which, in a way, also gets you closer to the definitive "how".

I see.... the more you learn...:toast

[Landon Donofag]

Should be mandatory reading.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

[Blake]

Well, you could know everything about the organic chemistry of that sandwich, but you would never think those ingredients randomly organized themselves to form a sandwich, would you?

no but that's because the law of sandwich artistry is scientifically sound.


I think you unwittingly made a good point.

for who?

[RandomGuy]

Should be mandatory reading.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/


A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Hell there are whole websites devoted to debunking, claim by claim, pretty much every claim that creationists have ever made.

Collectively creationists and the IDers who hope you don't notice that they are creationists, have consistantly made some real doozies.

The vast majority of the claims become readily apparent as deeply flawed or outright disengenuous.

When a group of people consistantly lie, show a poor grasp of the science involved, and/or state provably illogical things, then a pretty decent picture starts to emerge as to who is more likely to believe.

This is why ID and creationism lose consistantly in the courts. In the end, the science does not support creationism/ID, and one is left with religious dogma.

[Blake]

At the end of the day, science can never truly answer the "why?" questions. What we "know" about the world is only models mapped to empirical phenomena.

has science ever tried to answer the "why?" questions?

Those type of questions are usually reserved for religion, philosophy or history classes.

[RandomGuy]

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

...Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate, and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…

[I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]






You mean tweak it like you tweaked it to make it conveniently *unfeasible*?

Let's dissect this here, as I think it is pretty symbolic of the kind and quality of arguments being made.

Facts stated:

1) "Two genes were altered in an asexual organism after 31,500 generations"
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"
3) "it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…"

Assumptions made to complete calculation:


1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)
2) a human generation to be all of 20 years

Calculation:
20*31500= 630,000


humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!
I will grant, assumption #2, and fact #3.

The rest of it, will require some facts to be confirmed to fully see if this calculation has been "tweaked". I think the fatal assumption in this calculation is the first one, that an asexual bacteria will mutate as fast, generationally speaking, as a sexually reproducing (vive la difference!) human being. It is a very messy, flawed assumption, as far as I can tell.

Bullshit has been called. Back up fact 1 and 2, and show me on what you base assumption 1.

We will see who is tweaking what.

(edit)
Although it is ultimately YOUR responsibility to back up YOUR claims and assertions. If you can't, or won't, try after a few days, I will do so myself, so don't bitch at me for getting something wrong, when you can't be bothered to back up your claims.

So, going all the way back to this, I will take PM's word that the physical copy of the article he has in his office, different than the online version, supplied him with the figure. So we have fact 3 supported, in some round about way.

PM has also in some round about way stated that bacteria will mutate at a rate much faster than humans for a few reasons, on a per generation basis in any given single lineage. This will make his calculation a bit "generous". I will accede this, as I can buy his given reasons.

Now we get to the difference between "beneficial mutation" and "mutation".

The calculation here concerns "beneficial".

"Beneficial" had a very specific meaning in Lenski's experiment. It meant one thing, and one thing only. Did it increase the ability of the bacteria to reproduce on a medium with citric acid, and digest it.

If that were the ONLY "beneficial" trait that affected genes, that might mean something.

How many other "beneficial" genes were introduced that were not considered part of the experiment?

The environment determines what is "beneficial" and what isn't, for both humans and bacteria.

Evolutionary theory states that selective pressures are the other shaper of change.

Lenski very actively selected for only one trait.

Did past human environments only select for ONE trait and the genes that affected that trait?

Did the bacteria exibit other changes that would, in a more complex environment have also changed genes?

PM himself acknowledged that mutations happen all the time at VERY high rates for bacteria.

(repost, don't want it to get missed/buried) Gotta get going. That is enough for today

[DarrinS]

has science ever tried to answer the "why?" questions?

Those type of questions are usually reserved for religion, philosophy or history classes.

Right.

[boutons_deux]

"The environment determines what is "beneficial" and what isn't, for both humans and bacteria."

The environment isn't be beneficial, it just is.

organisms strive to stay alive and reproduce, aka continuation of the species, in whatever environment.

If the environment changes, slowly or quickly, slightly or dramatically, the organisms that adapt successfully (changes in gene expression, etc), respond successfully to environmental stressors (changes in energy sources, water, temperature, colors) reproduce and organisms that don't adapt gradually weaken and die.

I think there is too much prominence give to random events, like from DNA replication mistakes, or radiation for outer space.

eg, 10Ms of people have lactose or gluten intolerance because they have failed to adapt to the change in nutrition presented by farmed food like cow's milk and grains that became available only several 1000 years ago.

[Blake]

Right.

yeah, I didn't really think I "unwittingly made a good point" earlier either.

[RandomGuy]

"The environment determines what is "beneficial" and what isn't, for both humans and bacteria."

The environment isn't be beneficial, it just is.

organisms strive to stay alive and reproduce, aka continuation of the species, in whatever environment.

If the environment changes, slowly or quickly, slightly or dramatically, the organisms that adapt successfully (changes in gene expression, etc), respond successfully to environmental stressors (changes in energy sources, water, temperature, colors) reproduce and organisms that don't adapt gradually weaken and die.

I think there is too much prominence give to random events, like from DNA replication mistakes, or radiation for outer space.

eg, 10Ms of people have lactose or gluten intolerance because they have failed to adapt to the change in nutrition presented by farmed food like cow's milk and grains that became available only several 1000 years ago.


The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from as little as 5% in northern Europe, up to 71% for Sicily, to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[3]

Both lactose intolerance and alcohol inolerance in humans make a pretty damn good argument for evolutionary selection.

Europeans have traditionally relied heavily on milk and cheese for nutrition, and brewed spirits for clean water. (water must be boiled to make beer, etc)

During periods of famine, if you can't digest commonly available cheese/milk, you breed out, especially if you are a child. This severely limits the reproductive viability of such people.

If the only clean water available has alcohol in it, if you are intolerant of it, you drink less than clean water, not knowing anything about disease pathogens.

Both beneficial mutations, i.e. alcohol tolerance and the ability to digest lactase after infancy, are strongly selected for in such an environment.

Asia with its "tea" culture, where water is boiled for tea, generally killing bacteria, one could survive episodes of water-borne illness quite well without drinking alcohol. This and a much less prevalent cheese/milk part of the diet lead to both mutations being less prevalent in asia.

(leaving out the nifty thing about sickle cell anemia and malaria)

[boutons_deux]

Now add in 10s of 1000s of synthetic chemicals and hormones, almost none of the tested for toxicity, short or long term, in food, water, air, that human metabolism, endocrine system, immune system have never seen, and you get some real havoc, some real stressors, sometimes subtle, sometimes not.

[RandomGuy]

Now add in 10s of 1000s of synthetic chemicals and hormones, almost none of the tested for toxicity, short or long term, in food, water, air, that human metabolism, endocrine system, immune system have never seen, and you get some real havoc, some real stressors, sometimes subtle, sometimes not.

You might find last night's Daily Show monologue funny. Jon made a good point about something mildly related, IMO.

Heh.

[Proxy]

has science ever tried to answer the "why?" questions?

Those type of questions are usually reserved for religion, philosophy or history classes.

They do actually. As science continues to search for the answers to the origins of everything, and as science continues to reverse engineer our brain, the 'why' questions get answered. Everything you learn in religion, philosophy, and history class is made by man. They are altered by man. What makes you think we can answer the "why" questions of the entire UNIVERSE through the studies of something as relatively small and insignificant as MAN?

You guys have gotten to the point in this thread where nothing you say can favor dogma. This is always the point a science vs religion argument gets to. The only thing you can latch on to, is that your religion serves no better purpose than a children's book in teaching you not to kill or steal... and that it is for people scared of death.

[MannyIsGod]

Philosophical questions such as what is the meaning of life are answerable by science in so far as the pondering of such questions is a byproduct of our neurological function. In the way as "why does X make me happy" can be answer through neuroscience there's no reason to think that "why do we ask why" can't be answered in the same way.

[Blake]

In the way as "why does X make me happy" can be answer through neuroscience there's no reason to think that "why do we ask why" can't be answered in the same way.

'why' in that sense = 'how', imo.

[ElNono]

What Darrin is looking for is an existential answer to 'why'. I might be wrong, but I think he can't fathom that every response to that question is merely functional.

[Blake]

What Darrin is looking for is an existential answer to 'why'. I might be wrong, but I think he can't fathom that every response to that question is merely functional.

pretty much what I gathered.

