Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 106

Thread: Nice defense of Evolution

  1. #11
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,712
    Amen (Given)
    1142
    Amen (Received)
    19784
    As TL has mentioned we have actually seen enzymes evolve.

    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)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  2. #12
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,712
    Amen (Given)
    1142
    Amen (Received)
    19784
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    This was a message sent to me by someone on Facebook a while back, and I thought you guys could like it. It talks about epistemology of science and the difference between evolution and creationism. Wothout further ado, here it is:

    Hello Gabriel,

    I am 47 years old, I have a doctorate in structural biochemistry and I am a teacher. I do research mainly on artificial intelligence and bioinformatics. But I am not an "evolutionist." The term "evolutionist" is a term used by creationists to give the idea that creationism is on par with a scientific theory like evolution, but it has nothing to do with each other.

    Evolution, to me, is like electromagnetism, gravity or organic chemistry. I do not believe in these phenomena and theories by personal conviction, but rather because they are clearly the best source of explanations for such things. Note that the theory of evolution gives you rigorous mathematical models of population genetics, explains how species characteristics have become fixed, underlies all modern genetics and proteomics, and so on.

    Creationism says only that it was God who did all this but that explains nothing. You can't use creationism for anything in practice. It is a mere religious choice. And that results in another important difference. The creationist is creationist first, by his faith and personal conviction. Then he may be interested in looking for more information, but this will be secondary. The so-called “evolutionist” is simply someone interested in understanding things and who has no problem believing in something today and tomorrow if a better explanation is found that justifies changing their beliefs.

    As for wanting to "know which is the most correct [theory] based on the evidence," it is not just a matter of being correct or not. Consider the theory of relativity and all the mathematical models derived from it, which allow us to have a GPS system, send probes to other planets, calculate the position of the planets, the mass of the sun and a ton of other stuff. If one proposes to replace this with “God makes things move,” the problem is not just which one is right or correct. One must also consider that the latter is completely useless. You can't do anything with it.

    The same goes for the theory of evolution and creationism. The theory of evolution is not just speculation and talk. These are rigorous mathematical models that allow you to do things like analyze genomes, optimize the use of antibiotics and vaccines, estimate the risk of a species becoming extinct due to loss of genetic diversity, and so on.

    Another important aspect related to this is the specificity of the theory. Imagine the world was very different. There were trilobite fossils mixed with rabbit fossils, there were species with DNA and carbon-based molecules, other with silicon, others with completely different molecules. There were vulture-headed monkeys and goat-legged lizards, and dragons and so on. Whatever you imagine is compatible with creationism. In any case, it could have all been the creation of an omnipotent god.

    But the theory of evolution only applies to very narrow cases. For example, if a set of species evolved from a common ancestor, those species are distributed in a family tree and must have similarities to each other, the differences must be grouped into their respective branches, and so on. Only a very small subset of what could be is compatible with the theory of evolution. And it is precisely what we observe. For example, chickens still have the teeth genes inherited from their reptilian ancestors: https://www.scientificamerican.com/…...icken-grows-…/

    Of course, an omnipotent god could also have created the chicken with crocodile genes and inactivated the genes so that they would not express themselves. But it's hard to see why the in the world he would do such a thing.

    In short, creationism is a personal belief of some people who want to believe that this was all done by their god. They are in their rights. But it explains nothing, is of no use in practice, and if we want to understand reality, evolution is a much better and more grounded alternative. As for "evolutionism," this is like calling "gravitationalism" to someone who believes that there is gravity just to appear that the contrary belief has any merit. :)

    As for the [creationist] statement you asked me to counter:

    '' [...] we don't see random changes doing that to enzymes (increasing their specificity) on a scale which could possibly account for all of life's specified complexity ''.

    I cannot rebut this statement because, if I interpret it correctly, it seems to me to be true.

    Suppose ‘’we don't see’’ means we can't observe in the lab. If that is what he means, then of course we cannot see changes in the scale needed to explain the full complexity of life because this is a process that has been going on for four billion years.

    But that is like claiming that you have never seen anyone grow to age 80. You're only 25 years old, so it's impossible to have seen someone born, grow up and grow old until 80. But it would be nonsense because we can see some people getting older from 79 to 80, others from 78 to 79 and so on. Putting the puzzle pieces together it is obvious that people can grow old from birth to 80.

    This is what happens with evolution. If you look at only one enzyme you have no idea what has happened in the last 4 billion years. But if you put the pieces together, looking at this change here, that one there, the fossil remains, the similarities and differences in today's species, and so forth, all of this together is immense evidence for evolution, and none of that creationism can explain because, unlike evolution, creationism explains nothing. In fact, if you have read many creationist books, you may have noticed that the only thing they talk about is the theory of evolution. They can't explain why our retina is upside down but that of the octopus is right, why the recurrent laryngeal nerve passes under the subclavian artery, why the dolphin is genetically more like us than the shark, and a million other things.
    While "creationists" will use the term "evolutionist" their favorite by far is "Darwinist" or "Darwinism." It's like calling gravitational theory "Newtonism" or atomic theory "Daltonism."

