Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The book Darwin Devolves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    The three step approach to refuting creationist garage:

    1) Quote their claim.
    2) Quote their cited source
    3) Note the glaring discrepancy.

    In this case, Dory's source says this: "most of the mutations are either neutral or deleterious."

    That does not mean that half are neutral and half deleterious.
    Then I quoted 40% are damaging, and 8% remove all function, and .1% are beneficial.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    The three step approach to refuting creationist garage:

    1) Quote their claim.
    2) Quote their cited source
    3) Note the glaring discrepancy.

    Soskine and Tawfik actually wrote this: "approximately 40% of mutations reduce or completely abolish the activity of the mutated protein"

    Approximately 40% is not half. A protein having reduced activity is not necessarily damaging; it may be deleterious, neutral or even beneficial depending upon circumstances.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
      The three step approach to refuting creationist garage:

      1) Quote their claim.
      2) Quote their cited source
      3) Note the glaring discrepancy.

      Soskine and Tawfik actually wrote this: "approximately 40% of mutations reduce or completely abolish the activity of the mutated protein"

      Approximately 40% is not half. A protein having reduced activity is not necessarily damaging; it may be deleterious, neutral or even beneficial depending upon circumstances.
      Circumstances, including environmental, often make a difference in determining whether a mutation is deleterious, neutral or even beneficial.

      For instance, whether or not a new mutation that causes a mammal to grow thicker fur is good, bad, or neutral depends on several factors. If the climate of this mammal’s habitat was getting colder, the new thicker fur would likely improve its chances at surviving to breed and thus pass along the new mutation to its offspring, and from there on to their offspring, and so on. If, however, the mammal’s environment was instead getting warmer, a mutation for thicker fur would hardly be beneficial and could instead be detrimental.

      And for a specific instance of a mutation reducing the activity of the mutated protein, as I noted in the beneficial mutation thread:
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Research released earlier this month found genetic mutations that reduce the production of proteins known as tyrosine phosphatases which has been shown to reduce the risk of developing late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (LOAD).

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        He would make a great Aristotelean. Lousy scientist, but great Aristotelean.

        Also, i'm debating what, exactly, this is an example of:

        Or, paraphrased, "I don't know as much as everybody here who's telling me that Behe is wrong, but in my ignorance, it's easy to convince myself that Behe is right." It's not quite Dunning-Kruger, but it is a sort of confirmation bias wedded with unjustified overconfidence, with a dash of the death of expertise thrown in. Is there a technical term for that?
        Kinda reminds me of the old story about the person serving on a jury who proclaimed that he didn't need to see any evidence because he can tell whether someone is guilty or not just by looking at him.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Circumstances, including environmental, often make a difference in determining whether a mutation is deleterious, neutral or even beneficial.
          That's why I try to be careful to say "damaging" instead of "deleterious". As far as I understand, in Behe's terminology, "damaging" means reduced or abolished activity. As in the computer models saying "probably damaging" of a given mutation.

          Behe's view is that damaging mutations can often be beneficial, or put the other way around, beneficial mutations are usually damaging.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post

            Behe's view is that damaging mutations can often be beneficial, or put the other way around, beneficial mutations are usually damaging.
            If a mutation is damaging to an organism it can't be beneficial by definition, and vice versa. Behe is a con artist who simply added negative connotations (i.e "damaging") to something science has known for 70 years, that evolution works by modifying existing features and functions. Behe did this to sell more pseudoscience ID-Creation books to ignorant laymen just like you Lee. Behe counted on the fact you'd be too ignorant and religiously biased to know you were being conned.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              I expect most mutations of any type follow the same pattern, where they are mostly neutral or deleterious. If you want to control something, and the control knob is twisted, you don't tend to get a better result.
              I'd like Lee to return to this. How much do you know about the regulatory DNA that controls gene activity? Do you understand how mutations tend to effect them? What implications do changes in them have for gene function?
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                If a mutation is damaging to an organism it can't be beneficial by definition, and vice versa.
                No, Behe means damaging to a gene, as do the computer programs. Such mutations can be beneficial to an organism, such as the damaged gene that gave the polar bear the ability to sustain a high-fat diet.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  How much do you know about the regulatory DNA that controls gene activity? Do you understand how mutations tend to effect them? What implications do changes in them have for gene function?
                  Well, I know a little, changes in them would tend to interfere with their function of up- or down-regulating production of the gene they apply to, so changes to them would not change the gene, and thus the gene function, per se.

                  But I phrase my thoughts in this area of gene regulation as expectations, not as conclusions.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    That's why I try to be careful to say "damaging" instead of "deleterious". As far as I understand, in Behe's terminology, "damaging" means reduced or abolished activity. As in the computer models saying "probably damaging" of a given mutation.

                    Behe's view is that damaging mutations can often be beneficial, or put the other way around, beneficial mutations are usually damaging.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Your digging your hole deeper and wider. Enough room for both you and Behe.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, I know a little, changes in them would tend to interfere with their function of up- or down-regulating production of the gene they apply to, so changes to them would not change the gene, and thus the gene function, per se.

                      But I phrase my thoughts in this area of gene regulation as expectations, not as conclusions.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Keep digging and you will end up some where off the coast of Australia.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Well, I know a little, changes in them would tend to interfere with their function of up- or down-regulating production of the gene they apply to, so changes to them would not change the gene, and thus the gene function, per se.
                        Everything about that is wrong. Literally every single sub statement, including "I know a little."
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • A variation on the three step approach to refuting creationist garage:

                          1) Quote their claim.
                          2) Quote their previous claim
                          3) Note the glaring discrepancy.
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          That's why I try to be careful to say "damaging" instead of "deleterious".
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill, earlier
                          According to this paper, about half of the mutations are neutral, and about half are deleterious.
                          Dory clearly isn't trying very hard, and can't remember failing.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Well, I know a little, changes in them would tend to interfere with their function of up- or down-regulating production of the gene they apply to, so changes to them would not change the gene, and thus the gene function, per se.

                            But I phrase my thoughts in this area of gene regulation as expectations, not as conclusions.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            Behe and you fail to realize that simply the observed history of the nature genetic mutations makes Behe's and your assertions, without science, false.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              No, Behe means damaging to a gene, as do the computer programs. Such mutations can be beneficial to an organism, such as the damaged gene that gave the polar bear the ability to sustain a high-fat diet.
                              I see you're still in denial over Behe's disingenuous word games to sell books to ignorant rubes like you.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                A variation on the three step approach to refuting creationist garage:

                                1) Quote their claim.
                                2) Quote their previous claim
                                3) Note the glaring discrepancy.

                                Dory clearly isn't trying very hard, and can't remember failing.
                                Wow! That is a glaring contradiction.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X