|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#68871
04/05/06 02:57
04/05/06 02:57
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
@ PHeMox " how exactly do you know that chimpanzees can't be intellectual" I know it because they cannot drive my Mercedes 450 SL V8 convertable. They do not have enough "intelligence."  LOL 
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#68872
04/05/06 05:30
04/05/06 05:30
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
You won't find "devolution" in any textbook, because it is not a scientific concept. Its a dead horse, stop beating it.
Heh. For someone who thought mitochondria would be a good food source for the first living cell, you focus on this so called 'true science' far too often.
Matt, its impossible to argue with you on a scientific level. When I bring science into the discussion all you do is insult and say it isn't science. If you're right, back it up. There should be an abundance of evidence on your side.
But you can't. That's why you don't. Your entire post didn't even consist of an argument, it was all aimed at trying to make ME look bad. You have nothing. The simple fact that you can rationalize sickle cell anemia as a positive mutation is disguisting and goes to show how a blind belief in evolution twists logic. You also don't show how sickle cell anemia is positive on a genetic level, but I assume this is because you understand absolutely nothing of genetics. Which you have also demonstrated time and time again.
Once again, sickle cell anemia might be 'good' in the sense that it prevents malaria, but it corrupted the genetic data on hand within humans (so genetically speaking it was bad). So its still proof against your version of evolution. Once again, you might be right that you don't die of malaria (and even that has been known to happen from time to time). But you need to try again to show how mutations like sickle cell anemia can eventually allow humans to become anything other than another human, instead of just breeding humans with a disease. Simple logic. Sickle cell anemia is evolution, its just evolution in the wrong direction. If genetics becoming corrupted isn't a good enough definition of devolution, then let's use a term you're more comfortable with: evolution. Its just evolution at the hands of a bad mutation and bad mutations (as shown in my scientific proof) either lead to death, or sterility (thus cutting off the line). Its a fact geneticists have been dealing with for a long time when trying to find proof of materialist evolution.
Quote:
To deny evolution is to deny more than Darwin. It means you deny all biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and in fact all science, because evolution is the result of the scientific method.
No...it does not. Biology would still exist, it just means that biology would work within the framework of creation, which is obviously something you're deathly afraid of or you wouldn't resort to 'psychological terrorism' in your arguments against me.
Same can be said of the other sciences.
You're trying to put me on the defensive because then you don't actually have to argue using logic and reason, both of which you do not posess.
I'll keep making one simple request: Back up your 'ideas' with proof. I've shown how it works. All you have to do is make a claim, and then provide a link to more information that proves it.
Quote:
You offer no evidence but your own blazing certainty that everyone is wrong and you and ONLY YOU are right.
Then you obviously didn't read the plethora of quotes that I pasted of scientists basically admitting that it was IMPOSSIBLE to create one mutation that could change an animal from one kind to another. The ONLY mechanism scientists have that could explain materialist evolution is one form or another of 'positive' mutations. Scientists will admit that there is no such thing, as evidenced in my posts. So...try again.
Marco, you're an intelligent guy, can you at least set him straight on this one point? That sickle cell anemia is, in fact, bad on a physical and genetic level. Whether or not it prevents malaria doesn't change the fact that it too can kill and that it was born within a genetic corruption. That said, I'm not going to think you're unintelligent if you agree with him. I'm sure you would at least have a logical reason for believing it.
Matt, look at it this way. Let's pile 100 or more of these corruptiosn of data into people and watch what happens. Eventually its going to lead to outright lethality and the end of any line that carries these mutations. You cannot argue with this logic. Who cares about malaria in the long run? You have to look at it on the genetic level, but once again its obvious you don't know the first thing about genetics or you would have figured this out on your own.
Sickle cell anemia also exists in america, where malaria isn't even really a concern. So, forget about malaria and now explain to me how having sickle cell anemia in America is helpful.
Quote:
In this analogy, when you say "adds new data" you are looking for a process that appends pages ?
Not necessarily. Since in the alphabet of genetics there are only four letters, we don't really run into the problem of spelling mistakes per se. However, let's say you look at this 'story' of genetics, I'm not saying it isn't possible to move words or paragraphs. What I'm saying is that is impossible to insert (or it might be more accurate to say remix) a paragraph/sentence made up of random words and expect an improvement. And it still has to somehow fit in with the overall story to an extent or its still harmful or outright useless.
