|
4 registered members (7th_zorro, Quad, VoroneTZ, 1 invisible),
623
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69011
04/29/06 23:25
04/29/06 23:25
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
You presuppose that the peppered moth phenomenon is a gene shift and not a mutation (if we define mutation as a gene modification that didn't exist before).
Which is the scientifically correct thing to do. There's little to no information on exactly what's happening (evolutionists are more excited about discrediting creationists), and since this would be the lone example of new data being written, its safe to assume that it isn't the lone example...that it isn't the exception, but rather that its part of the rule.
Quote:
This presupposition is required because otherwise creationism would fall apart. Thus you're making the very mistake that you're accusing scientists of.
Its not required, it just makes sense. No one claims to know exactly where black moths came from. Logically, however, we would deduce that it didn't come from nowhere. Even if it was caused by a mutation, black scales (or melanism, or what causes the peppering) existed in the first place, so you have a long way to go in showing that it couldn't have just mutated to lose control of its color scheme, which is hardly an evolutionary change. Unfortunately we'll never know. It doesn't seem anyone was interested in testing population ratios before the 'melanic explosion', but we know they did find one in 1811, so its safe to assume that they did exist before the melanic explosion.
Quote:
"A" is the dominant allele. Thus "Aa" is not just a little grey, it's really dark. If it existed in the moths before the industrial revolution, it would have lead to a dark moth in both the AA and the Aa cases.
Most of these moths that are phenotypically diametric (light and dark) have incomplete dominance. The peppered moth is no exception. That means that Aa won't be dark, it'll be a little bit darker than light (or gray). In reality a more accurate representation of the incomplete dominance would look more like AB, not Aa, but it doesn't effect the outcome. If you don't believe me then look up incomplete dominance. It might take a bit of searching (like it did for me) but you can also find essays from evolutionists saying that melanism is incompletely dominant.
I don't have the study off hand, but its been suggested that even in typical circumstances, the gray moths are only slightly less fit than the light moths. So it stands to reason that they could have existed before the melanic explosion, which would mean that the A (dark) gene could be floating around, while rarely producing a dark moth, and even in the rare chance that it happened, it apparently would have been selected out (without pollution), which would explain why we rarely found them. This is the logical conclusion, based on past experience, and not founded on wild guessing. If there are two explanations that are possible, it would be wise to go with the simplest of the pair.
But again, I'm not saying it wasn't mutated, I'm just saying that if it was, it wasn't a mutation that wrote 'dark scales'. Those dark scales already existed in the light moths (the peppering), just not as frequent, which suggest there was some genetic control mechanism over the pattern of the scales that could have gotten 'switched off'. I don't think that answer is likely, but its possible and still more likely than melanism being written from scratch, and still says nothing about evolution.
Quote:
it's justified to mention this effect in school books as evidence for evolution.
No its not. The fact that neither you or I has any real proof of what happened means that teaching it as evolution is jumping to a conclusion. Its not proof of evolution. Its proof of natural selection. Its possible they mutated (even if that didn't write anything new), but its more likely that they simply existed all along, but were hidden because they kept getting selected out. I like how mutations can write new stuff in 100,000 years, or 30 years, or a million years, or a billion years. Whatever fits the model of evolution best.
However, in this case, even with mutation it isn't evolution. No matter how much you reduce the genetic order of the moth, it'll always be that moth. It'll just be a little less of that moth than it was before.
Quote:
Besides nature examples like the cave fish that's definitely a mutation,
You argue as if I don't know mutations occur. They occur. But shutting off the growth of the eye, hardly explains how the eye could have been written in the first place. It happened to be beneficial, but I also don't disagree that there are beneficial mutations. I do, however, disagree as to whether or not an organism can write new data via chemically (or other source) induced mutations, or replication mistakes. All known mistakes of said variety reduce order, sometimes to the advantage of the organism, but typically they cause some kind of ailment or disease.
Creationists understand that bacteria are mutating to resist antibiotics (we're not blind to reality) we just don't come to the same conclusion as evolutionists. What evolutionists fail to do is look beyond the fact that these mutations are beneficial, and understand that they haven't written anything new. Nitro outlined a good example.
Another example is conjugation giving a bacteria a gene it never had before to resist something, but doesn't explain where the gene came from (except from another bacteria that already had it), or the cell membrane mutates so that it doesn't transmit material as well (degrading), so it doesn't take in antibiotics, but its harder for the cell to allow beneficial materials in. So on and so forth. There is no modern example (even in the quickly replicating cells of bacteria) of a creative, progressive, whatever you want to call it, mutation.
This illustrates why its so absurd to assume that moths could repeatedly and quickly evolve to become black. Germs can't even evolve on a large scale when they produce trillions and trillions and trillions of generations per year (instead of one like the peppered moth), why should we assume that such a drastic change has occured? Unless you mean we should take it on faith? I thought that was the antithesis of science.
Therefore, it is logical to assume that they [creative/progressive mutations] don't exist. Any other assumption is a fairy tale. Give me a bit more time to study more on genetics, and I'll be able to give a complete summary of why mutations are irrelevant to evolution. I'll probably throw it up on a website because I wouldn't be a true creationist if I didn't start my own anti-evolution website. 
Quote:
I think both creationists and evolutionists need to think OUTSIDE the box on this one. In my opinion neither creation NOR evolution should be taught in high schools.
Actually, from my understanding of modern creationism, this is the general concensus. For instance, here's some examples.
1). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, a dark moth mutated, and quickly became dominant because it was hard to see on the now-darker bark. This is excellent evidence of evolution in action.
(The use of the words evolution and mutation is misleading).
2). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution, but were created by God as both dark and light phenotypes. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, the melanic phenotype became dominant because it was harder to see. This is excellent proof of the ingenius nature of God's creation.
Of course, both of these involve faith-based assumptions. Here's the correct way to present this example.
3). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, a melanic phenotype began to quickly become dominant. This is excellent evidence of natural selection in action.
The third example is the best way to present it. We don't know where the dark moths came from, so allowing either camp to cloud our textbooks with assumptions is bad for the critical thinking skills of the student. If we present simply what we know as fact, and then allow the student to come to his or her own conclusion, then we've encouraged them to use evidence to form a hypothesis (some will think the dark moth was created, others will think it was evolved if they want). However, using this example (without proof) to come to conclusions for the student is indoctrination, considering students have no way of understanding the difference, they'll just assume what they hear is right. So its our job to present facts, not faith.
But the argument isn't over the accuracy of documentaries. It doesn't need to get that far. Pinning up moths, whatever, really doesn't matter. Birds aside, the fact is, we don't know what happened. Considering that many of these moths exist in england with diametrically opposed pheontypes, it would be safe to assume that the peppered moth did too. Without a time machine, we'll never know for sure.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/29/06 23:29.
"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: PHeMoX]
#69012
04/30/06 02:02
04/30/06 02:02
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
In the peppered moth case, blame the author and probably the time during which the book was written don't you think?
I guess I can agree. However I home school my kids now and my 8 year old son is already on a path to knowing much more about the facts than most kids will ever know. But this is because he has always had a large curiosity for the life sciences. I just think when he chooses his life's ideologies he wont have to make decisions based on limited knowledge and worst of all: peer pressure to conform. It is already a known fact that public schools have a majority of kids on the anti-God side, it is unfair to expect kids in early development to withstand peer pressure from the majority.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69013
04/30/06 07:56
04/30/06 07:56
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
I don't have the study off hand, but its been suggested that even in typical circumstances, the gray moths are only slightly less fit than the light moths. So it stands to reason that they could have existed before the melanic explosion
I also don't have the study off hand; according to what I've read both the "Aa" and "AA" moths are dark grey. But even if the "Aa" moths were a lighter gray, it would still have been a selection disadvantage. Remember that the color change happened within decades, so the selection pressure must be very high. Therefore it is very unlikely that gray moths existed all the time before the industrial revolution (except for a few that were created from time to time by a mutation).
Quote:
3). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, a melanic phenotype began to quickly become dominant. This is excellent evidence of natural selection in action.
The third example is the best way to present it.
While I seldom have reason to agree to you in this discussion, here you're right: Of the three examples you've presented this is the best.
Quote:
There's little to no information on exactly what's happening (evolutionists are more excited about discrediting creationists), and since this would be the lone example of new data being written, its safe to assume that it isn't the lone example...that it isn't the exception, but rather that its part of the rule.
It is your presupposition that the peppered moth is a lone example of new data being written (or not). Science says: It is one of many examples.
But I think we're back to square one meanwhile. It all comes down to the a basic disagreement on mutations. We both agree that mutations exist, and that they change, duplicate, insert, or skip nucleotide sequences in a random way.
Sciences says: Mutations can remove or create features. For probability reasons, a mutation is much more likely to remove a feature than to create a new feature.
Creationism says: Mutations can only remove features. The few beneficial mutations that we can observe in our lifetime or in a lab aren't real mutations and must be explained otherwise.
I think this is the basic point where faith enters the discussion. If you admit that mutations change the nucleotid sequence, then there is no logical reason for denying that they can add new features. The only logical reason I can imagine is saving creationism.
Consider the following example. You have a book, and are copying, adding, removing, and changing letters at random. In most cases the modifications will make a sentence unreadable (a feature disappears). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).
Somewhere in the middle of this thread I estimated the probability for this - thus the time of 100,000 years for the developing of a major new feature. This time depends only on two factors: the mutation rate and the required length of the new nucleotide sequence.
There is no mechanism in nature that filters out "beneficial" mutations. We do not know yet exactly which nucleotid sequences in the DNA are responsible for which features. But we do know how the DNA is built and how mutations work. It all comes down to basic math.
By denying the possibility of beneficial mutations, you don't reject only evolution - you reject also mathematics.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69014
04/30/06 08:22
04/30/06 08:22
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
By denying the possibility of beneficial mutations, you don't reject only evolution - you reject also mathematics.
Well this is the problem I've mentioned before.. to deny evolution is to basically also reject a great deal of other science as well. Not that this is proof that evolution is true on its own, but it sure as hell opens a hornets nest that no one is prepared to deal with, certainly not creationists, most of whom dont know even basic science methods.
For instance, obviously you must throw out genetics, and with it probably molecular biology. This is because DNA/genetic research clearly shows a relationship between the various species of lifeforms on Earth. So if we deny that they ARE in fact related, we must then reject all the genetic data and analysis. This is a tall order.
To me the clearest "proof" of evolutionary relationships is the global genetic similarity among all creatures on Earth. Instead of getting stuck up on whether there are "beneficial" mutations, or whether the peppered moths were really mutants or whatnot, we should concentrate on these larger questions.
Because frankly, peppered moths are not very interesting 
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69016
04/30/06 14:05
04/30/06 14:05
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
First of all you dont know what your talking about on the peppered moth issue, there were no observations made there for natural selection, genetic shifting, mutation or otherwise. I already pointed the utter stupidity of the "observations" to begin with. If your familiar with the study at all, youd know that the moths were placed there by experimenters during the day, as the moths naturally found other places to go during the night. The moths were too groggy to use their real survival mechanism which was to simply fly away. And there were not owls or bats feeding on them in the experiments as phemox said, they were normal birds. So the whole experiment was a joke to begin with. Quote:
By denying the possibility of beneficial mutations, you don't reject only evolution - you reject also mathematics.
We deny nothing, you deny the nose on your face it it would help prove God doesnt exist, this is because you cannot imagine yourself accountable to a higher being, and you think yourself to be a God.
Quote:
Creationism says: Mutations can only remove features. The few beneficial mutations that we can observe in our lifetime or in a lab aren't real mutations and must be explained otherwise.
Do you not know the meaning of the English word "beneficial"? the mutation we observe is beneficial because it allows bacteria to coexist with virus. A mutation needs to create a NEW PROTEIN to give you positive, creative mutation. Show me a new protein, one with completely new funtionality. Then you have the beginnings of evolution. The second example you showed was just an existing protein which mutated.
Its amazing how little you understand about these processes, and how lost you people become without a verbatim talkorigins link support you.
Quote:
Consider the following example. You have a book, and are copying, adding, removing, and changing letters at random. In most cases the modifications will make a sentence unreadable (a feature disappears) or create an unreadable new sentence (nothing happens). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).
Dream on, whos rejecting math now? The chances for a monkey typeing just one correct 9 letter word, "evolution" would be 9^26 (with 9 letter in "evolution and 26 letters in the alphabet) How many trillion attempts would it take the monkey to make one word is a lot. Secondly, if the monkey were to try to make a specific sentence 100 characters long you would need like 100^26. Even if you had a billion monkeys typeing one letter per second you could never come up with such a sentence in a million years.
Quote:
Somewhere in the middle of this thread I estimated the probability for this - thus the time of 100,000 years for the developing of a major new feature. This time depends only on two factors: the mutation rate and the required length of the new nucleotide sequence.
You estimated wrong. The new feature(whatever thats supposed to be) would also depend upon the lifespans of the creatures which are interbreeding, You might have signs showing that evolution took 100,000 years between species which live to be 20 years old, but how about drosphilia melanogaster, how about gypsy moths, it would be easy to approximate the same period of 100000 years into a microcosm of species which live for very short periods.
Goldschmidt bred over a million generations of gypsy moths only to come up with more gypsy moths. Obviously, in the light of these experiments, evolution cannot occur gradually, protein by protein, molecule by molecule given the relatively SHORT time period between major types of creatures.
Quote:
If you believe in creationism, you have to conclude that nature here fixed one of God's flaws in the human design.
The only flaw in God's design is that He hasnt made a mechanism to exterminate all those who disagree with me. (Just kidding) As a matter of fact it is a good thing I am not God...
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69017
04/30/06 17:36
04/30/06 17:36
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
First of all you dont know what your talking about on the peppered moth issue, there were no observations made there for natural selection, genetic shifting, mutation or otherwise.
Hmm. I don't like to answer this, maybe I'm spoiled by Irish's posts. Nevertheless:
Believe it or not, the dark peppered moth really exists, is observable, not glued to trees, and proves natural selection. And even creationists admit it. We only disagree about the question whether it's a gene shift or a mutation.
So I suggest that you, when entering the discussion, read a little more of this whole thread. There are lots of links posted with all sorts of information about the peppered moth. Even if you restrict yourself to creationist websites, then at least read also the more serious ones that don't declare the peppered moth a scientists conspiration. Irish achieved to keep the discussion on a certain scientific level - it's no fun to step down.
The same goes for this:
Quote:
Dream on, whos rejecting math now? The chances for a monkey typeing just one correct 9 letter word, "evolution" would be 9^26 (with 9 letter in "evolution and 26 letters in the alphabet) How many trillion attempts would it take the monkey to make one word is a lot. Secondly, if the monkey were to try to make a specific sentence 100 characters long you would need like 100^26. Even if you had a billion monkeys typeing one letter per second you could never come up with such a sentence in a million years.
Excuse a little cynism, but is this an example of creationist math? 9 out of 26 letters = 26^9 and not 9^26. I don't want to speculate about whether the rejection of science goes so far in creationism that they distribute special 'creationist math' books in church.
This thread contains a lot of information and links to further information. For making qualifed contributions, please read it. Repeating long-refuted nonsense claims over and over is just annoying. And you don't do creationism a favor.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69018
04/30/06 20:27
04/30/06 20:27
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Excuse a little cynism
I dont mind jokes and cynism, I have big shoulders and a good sense of humor. However I dont like to see people ridiculed and mocked, especially from others who would never dare to say the same thing in the "real" world.
Quote:
Excuse a little cynism, but is this an example of creationist math? 9 out of 26 letters = 26^9 and not 9^26.
Its true that it is 26^9, however, that is because I simply wrote it backwards, it would be 26^n to any (n)number which is used. It is a simple oversight of which I often do write numbers backward, I didnt realize it untill I was out later on, but I didnt need you to tell me. However picking on my math skills is not very nice, even though i can appreciate how humorous it might have been to someone like you who uses math a lot.
Good job trying to divert the issue, however, the point is still made that you have an impossibility ahead of you in these sentence writing nonsense.
As for the creationist material I dont read much of it, and in all the debates I have had with you people I have probably never onced used a creationist site as a reference or a proof. On the contrary, you use talkorigins links quite frequently and outside your knowledge of physics, you seem to need to rely on talkorigins to inject all of your knowledge about the life sciences and on paleontology.
I dont need creationism to come up with ideas, the fact that moths dont go out during the day, therefore they couldnt be eaten was my original thought. If you dont like, that is fine with me, but at least I thought of it myself, instead of reading it from a link.
The problem I have noticed about your answers is that when they fall outside the domain of any referential talkorigins link, you seem to be at a loss. For example, I posted the impossibility of the 100,000 year period of evolutionary transition period between species of much less life spans(like insects and cells) and you never answered probably because you didnt know, didnt understand ,or had no internet links to back you up.
Quote:
This thread contains a lot of information and links to further information. For making qualifed contributions, please read it. Repeat long-refuted nonsense claims over and over is just annoying. And you don't do creationism a favor.
You need to take your own advice here.
As for science, it doesnt really matter, I have posted links on Goldschmidt's work , punctuated equiblrium and your hopeful monster theories three times to show that your gradual mutation theory was bogus three times yet noone has responded or listened to the theories yet.
I even explained why, on a cellular level that mutation cannot work. And I have showed that the process of mutation needs to occur on a cellular level before it can occur on a larger level. I can only assume that you have failed to understand as you have not replied to any of these theories, either that or you are just willingly ignorant or in denial.
The fact of the matter is, you are not even aware of current evolutionary thought. You are a believer in phyletic gradualism and you probably didnt know what that term meant untill just now. However, this theory was wiped out by your fellow evolutionists long ago. So it doesnt matter if science is handed to you from creationist, evolutionists,Irish Farmer, me, Matt or the man on the moon, the fact of the matter is you just dont get it. I suppose thats the curse you would get by being surrounded by people who want to agree with everything you say, however, in the scheme of things, I am beginning to suspect that you dont know much at all.
Last edited by NITRO777; 04/30/06 20:31.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69019
04/30/06 22:02
04/30/06 22:02
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
I dont mind jokes and cynism, I have big shoulders and a good sense of humor. However I dont like to see people ridiculed and mocked, especially from others who would never dare to say the same thing in the "real" world.
Some poeple may hide behind the internet, but i'm a jerk in real life too
I tell off these church lamers who walk around in malls trying to convert poeple, and I'd sure as heck tell you off too.
|
|
|
|
