Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,603 Year: 4,860/9,624 Month: 208/427 Week: 18/103 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2412 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 256 of 385 (564348)
06-10-2010 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 3:01 PM


Re: Getting down to details
I wanted to recap Modulous's very instructive example about the mutations affecting the production of vitamin C in humans, chimps and Guinea pigs, but since things are already pretty busy in this thread, I'll just mention that you haven't responded to the specific evidence he provided. I have to wonder... what in particular (if anything) is holding you back from a response along the lines of this statement of yours, addressed to Modulous:
BobTHJ writes:
While I certainly hold strong religious beliefs ... I make a good effort to evaluate the data for what it is. I won't shy away from the data that does not [support YEC] or try and sweep it under the rug. If there is not a reasonable YEC interpretation of the data I'll happily admit it.
Since the relevant part of the YEC model (for this thread) is the assertion that chimps and humans do not share a common ancestor, the evidence from gene mutations affecting vitamin C production clearly does not support that model.
If you don't admit this, and you also don't present and explain evidence that does support the YEC model, then you and your cited references are stuck in the same old rut that has been at the core of this model since James Ussher published the original YEC chronology: you are presenting mistaken interpretations of data (and, most Jews and Christians would agree, mistaken interpretations of scripture as well); you are stating "conclusions" that you decided on before looking at the evidence, and that are unsupported by the evidence.
In other words, the contrast between your statement quoted above and your actual behavior is indicative of the dishonesty shared by every active proponent of the YEC model I've ever seen. A propos of that...
BobTHJ writes:
You discredit Dr. Wile because he does not subscribe to a mainstream view on radiometric dating - a dissenting viewpoint does not indicate ineptitude.
In science, a dissenting viewpoint only qualifies for consideration when it is accompanied by solid, unambiguous evidence. Dr. Wile's ineptitude is not due to the fact that he disagrees with the "mainstream view" (a view that follows logically and unambiguously from carefully gathered evidence). It's due to the fact that:
  • he ignores evidence that refutes his position
  • he misinterprets evidence when trying to refute the "mainstream view"
  • he misrepresents the statements of people who do the research (or who try, often with limited accuracy, to explain the research to non-scientists)
  • he makes up claims with no evidence at all to support them
And now I see, despite frequent advice not to do this, you are quoting another (all too familiar) creationist site:
BobTHJ writes:
For example, take a look at this recent article outlining some of the internal conflicts between darwinists over the Ardi fossil.
Fine, let's look at that: ICR article 5489, "Evolutionist Tosses Out 'Ardi' As Human Ancestor" by Brian Thomas, M.S.
The "Evolutionist" he is referring to is Esteban Sarmiento, and Thomas is citing Sarmiento's recent article in Science (no web link -- apparently a subscription, or a good library, is needed to access this article), which disputes Ardi researcher Tim White regarding the placement of Ardi in the primate line of descent.
Three other articles are cited by Thomas, all web-accessible. Two of them are other ICR postings. The third is an Associated Press article by Malcom Ritter (Thomas's link takes us to the May 27, 2010 issue of the Stamford, CT "Advocate", but perhaps other news outlets also carry this story): "Questions raised about 'Ardi' as man's ancestor".
So now we have Thomas's title ("... tosses out 'ardi' as human ancestor"), and his "quotation" from Sarmiento's paper:
quote:
Sarmiento refuted the critical aspect that had placed Ardi among hominids, those imaginary ape-like possible ancestors of man that could supposedly walk upright. He wrote, "Sufficient support for this claimis lacking."
And we have AP science writer Ritter reporting this about Sarmiento's paper:
quote:
Esteban Sarmiento of the Human Evolution Foundation in East Brunswick, N.J., wrote in the new analysis that he's not convinced Ardi belongs on the evolutionary tree branch leading to modern humans.
Instead, he said in an interview, he thinks it came along earlier, before that human branch split off from the ancestors of chimps and gorillas.
