Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 109

Thread: Nice defense of Evolution

  1. #61
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,519
    Amen (Given)
    1594
    Amen (Received)
    987
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, you deemed it worthy of posting, to support your point--what are your qualifications to judge a peer reviewed article, may I ask in reply?


    I did, now please respond to my points--instead of posting more articles.



    Please see "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" by Behe and Snoke.

    Source: https://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527



    The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes
    Yong Jiang and Russell F. Doolittle
    PNAS June 24, 2003 100 (13) 7527-7532; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0932632100

    Abstract
    The blood coagulation scheme for the puffer fish, Fugu rubripes, has been reconstructed on the basis of orthologs of genes for mammalian blood clotting factors being present in its genome. As expected, clotting follows the same fundamental pattern as has been observed in other vertebrates, even though genes for some clotting factors found in mammals are absent and some others are present in more than one gene copy. All told, 26 different proteins involved in clotting or fibrinolysis were searched against the puffer fish genome. Of these, orthologs were found for 21. Genes for the ``contact system'' factors (factor XI, factor XII, and prekallikrein) could not be identified. On the other hand, two genes were found for factor IX and four for factor VII. It was evident that not all four factor VII genes are functional, essential active-site residues having been replaced in two of them. A search of the genome of a urochordate, the sea squirt, Ciona intestinalis, did not turn up any genuine orthologs for these 26 factors, although paralogs and/or constituent domains were evident for virtually all of them.

    © Copyright Original Source


    So why exactly are you citing this paper? It seems to be much less comprehensive than the first one you cited, which I did read. It's a lot of work to read these papers, so if you're not going to tell me what you got from them, I'm going to think you're just spraying papers at me without consideration.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    The comprehensive nature is not the issue. Each of these papers deal with different important aspects and approaches to the evolution of blood clotting. These are only several of of the many articles that deal with the research. This is to inform you that the argument by Behe and you is bogus as a three dollar bill, and that it is a matter of fact that the evolution of blood clotting is well documented in research. You may have read the paper, but have failed to address the research and specifically what the problems are. You have described in vague terms it as "difficult" without addressing the research as to what is "difficult."

    It is a matter of fact that Behe has failed to publish his objections in a coherent scientific way to address the research I have cited.
    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.

  2. #62
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,418
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    One, the answer is no. Look into intrinsically disordered proteins.
    Well, interesting.
    It is interesting, isn't it? You've been engaged in an extended discussion about the folding/function relationship of proteins while being completely unaware of a large group of proteins that are extremely relevant to that argument.

    I'd like you to consider for a moment that, if you didn't know about this, what other relevant information are you completely unaware of? And, before we get back to the back-and-forth about your specific errors, maybe share with us what you think that tells you about your knowledge of biology, and ability to evaluate this particular issue.

    Also, could I ask whether you are aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  3. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  4. #63
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,296
    Amen (Given)
    444
    Amen (Received)
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    You have described in vague terms it as "difficult" without addressing the research as to what is "difficult."
    No, what I said was this:

    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill
    … it's a simple scenario for a complex system, with acknowledged problems. In addition, his figure 6 ("Time-line phylogeny for appearance (and disappearance) of various clotting factors during the course of vertebrate evolution.") has only 6 of the factors, and one step labeled "Period of invention."

    So not a complete scenario, by any means.
    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)

  5. #64
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,296
    Amen (Given)
    444
    Amen (Received)
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    I'd like you to consider for a moment that, if you didn't know about this, what other relevant information are you completely unaware of?
    Well, I wouldn't know what I am unaware of!

    And, before we get back to the back-and-forth about your specific errors, maybe share with us what you think that tells you about your knowledge of biology, and ability to evaluate this particular issue.
    I've read books by biologists, by Behe in particular, and by Reasons to Believe, which address such issues, and am willing to read further, and discuss and learn more.

    Also, could I ask whether you are aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
    No, I wasn't aware of that.

    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)

  6. #65
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,519
    Amen (Given)
    1594
    Amen (Received)
    987
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, I wouldn't know what I am unaware of!
    Which is the problem with your lack of understanding of the scientific literature I cited.

    I've read books by biologists, by Behe in particular, and by Reasons to Believe, which address such issues, and am willing to read further, and discuss and learn more.
    Behe does not qualify, because of the lack of peer reviewed research published on biology related to evolution and genetics. The Lurch has revealed that you express to many opinions on the science you lack the knowledge to support your objections to the peer reviewed literature since your view is based on a religious ID agenda
    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.

  7. #66
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,755
    Amen (Given)
    697
    Amen (Received)
    1492
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    =TheLurch]Also, could I ask whether you are aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
    No, I wasn't aware of that.
    You were referred to it here, here, here. You even replied to two of those. It's also been mentioned on at least 20 other threads here. So if you aren't aware of the Dunning-Kreuger effect, then either you don't make any effort to understand the posts you're replying to, or you did look it up once but have now forgotten all about it Dory-style, or both.
    Last edited by Roy; 11-15-2019 at 04:58 AM.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  8. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  9. #67
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,418
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, I wouldn't know what I am unaware of!
    I wasn't asking you to consider what you were unaware of. I was asking you to consider the fact that you are unaware of key information. What does that tell you about the quality of your understanding, and your ability to evaluate the arguments you've been reading?

    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    No, I wasn't aware of that.
    Well, it's kind of relevant here. If someone (including potentially you) is not informed about biology, they tend to come away with an exaggerated sense that they understand things, because they can't even recognize the limits of their knowledge. You would be confident that the arguments you favored were good even though your lack of understanding would make you just as likely to favor terrible arguments.

    Which brings us to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    I've read books by biologists, by Behe in particular, and by Reasons to Believe, which address such issues, and am willing to read further, and discuss and learn more.
    So, just to be clear, you haven't just read these arguments; you favor them, despite the fact that they've been rejected by nearly every biologist out there. If you have Dunning-Kruger issues when it comes to biology, however, you're likely to favor them even though they're terrible.

    Given how often you seem to get things wrong, and the severe gaps in your knowledge that seem to pop up in every discussion you have here, i'd ask you to reconsider your confidence in the ideas you hold about biology. And i'd ask you to consider that it might be better to put your trust in the vast majority of biologists, rather than a handful of people who have stopped doing research and simply promote fringe opinions.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  10. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  11. #68
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,296
    Amen (Given)
    444
    Amen (Received)
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    So, just to be clear, you haven't just read these arguments; you favor them, despite the fact that they've been rejected by nearly every biologist out there. If you have Dunning-Kruger issues when it comes to biology, however, you're likely to favor them even though they're terrible.
    Well, I find that the arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out. A little back history, I heard that Behe had been refuted, and I believed them, until I read his book. I found his arguments convincing.

    Given how often you seem to get things wrong, and the severe gaps in your knowledge that seem to pop up in every discussion you have here...
    "He who throws mud is losing ground."

    When you're ready to answer my points, I'm ready to reply some more.

    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)

  12. #69
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,519
    Amen (Given)
    1594
    Amen (Received)
    987
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, I find that the arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out. A little back history, I heard that Behe had been refuted, and I believed them, until I read his book. I found his arguments convincing.
    I seriously doubt if you ever believed Behe had been refuted, but nonetheless in the threads here on TWEB The Lurch has pretty much refuted completely. It helps that Behe has never published the scientific foundation and research for the support for his Book.


    "He who throws mud is losing ground."
    Than stop your manure chucking and come up with legitimate science.

    When you're ready to answer my points, I'm ready to reply some more.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    The Lurch has successfully refuted all your points and demonstrated that you lack the basic knowledge to constructively respond.
    The Dunning-Kreuger effect rules the Discovery Institute.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-15-2019 at 08:33 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.

  13. #70
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,755
    Amen (Given)
    697
    Amen (Received)
    1492
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, I find that the arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out. A little back history, I heard that Behe had been refuted, and I believed them, until I read his book. I found his arguments convincing.
    But you didn't read the refutations, right?.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  14. Amen shunyadragon, oxmixmudd, Seeker amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •