Reply With Quote
Clever turn of phrase FTW.
???
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
Clever turn of phrase FTW.
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!
Believe it or not, accident...Clever turn of phrase FTW.
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.
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.
I've had a few on messageboards. Calvinists are interesting, infuriating people.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.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.)
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?
He came out OK, but the next season deals with some who didn't:
Statistical Probabilities
Then we shouldn't forget about Khan, or Dr. Soong's Augments:
Space Seed
The Wrath of Khan
Borderland
You mean three times fast?
I set it up for you before with "I put 'God's own image' in the Google search box."See that works better than "I did a google search." Not that I'll bother looking at it anyway
lol lazy and full of . The combination is duly noted.
You enjoy posting lies and bull , I very much enjoy exposing liars and bull ters.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 should come around these parts more often for such grand entertainment.
And that's where it should stay, tbh.
Debunked???
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 cons utes 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), 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…
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.
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,
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???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.
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.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 07-26-2011 at 06:52 PM.
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]...
There's nothing vague about it. given the context of the previous tirade in that post.
You're back.
You'll be back again.
so awesome....
Funny. I thought they threw that out because it's unverifiable/unfalsifiable. How would you go about proving/disproving the existence of God?
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 ulative 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 do ented (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.
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.
There's some 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?
There's plenty of things we don't know about. That doesn't mean it's automatically ' 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.
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.
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.
The devil works in mysterious ways
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
