Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(4)
Message 46 of 415 (661686)
05-09-2012 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by shadow71
05-08-2012 8:31 PM


CRISPRs redux
Hey again Shadow,
I'd be glad to continue the discussion of the CRISPR system that we had on the 'Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?' thread. As a brief response to your question ...
is the CRISPRS system an example of a dedicated non random, beneficial change that evolutionary theorists have excluded to this day?
The answer is no. It is no on several levels, for a start it is not ignored by evolutionary theorists, indeed there are numerous articles discussing the evolution of CRISPR associated genes, the use of CRISPR regions in producing phylogenies, the implications of the system for the ongoing dialogue on the role of horizontal transfer in evolution and the differences between bacteria and prokaryotes in this regard.
Secondly as we discussed previously there is substantial doubt that the system is non-random in any meaningful way. There is evidence supporting the theory that the spacer sequences are taken randomly apart from a small motif bias. The only way in which it is non-random is in the incorporation into the CRISPR locus, but that is an aspect of the CRISPR mechanism.
Finally there is nothing to support the contention that the mutations are uniformly beneficial since you are of necessity only surveying the post selection population since the bacteria must be exposed to the phage for the CRISPR system to operate so you will have lost any neutral or deleterious incorporations at the CRISPR loci.
The CRISPR system as a whole is certainly beneficial but it is not a product of itself. As I pointed out before, almost all of the same arguments apply to the human adaptive immune system the only difference is that in unicellular bacteria the acquired 'immunity' can be inherited.
If so how can one have a debate when a valid point is ignored by the so called scientific experts, because it does not fit into their theory.
How can we have a debate when as a response all you do is post huge chunks of quote from other people instead of making a reasoned argument yourself? If you really want to debate CRISPRs I'm game, either in a new topic or in a great debate, but I want to debate with you not with a giant wall of text taken from various different papers, e.g. Message 735. Citations are supposed to support your argument not be your argument.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Fixed typo in subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by shadow71, posted 05-08-2012 8:31 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by shadow71, posted 05-10-2012 2:35 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 47 of 415 (661689)
05-09-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
05-09-2012 9:34 AM


Re: Buzsaw Correction
Buzsaw writes:
Not sure, but likely relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor, relative to macro-evolution, more-so than for evolution of species.[
Make that micro-evolution rather than macro-evolution. Senior moment, ooorly thought out, post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2012 9:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2012 10:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 48 of 415 (661691)
05-09-2012 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
05-09-2012 7:09 AM


Re: CAPS
IMO, it's the post of the month on behalf of EvC creationists.
I really wouldn't know. Like I said, "this is what it sounds like". I see all caps, I don't need context

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2012 7:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 49 of 415 (661693)
05-09-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
05-09-2012 10:43 AM


Re: Buzsaw Correction
Make that micro-evolution rather than macro-evolution.
I'm still very confused by these two terms.
A couple simple questions:
1) Do you believe that two organisms which have sufficiently different DNA are unable to mate successfully as a result of the differences, or do you believe that regardless of how different the DNA any two organisms can always mate successfully?
2) If you have a bucket that contains 5 beans, and you add a bean does the bucket still contain only 5 beans or are there now 6 beans? If you continue to add beans, does the number keep changing with each successive bean? Or, do you believe that regardless of how many beans you add, the number of beans in the bucket will always remain exactly the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2012 10:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2012 4:28 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 415 (661718)
05-09-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Nuggin
05-09-2012 10:58 AM


Re: Buzsaw Correction
Nuggin writes:
A couple simple questions:
1) Do you believe that two organisms which have sufficiently different DNA are unable to mate successfully as a result of the differences, or do you believe that regardless of how different the DNA any two organisms can always mate successfully?
2) If you have a bucket that contains 5 beans, and you add a bean does the bucket still contain only 5 beans or are there now 6 beans? If you continue to add beans, does the number keep changing with each successive bean? Or, do you believe that regardless of how many beans you add, the number of beans in the bucket will always remain exactly the same?
If you add a bean you have six, but if you alter the qroperties of one of the five beans by sprouting one, you still have five; one having different properties than the other four. Either may be planted for propagation of more beans.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2012 10:58 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2012 5:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(9)
Message 51 of 415 (661725)
05-09-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
05-09-2012 9:34 AM


Re: Who Takes Who Seriously
Not sure ...
You see what I mean?
You don't know what his argument is.
Consequently you don't know if it's any good or not.
You don't even know what his argument is about.
But you applaud it anyway, because he's a creationist.
And then you have the gall to talk about "evolutionist sheeples". When you applaud a creationist argument just because it is a creationist argument, while understanding nothing whatsoever of its actual content, what the heck are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2012 9:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 52 of 415 (661726)
05-09-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
05-09-2012 4:28 PM


Re: Buzsaw Correction
If you add a bean you have six, but if you alter the qroperties of one of the five beans by sprouting one, you still have five; one having different properties than the other four. Either may be planted for propagation of more beans.
That's not the question.
I'm simply trying to determine if you live in a universe where the concept of addition results in different totals than you started with.
If you want to use pebbles instead of beans because that helps you grasp the concept, fine.
Pebbles don't sprout.
I noticed you failed to answer the first question. Is that because you don't understand how sex works? Or is it because you don't understand what DNA stands for? Or, is it that you believe that any two organisms - say "a pine tree" and a "moose" can mate and produce successful offspring every time regardless of the differences in their DNA?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2012 4:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(5)
Message 53 of 415 (661763)
05-09-2012 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bolder-dash
05-08-2012 9:41 PM


Re: Its a debate site??
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT ALLOW CREATIONISTS TO VOICE THEIR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT ON EvC, AND ALTHOUGH VIRTUALLY ANYTHING THEY SAY WILL EITHER BE CENSORED, OR THEY WILL BE ACCUSED OF BEING "OFF TOPIC" EVERY TIME THEY MAKE A VALID POINT, AND EITHER BE SUSPENDED OR REFUSED POSTING PRIVILEGES, OR BE INUNDATED WITH A BARRAGE OF AD HOMINEN ATTACKS THAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO RESPOND TO OR AGAIN WILL BE SUSPENDED, THIS "IS" A DEBATE SITE, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT AND ANY OTHER DEBATE FORUM IS THAT DEBATING IS NOT ALLOWED HERE BY, BY DICTATE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.
Another prime example of pigeon chess.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-08-2012 9:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 54 of 415 (661783)
05-10-2012 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
05-09-2012 9:34 AM


Re: Who Takes Who Seriously
Buzsaw writes:
Not sure, but likely relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor, relative to macro-evolution, more-so than for evolution of species
There's no shame in not understanding what this is all about because in order to understand it you have to have formally studied the subject, normally for many years - like any complex modern science, you would normally be a research scientist in the particular subject before you could even think of having an opinion on it.
But there's a huge amount of shame in PRETENDING that you understand it and even more in thinking that you're fooling anyone here by claiming that you do.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2012 9:34 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2012 6:15 AM Tangle has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 415 (661787)
05-10-2012 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tangle
05-10-2012 2:41 AM


Re: Who Takes Who Seriously
Tangle writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Not sure, but likely relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor, relative to macro-evolution, more-so than for evolution of species
There's no shame in not understanding what this is all about because in order to understand it you have to have formally studied the subject, normally for many years - like any complex modern science, you would normally be a research scientist in the particular subject before you could even think of having an opinion on it.
But there's a huge amount of shame in PRETENDING that you understand it and even more in thinking that you're fooling anyone here by claiming that you do.
Tangle, Factoring my correction in Message 47 tell me and the www how far off my understanding of the system is. Were it not in the science field, I could participate in a topic on it, but alas, go figure where all the creationists have went.
You fail to acknowledge in this personal attack message that I did correct myself. As has been pointed out already in this thread, the demeaning know-it-all attitude evolutionists have towards creationists has been demonstrated in this thread. It's typical of examples why creationists do not come or stay here at EvC.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2012 2:41 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2012 6:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2012 8:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2012 2:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(9)
Message 56 of 415 (661788)
05-10-2012 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
05-10-2012 6:15 AM


Re: Who Takes Who Seriously
Tangle, Factoring my correction in Message 47 tell me and the www how far off my understanding of the system is.
Correction or no, there's nothing in your post that evinces any understanding of the science.
Buz, part of the way that people who understand science are able to judge how well others understand it is in the way they employ scientific terminology - either appropriately, which indicates experience with and understanding of the underlying concepts, or inappropriately, which indicates that they're "just words" to the person using them, devoid of any meaning or context.
So it has nothing to do with saying "macroevolution" when you meant "microevolution", if that was even the case; frankly, your "correction" seems more like a panicked attempt to guess your way into an accidentally accurate statement.
But what we can all quite plainly see is that someone who says "relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor" is someone who has no idea what any of those words mean. I had thought, at least, that you had some idea what "DNA" actually was but, based on the fact that you think DNA is a "factor" which is "applied" by CRISPR indicates that I was utterly mistaken about that.
This isn't about how you're a creationist. This is about how, completely independent of that, you're a scientific illiterate. If an evolutionist said the same thing you did, he'd be equally lampooned. In fact, maybe you've noticed that like 90% of the posts from evolutionists around here are us correcting each other's scientific misunderstandings. Maybe you've noticed how frequently that happens to me and I have a degree in biochemistry. There's no "level of being taken seriously" where you get to say "relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor" and have anybody pretend that that statement contains scientific meaning. Even Percy doesn't get to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2012 6:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 57 of 415 (661794)
05-10-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
05-10-2012 6:15 AM


Re: Who Takes Who Seriously
As has been pointed out already in this thread, the demeaning know-it-all attitude evolutionists have towards creationists ...
We don't know it all, but by crikey we know more than you.
Because you have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't upvote shadow77's post on the CRISPRS system because you agreed with him about it. You can't agree with him about it, because you don't know even what it is. He might as well have been saying: "Creationists are right because flurble-wurble bing-bong spoo" and apparently you'd still have cheered him on. It's not that we know it all, but that you know nothing about the subject under discussion, and you still presume to have an opinion on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2012 6:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 58 of 415 (661817)
05-10-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
05-10-2012 6:15 AM


Re: Who Takes Who Seriously
Buz, as has been said, it's nothing to do with your correction, what you said was just pure nonsense. You don't understand it at all do you?
(fyi - neither do I.)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2012 6:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 59 of 415 (661818)
05-10-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
05-09-2012 7:28 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
I will content myself with the following observation --- that the one and only, sole, singular reason that you know about this system is that "the so called scientific experts" discovered it. Was it discovered by creationists in their secret creationist laboratories? It was not. It was discovered by the very same "so called scientific experts" whom you now say have "ignored" their own discovery
I agree that scientists have discovered they system. Shapiro writes about it in his book. The problem I have is many scientists on this board ignore the facts of the system and merely state all mutations for fitness are random. So why debate with logic like that? I must say that Wounded King is one of the few scientists on this board who will acknowledge that there may "possibly" be some non-random mutations for fitness, and he will also correct others on this board who have the science wrong. But he one of the few.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2012 7:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 05-10-2012 5:47 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 60 of 415 (661819)
05-10-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Wounded King
05-09-2012 10:31 AM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Wounded King writes:
Secondly as we discussed previously there is substantial doubt that the system is non-random in any meaningful way. There is evidence supporting the theory that the spacer sequences are taken randomly apart from a small motif bias. The only way in which it is non-random is in the incorporation into the CRISPR locus, but that is an aspect of the CRISPR mechanism.
This is an example of the kind of discussion I believe is necessary from the more "radical evolutionists" on this board. You are not denying the system may be non-random. Almost all on this board would and have.
Wounded King writes:
How can we have a debate when as a response all you do is post huge chunks of quote from other people instead of making a reasoned argument yourself? If you really want to debate CRISPRs I'm game, either in a new topic or in a great debate, but I want to debate with you not with a giant wall of text taken from various different papers, e.g. Message 735. Citations are supposed to support your argument not be your argument.
I am not a scientist so I have to rely on papers etc to support my contentions. If your logic. that one must know the science as a trained scientist before expressing support for his or her postion, then there is no room for debate by a layperson. For example when I brought to jury trial a medical malpractice case I had to rely on my experts explanation of what was wrong with the medical treatment and present that to the jury in the testimony of my experts and then in closing argument explain that to the jury. That is what I try to do on this board. But it gets quite annoying when all you get is silly combacks and not argument.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2012 10:31 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by xongsmith, posted 05-10-2012 3:34 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 88 by DWIII, posted 05-12-2012 2:25 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 89 by Granny Magda, posted 05-12-2012 7:05 AM shadow71 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024