Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 151 of 1104 (847591)
01-24-2019 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by WookieeB
01-23-2019 7:35 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
quote:
LOL, are you for real? "Images" were an analogy that Hunt used to "illustrate points" that was also part of his analogy. Just because you don't want to characterize it that way doesn't make it so. And Hunt didn't provide references for his analogy.
Touche!
Oh, we’ve reached the point where you resort to outright lying ?
quote:
And neither did Hunt use references for his analogy. Axe wasn't the one making claims of isolation. That was Hunt.
Wrong again. Hunt said that functions weren’t isolated. And he produces a reference to support it Knox et al, 1996; Adediran et al., 2005.
quote:
Hunt says (no references) that Axe's enzyme was too sensitive to temperature. Here's a picture I made to visualize that. (No reference either).
So I guess to you, if a critic makes up some picture that he says demonstrates some unsubstantiated claim, it's gotta be so!
Yawn. Hunt does not produce a diagram to show temperature sensitivity, it’s not an important point and neither you nor Axe have actually denied it.
Let us also note that you wouldn’t be making these ridiculous accusations if you actually could show that Axe’s analogy was valid. It’s all just bullying and a smokescreen for your inability to address the real issue.
quote:
For the moment I'm not trying to dispute whether IC systems can or cannot evolve. What I am saying is that your statements: "I notice that you mention nothing about changes in parts (causing a reliance on other parts that was not previously present) or loss of parts..." doesnt make sense in an English sense. I cannot figure out what you are saying, not on a technical level or a pro/against IC sense, but what the hell does that mean in normal English.
The problem seems to be that Behe’s terminology is a problem for you. He’s the one that expressed IC in terms of parts. So, or rephrase, one or more of the parts making up a system may change such that their operation becomes dependent on one or more other parts of the system
quote:
Still a little confused with your language. What are you meaning by "desired function" vs "similar function" and how are those distinct from "good at desired function"?
That seems to be definitely your problem.
The desired function is the function being searched for.
A similar function is a function similar to the desired function
Being good at the function refers to how well the sequence performs the function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by WookieeB, posted 01-23-2019 7:35 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 4:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 152 of 1104 (847618)
01-24-2019 11:24 AM


I am trying to follow the arguments. Can you start using subtitles so we can follow where things are going.
Thanks

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 153 of 1104 (847630)
01-24-2019 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Tanypteryx
01-23-2019 7:07 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Jonf writes:
Just theoretical" does not mean "useless" or "untested".
And I didnt say that. Nobody has made an ancestral protein. Yes, it is theoretical, and I never said studying that is useless. But any attempts to say x is an ancestral protein is prolematic, because you have no way to verify that. It is theoretical in that it is just something somebody thinks may have been the case. But it is pointless to say: Do an experiment based on an ancient protein, because there is nothing currently x that can be verified is an ancient protein. It is like saying:"Let's run an experiment based on the existence of unicorns". You can do all kinds of tests on that assumption and learn something, but until you produce a unicorn actually existing it has no realistic application. It's all theoretical.
Tanypteryx writes:
I was simply trying to be clear that no ancestor and descendant relationships were implied, because some people jump to that conclusion.
Great! That's what i was saying too, and we are agreed. The picture of skulls implies NO ancestor and descendant relationships.
First, proteins evolve when there are mutations in the genes that produce them. So new proteins evolve from already existing ones. Each new protein does not have to go through a long involved process of starting from scratch.
Yes, fine. Nobody is saying that they ALL have to start from scratch. But a great many likely would, as there are no common strunctures between many of the major fold families. (Meaning tweaking one protein fold umpteen times is not likely to lead to a different fold with a vastly different fold structure)
Second, calculating the probability of something occurring, for example 1x10^77, does not mean that 1x10^77 attempts have to occur before you have a functional protein. The functional protein could be formed after 1 try, or 50, or 1000.