The specific anatomical features of teeth, the skull and elsewhere that the researchers cited just don't make a convincing case for membership on the human branch, he argued. Some, like certain features in the wrist and where the lower jaw connects to the skull, indicate instead that Ardi arose before humans split off from African apes, he said.
Can you work out what the difference is between these two views of Sarmiento's paper? Thomas, the ICR religious apologist with an a priori conclusion and an ax to grind against all things "darwinist", presents Sarmiento's position as though it completely refutes any assertion of an ancestral link between Ardi and modern humans.
Meanwhile the AP reporter, who spoke directly to Sarmiento about the paper, says the dispute is about whether Ardi is ancestral only to humans (Tim White's position), rather than being ancestral to humans, chimps and gorillas (Sarmiento's position).
Is Mr. Thomas of the ICR actually incapable of understanding an article in Science, or is he being deliberately dishonest? It's beyond all shadow of doubt that he has made a mistake here, and attributes to Sarmiento an assertion that is diametrically opposite to what the scientist actually said. It's risky business to guess at someone's true intent, but I am inclined to think that Mr. Thomas's stupidity is not so extreme as to qualify this as an "honest" mistake.
What I find so appalling about this example of blatant distortion by quote mining is that it is such an old, worn out strategy among the proponentists of creationism -- they've been caught at it so many times by so many people -- and yet they're still doing it. Ridiculous.
Now seriously, Bob, is this the sort of group you want to count on for any kind of guidance? Do you accept and adopt their dishonesty as a foundational part of your worldview? Is that the sort of Christian you are, lying for Jesus?

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 3:01 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Dr Jack, posted 06-10-2010 5:24 AM Otto Tellick has not replied
 Message 258 by Peepul, posted 06-10-2010 7:17 AM Otto Tellick has not replied
 Message 300 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 5:27 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 257 of 385 (564354)
06-10-2010 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Otto Tellick
06-10-2010 3:52 AM


Re: Getting down to details
The "Evolutionist" he is referring to is Esteban Sarmiento, and Thomas is citing Sarmiento's recent article in Science (no web link -- apparently a subscription, or a good library, is needed to access this article), which disputes Ardi researcher Tim White regarding the placement of Ardi in the primate line of descent.
Actually Letters in Science are available without subscription, you can find the letter here and the response from the authors of the original paper here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2010 3:52 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5100 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 258 of 385 (564373)
06-10-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Otto Tellick
06-10-2010 3:52 AM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
All People Descended Recently from a Single Family
Mitochondria are organelles in the cells of every human that carry a small amount of DNA. Mitochondria are inherited solely through the egg from the mother, allowing the identification of descendants from any female lineage. Variations in mitochondrial DNA between people have conclusively shown that all people have descended from one female, just as it is stated in Scripture.
The instability of the mitochondrial genome and computer simulations modeling mutation load in humans indicate that the human mitochondrial genome is very young, which fits within a biblical time frame.
Y chromosomes are passed on to sons from their father, and just as mitochondrial DNA shows that all have descended from one female, Y chromosome analysis suggests that all men have descended from one common ancestor.
Otto, Bob, this is very off-topic, but its another ICR article linked to on the page that displays the ICR article you referred to.
I think it's an even more blatant example of dishonesty or stupidity in the ICR - quite breathtaking! Paras 1 and 3 could be down to stupidity, para 2 looks very much like dishonesty.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2010 3:52 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 5080 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 259 of 385 (564679)
06-11-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Taq
06-07-2010 2:32 PM


quote:
That's exactly what orthologous ERV's demonstrate:
"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."--Johnson and Coffin, 1999
Humans and chimps share thousands of orthologous ERV's. Consider kinds falsified.
I've done a little more reading since first commenting on ERVs. Dr. Borger has put together a YEC hypothesis that answers the ERV problem (as well as other problems) rather well. I tried to explain this earlier but probably didn't do a good job since I hadn't yet read his paper outlining the hypothesis - only an article about it. To simplify:
Baranomes are the set of genomes initially created by God - one for each created kind. Baranomes are incredibly vast - containing dormant material for a variety of variations. Baranomes contain VIGEs (Variation Indicuing Genetic Elements) - what mainstream biologists would call ERVs, transposons, etc. VIGEs modify the genome in an orderly fashion causing rapid adaptation and speciation among kinds. Over time however these VIGEs are disabled or repurposed by mutation leading to the variations of mobile DNA we see today. Some of these VIGEs have lost their controlling functions and now jump around haphazardly - modern retroviruses. Over time mutation and selective pressure eliminate function from the baranome among certain populations resulting in the modern genomes we see today.
ERVs similarities between humans and chimps don't post a problem in this hypothesis. Rather than being the result of a retroviral insertion they are instead remnants of VIGEs present in the baranome at creation. Since humans and primates share similar mophological features it logically follows that their initial baranomes would have had much similarity.
quote:
The first prediction is:
"The difference between two species in the same baramin would be mostly due to transposons."
How can you determine this without the ability to construct a baramin?
Dr. Borger's articles referenced above give some insight into how to construct a baramin using certain indicator genes like FOXP2 in humans. He doesn't go into this in great detail - so I'm afraid I can't explain it here - I'll search for more information on this subject.
quote:
No, you don't. You dismiss ERV's out of hand without even understanding how they operate, how they insert into the genome, or their impact on the host genome. You dismiss a nested hierarchy out of hand, as if common ancestry would not produce a nested hierarchy. You dismiss intermediate fossils. You misrepresent the scientific consensus on the ancestry of modern birds. You misrepresent what is and is not assumed in the science of radiometric dating. I will stop short of calling you a liar, but you have bought a bad bill of goods and the only reason I can think for why this is is due to your religious beliefs. Or do you really think that millions of highly trained physicists, geologists, and biologists wordwide from every culture and religion are wrong while a handful of religiously motivated creationists are right?
Not dismissal - simply a different interpretation of the evidence. As I've tried to demonstrate - I am not willing to ignore any evidence. In areas where the YEC argument is weak (such as rapid isotope decay) I have admitted as much. Creation scientists will need to come come up with some reasonable data that supports these hypotheses or abandon them.
Creation science (while no doubt a minority) is not the domain of extreme fringe. There are many who scientists who believe in Biblical creation - for reference here's a list and here's another (neither are comprehensive, though there may be some overlap). As I mentioned previously, my religious beliefs would allow me to be a theistic evolutionist (many Christians are) - my only reason for believing the YEC model is because it's a better fit for the data I have reviewed. Please don't insult me by assuming that my religion dictates my scientific beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Taq, posted 06-07-2010 2:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2010 6:08 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 261 by Coragyps, posted 06-11-2010 6:10 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 262 by Taq, posted 06-11-2010 6:28 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 263 by Wounded King, posted 06-11-2010 6:36 PM BobTHJ has not replied
 Message 264 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2010 10:33 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 260 of 385 (564685)
06-11-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by BobTHJ
06-11-2010 5:23 PM


Insults?
Please don't insult me by assuming that my religion dictates my scientific beliefs.
There is simply no other way you could arrive at a young earth belief.
The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against it, and the evidence YECs produce supporting it are rife with denial, misrepresentation, outright lies, and quote mining.
Check the scientific findings in areas of the world where there is no strong biblical tradition. Any of those scientists come up with a young earth idea? Or is it pretty much limited to biblical literalists? (Rhetorical question.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by BobTHJ, posted 06-11-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 6:43 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 261 of 385 (564686)
06-11-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by BobTHJ
06-11-2010 5:23 PM


Baranomes, huh? Really?
When was the last time you used your vomeronasal organ, Bob? I'll bet it's been a while. Your VNO is a pair of little blind-ended tubes that you might have in the septum of your nose. Maybe half of adult humans do have one. Human fetuses have them in their palate, and have a structure in their brain called an Accessory Olfactory Bulb that's attached to the VNO with nerves. But, by around the time we're born, we resorb the AOB, the VNO either migrates higher up into the nose or disappears, and the nerves go away.
New World monkeys, lemurs, and many other mammals have VNOs in their palates that are connected to AOBs, and they use them to sniff out girl/boy friends that are in the mood to mate. You may have seen a bull curl up his upper lip near a heifer's rear end - he's trying to get a whiff of her "scent" to his VNO to see if she's in heat.
Oddly enough, though, great apes have no functional VNO. What they can have is a little blind tube in the septum of their nose, with no nerve connected to their AOB, because they resorbed their AOB while still a fetus. Like humans. Unlike New World monkeys or lemurs.
Old world monkeys have varying degrees of development of VNO.
Can you suggest a creationist scenario where this makes even a particle of sense? I can draw a family tree with lemurs, OW monkeys, NW monkeys, and great apes (including humans) where it makes very good sense. I can even offer a plausible scenario to explain why we don't have VNOs. I don't think creationism can do either.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by BobTHJ, posted 06-11-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 7:05 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 262 of 385 (564688)
06-11-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by BobTHJ
06-11-2010 5:23 PM


Baranomes are the set of genomes initially created by God - one for each created kind. Baranomes are incredibly vast - containing dormant material for a variety of variations. Baranomes contain VIGEs (Variation Indicuing Genetic Elements) - what mainstream biologists would call ERVs, transposons, etc. VIGEs modify the genome in an orderly fashion causing rapid adaptation and speciation among kinds. Over time however these VIGEs are disabled or repurposed by mutation leading to the variations of mobile DNA we see today. Some of these VIGEs have lost their controlling functions and now jump around haphazardly - modern retroviruses. Over time mutation and selective pressure eliminate function from the baranome among certain populations resulting in the modern genomes we see today.
ERVs similarities between humans and chimps don't post a problem in this hypothesis. Rather than being the result of a retroviral insertion they are instead remnants of VIGEs present in the baranome at creation. Since humans and primates share similar mophological features it logically follows that their initial baranomes would have had much similarity.
None of this explains why ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy. It also asserts that the retroviral function is recent without any supporting evidence. It is simply asserted. The fact of the matter is that ERV's can be pulled out of genomes and made into viable retroviruses:
quote:
Human Endogenous Retroviruses are expected to be the remnants of ancestral infections of primates by active retroviruses that have thereafter been transmitted in a Mendelian fashion. Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral progenitor element of one of the most recently amplified familythe HERV-K familyand constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny. (source)
I have a good test for retroviral function. The long tandem repeats (LTR's) are genetic promoters found at each end of the viral genome (the 5' and 3' LTR's). In a functional retrovirus the 5' and 3' LTR's are identical at the time of insertion. As the ERV resides in the genome over several generations mutations will occur in each LTR resulting in the divergence of the LTR sequences. This offers an independent test of the common ancestry model that requires functional retroviral activity.
diagram:
5'LTR------viral genes (gag, pol, env)------3'LTR
So how do we test common ancestry using this information? Easy. The longer an ERV has been in a lineage the more divergent the LTR's will become. Therefore, an ERV shared by all apes will have more LTR divergence than an ERV shared by just humans and chimps. Guess what? This is exactly what we see in the genomes of apes.
quote:
Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. ​(Fig.11A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication. source
Here is an additional test for you. Let's say you do a PCR run and find that chimps and gorillas have ERV's from a specific retroviral family, but this same retrovirus is not found in humans and orangutans. Would you expect them to be in the same places in the genomes of gorillas and chimps based on baranomes?
Creation science (while no doubt a minority) is not the domain of extreme fringe.
You may want to rethink that.
There are many who scientists who believe in Biblical creation - for reference here's a list and here's another (neither are comprehensive, though there may be some overlap).
Just for giggles, how many are named Steve (or derivations thereof such as Estaban or Stephen)?
my only reason for believing the YEC model is because it's a better fit for the data I have reviewed.
The YEC model can not explain the nested hierarchy, ERV placement in the genome, LTR divergence in ERV's, intermediate fossils, the order of fossils in the geologic record, and just about everything else in the fields of geology and biology. Sorry, but I have a very hard time taking you seriously when you say things like this.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by BobTHJ, posted 06-11-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 7:13 PM Taq has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 263 of 385 (564689)
06-11-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by BobTHJ
06-11-2010 5:23 PM


Dr. Borger's articles referenced above give some insight into how to construct a baramin using certain indicator genes like FOXP2 in humans. He doesn't go into this in great detail
No he doesn't, presumably because he just seems to arbitrarily throw up the idea just to let himself state that humans and primates come from different baramins. It doesn't tell us how to identify a baranome or a baramin at all.
This is no less arbitrary than any other creationist line drawing for kinds/baramins. All it means is that they are now drawing these arbitrary lines in genomes rather than morphological taxonomies.
Borger seems to spend all his time miscasting research to his own ends. One example is his example of a baranome for the yeasts. He characterises it so ...
The lack of understanding of baranomes recently led to a severe misinterpretation of the origin of genes in the secular literature. Eager to find evidence for the evolution of novel biological information, a novel de novo protein-coding gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae was reported on the basis of genome comparison among several species of Saccharomyces. The BSC4 gene had an open reading frame (ORF) encoding a 132-amino-acid-long polypeptide. It was reported that there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae. The sequences presented in the figure above demonstrate, however, that the BSC4 gene can be found interrupted and inactivated in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae and S. bayanus.
So the message here is apparently that Borger doesn't understand what an ORF is. The open reading frame is from the ATG right at the start of the sequence in the S. cerevisiae sequence, the other three sequences lack this and therefore have no homologous ORF, they have homologous stretches of DNA, but without that ATG start site they don't have an ORF. So the paper is entirely correct in its statemement. That Borger disagrees with their conclusions and prefers a less parsimonious explanation is far from being enough to substantiate a claim of severe misunderstanding on the paper's authors' part.
Borger's explanation typifies his whole approach, throw out parsimony and make up any explanation no matter how tortuous based on a completely hypothetical baranome of a kind that is frankly impossible to envisage as a functional genome.
This isn't unique to Borger of course, these sort of ad hoc supergenome approaches are common in front-loading forms of ID and creationism. John 'Salty' Davidson, another old habitue of these forums, had a somewhat similar hypothesis, see the thread 'A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis'.
If we throw out parsimony we can come up with all sorts of wacky ad hoc scenarios to explain the evidence, and that is exactly what creationists and IDists routinely do.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by BobTHJ, posted 06-11-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Coragyps, posted 06-12-2010 10:33 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2412 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 264 of 385 (564704)
06-11-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by BobTHJ
06-11-2010 5:23 PM


BobTHJ writes:
As I've tried to demonstrate - I am not willing to ignore any evidence.
Well, it seems you are failing, repeatedly, in this attempt. With each new reply of yours in this thread, where you provide more links to old and new creationist propagandists instead of directly addressing the evidence that others have been presenting to you, you are showing a persistent willingness to ignore the evidence.
It's starting to look like all your statements about being open-minded, being interested in learning the truth, being willing to accept clear evidence against the YEC "model" and so on, are all just a smoke-screen, and you are in fact no more honest about this than your favorite web references are honest about scientific research.
If you really were not willing to ignore evidence, you would be responding to the evidence that has been presented and discussed here. Instead, you tend to move on to some different attempt to vaguely discredit evolution or vaguely support YEC, and you give us more links that lead to more PRATTs. You've done it again just now:
There are many who scientists who believe in Biblical creation - for reference here's a list and here's another (neither are comprehensive, though there may be some overlap).
Yup, there's overlap, for sure. But that's not the only problem with those lists (which, like so many of the references you've been providing, are all too familiar and easily debunked).
Here's a very informative video regarding lists of scientists who support creationism (or dispute evolution or believe in a young earth or think vaccination causes autism or deny global warming or firmly recommend homeopathic remedies or ...)
Face it Bob, your "progression" in this thread has been in the direction of becoming recognizable as a troll -- someone who's skill is focused on and limited to the ability to sustain an antagonistic dialog. Admittedly, as trolls go, you are admirably benign and civil; your apparent good manners evoke good manners from others; many of us, in trying to teach you something, have learned useful things ourselves (well, I have, anyway). Because of all that, I am sincerely grateful to you for your participation here. Thank you.
But saying that you're eager to learn and then demonstrating an apparent inability to learn... well, what should we conclude from that?
---
That last question brings to mind those Christian revival meetings -- I've been to a few, in the distant past -- where attendants are invited, implored, all but coerced to stand up, step to the front, declare their sins, accept Jesus, start speaking in tongues, grovel on the floor or whatever. Bob, did you ever go to meetings like that? Have you ever gone to the front? This sort of thing doesn't really happen at science meetings, but what if... right here, now, at EvC, Bob. Science is trying to reach you. Trying to save you. Science wants you to find the truth, wants you to accept the truth that will set you free. Free yourself now, Bob! Renounce your YEC sins! Come on up front! Prove to yourself, for yourself, that you can do this!
OK, sorry, that was a cheap shot. No offense intended.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (changed a silly phrase about scientists having patients)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar fix
Edited by Otto Tellick, : yet another grammar fix -- my, such carelessness...
Edited by Otto Tellick, : which is worse: careless grammar, or the compulsion to fix it after posting?

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by BobTHJ, posted 06-11-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 12:09 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 5080 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 265 of 385 (564732)
06-12-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by bluegenes
06-07-2010 3:08 PM


quote:
Wouldn't it be a good idea to learn the difference between the words "ancestor" and "descendant" before you comment on biology?
My use of the word "ancestors" was intentional.
quote:
Nectocaris pteryx has just been described as a primitive shell-less cephalopod by researchers on the basis of 91 new specimens. It pre-dates the first known true cephalopods by 30 million years.
Because it displays advanced features that shouldn't have existed during that time-frame? No worries though - we'll just shuffle around the clade to make it fit.
No need to reply - I'm off topic here. Apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by bluegenes, posted 06-07-2010 3:08 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 5080 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 266 of 385 (564733)
06-12-2010 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Percy
06-07-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Evidence, any time you're ready
quote:
In other words, you pulled the trigger without first loading any ammunition and are unable to answer the question: why do you think convergent evolution is an assumption?
After you've got some ammunition why don't you try again.
You are most correct. How soundly I am being trounced on the convergent evolution thread indicates this. I went into that argument unloaded - I realize now I need to do considerable more research before I am ready to debate that topic. Apologies.
quote:
Well gee, that's wonderful for you, common ancestry has already been falsified. My previous suggestions stand: stop posting bare links with no discusison and bring your evidence and arguments into the thread (rule 5), and provide evidence *for* ID instead of against evolution.
Sorry again...that really was a bare link. I'll try and do better.
quote:
I don't think you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the material. I'm just noting that you seem unaware of much of the subject material at this point, and I also find your several expressions of wishing to investigate things for yourself at odds with your unquestioning acceptance of articles by Mr. Wile and ICR. You say you disagree with the conclusions scientists draw from the data while giving no indication of any acquaintance with that data yourself. This is why I likened you to those who prefer a good story over evidence.
I really am interested in the evidence - and the conversations I've had the last week on this board has led me to do more research on these topics then I ever had before - so I'm learning a lot. Admittedly, a lot of my knowledge comes from the creationist side - and rightfully so. However, I was hoping to (and have been glad to) learn more about the darwinian positions on issues through the links and arguments posted here. Some of those arguments have made a convincing case - some have not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 06-07-2010 5:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 8:20 AM BobTHJ has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 5080 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 267 of 385 (564741)
06-12-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Modulous
06-07-2010 10:35 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
quote:
Did you know that John Woodmorappe is really called Jan Peczkis? I prefer his real name myself.
When you get time, could you summarize the argument with the sources? Only I've not found Mr Woodmorappe to be the most reliable source in the past, you see. If I get time, I'll try and wade through it all and figure it out.
Sorry, I have to admit I know nothing of Mr. Woodmorappe/Peczkis apart from what is written in that article.
I'll do my best to summarize the article:
Evolution predicts that pseudogenes should be more tolerant to mutation since they are non-functional. If this were true, the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous mutations should be 1:1 in psuedogenes since there is no selective pressure. A low ratio should indicate a functional gene that is being conserved, and a high ratio should indicate a functional gene that is being selected for - ie currently undergoing evolution. Woodmorappe references a study that shows this prediction to be falsified. While pseudogenes do tend to have a higher ratio than functional genes they are in most cases less than 1:1 - and many have similar ratios to functional genes. This demonstrates that psuedogenes likely have function and adhere to the same preservation and conservation methods as functional genes. I believe he makes this point to demonstrate that non-functioning genes are not in most cases free to mutate as you suggest.
From there he examines the Uox pseudogene. There are six stop codons disabling this gene in primates. Five of these fit the evolutionary phylogenetic model, but one does not (requiring separate evolution). Humans and sheep also share a stop codon disabling the p2 psuedogene which would require separate evolution. Additionally there is a shared segment in the intron of the Uox that does not fit the clade organization. Finally, he points out that there are six shared segments between chimps and gorillas in the Uox gene - none of which are shared by humans.
Finally he addresses the GULO gene. This is where he talks about the 47 shared positions (out of 647 possible) between guinea pigs and humans. These shared positions are spread throughout the exons and include codings for 4 disabling stop codons. These shared mutations if charted would place humans and primates closer to rodents than prosimians. He quotes a source stating the probability of this degree of shared mutation at 1.84*10^-12 based on random mutation.
If I understand correctly Woodmorappe's conclusion is this - Since neither creationists nor darwinists would place guinea pigs and humans as closely related then one or both of the following must be true:
1) The similarities indicate common engineering/design.
2) Mutational hotspots - not common ancestry - account for many of the similarities in pseudogenes.
quote:
That's an important question: how does barimonlogy give us a deeper understanding of the evidence? I've shown how evolutionary ideas can lead to a deeper understanding of what is going on in two examples. Now it's your turn
Your example of the GULO gene gives a flawed understanding of the evidence as demonstrated by the article. While it holds true in some cases it does not in all - and there is not determining factor between the two.
I haven't really researched what understandings baraminology can give - but one idea hit me (off the top of my head):
If you look at this article by Dr. Borger under the sub-heading "The multiple genomes of Arabidopsis" he describes a study published in Science. 19 strands of Arabidopsis thaliana were collected from a variety of biomes. Despite being closely related they shared significant genetic differences. Since genetic similarity would indicate that these strands all come from the same baranome the functional unique portions of each strand's genome could be used to determine the maxima adaptive capabilities of the species. These sections could also be combined to reconstruct the original (or close) baranome for the kind.
That's probably not the best example - so I'll try and think of some better ones - I'll try and get back to you on this.
quote:
Indeed they would fail to catch the hypothetical invisible robber. But on the other hand, they won't waste time on every crime they get stuck on looking for supernatural creatures and superpowered criminals. If you think they should - blimey.
Anyway - nobody is ruling out a designer. If you want to go looking for a being that has powers to avoid you finding it, be my guest. If you can convince someone to cough up money to pay for your quest, that's awesome. You can't force scientists to perform experiments to falsify or confirm your hypothesis - they've got bills to pay.
And don't assume that just because scientists don't tend to look for a Hot Jupiter Orbit Designer to explain why there are so many Hot Jupiters or whatever other unsolved mystery crops up, it's because they aren't being thorough. They are finite beings that don't have time to waste and so they make judgement calls on what funding to apply for to do what experiment. The modern science of bariminology can look for a designer if it wants, though.
I agree that darwinists (specifically atheistic darwinists) have no reason to waste time looking for the 'invisible robber'. However, Christian creationists certainly do - and this is where religious beliefs come into play. As a Christian who has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of a Creator I have every reason to search for Him in science.
quote:
No worries. You seem like a perfectly nice person, and its nice to find someone who is both pleasant and who disagrees with me
Modulous - I really appreciate the civil tone of your responses and your willingness to discuss issues without resulting to personal attacks or broad generalizations about your opposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 10:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 06-12-2010 5:16 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 268 of 385 (564745)
06-12-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by BobTHJ
06-12-2010 2:44 AM


Re: Evidence, any time you're ready
BobTHJ writes:
I really am interested in the evidence...
You're having trouble finding evidence because your'e gravitating toward those whose views you agree with instead of those who know what they're talking about. You must seek out scientists who actually uncover and develop evidence. They tend to work at respected research institutions and to publish their work in peer-reviewed technical journals.
Does it really make sense to you that Biblical literalists working at Bible colleges or on their own, and who do not do any original research, and who believe eternity is at stake, and who advocate a variety of different views, are giving you an unbiased picture? Or could it be more likely that a community of scientists who are atheists and non-atheists, Christians and Jews, Moslems and Hindus, Americans and Palestinians, Chinese and Frenchmen, conservatives and liberals, and who reach the same conclusions of the evidence concerning evolution, are providing a far more accurate and unbiased perspective.
The information you should be seeking about baraminology is the evidence supporting its classification system. DNA studies showing how that system derives from the underlying genetics would be of primary importance.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 2:44 AM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 269 of 385 (564759)
06-12-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Wounded King
06-11-2010 6:36 PM


The lack of understanding of baranomes recently led to a severe misinterpretation of the origin of genes in the secular literature.
There's the paydirt for this whole discussion - that word "secular." Borger tips his hand there - the same hand that the whole creationist crowd is holding - that "secular" literature = bad and religious apologetics = good. And that they only engage in the latter.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Wounded King, posted 06-11-2010 6:36 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 5080 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 270 of 385 (564783)
06-12-2010 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by anglagard
06-07-2010 11:49 PM


Re: Naturalistic Explinations Heal the Sick and Feed the Poor
quote:
And I suggest the opposite, namely that just because something is old, doesn't mean it is better than the new.
One of the most important points made by Jesus is in the Sermon on the Mount where he tells the assembled it is their duty to heal the sick and feed the poor. If necessary I can quote chapter and verse.
Some reasons why the new is better than the old according to the Sermon on the Mount (look them up in Google if you don't recognize why) are due to:
I'm not going to respond point by point because doing so would stray too far off topic. However, to summarize the gist of your argument:
* Jesus said feed the poor and take care of the sick
* The "Christian church" many times in the past 2000 years had dismally failed in this regard (often even working against it)
* Meanwhile scientific advances are feeding the poor and taking care of the sick
I agree to some extent with what you have posted. Yes, there have certainly been many evils perpetrated by so-called Chrsitians throughout the history of the church - and yes, many modern scientific advances have benefited the poor and sick. You however have cherry-picked the examples that benefit your telling of history - while ignoring the many examples of the opposite: Christians feeding the poor and helping the sick and science harming them. Continuing this line of discussion however seems unrelated to the topic of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by anglagard, posted 06-07-2010 11:49 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024