[MannyIsGod]

What Darrin is looking for is an existential answer to 'why'. I might be wrong, but I think he can't fathom that every response to that question is merely functional.

Exactly - you can always ask Why. There is no end.

[Proxy]

What Darrin is looking for is an existential answer to 'why'. I might be wrong, but I think he can't fathom that every response to that question is merely functional.

You're not wrong. That's exactly what he can't understand... and tbh, I wouldn't blame him for refusing it based on the grounds that it's hard to admit there's no grand purpose for your existence or life after death. It was hard for me to admit, since I did grow up with a Baptist mother and Catholic father.

[RandomGuy]

Exactly - you can always ask Why. There is no end.

Why do you say that?

[mingus]

What would the world be like without the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Better or worse off?

[LnGrrrR]

What would the world be like without the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Better or worse off?

What would the world be like if dinosaurs never went extinct? Would we have to get dino insurance for our vehicles?

[mingus]

What would the world be like if dinosaurs never went extinct? Would we have to get dino insurance for our vehicles?

so you don't know the alternative and yet you're doing everything you can to attain it. Sounds like a great plan.

[Blake]

What would the world be like without the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Better or worse off?

Easily better off without in my opinion.

Why do you believe the world is a better place with it?

[mingus]

Easily better off without in my opinion.

Why do you believe the world is a better place with it?

"Easily better off without it" elaborate, if you can. We know what's it's like with it. What's it like without it? are you just blindly headed in that direction?

[Proxy]

"Easily better off without it" elaborate, if you can. We know what's it's like with it. What's it like without it? are you just blindly headed in that direction?

"The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind."
- Freud

[mingus]

Still no answer to my question. Let me ask it again. What would the world be like without Judeo-Christianity? If your greatest wish came true and Judeo-Christianity was wiped from existence tomorrow, what would come of the world after that?

[Proxy]

Still no answer to my question. Let me ask it again. What would the world be like without Judeo-Christianity? If your greatest wish came true and Judeo-Christianity was wiped from existence tomorrow, what would come of the world after that?

You aren't asking an intelligent question, fyi.

What do you want us to say? Numerous lives lost would be prevented. Maybe wars would have been fought for something real. Perhaps Eastern Religion would be the dominating dogma, and people would have actual values.

Or I can satisfy your want for me to say we would live in Anarchy.

In realistic terms, religion would always come to pass under a different name. If you actually read the quote I posted, you would've been able to deduce the answer to your meaningless hypothetical question yourself.

Stop living in the past and move on.

[Landon Donofag]

Still no answer to my question. Let me ask it again. What would the world be like without Judeo-Christianity? If your greatest wish came true and Judeo-Christianity was wiped from existence tomorrow, what would come of the world after that?

Such a stupid question. :lol

What would the world be like without Muslims?

What would the world be like without Black people? :wow

[mingus]

I'm looking for details. But none of you guys have any.
You don't know where you're taking us or want to take us.

[mingus]

I don't know what is with the hostility toward me lol. Just asking a question. Guess I'm a retard, sorry. LOL

[Landon Donofag]

Stop avoiding my questions.

What would the world be like without Muslims and Black people?!

I want details.

[mingus]

Stop avoiding my questions.

What would the world be like without Muslims and Black people?!

I want details.

I don't want to rid the world of black people or Islam. So I don't think about it. But if one were to be trying to rid the world of something, ESP. As big as Judeo-Christianity, one should have some sort of detailed picture as to what the alternative is. And none of you do. And I'm not convinced it's a viable one because of that.

Before I go on vacation I like to know a lot about where I'm going. But that's just retarded to you guys apparently. "Unintelligent."

[Landon Donofag]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

[Blake]

I don't want to rid the world of black people or Islam. So I don't think about it. But if one were to be trying to rid the world of something, ESP. As big as Judeo-Christianity, one should have some sort of detailed picture as to what the alternative is. And none of you do. And I'm not convinced it's a viable one because of that.

Before I go on vacation I like to know a lot about where I'm going. But that's just retarded to you guys apparently. "Unintelligent."

Who is trying to rid the world of judeo-christianity?

[mingus]

So a question about what the world would be like w/o Judeo-Christianity... and I have wikilink to secularism.

Nice.