Yes, that is all true. But getting a functional protein fold to form could equally occur on try, (10^77)-1, (10^77)-50, or (10^77)-1000. You can in no way say that the target is more likely to be found on try 1, 50, 1000, than at the end of 10^77 events. The point is, with all attempts being equal, on average it will take 10^77 tries before you see one result you are looking for. It's a probability.
How many events do you think actually can occur on Earth within it's suggested time of existence? How many protein events would you suggest were occurring per day. Would 1 trillion be generous enough for you? That is 1x10^12. Multiply that by 365 to get the yearly rate and your up to 3.65x10^14. And if the earth is around 5 billion years old (5x10^9), you're up to 1.8x10^24. So you still need a trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x 100,000 earths to get ONE protein.
And evolution needs this to happen many, many times. Tweak the # of events if you want, but keep it plausible. It's not going to help much.
(And I haven't even mentioned issues like the sequence has to use peptide bonds, or the chirality issue - which would push the probability beyond reason)
Evolution almost totally occurs by modifying existing features.
Yes. It modifies things fine. But it doesn't create anything new.
An example of preaching to the choir is the fact that all their papers are only published in the journal that only they read. If you mean an example of "you have to believe in magic", then the magic designer for which there is not a shred of evidence.
And as already pointed out, not all ID papers are in that journal, like the Axe paper that has been a point of discussion. Your complaining about that journal is using the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can do better. Your point about magic is just a strawman.
And I note you still haven't provided an example. Just responding with fallacious statements.
So I was correct, Dawkins didn't say that and you added the weasel words yourself.
You certainly implied it was a quote when you accused me of calling Dawkins a creationist based on my reaction to that fake quote.
Nobody said that was a "quote" from Dawkins. It wasn't implied that it was a quote. It is a summarized definition of 'evolution' that comport with thoughts Dawkins put forward in his book (and the only reason it was labeled that way is because Dawkins is a popular and well known figure in the evolution vs design debate). Feel free to dispute that using evidence if you want. But that definition of evolution is not controversial.
"Changes in the composition of hereditary traits" are mutations.
"an iterative feedback response..." is natural selection.
...
Of course not. There is no evidence of direction, purpose or a designing intelligence involved in biological processes.
LOL, this is rich. I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
How is what you just said any different from?...
wookieeb writes:
Evolution is...the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-23-2019 7:07 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by JonF, posted 01-24-2019 2:21 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 155 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-24-2019 2:50 PM WookieeB has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 154 of 1104 (847635)
01-24-2019 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by WookieeB
01-24-2019 1:47 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Nobody has made an ancestral protein.
False. Click the link in my message and you will be inundated in links where people report making ancestral proteins.
From your Message 121 "ID doesnt claim to be able to predict anything or Everything." seems to me that means it can't predict anything.
quote:
one would not expect that there could never be something akin to 'junk' (no function) in DNA. But design principles would suggest that in a designed semiotic system, there would likely not be a majority or a significantly high amount of junk.
Why? You claim you don't "comment on the abilities and motives of a designer outside of the base definition (so at least an intelligence and capability to do something according to a purpose)." Yet you claim to know its motive in re junk DNA. How do you know it would not include junk DNA for some reason you don't know or on a whim or its idea of a joke or...
Sure seems inconsistent to me.
I take your lack of response to be an admission that ID makes no predictions about junk DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 1:47 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 6:16 PM JonF has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 155 of 1104 (847638)
01-24-2019 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by WookieeB
01-24-2019 1:47 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
This is all I have time for today
WookieeB writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
"Changes in the composition of hereditary traits" are mutations.
"an iterative feedback response..." is natural selection.
...
Of course not. There is no evidence of direction, purpose or a designing intelligence involved in biological processes.
LOL, this is rich. I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
How is what you just said any different from?...
wookieeb writes:
Evolution is...the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.
I answered your question about whether direction, purpose or a designing intelligence should be part of a definition of evolution. You brought it up and I said it does not have any evidence, so it should not be included. Magic and magical entities are completely useless to scientists studying biology.
