|
1 registered members (1 invisible),
672
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69021
05/01/06 00:57
05/01/06 00:57
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
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).
Ok. I didn't find the original study that showed that insularia (gray) moths were about as fit as typical. But after about 20 minutes of searching, I found something even better. I'll quote the highlights.
Quote:
We have estimated the fitness of insularia, compared with the other two morphs, for several data sets. As a rule its fitness lies between that of carbonaria and typical, but nearer to typical and sometimes very close to it.[...]The results suggest that insularia may continue polymorphic while carbonaria is likely to disappear.Quote:
Wait a minute! Isn't that exactly what I said probably happened? I believe that black moths existed at creation (much like the many other UK moths) and that selection pressure probably drove them out. However, its likely that melanic moths were 'hidden' in intermediate insularia moths. I'm not saying this proves that I'm right. It just proves that its a likely conclusion to make.
Furthermore, I still am waiting to hear a different explanation besides loss of control over its melanic pattern. Because even if I'm wrong, I'm still probably right. 
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00360.x
Quote:
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.
All creationists ask for is a bit of fairness.
Quote:
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.
Actually, my real conclusion on the possibility of mutation is that it didn't even have to right anything new. Its probable that it mutated towards black without the need to write new information. I can't back this up, but why would it have to write melanic data, when it already has melanic data? It is peppered after all.
Quote:
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.
Yeah, that's where we're at.
Quote:
The few beneficial mutations that we can observe in our lifetime or in a lab aren't real mutations and must be explained otherwise.
We would say that they are mutations, but we would say that when you understand exactly what is being affected, you realize why even beneficial mutations have nothing to do with evolution. Maybe 'dead end' evolution. Sometimes bad things can happen for good purposes. If it becomes harder for the cell membrane to transport materials, the germ might not take in antibiotics, but it will have a harder time attaining the material it needs to survive. Which normally would make it less fit. And once it becomes immune, then in general it makes it less fit. Of course, it doesn't kill it outright, so future generations are able to survive and thrive. But on the genetic level, nothing new was written. All modern examples of beneficial mutations fall under this general definition. Except maybe that one you quoted, but I haven't had time to digest it very well.
Quote:
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.
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). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).
Now we're starting to get into what is quickly becoming my home terf. However, I'm not going to bother debating you on this just yet. But, its not just the probability of a beneficial mutation occuring that is a problem. There are other huge hurdles it must overcome.
Quote:
certainly not creationists, most of whom dont know even basic science methods.
This is coming from the person who referenced the logical pothole that the first single celled organisms lived off cell 'power plants' that themselves lived symbiotically with larger creatures or whatever nonsense that was. Leave the discussion to the adults.
Quote:
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.
No we don't. But the matter of DNA similarity is merely coincidental to creation. Monkeys have 90% or so DNA in common with us (depending on who you ask), yet they only have 29% of their proteins in common with us. So, if this non-coding DNA has so much in common with us, then I'm really not concerned because what explains our dissimilarities is the coding DNA.
But again, if you write three different programs in c-script that require a similar algorithm that might do slightly different things, chances are most of the code is going to look the same for that algorithm in spite of the small differences. But you created it, so why do you automatically assume that similarity invokes evolution? Well...let's not even get down that road...
Quote:
If you believe in creationism, you probably have to conclude that nature here fixed one of God's flaws in the human design.
I'll have to pick this apart later. Doesn't really concern me.
Quote:
that they distribute special 'creationist math' books in church.
Creationism and evolution aren't discussed in church.
Until later, I'm probably done for the night.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
#69022
05/01/06 01:00
05/01/06 01:00
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Wow, I really messed that post up. I'm tired, I've been up since four in the morning. Ugh.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69023
05/01/06 01:08
05/01/06 01:08
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Lol. So you are so confident? Lets see a photograph, or do you not want your photos to be seen? If you are so brave perhaps you would show a picture so that we know that your not really just a little guy. Most people that use the internet to bully people hide behind the internet and are afraid to show their likeness as it would give people too much of the REAL story of their own social and physical inadequacy. Lets put a face behind your awesome bravery, then I will believe that you would have the cohones to refer to me as anything other than "sir" in the real world. Lol.