[Proxy]

I don't know what is with the hostility toward me lol. Just asking a question. Guess I'm a retard, sorry. LOL

Because of your condescending tone. LOL

I'll ask again, did the Freud quote mean anything to you? Did you read it? Do you understand Landon's point of secularism?

[mingus]

Who is trying to rid the world of judeo-christianity?

You deny God exists, do you not?

[Proxy]

You deny God exists, do you not?

He doesn't exist. We aren't denying anything. You're denying the truth.

[Blake]

You deny God exists, do you not?

I'm rather skeptical about his existence. I do think the bible is full of crap.

I'm not trying to rid the world of it though.

Who is?

[redzero]

But if one were to be trying to rid the world of something, ESP. As big as Judeo-Christianity, one should have some sort of detailed picture as to what the alternative is.

Alternative to what?


And none of you do.

If you are talking about an alternative to believing in the Judeo-Christian God, the alternative would be not believing in the Judeo Christian God.


And I'm not convinced it's a viable one because of that.

Which presupposes that belief in the Judeo-Christian God is viable.

Your argument makes no sense. Are you suggesting that people would start randomly killing each other if they no longer believed in judgment from a higher power?

[mingus]

Alternative to what?



If you are talking about an alternative to believing in the Judeo-Christian God, the alternative would be not believing in the Judeo Christian God.



Which presupposes that belief in the Judeo-Christian God is viable.

Your argument makes no sense. Are you suggesting that people would start randomly killing each other if they no longer believed in judgment from a higher power?

You've said absolutely nothing. You didn't answer my original question. You also put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest there would be anarchy.

The media has completely failed to represent Christianity fairly. The only time it mentions it is when it tries to diminish it. The left media jumped up and down when it heard this psychotic bomber from Norway had Christian ties. That's the only time you'll hear about it. When stories like this happen, the media jumps all over it. Yet, for example, you won't hear at all about the many, many Christians who do a lot of charity in the poorest places in the world in Somalia or Ethiopia. It's bullshit and it's deceitful.

You people can't tell me what the world would be like without Christianity because you don't know what it is all about to begin with. You're conditioned to believe it's a hate filled-religion. Go beyond what the media wants you/conditions you to believe and I think you'd get quite a different picture of what it's all about.

[Proxy]

You've said absolutely nothing. You didn't answer my original question. You also put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest there would be anarchy.

The media has completely failed to represent Christianity fairly. The only time it mentions it is when it tries to diminish it. The left media jumped up and down when it heard this psychotic bomber from Norway had Christian ties. That's the only time youll hear about.

You people can't tell what the world would be like without Christianity because you don't know what is all about to begin with. You're conditioned to believe it's a hate filled religion. Go beyond, way beyond what the media want you/conditions you to believe and I think you'd get quite a different picture of what it's all about.

read the fucking Freud quote.

[Proxy]

here it is again

"The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind."
- Freud

[redzero]

You didn't answer my original question.

Your question is idiotic.


You also put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest there would be anarchy.

That's why I began my sentence with "are you suggesting." Reading comprehension, please.


You people can't tell what the world would be like without Christianity because you don't know what is all about to begin with.

What? Even if that was true, what is your point? Not being able to tell what the world would be like if Christianity didn't exist, doesn't matter at all.


You're conditioned to believe it's a hate filled religion.

The media has zero effect on what I think about Christianity. I grew up a Christian and I went to Catholic high school. I stopped believing in God because I have zero reason to do so.


Go beyond, way beyond what the media want you/conditions you to believe and I think you'd get quite a different picture of what it's all about.

Should I just read the passages in the Bible about how to treat slaves or kill children who strike their parents?

[Proxy]

You know come to think of it, since it is an evolutionary advantage to believe in superstition, and people don't want to be smarter, we can just have the uneducated believers, that can't cope with death in a lower class, and open minded people in a higher class.

Start a secret organization, that cannot be hindered by religion, because whether you want to believe it or not, Mingus and Darrin, we would be farther along in science and as a species if we didn't have western religious nuts hindering shit because it disproved god.

then when the world ends, the higher class open minded people can take off into space looking for another planet, and the religious people can die on earth, waiting for their messiah to take them to heaven.