The only people who want to include those weasel words (including unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes) in definitions of evolution are creationists and cdesign proponentsists.
I also do not include all the other things that have nothing to do with evolution; yellow paint, breakfast cereal, leprechauns...

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 1:47 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 6:43 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 156 of 1104 (847647)
01-24-2019 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
01-24-2019 12:37 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Oh, weve reached the point where you resort to outright lying ?
Dear Lord! You apparently cannot see the obvious.
Hunts diagrams (figures 1-3 and probably 4 too) are pictures Hunt made up. They are not based on numbers or data from Axe's paper or anywhere else. They are merely images to help describe something he is talking about. They relate to his analogizing Axe's paper by describing it in terms of hills and topography in sequence space. So his description is an analogy, and the pictures that relate to the description is analogy too. Figures 1-3 had no references, and were the subject of what Axe responds to as his Objection 3.
Figure 4 is probably also just a representative image Hunt made up. The only question is whether it is from the paper he later references, but I doubt it.
Now I'm not saying Hunt's analogy is necessarily a bad one, but it is an analogy nonetheless.
Wrong again. Hunt said that functions werent isolated. And he produces a reference to support it Knox et al, 1996; Adediran et al., 2005.
I think your getting your objections mixed up.
The question of isolation is what Axe deals with in his labeled Objection 2, but it is Figure 4 (and added reference) in Hunt's response. The picture really isn't anything more than a visual aid again referencing his analogy he employed before. The reference is used to support that proteins are not necessarily isolated, but has little if any direct link with Hunt's picture.
Let us also note that you wouldnt be making these ridiculous accusations if you actually could show that Axes analogy was valid.
You haven't demonstrated that Axe's analogy was bad. All you have said is that since it was a 'word' analogy, and proteins are not words, then it is a bad analogy. Well, Hun't analogy is a 'hill' analogy, and proteins are not hills. So then by your standards Hunt's analogy and diagrams should be a bad analogy as well. If you don't think that, then double standard by you.
Axe's analogy stands fine on it's own. If you don't understand it, that is your problem.
The problem seems to be that Behes terminology is a problem for you. Hes the one that expressed IC in terms of parts
I have no problem with Behe's terminology. But you haven't exactly mentioned his terminology beyond saying "change of parts", "other parts", "loss of parts" without any logical connecting words or context that in any way refers to something Behe said. Behe has said a lot of stuff. Quote something for God's sake so we have some clue what you are referring to.
So, or rephrase, one or more of the parts making up a system may change such that their operation becomes dependent on one or more other parts of the system
I hate to do this, but I have to break this down into chunks and ask questions to ever start to get an idea what you mean. (Let me also state that Behe doesn't describe IC in the manner you are here)
Do you mean: "So, to rephrase..."?
"one or more of the parts making up a system" - I will assume you mean an IC system. If not, please correct me.
"may change" - OK. But I might need to you flesh out how they are supposed to change (trust me, it's important)
"such that their operation" - I am assuming you mean the function of the part.
"becomes" - this implies a new state of the part. As in a new function, yes?
"dependent on one or more other parts of the system" - OK. But the parts within an IC system are already dependent on one or more parts. So what is changing? Is it a change in how they depend on each other? Can you really do that and retain the function of the part? If it has a new function, it isn't doing the original function, and thus the IC system fails.
So your either saying something about IC systems that we already know, or your suggesting something occurs that breaks the IC system. The question really lies in what you mean, specifically, by "may change". If you can relate this to something Behe (or any one else defining IC) actually says (quote preferred) that would help immensely. Or give an example (or analogy *hehe*) if possible.
The desired function is the function being searched for.
A similar function is a function similar to the desired function
Being good at the function refers to how well the sequence performs the function.
Lets try this again. For the last time I swear. After this I give up. Lets insert your definitions into your original statements.