If the means were there for this to happen, don't you think they would have discovered it somewhere within the 60 years of mutating flies? Instead, what they found was that they deleted entire paragraphs, added random words and remixed entire sentences to the loss of general fitness of the fly. Or the outright loss of internal and external organs like eyes, legs, etc.
I've provided evidence of these results in my paper, where scientists are basically bewildered by the fact that essentially millions of years worth of evolution not only didn't produce a new fly (a new creature), but they actually managed to damage most of the data that was already there (not necessarily all at once, but at one time or another just about each and every expressible gene was corrupted or outright lost).
This proves that the genetics have to be organized into these stories before hand, or they simply won't be able to randomly come up with anything that makes sense or even helps. Maybe you can challenge this point, I don't know. I think, however, that the evidence speaks for itself. Unless you're Matt, in which case the loss of organs like eyes, legs, wings, pigment, and overall loss of fitness when combined over millions of years will eventually lead to a new creature.
For people like Matt who like to believe in theories that they don't even understand I'll give a loose definition of fitness, too so that we're on the same page.
Fitness is the general ability of a creature to survive and produce offspring without unnatural aid within a natural environment.
Quote:
Not to mention all those nobel prize winners...
To me, in a world where a lie like materialist evolution (not evolution), is allowed to be perpetuated, these prizes mean nothing. But I see your point.
Quote:
While similar characteristics are to be expected there is no reason to expect identical genes. Given the redundancy of codons to encode amino acids (3 codons to 1 acid) you could have exactly the same individual with a genetic code that is 99% different (you just need to keep the START and STOP markers in place). So why then is there a 96% similarity if only 1% is required ?
edit: I no longer need clarification, I have researched and I came up with a response in the post below.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/05/06 06:15.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68873
04/05/06 05:46
04/05/06 05:46
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I have a better analogy of 'devolution', that may or may not clear things up. Yes, random mutations can never really be considered good or bad from a technical level really. However, scientists are still hasty to admit that 99% of mutations are bad. So how are they bad? Well I think we can agree on this one definition. A mutation can be determined to be good or bad based on how it measures up to the original genetic data within that species. Fair enough? This may not be all encompassing, because how do you compare the loss of wings (if the data doesn't exist anymore) to the same species where the wings do exist. But this should encompass a good number of mutations. We produced red blood cells which were much more efficient and in general just much better before sickle cell anemia. Therefore, since red blood cells do their job about 1000 times worse (that's just a number, not a scientific number, the point is is that it is worse) in a person with sickle cell anemia, would it not be fair to say that compared to the original data, this is bad? Maybe that's an easier way to see how this mutation is negative? I don't know. Whatever, I'm probably just wasting my breath. edit: Marco, don't bother elaborating on your point. I've researched your junk data hypothesis and I've come up with a response already. It involves some tricky use of numbers on the evolutionist's part, interestingly enough. That 2% number sounds REALLY really low. However, that 2% actually represents 80 million nucleotides. Which doesn't sound quite so low anymore does it? Its all about how you present the information sometimes. Either way, I would say that's quite a difference. Furthermore, you may have heard of Cytochrome C (its a widely studied amino acid chain)? Its something common to a lot of different kinds of life (like we have junk DNA in common with chimps), so it could (by that same logic) be compared side by side to see exactly how similar different species are to each other. Or in other words its a good tool for comparison between different species. We're only 3% different from corn. So does this mean we evolved from corn, or maybe I should say that corn and humans branched off from a similar ancestor? One other quick point: E. Coli has a DNA molecule which is roughly 4,000,000 nucleotides long. So the difference between human and chimp (80 million nucleotides) is 20 times greater than an entire organism. And that's just considering the junk data. When you start going into the actual active data that number gets much much higher. Sorry, just one more point (I have NOT done this research for myself nor did I formulate the argument for it): "Even a 0% difference in DNA can be a problem. In any given animal, the liver cells and skin cells contain the exact same DNA, but the liver looks and acts quite different then skin and skin looks and performs different tasks then the liver. There is information content in the differences between the liver and skin cells but it comes in the form of the ratio of proteins, enzymes… in the liver/skin cells, not in the DNA. However, the DNA dictates all the proteins in each type of cell and the differences we see between the skin and the liver should be smaller than what we see. So even with identical DNA there is a hidden information system which we do not yet fully understand." (This is not a direct quote from a book. This is a rewording of the points made in the book apparently). Ludwig, Mark A., "Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and Evolution", American Eagle Publications, (1993) p.110-111 Further proof of this idea. "Although all of our cells contain the same DNA, the types of proteins made differ between cell and tissue types, depending on what proteins the DNA tells the individual cell to make." http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/about/facts/biochemistryThe point of your junk DNA argument then seems rather null. On the surface it was a pretty good point, though. But before I finish my point, would you even have given the junk data difference a second thought if the same data had been presented differently? To take the argument further, I could call into question the methods scientists use to even determine these percentages in the first place...but then this whole post will drag out into a whole big thing that no one reads besides. Anyway, Matt, this is another example of lies your scientist friends are trying to spread. It should, by this time, be more readily apparent what kind of people you're allying yourselves with. They may not be intentionally misleading people, but they are misleading people. Marco, maybe this is just me being overanalytical as usual, but I hope the sentences I chose to discuss with you here aren't offensive. I know usually I'm just overanalysing, and there's no problem in the first place, but I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you. As far as I'm concerned this is just a friendly discussion of ideas and science. edit: I keep calling that long post a paper by accident. Just ignore that, as its obviously not a paper.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/05/06 06:42.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68874
04/05/06 09:43
04/05/06 09:43
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
@Irish: Besides your objections against the origin of life - which I think are illogical, see my previous post - your other argument was that good mutations seem impossible to you. As far as I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong - you accept that a species can change by modifying or loosing information of their DNA - which you call 'devolution'. However you do not accept the possibility of adding new information to the DNA that gives a species, for instance, a new organ - that would be a 'good mutation'. But denying this possibility is just an opinion - obviously biologists have a contrary opinion. So let's do a quick calculation about who's right, you or the biologists: Let N1 be the number of nucleotides be affected by a 'devolution' that you admit, for instance loosing eyes, as in the cave fish example, or a change of color to adapt to a different environment. We know enough devolution examples to conclude that this happens very quick - within a few generations. So let the time span for an N1 devolution be t(N1) = 100 years. Now let N2 be the number of nucleotides be affected by a 'good mutation', for instance making a cell of the skin light sensitive, so that the animal can feel the difference between light and darkness. You deny that this can happen because you think the probablity is too low. So let's just calculate the time span t(N2) for a good mutation. A good mutation is certainly much less likely than 'devolution' because N2 > N1. If N2 were 2*N1, you'd have 1 good mutation in every 4 mutations. So the probability for a good mutation is 2^-(N2/N1). If we assume that for making a cell light sensitive, you need to affect 10 times more nucleotids than for changing its color - I think this is an acceptable approximation - you get the probability: p(N2) = 2^-10 = 1/1024 when p(N1) = 1, and consequently, one good mutation will happen in the time span t(N2) = t(N1) / p(N2) = 100 years * 1024 = ~100,000 years. However this is just the time range of evolution that would very well explain all the different species on earth that evolved in 2 billion years. Of course this is just a very raw approximation omitting many factors, but you see that even at a first glance evolution is quite possible. And when something is possible, it usually happens.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68875
04/05/06 13:30
04/05/06 13:30
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Matt, its impossible to argue with you on a scientific level. When I bring science into the discussion all you do is insult and say it isn't science.
JCL and I have already explained why your "scientific" arguments are illogical and unsound. You need to take a course on basic rhetoric. I wouldnt insult you if your weren't so cocksure of your delusions.
Quote:
Heh. For someone who thought mitochondria would be a good food source for the first living cell, you focus on this so called 'true science' far too often.
You are the one who ignores or doesnt understand what poeple say. I said mitochondria probably originated as seperate organisms that lived symbiotically with other cells.
"As mitochondria contain ribosomes and DNA, and are only formed by the division of other mitochondria, it is generally accepted that they were originally derived from endosymbiotic prokaryotes." --wikipedia
This shows how the modern cells could have been formed by several different organisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Once again, sickle cell anemia might be 'good' in the sense that it prevents malaria, but it corrupted the genetic data on hand within humans
This is why I "insult" your "science" because the devlopment of sickle cell is not a "corruption" of genetic data. It is an adaptation that was favorable under certain circumstances. Selectively favorable traits are passed on. This is by it's very nature then, a beneficial development. If it wasn't favorable, it would not have been passed on. One can argue that any trait that is widespread in a given population must have had some favorable aspect, even if now it does not.
Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it's not true. Sickle cell developed naturally, probably through mutations, and was passed on because it offered an advantage to populations who lived in malaria-prone areas. This isnt a moral question. Of course malaria still exists in certain populations, even though they don't live in malaria areas anymore. Since all blacks living in America came here within a few hundred years ago, it will take some time before sickle cell is gone. But you must know, that rates of sickle cell among American blacks is much lower than for african blacks.
Quote:
The ONLY mechanism scientists have that could explain materialist evolution is one form or another of 'positive' mutations. Scientists will admit that there is no such thing, as evidenced in my posts. So...try again.
Scientists will admit no such thing, and i dont need to "try again". The basis of evolution through natural selection is mutation. You dont have any evidence to refute this--In fact I dont think you have a clue as to what mutation is. It's not Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles--sorry, species dont mutate into other species overnight as you seem to think evolution suggests.
Quote:
Eventually its going to lead to outright lethality and the end of any line that carries these mutations. You cannot argue with this logic.
Oh i cant can I? In fact this "logic" is hokum, like all your other arguments. Sure lethal mutations happen, but guess what, they dont pass on to future generations, because that organism cant survive to reproduce. Some mutations which can be harmful can indeed be passed as recessive. This explains the many genetic diseases that exist in populations, but the diseases are very rare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
A mutation can be determined to be good or bad based on how it measures up to the original genetic data within that species.
It's difficult to argue against ideas that are so wrong. First of all, there is no "original genetic data" within a species. This implies a first, perfect state. Such things dont exists in nature; there is no template species from which all others derive.
Second, mutations are not really "good" or "bad".. Evolution has no morality. There are only favorable, neutral, and unfavorable (or lethal) mutations. Most mutations are either unfavorable or neutral. Neutral mutations can be passed on, and may or may not be persistent. Unfavorable or lethal mutations are notgenrally passed on, and if they are, they are usually recessive as said before. Recessive unfavorable genes are only harmful if both parents have them. Since they are uncommon in the population, the chances of this happening is very rare.
However, favorable mutations can be passed, and they can become generic. Each mutation on it's own may only provide a very slight selective benefit, but over time, these changes are directed by nature.
This is the mechanism by which evolution proceeds. An animal has a mutation whcih allows slightly better processing of food, so it it is more likely to survive and reproduce... this is passed on to its offspring, and eventually there are more favorable mutations, and so on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
We're only 3% different from corn. So does this mean we evolved from corn, or maybe I should say that corn and humans branched off from a similar ancestor?
Of course we are related to corn. And we did indeed have a common ancestor, both corn and humans are Eukaryotes(one of the three major branches of life), so the last Eukaryote before the animals-plant divergence was our last common ancestor with plants.
If you didn't know this, then this just confirms that you dont understand the evolution of life on Earth.
"Cytochrome c is a highly conserved protein across the spectrum of species, found in plants, animals, and many unicellular organisms. This, along with its small size (molecular weight about 12,000 daltons), makes it useful in studies of evolutionary divergence."
Because it is highly conserved it means that over time, it indicates very distant relationships very clearly. So the apparent close relationship to corn is expected, even though the actual genetic distance is very great.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you keep referring to "materialist" evolution? There is obviously no other kind. Science is only concerned with material or natural explanations, not fairy tales for children.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#68876
04/05/06 15:31
04/05/06 15:31
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
" Of course we are related to corn. And we did indeed have a common ancestor, both corn and humans are Eukaryotes" Oh I see... So, we need to look for a new CORN to HUMAN fossil to support the evidence. Yeah, something half corn and half man, sounds like a plan ta me! I'm sure it can be found somewhere...
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
#68877
04/05/06 15:47
04/05/06 15:47
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#68879
04/05/06 18:50
04/05/06 18:50
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
Ran Man
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
|
Quote:
THERE!!! see incontrovertable proof.
Well, you guys convinced me! I'AM A BELIEVER NOW! Wow! Humans actually did come from corn! 
What athiest church services should I now attend? The baptist church of "Darwin" or the Karl Marx Pentecost Church?  I need to worship Darwinism now! LOL <just joking>
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68880
04/05/06 21:28
04/05/06 21:28
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
Marco, maybe this is just me being overanalytical as usual, but I hope the sentences I chose to discuss with you here aren't offensive. I know usually I'm just overanalysing, and there's no problem in the first place, but I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you. As far as I'm concerned this is just a friendly discussion of ideas and science.
No offense taken, in fact I like some of your examples, though I think you dodged the question of why there are identical copying errors in junk DNA.
Quote:
Well I think we can agree on this one definition. A mutation can be determined to be good or bad based on how it measures up to the original genetic data within that species. Fair enough?
I don't think that definiton helps. You are merely replacing "how good a mutation is" with "how it measures up to the previous generation". Now a definition for "measures up" would be required for this to make sense. If you define it as difference in life span or procreation rate of the new organism compared to its predecessor then you have a usable biological definition.
Quote:
Therefore, since red blood cells do their job about 1000 times worse (that's just a number, not a scientific number, the point is is that it is worse) in a person with sickle cell anemia, would it not be fair to say that compared to the original data, this is bad?
Yes, if there were no mitigating circumstances then this would indeed be bad. But in this case the mitigating circumstances are quite clear: you are more likely to have health complication due to sickle cell deformation but much less likely to die from Malaria. If sickle cell anemia suddenly appeared in a population and remained in the genepool even though there were no deaths from malaria then you would even have evidence against evolution. But that's not the case.
Quote:
However, that 2% actually represents 80 million nucleotides. Which doesn't sound quite so low anymore does it? Its all about how you present the information sometimes. Either way, I would say that's quite a difference.
I don't follow you. 80 million compared to 3000 million is rather a low. What are you trying to say?
Quote:
Furthermore, you may have heard of Cytochrome C (its a widely studied amino acid chain)? Its something common to a lot of different kinds of life (like we have junk DNA in common with chimps), so it could (by that same logic) be compared side by side to see exactly how similar different species are to each other. Or in other words its a good tool for comparison between different species. We're only 3% different from corn. So does this mean we evolved from corn, or maybe I should say that corn and humans branched off from a similar ancestor?
Sorry, but you have fallen for yet another debunked creationist lie. Here's a list of the amino acids making up cytochrome c in various organisms. Please compare corn to human and you'll see that it's far more than 3%. I didn't count it, but 3% seems more like the difference we see between humans and rhesus monkeys:
Code:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/seq.html:
human mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
chimpanzee mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
rhesus monkey gdvekgkkif imkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgysyta anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifvgikkkee radliaylkk atne
corn asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a
Quote:
One other quick point: E. Coli has a DNA molecule which is roughly 4,000,000 nucleotides long. So the difference between human and chimp (80 million nucleotides) is 20 times greater than an entire organism. And that's just considering the junk data. When you start going into the actual active data that number gets much much higher.
I agree with the numbers, but what's your point?
Quote:
However, the DNA dictates all the proteins in each type of cell and the differences we see between the skin and the liver should be smaller than what we see. So even with identical DNA there is a hidden information system which we do not yet fully understand."
Part of that "hidden information system" is methylation- basically certain bases/nucleotides are marked with a methyl molecule which indicates that a given protein is not to be transcribed in this particular (skin, liver, etc.) cell. That's why stem cells are so interesting: they are markerless. There are other marker mechanisms in play involving the secondary structure of DNA winding but that is beyond my knowledge of biology or chemistry.
Quote:
The point of your junk DNA argument then seems rather null.
Huh?
Let me try it like this: makers of road maps are known to include fake roadnames on their products. Why do they do this? Because the underlying information (infrastrucutre) could not be copyrighted and if someone were to copy a commercial map he could claim it as his own work and it would be hard to prove him wrong. However, when as part of the forgery he copies these fake roadnames then it's clear that he did not do the mapping, but that his map is based on that of another publisher. Back to junk DNA: if there are identical base sequences in organism A and B that can not be transcribed into proteins, thus are meaningless to the organism then you could claim that organism B just so happens to have identical junk DNA (statistically unlikely) or just like in the map example you could conclude that organism B might have copied it from organism A.
Quote:
I could call into question the methods scientists use to even determine these percentages in the first place
That's probably a road to disaster  We do not have the complete genome for chimpanzees but we do have the genome for parts of it and can compare the nucleotides to that of humans divide the number of variations by the genome length and you have the percentage of difference. And since this is science you (or any creationist in a biochem lab) could disprove it by showing that there are more variations then have been observed. Until then it's wishful thinking.
Last edited by Marco_Grubert; 04/05/06 21:31.
|
|
|
|