[jman3000]

A portion of the population would still be worshiping Zeus and the Greek gods. That's about it. Religion almost universally teaches the "Golden Rule" and is not something that is exclusive to Judeo-Christian values. It's obvious by the way you're forming your questions that without religion, or more specifically Christianity, we'd somehow be worse off. That's a horrible proposition and you are most likely correct in your previous post about how you "Guess I'm a retard, sorry. LOL".

I don't think any religion is hate filled. I just feel that it conditions people to believe that some things are wrong that really aren't and like any segment of a population you're going to have people who take things too seriously and justify violence to spread or defend "God's word". (Christians bombing abortion clinics, Muslims bombing... everyone, Hindu violence against Muslim minority in India)

[mingus]

'now that humanity has come of age'

What does that even mean? In what way has it come of age? Technologically? Of course. Morally? I can't believe that when there's the 50% divorce rate, excess materialism, and greed that I see all around this country.

[mingus]

Your question is idiotic.



That's why I began my sentence with "are you suggesting." Reading comprehension, please.



What? Even if that was true, what is your point? Not being able to tell what the world would be like if Christianity didn't exist, doesn't matter at all.



The media has zero effect on what I think about Christianity. I grew up a Christian and I went to Catholic high school. I stopped believing in God because I have zero reason to do so.



Should I just read the passages in the Bible about how to treat slaves or kill children who strike their parents?

Why did you start believing in God?

[redzero]

Why did you start believing in God?

I started believing in God for the same reason probably 90% of Christians do--I was raised that way as a child.

[mingus]

You know come to think of it, since it is an evolutionary advantage to believe in superstition, and people don't want to be smarter, we can just have the uneducated believers, that can't cope with death in a lower class, and open minded people in a higher class.

Start a secret organization, that cannot be hindered by religion, because whether you want to believe it or not, Mingus and Darrin, we would be farther along in science and as a species if we didn't have western religious nuts hindering shit because it disproved god.

then when the world ends, the higher class open minded people can take off into space looking for another planet, and the religious people can die on earth, waiting for their messiah to take them to heaven.

50% divorce rate, excess materialism, greed. The biggest problems this country has and you're a part of a movement that's trying to take away a religion that speaks out against those things.

Makes perfect sense.

One nation, under IPod.

[mingus]

I started believing in God for the same reason probably 90% of Christians do--I was raised that way as a child.

And so you woke up one day and decided it was dumb to believe in God?

[redzero]

No, it was a gradual process.

[redzero]

50% divorce rate, excess materialism, greed. The biggest problems this country has and you're a part of a movement that's trying to take away a religion that speaks out against those things.

Yeah, Christianity must be doing a bang up job of stopping those things from happening. Oh wait...

[Proxy]

'now that humanity has come of age'

What does that even mean? In what way has it come of age? Technologically? Of course. Morally? I can't believe that when there's the 50% divorce rate, excess materialism, and greed that I see all around this country.

Good q

We have come of age in our evolutionary process. We are past evolution as a species now. We don't act on natural instinct, in the sense that our empathy can outweigh basic, animalistic desires... like exiling a blind cousin through natural selection.

If we have a disadvantage, we can invent. You have to look at the human species in a way, that our brain is essentially the human, and our body is the evolved tool. Now, our evolution is on another tier from biological to technological. Instead of taking a mass amount of time to evolve x trait to solve y problem, we can, in less time, build n tool to solve y problem.

In Freud's quote, he is essentially saying, religion was there when we needed it, to grow as man. It taught us morality, and answered curious questions that we couldn't answer scientifically. Now that we have come of age, to understand that Zeus isn't pissed when we have a lightning storm and have a set in stone sense of morality, religion can only hold us back be keeping us ignorant to truth.

[Proxy]

And so you woke up one day and decided it was dumb to believe in God?

When I was a kid, I was always skeptical for these reasons.

People who never knew of God, like Native Americans, go to hell/purgatori

Where do animals go

Why is space so big

Where are dinosaurs in the Bible

If someone commits suicide to save someone else, or many people, he goes to hell

[mingus]

Yeah, Christianity must be doing a bang up job of stopping those things from happening. Oh wait...

?

True Christians do a pretty damn good job of it. A lot Christians in name only though. They really worship IPod.

[redzero]

A lot Christians in name only though.

Then I guess God sucks at getting his point across and Christianity can't stop divorce and greed from being prevalent in society.