"if your initial sequence either has some of the [function being searched for] or a [function similar to the desired function] it helps a lot in finding a sequence that is [how well the sequence performs the function]"
Ya. So? You're still not clear on what is being looked for in the search space, but if I had to guess I think you might be suggesting (like a lot of others) that we should be looking for new function (which I assume is what "similar to the desired function" is supposed to be. But how one would do that and is it feasible? And again.... in the case of Axe's experiment it wasn't what he was looking for, nor did he have a reason to.
.....
I'm done with discussing this particular Axe experiment. It is after all from 14 years ago, and a lot has been done since then in studying enzymes. You might be happy to know that even Axe, through other experiments of his own and other papers by other scientists (and no not all ID scientists) has refined his numbers down a bit to 10^74, or so it seemed the last I checked.
But even that is not much help for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2019 12:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2019 5:32 PM WookieeB has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 157 of 1104 (847649)
01-24-2019 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by WookieeB
01-24-2019 4:49 PM


Hunt versus Axe
quote:
Dear Lord! You apparently cannot see the obvious.
Hunts diagrams (figures 1-3 and probably 4 too) are pictures Hunt made up. They are not based on numbers or data from Axe's paper or anywhere else. They are merely images to help describe something he is talking about. They relate to his analogizing Axe's paper by describing it in terms of hills and topography in sequence space. So his description is an analogy, and the pictures that relate to the description is analogy too. Figures 1-3 had no references, and were the subject of what Axe responds to as his Objection 3.
The diagrams illustrate what Hunt is talking about - that is my point. The pictures aren’t arguments, simply illustrations of Hunt’s points.
Thus the analogy isn’t the argument.
quote:
I think your getting your objections mixed up.
The question of isolation is what Axe deals with in his labeled Objection 2, but it is Figure 4 (and added reference) in Hunt's response. The picture really isn't anything more than a visual aid again referencing his analogy he employed before. The reference is used to support that proteins are not necessarily isolated, but has little if any direct link with Hunt's picture.
In other words the picture is used to illustrate the point - and the actual point is supported by the reference. It’s so good that you’re agreeing with me.
quote:
You haven't demonstrated that Axe's analogy was bad. All you have said is that since it was a 'word' analogy, and proteins are not words, then it is a bad analogy. Well, Hun't analogy is a 'hill' analogy, and proteins are not hills. So then by your standards Hunt's analogy and diagrams should be a bad analogy as well. If you don't think that, then double standard by you.
You mean that - with regard to isolation - I should rely on points supported by references and not analogies ? Amazingly that is exactly what I did ! As I keep pointing out the diagrams are illustrations, not the actual argument. So there goes your claims of a double standard.
As to whether Axe’s claimed analogy is good or not - well there is no obvious reason to think it is and neither you nor Axe seem to offer any.
quote:
I have no problem with Behe's terminology. But you haven't exactly mentioned his terminology beyond saying "change of parts", "other parts", "loss of parts" without any logical connecting words or context that in any way refers to something Behe said. Behe has said a lot of stuff. Quote something for God's sake so we have some clue what you are referring to.
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
(Wikipedia citing Darwin’s Black Box)
Does that satisfy you ?
quote:
Do you mean: "So, to rephrase..."?
Yes.
quote:
"one or more of the parts making up a system" - I will assume you mean an IC system. If not, please correct me.
Since I am speaking of how a system can become IC, I obviously include systems that are not (yet) IC. Even without that consideration I see no good reason why you would assume that I meant only IC systems.
quote:
"may change" - OK. But I might need to you flesh out how they are supposed to change (trust me, it's important)
That is going to be specific to the sort of system you are looking at.
quote:
"such that their operation" - I am assuming you mean the function of the part.
I mean what the part does.
quote:
"becomes" - this implies a new state of the part. As in a new function, yes?
Generally not a new function - performing the same function but in a slightly different way would be more typical.
quote:
"dependent on one or more other parts of the system" - OK. But the parts within an IC system are already dependent on one or more parts. So what is changing? Is it a change in how they depend on each other?
It is an additional dependency. After all I am describing how IC systems can evolve, remember ? The creation of dependencies between existing parts has rather obvious relevance to that
quote:
Can you really do that and retain the function of the part?
I can’t see any reason why not.
quote:
If it has a new function, it isn't doing the original function, and thus the IC system fails.
Good job I wasn’t talking about parts changing function in an IC system then.
quote:
The question really lies in what you mean, specifically, by "may change". If you can relate this to something Behe (or any one else defining IC) actually says (quote preferred) that would help immensely. Or give an example (or analogy *hehe*) if possible.
Not really. The details have to be specific to the system. A system where the parts are individual molecules would be different from a system where the parts are bones, for instance. The nature of the parts and how they interact is critical.
quote:
"if your initial sequence either has some of the [function being searched for] or a [function similar to the desired function] it helps a lot in finding a sequence that is [how well the sequence performs the function]

Try:
“If the start point has some level of function or a related function it makes it easier to find an end point with the required level of function.”
quote:
Ya. So? You're still not clear on what is being looked for in the search space
When we are talking about search in a very generic sense, that is normal and expected.
quote:
...but if I had to guess I think you might be suggesting (like a lot of others) that we should be looking for new function (which I assume is what "similar to the desired function" is supposed to be. But how one would do that and is it feasible? And again.... in the case of Axe's experiment it wasn't what he was looking for, nor did he have a reason to.
But we aren’t discussing Axe’s experiment - we are talking about the significance of the 10^-77 figure. Specifically the point is that you can’t use it as the probability of evolving a new functional protein because evolution is not the same as random search.
quote:
But even that is not much help for evolution.
Well, unless Axe has a better argument for isolation than an alleged analogy - that he can’t even show is valid - it isn’t exactly a problem for evolution. And even then, so long as figures many orders of magnitude higher are reasonable possibilities it isn’t even of great significance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 4:49 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 5:33 PM PaulK has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 158 of 1104 (847651)
01-24-2019 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by JonF
01-24-2019 2:21 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
False. Click the link in my message and you will be inundated in links where people report making ancestral proteins.
Think about it. The oldest DNA found is about 700,000 years ago. The oldest reported protein sequence obtained is from 80 mya, though whether this is true is heavily disputed. Why? Because DNA/Proteins cannot normally survive that long. I'm all for it if it is true, but my point is that actual, ANCIENT protein is not around.
None of the initial papers from your reference dump seem to have any link to actual, ANCIENT protein/DNA. So at first glance, 'ancestral protein' doesn't map to anything that has been demonstrated actually existed.
So where does your so-called Ancestral Proteins come from? I'll use one of the first from your provided link. First sentence: "Ancestral sequence reconstruction relies on phylogeny and statistics to infer the most likely amino acid SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT". Hmm, so evolutionary assumptions are built right in. I note the word "infer", and other words like "synthetic" and "artificial" when describing some of the things that scientists were making. I would also point out that all of this......is INTELLIGENT DESIGN in action!
So, if you want to say that making things based on assumptions (of the bigger topic in question) is any equivalency with what an ancestral protein is,.... Knock yourself out!
I take your lack of response to be an admission that ID makes no predictions about junk DNA.
No, I didn't answer because it was a stupid statement. Your treading into a theological question that I don't care to pursue.
All that ID claims is that the inferred best explanation for some features of the natural world is best explained by the actions of a mind/intelligence. It doesn't attempt to explain who or what that intelligence is, nor whatever motives that intelligence mayor may not have.
The only characteristic it would attempt to infer is qualities directly related to a design paradigm. Thus, if someone was designing a semiotic system, and it displayed the many checks and error-correction mechanisms that DNA has, then it would be very unlikely to be a system that generated or allowed a significant amount of junk (per the evolutionary explanation). It's just a matter of normal design constraints. Which leads to the conclusion that there would more likely be less junk rather than more junk in the system. That is not to say that the semiotic system would be perfect, but all the other functions involved with DNA suggest a highly tuned and functioning system. There is no rational reason to suggest that the signal system was full of junk.
Yet that is what (at first) many evolutionary scientists were saying. The thought initially was that since only a small percentage of DNA coded for proteins, and there was no 'apparent' function for the rest of it, then it was surmised that most of that extra stuff was junk. Back then ID, even before ENCODE and more recent knowledge, disputed that was likely the case.
Now that more data is available, it turns out the idea of Junk DNA is practically dead and most evolutionary scientists back away from the idea and would like to sweep their history under the rug.
I suppose an intelligence designing DNA could include junk if they really wanted to, but the point of it is lost to me and that would not really support any idea of good or decent design.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed first quote box (had used "qc" instead of "qs").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by JonF, posted 01-24-2019 2:21 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 01-24-2019 9:49 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 176 by JonF, posted 01-26-2019 9:02 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


(1)
Message 159 of 1104 (847653)
01-24-2019 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Tanypteryx
01-24-2019 2:50 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
The only people who want to include those weasel words (including unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes) in definitions of evolution are creationists and cdesign proponentsists.
OMG, you are so dense! How can they be "weasel words" when you actually agree with them? Do you think questions on origins, even evolutionary ones, never has anyone questioning whether the process is unguided? It has a bearing on the qualification of the definition of evolution because those are topics that are frequently involved when discussing evolution in the manner that we are (whereas yellow paint, breakfast cereal, leprechauns.. are not). How can you even be interacting on a forum like this without realizing that?
Ever hear of theistic evolution? Such questions such as whether evolution is by an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless process is central to the subject.
Whether evolution is by an unguided, unintelligent, purely material processes is not a subject brought up in many scientific papers (unless it is central to the theme). So I wouldn't expect to see it there, and there's no objection to it not being there. But we're not on this forum just discussing some technical features of a paper. The central theme is Evolution vs Creation, and we're in the sub-topic of Intelligent Design. (Hey, I just realized, this forum is structured as a nested hierarchy). Discussions of scientific things is just some structure for the greater theme. How you can not think that the nature of evolution (being guided or unguided, etc) would not factor into the discussion going on here is boggling to me.
It's context. CONTEXT!!! Get it? If not, you should go talk with the other guy that is hung up on ID being all about 'cdesign proponentsists'. He doesn't get context either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-24-2019 2:50 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-24-2019 10:29 PM WookieeB has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 160 of 1104 (847661)
01-24-2019 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by WookieeB
01-24-2019 6:16 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
None of the initial papers from your reference dump seem to have any link to actual, ANCIENT protein/DNA
But loads of them report making ancestral DNA.
All that ID claims is that the inferred best explanation for some features of the natural world is best explained by the actions of a mind/intelligence. It doesn't attempt to explain who or what that intelligence is, nor whatever motives that intelligence mayor may not have.
The only characteristic it would attempt to infer is qualities directly related to a design paradigm. Thus, if someone was designing a semiotic system, and it displayed the many checks and error-correction mechanisms that DNA has, then it would be very unlikely to be a system that generated or allowed a significant amount of junk (per the evolutionary explanation). It's just a matter of normal design constrain
Repeating contradictory claims doesn't resolve the contradiction.
You are assuming your designer is subject to the same kind of "normal design constraints" (your words) as a human designer. Project specifications, cost, time, saleability, availability of materials...
You are assuming aspects of the intelligence that you have no basis for assuming, or your claim of "nor whatever motives that intelligence mayor may not have" is false (and your "prediction" is no such thing}.
Slartibartfast designed fjords with krinkly edges because they have such a baroque feel. How do you know your designer doesn't just like the baroque feel of junk DNA and doesn't care about any other aspects of it? (Need a hint?)
Pick one. Having both is irreconcilable.
Now that more data is available, it turns out the idea of Junk DNA is practically dead and most evolutionary scientists back away from the idea and would like to sweep their history under the rug.
[citations required]
Most scientists still believe in junk DNA. Most of those believe there's lots of it. And they've got lots of evidence.
Finding a function of a few items previously thought to be junk doesn't change that. Of course there's always ENCODE; bet you haven't a clue what their work signifies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 6:16 PM WookieeB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by dwise1, posted 01-24-2019 10:15 PM JonF has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 161 of 1104 (847663)
01-24-2019 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by JonF
01-24-2019 9:49 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Slartibartfast designed fjords with krinkly edges because they have such a baroque feel. How do you know your designer doesn't just like the baroque feel of junk DNA and doesn't care about any other aspects of it? (Need a hint?)
Don't forget that for Earth2 he was assigned Africa, so he wanted to give it fjords too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 01-24-2019 9:49 PM JonF has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 162 of 1104 (847664)
01-24-2019 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by WookieeB
01-24-2019 6:43 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:
OMG, you are so dense!
OMG, you are so rude!
Do you think questions on origins, even evolutionary ones, never has anyone questioning whether the process is unguided?
Nope, in 150+ years that people have been studying life and evolution no evidence of a guiding entity has been found. If someone finds evidence they need to report it so it can be evaluated, but those of us who study evolution and biology are all more interested in pursuing our own specialties and evaluating the reported observations and findings of other scientists.
Those questions were unanswerable without evidence so we left it to those who want to spend their time trying to find that evidence. It hasn't happened yet and we don't see any reason to list the things we have not found in our definitions of this field of study.
It has a bearing on the qualification of the definition of evolution because those are topics that are frequently involved when discussing evolution in the manner that we are....How can you even be interacting on a forum like this without realizing that?
Oh, I realize that's what you want, I'm waiting for evidence of guided, intelligent, purposeful, immaterial processes, in other words magic.
Ever hear of theistic evolution? Such questions such as whether evolution is by an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless process is central to the subject.
Yep, I've heard of it, but once again you have no evidence of an intelligent guide.
The central theme is Evolution vs Creation, and we're in the sub-topic of Intelligent Design. Discussions of scientific things is just some structure for the greater theme. How you can not think that the nature of evolution (being guided or unguided, etc) would not factor into the discussion going on here is boggling to me.
Yeah, I get that. Present your evidence for your intelligent designer.
It's context. CONTEXT!!! Get it?
It's still about evidence. EVIDENCE!!! Get it?
You seem to think this is the first time we have heard your stuff, but we've heard it all before and there never is any evidence to support you.
Meanwhile we have millions of fossils, biogeography, molecular biology, millions of studies in the lab and in the field that all consistently support the modern theory of biological evolution.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 6:43 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 01-24-2019 11:10 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 169 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 11:57 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(6)
Message 163 of 1104 (847666)
01-24-2019 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Tanypteryx
01-24-2019 10:29 PM


Heard it all before
These new creos that post here think they have found some rubes they can baffle with their bullshit. We have seen it all. I leave this forum occasionally, but I always come back. The reason is this is the most intelligent forum there is on the internet. The creos have no idea the expertise and knowledge they are up against.
I am proud to be a member and contributor to this forum. I have my area of expertise but have learned so much from the experts on this forum.
I do think that if we took the cream of this forum we could solve the shutdown, Brexit, global warming and many other issues.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-24-2019 10:29 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-24-2019 11:53 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 164 of 1104 (847670)
01-24-2019 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Theodoric
01-24-2019 11:10 PM


Re: Heard it all before
I have my area of expertise but have learned so much from the experts on this forum.
That's why I am still here. I have learned fine details on a bunch of subjects that I find interesting and I have had a blast visiting and photographing geological formations that I learned about here.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 01-24-2019 11:10 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Theodoric, posted 01-25-2019 12:16 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 165 of 1104 (847671)
01-25-2019 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tanypteryx
01-24-2019 11:53 PM


Re: Heard it all before
I am going to Puerto Rico in March. Anything you want pics of?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-24-2019 11:53 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2019 12:28 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 167 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-25-2019 2:08 AM Theodoric 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