Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Chopping down the Tree of Life.

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 12:26:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Paul Nelson gives a very good seminar on how genetics research is ruling out Darwin's tree of life hypothesis, and pointing out the implausibility of universal common ancestry.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 1:43:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
CD + KNOWLEDGE of biochemical function = prediction of biochemical invariance

This is the basic fundamentals of the video. The video says that our predictions are having problems with either CD or knowledge. But, the CD is never questioned and it is assumed that Knowledge is wrong. