|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
This is why creationists want science to abandon the methodological naturalism. That's not going to happen, for two reasons, one definitional, the other practical I pretty much believe when you are posting to me you are not responding to me directly but you are posting to me and other people who might potentially disagree with you.
Contrast this to science as practiced by creationists, who are almost exclusively evangelical Christians. Wouldn't you agree that the creationist community is suffering from a bit of a lack of diversity? Of course, Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the bible and I would expect all Creationists to be Christians.
Just showing how abandoning methodological naturalism provides better answers for something, anything, even if it's just one example, will be very convincing. I will not argue with a process that discovers things through repeatable and testable experimentation. I just think science excels in certain areas and it doesn't do as well in others. One reason why I have been sticking around here is because I told everyone that I would explain why I am not a Creationist because I think "The Physics of Genesis" by Jim Thompson explains the book of Genesis better than Creationism does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
deerbreh writes: One of my favorite examples is the flying buttresses above the eye teeth. Now if we were saber tooth tigers or even baboons, such support for the eye teeth would make some sense but for the wimpy little eyeteeth in the upper mouth of Homo sapiens such support makes no sense. hooah writes: What? You lost me on this one. Slide your finger across your upper gums. You will feel a significant bulge above each eyetooth. These bulges are way out of proportion to the size of the eyeteeth. There is absolutely no reason to have such support for the eyeteeth in humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Traderdrew.
traderdrew writes: HGT is the only way I can see it could possibly be done. HGT is a lot like panspermia. Basically, it is an attempt at answering the question, "What did X come from?" HGT and panspermia are equivalent answers in their separate fields: "X came from another (bacterium/planet)," which leaves us wondering how that other bacterium or planet came to possess X. The problem is that HGT is less viable than natural selection. What good was one piece of the flagellum to a bacterium that didn't have any of the other pieces? How could that piece evolve to fill its function in the flagellum if none of the other pieces were there to fill the other functions? The beauty of the Theory of Evolution is that it simultaneously explains the origin of the parts and their synergistic function, because the evolution of the individual parts is strongly influenced by the interaction between the parts, and the interaction between parts is strongly influenced by the evolution of the individual parts. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Bluejay writes: The problem is that HGT is less viable than natural selection. Since HGT isn't a selection mechanism, maybe you meant to compare HGT with other sources of random genetic change? I'm not sure why we shouldn't consider HGT just another source of genetic variation, same as as point mutations, insertions, deletions, gene duplication, etc. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I vaguely recall unsuccessfully back-searching for the meaning before.
OK, I now guess it is "horizontal gene transfer". I would be nice if someone would occasionally give the full wording for such things. No replies needed. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Isn't horizontal gene transfer just a fancy name for SEX?
(Yes, I know that HGT likely usually refers to gene transfer without sex).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Isn't horizontal gene transfer just a fancy name for SEX? Passing genes from one generation to the next is VGT, or vertical genetic transfer. These terms come from the "tree of life" metaphor for the organization of species. Vertical transfer goes up the branch. Horizontal transfer occurs across the branches, between species. In metazoans like us HGT occurs very rarely. This can include movement of DNA from your mitochondria into your nuclear genome (called numts) or by insertion of exogenous retroviruses resulting in endogenous retroviruses (called ERV's). But as you can already guess it is very difficult for DNA from say modern bears to make its way into the modern primate branch. In bacteria it happens quite readily. In fact, "species" is a bit hazy for bacteria given that bacteria can easily conjugate (using sex pilli) between species. Also, bacteriophage (the bacterial version of retroviruses) can pull along chunks of host genome and insert it into other bacterial species. Because of HGT it is very difficult to resolve a single tree for all bacteria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Ok I had my tongue firmly in my cheek.....
horizontal (lying down) + gene transfer = sex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
all you had to do was throw a smiley in there to let us all know
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Ahh. Right. I literally had a vision of something like this:
or this:
I thought you were being comedic. Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people-Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Percy.
Percy writes: Bluejay writes: The problem is that HGT is less viable than natural selection. Since HGT isn't a selection mechanism, maybe you meant to compare HGT with other sources of random genetic change? Ah, yes, you're right. Let me try it again:
The problem is that your HGT scenario is less viable than a basic evolutionary scenario. What good was one piece of the flagellum to a bacterium that didn't have any of the other pieces? How could that piece evolve to fill its function in the flagellum if none of the other pieces were there to fill the other functions? It makes more sense to say that they evolved their cooperative functions together, rather than that they evolved synergistic functions separately before they came together. That's more like what I was trying to get at. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4832 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
There is nothing natural that explains our existence, not yet anyway!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
There is nothing natural that explains our existence, not yet anyway! Didn't anyone give you the talk about the birds and the bees?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
There is nothing natural that explains our existence, not yet anyway! Do you believe that lightning is magic? I doubt it.Was there a time when religious people would have made the same argument you are making here about lightning? Do you believe that rainbows are magic? I doubt it.Was there a time when religious people would have made the same argument you are making here about rainbows? Do you believe that volcanoes are magic? I doubt it.Was there a time when religious people would have made the same argument you are making here about volcanoes. I think you see where this list is going. So, let's flip the script. Is there ANYTHING in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the world which has been prove to actually be caused exclusively by "magic"? How about is there ANYTHING in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the world which was previously best explained by science which is not BETTER explained by "magic"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't think that barbara is a creationist who wishes to explain things by magic. I think that she's got some odd ideas of her own.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024