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

  • #76
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Yes, so the question then becomes, how often do mutations that are an asset break or degrade genes?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Not likely break nor degrade gens at all. There are mutations that break and degrade genes, but I do not understand the preoccupation with this. The dominant mutations range from neutral to beneficial, and neutral can become beneficial, and these mutations represent combinations that contribute to formation of new phenotypes in evolution. the detrimental mutations and those that end in breaking and degrading genes end up in the trash, and individuals may not survive.

    Your statement that, "neutral mutations are not beneficial." just simply represents academically your out of your class, and arguing the ID and BEhe agenda.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-17-2019, 09:23 PM.
    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Yes, so the question then becomes, how often do mutations that are an asset break or degrade genes?
      The real question is why you are discussing evolution at all, when your starting position is that ‘god did it’ and that ‘evolution’ is wrong. You are eliminating the scientific method (except when it supports your religious presuppositions) in favor of a belief system which is unsupported by any substantive evidence.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #78
        The quantum vacuum. No concrete evidence that it exists, but asserted to exist nonetheless.
        Its properties wholly unexamined, unmeasured, unquantified.
        Yet - the possibility that it could possibly be sentient is dismissed as an absurdity.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          The quantum vacuum. No concrete evidence that it exists, but asserted to exist nonetheless.
          Its properties wholly unexamined, unmeasured, unquantified.
          Yet - the possibility that it could possibly be sentient is dismissed as an absurdity.
          This a confusing assessment of Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum vacuum (?). Quantum Vacuum is best described as the lowest energy state of the Quantum zero-point field. Like all of the present science of Quantum Mechanics the concepts are developed to describe the effect seen in research. Quantum zero-point field is an interpretation of Casimir effect or force. These conclusions are made based on the predictability in research. Yes there are other possible explanations, but it is unwarranted to claim it is 'wholly unexamined, unmeasured, unquantified.' The Casimir effect can be used to calculate it via the force induced by fluctuation fields, or possibly calculate it as the radiation pressure force equivalent to photon particles.

          Yes at present physicists use math models to model observe properties in the Quantum world and it is a work in progress.
          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


          • #80
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Yes, so the question then becomes, how often do mutations that are an asset break or degrade genes?
            Which is going around in circles, given that this is addressed in extensive detail in the review we've been discussing for the past few days.

            The issue, it appears, is that the review gives an answer that Lee doesn't like, which means the question may need to be asked over and over until he gets one that he does.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              Which is going around in circles, given that this is addressed in extensive detail in the review we've been discussing for the past few days.

              The issue, it appears, is that the review gives an answer that Lee doesn't like, which means the question may need to be asked over and over until he gets one that he does.
              Unfortunately that is beginning to look like the case.

              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                Which is going around in circles, given that this is addressed in extensive detail in the review we've been discussing for the past few days.

                The issue, it appears, is that the review gives an answer that Lee doesn't like, which means the question may need to be asked over and over until he gets one that he does.
                Which review do you mean? I've tried to address all the reviews that have been posted here.

                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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Which review do you mean? I've tried to address all the reviews that have been posted here.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  . . .and failed miserably. I recommend the following source to clear up a great deal of misinformation from Behe and you. It is high school to basic college level chemistry.

                  https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-18-2019, 09:17 PM.
                  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


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Which review do you mean? I've tried to address all the reviews that have been posted here.
                    I guess, since we're going around in circles, the easiest way is just to send you back to where we went through this the first time.

                    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post620043
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      No, it's not all they can say in reply, or even all that they do say in reply. The argument can be found in the very next sentence:
                      Source: ibid

                      "Behe attempts to argue from analogy, equating proteins with machines and convincing us that machines cannot evolve. Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality. Showing that a hammer cannot evolve into a fishing rod tells us nothing about real constraints on protein evolution."

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      Why didn't you quote that sentence, Dory?
                      Because that is not showing how a flagellum can evolve.
                      Then you should have quoted their argument and said that, rather than pretending that they had made no argument and said nothing more.

                      Anyway, your excuse fails even apart from your dishonesty, because the reviewers were not saying that a flagellum could evolve, they were saying that comparing protein assemblies with machine components was inappropriate. They were refuting Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, not his specific example.

                      But this is not what Behe is working with, LoF alleles with large effects on human fitness may indeed be rare, but evolution nonetheless does usually pick mutations that break or degrade genes, for increased survival value.
                      None of which has any relevance to you objecting that "I'm not sure how they're getting that from the MacArthur paper" while quote-mining the abstract and ignoring the body of the paper.
                      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


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        And mutations that break or degrade genes are indeed relevant to evolution, as in sickle-cell anemia.
                        The sickle-cell mutation does not break or degrade its gene.
                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          The real question is why you are discussing evolution at all, when your starting position is that ‘god did it’ and that ‘evolution’ is wrong.
                          That's easy. He has no evidence or arguments whatsoever for his starting position, and knows it, so is taking the cowardly approach of focussing only on evolution.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            The issue, it appears, is that the review gives an answer that Lee doesn't like, which means the question may need to be asked over and over until he gets one that he does.
                            Yup. He forgets things almost instantly, and just keeps swimming, swimming, swimming.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              I guess, since we're going around in circles, the easiest way is just to send you back to where we went through this the first time.

                              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post620043
                              Thanks for the pointer.

                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill
                              Behe shows that evolution usually selects mutations that break or degrade a gene.
                              That's kind of the whole point: he doesn't show that, because it's not true. The review cites extensive data showing that's only likely to be true in lab-based long term evolution experiments.
                              Actually, they use yeast as an example:

                              Source: Lehigh

                              For example, along the lineage leading to modern brewers’ yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), historical rates of gene loss and gene gain are nearly matched such that the inferred ancestral genomes along the way are all predicted to have around 6000 genes (Wapinski et al. 2007), despite a large flux in gene content (including a whole‐genome duplication event;Wolfe and Shields 1997; Kellis et al. 2004).

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              Yes, but what is selected by evolutionary pressure?

                              Source: Wapinski et. al.

                              We show that gene duplication and loss is highly constrained by the functional properties and interacting partners of genes. In particular, stress-related genes exhibit many duplications and losses, whereas growth-related genes show selection against such changes. Whole-genome duplication circumvents this constraint and relaxes the dichotomy, resulting in an expanded functional scope of gene duplication.

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              And how often does whole-genome duplication occur?

                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                Then you should have quoted their argument and said that, rather than pretending that they had made no argument and said nothing more.
                                Once you've raised the subject of flagella and said "that's not reality" I expect to hear what is reality about the flagellum.

                                Anyway, your excuse fails even apart from your dishonesty, because the reviewers were not saying that a flagellum could evolve...
                                Source: Reviewers

                                "Behe attempts to argue from analogy, equating proteins with machines and convincing us that machines [such as flagella] cannot evolve. Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality. Showing that a hammer cannot evolve into a fishing rod tells us nothing about real constraints on protein evolution."

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                None of which has any relevance to you objecting that "I'm not sure how they're getting that from the MacArthur paper" while quote-mining the abstract and ignoring the body of the paper.
                                This is not having a discussion, counterpoints are welcome.

                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 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
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X