BTW. I hope this is not another attempt to divert from the real science issues at hand.
What would you do? Break his jaw if he did some silly remark? 
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
#69024
05/01/06 04:40
05/01/06 04:40
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Every anonymous except the last one was me.
"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]
#69025
05/01/06 06:02
05/01/06 06:02
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Ok, I want to respond to your link that you posted of the 'milano mutation.' I find it to be a distraction from the point (namely that beneficial mutations that fail to write anything new and are founded in a loss of information proves evolution or disproves creation), but I'll respond anyway just so that you can have one less example to fall back on when the going gets tough for 'the little theory that could(n't).' To break this down, this appears to be a point mutation unless I'm wrong. Which was my first clue that this wasn't really a creative mutation (maybe that's not what you're claiming, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page). I'll address whether or not this is an 'improvement' of the creation or not. Because you're right, it acts as a better anti-oxidant, but that's a distraction from the point. It does it by reducing order and there are more problems besides. Onwards, the protein that normally assembles HDLs (high density lipoproteins) had one of its amino acids switched with cysteine. Under normal circumstances, low HDL levels lead to heart disease. However, they've found that people with this mutation have low HDL levels and still no problems. Of course, you're probably referring to the 'new' ability for the protein to aid in anti-oxidation (?). The problem is the difference in specificity. The ability to write HDLs is much more specific, conversely there are many chemicals that will act as anti-oxidants. This 'ability' grew out of the loss of order. It remains to be seen what kind of health problems could arise from the inability to write HDLs like the body is normally able to. The point is, there are numerous chemicals that act as anti-oxidants, so this ability is hardly ground breaking. http://www.biol.canterbury.ac.nz/people/gieseg/freeradicals.shtmlWhat is worrisome is that, somehow the loss of HDLs is being considered evolution, or at least proof that creation is flawed. Our bodies are able to regularly take in anti-oxidants. We hardly need mutations to take advantage of them, and really if we were taking in anti-oxidants like we should be, coupled with our original better programming of the ability to make HDLs we would be better off. Now these people, instead of having the potential of a 'one-two punch' of anti-oxidants and HDLs, just have anti-oxidants. Great. Let's bring on some more evolution!  Let's remember that if the Bible is true, HDLs would be ideal, because we would have been eating better, living better, etc at the beginning of creation. To think that our rubbish modern diet and way of living has any bearing on our creator is ridiculous. Living healthy and eating healthy is a much better prevention of heart disease (and other health problems) than any mutation. Its just so much easier to make a quick McDonald's run, or cook up some buttered noodles than it is to prepare a salad (and who wants to eat it with barely any dressing or meat anyway?) or make a bowl of fruit, etc. Plus, who really has time to work out anymore (sarcasm)? Well, I do, and I actually look forward to it, but most people would rather not (of course I make the mistake of opting for the McDonald's run far too often). Not only that, but due to this mutation, many of the proteins manufactured bind together, restricting their usefulness. Here are some more sites for information on the mutation. Every time I see these arguments I'm reminded of a line from a pretty decent christian punk-rock band. "Your fist in His face/and in His hand/He holds your breath." This line couldn't be more poignant. I hope that before its too late you'll see things from a different point of view, because as anxious as I am about having to be judged for my sins, I can only imagine what it'll be like to answer to such a slap in God's face. I can only imagine what we look like from his perspective. First we screw up creation by sinning, and then we use the screwed up creation to 'prove' he doesn't exist. Interesting. Here are some more links you may find useful about the mutation... http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/CMC-bbgm-1502100.phphttp://www.science.doe.gov/Science_News/...%20Mutation.htmI hope that clears things up for you. I know how foggy things can get on the evolutionary side of the river.
"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]
#69026
05/01/06 06:45
05/01/06 06:45
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Lets see a photograph, or do you not want your photos to be seen? If you are so brave perhaps you would show a picture so that we know that your not really just a little guy.
@NITRO77: I know that defending creationism requires strange methods. But Voodoo?? Or for what else would you need photographs of your opponents? Creationists must be very desperate.
Quote:
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.
Ok. Your monkeys are hammering away on the typewriters and you want to get a certain sentence of 100 characters. Any character not fitting this sentence is immediately erased (natural selection). The average time for a single monkey to finish your sentence is 100*26/2 = 1300 = 22 minutes.
You don't need a billion monkeys. Nor a billion years. What you need is some math lessons for creationists.
Quote:
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
Yes, I'm at a loss and didn't understand what you are permanently posting about your "impossibility". But the reason is not your thoughts falling outside the domain of talkorigins. The reason is more that I don't get your thoughts at all.
The 100,000 years estimate was based on an organism like the cave fish that lost and regained eyes within 100 years, and the assumption that the evolution of an eye requires 1000 consecutive steps of comparable complexity. See
http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/sho...true#Post640933
Such an organism has maybe 2 effective mutations per replication and a replication period of 2 years, thus an effective mutation rate of 1 per year. If we have species with higher mutation rates, the 100,000 years period gets accordingly shorter.
Quote:
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.
Hmmm. I see that you've found some names and theories, but got them utterly mixed up. Goldschmidts "hopeful monsters" (I had to look that up) was a long-abandoned outsider hypothesis and has nothing to do with modern evolution at all. Thus I have indeed no idea what you wanted to tell us by posting it three times. Punctuated equilibria on the other hand is a modern evolution theory...
Quote:
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.
...but you've got again something very wrong about "phyletic gradualism". It was not "wiped out", but is in contrary the very basis on which the punctuated equilibria theory was developed.
Gradualism and punctuation are part of evolution, "hopeful monsters" is not. We know that mutations occur with a relatively constant rate in a species. However their effect can vary drastically depending on external and internal circumstances. We observe both gradualism and punctuation in nature, although some parts of the punctuated equilibria theory are disputed.
-
I see that you're beginning, maybe in lack of serious arguments, to permanently repeat in your posts that I "don't get it" and "dont know it". Indeed I know very little about evolution - but apparently still a lot more than most creationists. If you think that I don't understand something, please explain it to me. Claiming other people's ignorance, but exposing one's own lack of knowledge in the very same sentence is maybe not the best way to defend creationism.
In an online discussion, most people - me included - prefer to answer on clear and understandable statements, and don't like to answer on a bunch of nebulous claims. When people don't answer or "fail to understand" what you're saying, a possible reason might be not their dumbness, but some incoherence or lack of sense in your words. Of course - I don't want to get in trouble with your Voodoo cult - this is only a theoretical possibility that I only want to mention here for the sake of completeness.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
#69027
05/01/06 07:00
05/01/06 07:00
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
We have estimated the fitness of insularia, compared with the other two morphs, for several data sets. As a rule its fitness lies between that of carbonaria and typical, but nearer to typical and sometimes very close to it.[...]The results suggest that insularia may continue polymorphic while carbonaria is likely to disappear.
You have a point here. I just want to make the following objection:
The fitness of insularia was estimated in recent years after the decrease of industrial pollution. The trees are brighter, but probably not so bright as they were before, due to rest pollution. Therefore it is quite likely that the fitness of insularia is now higher than it was before the industrial revolution.
Anyway, I won't insist of the peppered moth being a proof for a beneficial mutation (at least unless I happen to find some study with some other information). So let's that be just a proof of natural selection.
Quote:
But, its not just the probability of a beneficial mutation occuring that is a problem. There are other huge hurdles it must overcome.
Yes, this is the essential question: which hurdles?
Creationism requires some hurdles to prevent beneficial mutations, otherwise probability would dictate that they happen. So what hurdles should that be?
Quote:
What is worrisome is that, somehow the loss of HDLs is being considered evolution, or at least proof that creation is flawed. Our bodies are able to regularly take in anti-oxidants. We hardly need mutations to take advantage of them, and really if we were taking in anti-oxidants like we should be, coupled with our original better programming of the ability to make HDLs we would be better off. Now these people, instead of having the potential of a 'one-two punch' of anti-oxidants and HDLs, just have anti-oxidants. Great. Let's bring on some more evolution!
If I understand you right, you're denying that the mutation is beneficial because anti-oxidants, rather than produced in the body as through this mutation, can also be eaten.
I don't think that members of that mutated family would agree to you. The body-produced antioxidant is obviously a lot more effective than having HDLs plus eating dietary supplements. Besides, even today, and certainly in the past, people had to eat what they get, and be glad that they get anything. You are not seriously telling me that cave dwellers 30,000 years ago, with an average life span of 18 years, lived on a healthy diet with antioxidants?
But even this is beside the point. What we have here is a new feature - just what creationists think can't ever happen. A modified apoA-I protein, unknown before, comes into existence - adding a new allele to the human gene pool. It's not the loss of the HDL producing proteine that matters here. HDL is unnecessary when you have that mutation. It's the fact that this is definitely a mutation - not a gene shift - that has an observable and positive effect on the species and increases the gene pool information.
It is estimated that organisms like humans accumulate between one and six effective mutations per replication. Most lead to the loss of some proteines, but some, as you see, lead to the creation of something completely new.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69028
05/01/06 14:36
05/01/06 14:36
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
[quoteOr for what else would you need photographs of your opponents? Creationists must be very desperate
I dont believe that Matt would ever dare to tell me off in the public real world as he has asserted, and I am dying for proof to satisfy my speculation. Perhaps the fact that you cannot find his likeness anywhere proves that he has a basic fear of being seen which would prove that if he has such social fears, then he would certainly never be able to hold his own in a real-life debate with me. It is just a theory. No I would not beat him up or stick pins in a doll. I know I should believe him if he says he would "tell me off", but I just dont believe that. I suppose everyone should believe Matt_Aufderheide when he makes such claims.
Quote:
Ok. Your monkeys are hammering away on the typewriters and you want to get a certain sentence of 100 characters. Any character not fitting this sentence is immediately erased (natural selection). The average time for a single monkey to finish your sentence is 100*26/2 = 1300 = 22 minutes.
OK, but they cant be immediately erased as you said. Natural selection would only cause the calculation to restart at the next generation, therefore the probability of 100^26 would occur at each iteration.
This math (100*26/2), I dont get where you came up with this. Im not saying its wrong, I would just hope you show how it is arrived at a little closer.
Quote:
Yes, I'm at a loss and didn't understand what you are permanently posting about your "impossibility". But the reason is not your thoughts falling outside the domain of talkorigins. The reason is more that I don't get your thoughts at all.
The 100,000 years estimate was based on an organism like the cave fish that lost and regained eyes within decades. Such an organism has maybe 2 effective mutations per replication and a replication period of 1 year, thus an effective mutation rate of 2 per year. If we have species with higher mutation rates, the 100,000 years period gets accordingly shorter.
jcl jcl jcl. The 2 mutations per replication may be accurate indeed,and I am assuming the reason why you see a replication period of 1 year is because that is the fish's reproductive cycle (new babies every year or so). So theoretically you have, according to this model---around 100,000 generations of cave fish. And because the evolution occurs over a period of 100,000 years we cannot readily observe it.
All this is fine and valid theory, I am not disagreeing with the rational of the thought process behind it, but I am disagreeing with it occuring because the same circumstances can be reproduced in the lab without waiting 100000 years with a time-lapse camera:
If you substitute drosphilia for the cave fish you now have a replication period of 1 day, because drosphilia lay eggs every day(and I have done experiments with drosphilia so I know this experiencially). Using the same process of 2 mutations per generation, now you have reduced your period from 100,000 years to 100,000 days.