    Just plain silly.

    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)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  3. #13
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,257
    Amen (Given)
    431
    Amen (Received)
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Easiest way is just sequence comparisons. So, take a current antibiotic resistance enzyme or nylonase or something like that, figure out what proteins it is most closely related to, then compare their genes. See which mutations occurred, make the intermediate proteins, and test those. You'll eventually figure out the pathway that took it from the past to the present.
    Well, with nylonase it appears to be essentially two selectable mutations, which no one disputes can happen. But to have a path of many mutations requires a search of protein space, which Dougas Axe has shown to be prohibitive.

    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)

  4. #14
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,368
    Amen (Given)
    1575
    Amen (Received)
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, with nylonase it appears to be essentially two selectable mutations, which no one disputes can happen. But to have a path of many mutations requires a search of protein space, which Dougas Axe has shown to be prohibitive.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Douglas Axe may believe this, but virtually all the other scientist in Biology do not, and his bias is apparent as a devoted follower of the Discovery Institute. He has done any actual research nor not published or submitting anything related to evolution in a peer reviewed biology journal outside the Discovery Institute.

    Much of this work like the rest of the discovery institute base their work on the dishonest misuse of statistics and probability to justify a religious agenda, with a heavy dose of 'arguing from ignorance' and not the sound scientific research in the biological science related to the field of organic chemistry and evolution.

    It is an unsubstantiated claim, and has not been shown to be prohibitive in the peer reviewed literature in the biological sciences..
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-27-2019 at 08:20 AM.
    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.

  5. #15
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,407
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, with nylonase it appears to be essentially two selectable mutations, which no one disputes can happen. But to have a path of many mutations requires a search of protein space, which Dougas Axe has shown to be prohibitive.
    No, what he showed was that if you have no selection on intermediate steps, then proteins frequently get disabled after several mutations. But nobody's proposing that proteins stop being under selection when evolving - with a few exceptions, the exact opposite occurs.

    I'm not even sure what Axe's experiment is relevant to; it resembles nothing like anybody is suggesting happens in biology.

    On a more general note: don't argue based on material from the Discovery Institute - they are invariably wrong.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  6. #16
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,712
    Amen (Given)
    1142
    Amen (Received)
    19784
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    No, what he showed was that if you have no selection on intermediate steps, then proteins frequently get disabled after several mutations. But nobody's proposing that proteins stop being under selection when evolving - with a few exceptions, the exact opposite occurs.

    I'm not even sure what Axe's experiment is relevant to; it resembles nothing like anybody is suggesting happens in biology.

    On a more general note: don't argue based on material from the Discovery Institute - they are invariably wrong.
    Axe's work reminds me of some of the shenanigans that YEC geologists like Steve Austin play like grinding up rocks that include xenoliths and sending them into have them dated knowing full well that will result in a nonsensical result (GIGO) and then publishing it with the claim that the testing methods are faulty and cannot be trusted.

    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)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  7. #17
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,712
    Amen (Given)
    1142
    Amen (Received)
    19784
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Axe's work reminds me of some of the shenanigans that YEC geologists like Steve Austin play like grinding up rocks that include xenoliths and sending them into have them dated knowing full well that will result in a nonsensical result (GIGO) and then publishing it with the claim that the testing methods are faulty and cannot be trusted.
    Not intending to derail but I figured since I have a few minutes that I'll elaborate on this chicanery.

    Radiometric dating is one area that Andrew Snelling has been exceptionally disingenuous and duplicitous to the point of extreme dishonesty. For instance, take a look at Snelling's faux "dating" of lava from Mt. Ngauruhoe, the youngest and most active vent in the Tongariro volcanic complex on the Central Plateau of New Zealand's North Island. which he detailed in ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING".

    Snelling states that a

    set of representative pieces from each sample (approximately 100 g) was then despatched to the AMDEL Laboratory in Adelaide, South Australia, for whole-rock major, minor and trace element analyses. A second representative set (50-100 g from each sample) was sent progressively to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating.

    [*Emphasis added by rogue06*]


    It should be emphasized here that when a "whole rock" is to be tested this means that the entire rock is crushed to powder, mixed together, and a sample removed from the mix and tested.

    That this is the case is confirmed by Snelling when he states that

    "Because the sample pieces were submitted as whole rocks, the K-Ar laboratory undertook the crushing and pulverising preparatory work."


    All of this means that no effort is made to separate any minerals or other intrusive material within the rock from the igneous rock itself. Why is this important? Because as Snelling acknowledges all of the samples contain xenoliths[1]

    All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.


    Xenoliths, which is Greek for "foreign rock" (coming from xenos ("foreign") and lithos ("stone") in ancient Greek), are fragments of much older stone not melted in the magma chamber and which subsequently get incorporated into the magma while it was still fluid but cooling.

    As George H. Davis' Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions succinctly explains it:

    A xenolith is a rock fragment which becomes enveloped in a larger rock during the latter's development and hardening. In geology, the term xenolith is almost exclusively used to describe inclusions in igneous rock during magma emplacement and eruption.


    IOW Snelling deliberately had samples "dated" that consisted of a mixture of old and young material, and then acted astonished when the results obtained did not match the known age of the young material. It is a classic case of the GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) principle except in this case the garbage put in was purposefully done.

    While he did attempt to dismiss the xenoliths present in the samples as being "minor" and not important but provides no measurements or reasoning as to why that's is the case. According to Table 2 the xenoliths constituted between 2.6 to 4.5% of the material -- which is more than enough to throw the dating far off.

    This sort of trickery is something that Snelling has engaged more than once.

    More recently in November 2012 at the 64th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Snelling appears to have played the same duplicitous game again but this time with samples from the Grand Canyon. Greg Davidson (who with Snelling, delivered back-to-back presentations) confirmed that Snelling again had whole rocks tested, making no effort to separate young rock from old inclusions, in a discussion with OEC physicist Kirk Bertsche (who used to post here as KBertsche) after the presentations.

    And he isn't the only one who has committed this sort of fraudulent trickery.

    For example, Steve Austin[2] (who I mentioned in the previous post) has also dishonestly played fast and loose with his attempts at radiometric dating rocks with some samples from Mount St. Helens after its eruption.

    When he tested the samples from Mount St. Helens he made sure to send it to a lab that still used Potassium-Argon (K/Ar) testing. Keep in mind that the half-life of potassium-40 is around 1.25 Billion years meaning that the K-Ar method is an incredibly poor method to use to date such recent samples. The error range is just too high. Moreover, very few labs even have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment capable of accurately measuring argon in samples that are even only a few million years old much less a few years old. The laboratory that was contracted by the YECs to do the testing, Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, even took pains to point this out stating that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old informing him that "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."

    As an aside, some magmas can have fairly complex histories and some minerals are just not suitable for K/Ar dating. In fact, only a few labs even still utilize it with it have been largely replaced by the much more accurate Argon–Argon (40Ar/39Ar) method.

    So why would anyone deliberately pick an inferior method and use a lab that tells them that their equipment "cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." to analyze rocks only a few years old? Could it be for the same reason that they had whole rocks that contained xenoliths in them to be tested? That they wanted to get garbage results and took great pains to make sure they got them?[3]










    1. While most xenoliths aren't particularly noticeable to the naked eye there is at least one sort that is. Dalmatian Stone, or orbicular Rhyolite (and sometimes incorrectly referred to Dalmatian Jasper), is a cream-colored to dark tan igneous rock (being porous they are often easily dyed an assortment of colors) with black spots that is found in Chihuahua, Mexico, and has easy to identify inclusions.


    They were named Dalmatian Stones because (as seen in the image above) the xenoliths resemble the spots on the dog known as a dalmatian.

    2. Austin is notorious for his false claim that it was his research on the after effects of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 that caused him to become a YEC but in truth was already writing YEC tracts for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) such as "The Origin of Coal" under the name of Stuart E. Nevins several years before (1976).

    3. It should also be noted that the Mount St. Helens' rocks also are known to have an abundance of pyroxene, which makes dating them even more problematic even if you weren't sending in whole rocks loaded with xenoliths in for testing at a lab chosen for their use of an out-dating technique. At this point the only thing that one can conclude is that they wanted bad dates.
    Last edited by rogue06; 10-28-2019 at 04:37 AM.

    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)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  8. Amen Roy, Seeker amen'd this post.
  9. #18
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,257
    Amen (Given)
    431
    Amen (Received)
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    No, what he showed was that if you have no selection on intermediate steps, then proteins frequently get disabled after several mutations. But nobody's proposing that proteins stop being under selection when evolving - with a few exceptions, the exact opposite occurs.
    Source: Douglas Axe

    Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    I.e. tested for selection, correct?

    On a more general note: don't argue based on material from the Discovery Institute - they are invariably wrong.
    I find that their material holds up pretty well when I take it for a spin...

    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)

  10. #19
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,368
    Amen (Given)
    1575
    Amen (Received)
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Source: Douglas Axe

    Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    I.e. tested for selection, correct?


    I find that their material holds up pretty well when I take it for a spin...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Not tested for selection! Taken for a spin? You do not have the knowledge to drive in science.

    That is because you are a devoted believer in the Discovery Institute, and not the science. Absolutely none of his work is supported by the scientific community outside the Discovery Institute, nor has he published anything in peer reviewed journals on evolution or organic chemistry related to evolution..

    His work reflects the same dishonest misuse of probability and and statistics I previously described in detail here and in all previous threads including citations. There is no actual research by the Axe outside this.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-28-2019 at 08:32 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.

  11. #20
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,744
    Amen (Given)
    696
    Amen (Received)
    1489
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    On a more general note: don't argue based on material from the Discovery Institute - they are invariably wrong.
    I find that their material holds up pretty well when I take it for a spin...
    You're capable of spinning anything to match your preconceptions, and swallowing any falsehood that supports them.
    Last edited by Roy; 10-29-2019 at 05:05 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.

  12. Amen Duragizer 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
  •