If you replace the cavefish for e.coli bacteria, then your replication period goes way way down to a place where the entire 100,000 years should be easily observable in the lab.
My point is simply this: Gradual macro-evolution evolution through mutation has never been observed in the labratory or in the wild, even though insects and microspecies would provide the proper specimens for observation for not only are there lifespans shorter, but more importantly their breeding cycles(or replication periods) are much much shorter
So somebody please tell me you understand my point. Its fine to reject my point, but do you at least understand it? Does anyone understand it?
Why would I call the 100,000 year period an impossibility? Because I thought you were using it as some type of a constant involved in evolutionary change. In that case it would be impossible to apply it to a dinosaur, which approximating the gestation periods of say a modern elephant (22 months), an elephant gives birth every 5 years, but it takes an elephant 9-12 years to reach sexual maturity, so now your theoretical replication period goes up exponentially and puts dinosaur evolution well out of the ranges of their fossil records, which means that gradual evolution at that rate never could have occured.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69030
05/01/06 15:24
05/01/06 15:24
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
OK, but they cant be immediately erased as you said. Natural selection would only cause the calculation to restart at the next generation, therefore the probability of 100^26 would occur at each iteration.
How often must I repeat that evolution does not work this way? It works in small consecutive steps, like characters in a sentence. The characters already written are preserved in the gene pool when they aren't deleterious. Evolution never suddenly creates a sentence as a whole.
The 100*26/2 seconds are calculated this way. Imagine you want to write "creationism requires Voodoo.". The monkey just types "a"..."z" in random order. The average number of different letters you need until hitting "c" is 13 (half of the letters available). If we allow the monkey to hit the same key several times, it would be 26. We now have the "c" and the monkey continues to type. Everything but the "r" is now erased. Again it needs 13 seconds average time to hit the "r". And so on. Resulting in 1300 seconds for a 100 character sentence. I hope this is understandable.
Quote:
for the cave fish you now have a replication period of 1 day, because drosphilia lay eggs every day(and I have done experiments with drosphilia so I know this experiencially). Using the same process of 2 mutations per generation, now you have reduced your period from 100,000 years to 100,000 days.
If you replace the cavefish for e.coli bacteria, then your replication period goes way way down to a place where the entire 100,000 years should be easily observable in the lab.
But we have observed lots of mutations on e.coli and drosophila in the lab:
Quote:
Chao et al. (1977) grew wild type E. coli B in a chemostat. Once the vessel reached steady state they innoculated it with bacteriophage T7. The bacteria are sensitive to infection by T7. Needless to say, T7 grew like mad on the bacteria. After a short time, though, a mutation attributable to a single gene appeared in a cell surface receptor site which gave the bacteria complete resistance to T7. This bacterial stain was designated B1. Shortly after this a mutation occured in the virus which allowed it to infect strain B1 (strain T7.1). A second mutation occurred in B1 which made it resistant to this second virus strain as well as to the original virus strain (strain B2). All five of these critters happily coexisted in the same chemostat.
There were also mutations observed on drosophila. Other bacteria aquired the ability to eat nylon. However - what else can a bacteria develop in a chemostat with a bacteriophage, other than resistence to that bacteriophage? Species only aquire features within their possibilities and on selection pressure from the environment. For instance, you won't ever see a bacterium to grow ears or eyes. We can't observe in a lab what you call "macro-mutations". Large scale mutations only develop on complex species, and require many steps and a lot of time.
What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species. I don't know if this was observed so far, but I think it's entirely possible.
However, "macro-mutations" leading to speciation are very well observed in nature - in the fossil record. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and mammals evolved from reptiles within some 10 million years. We have enough transient fossils to conclude that we observed most steps of both evolutions.
|
|
|
|
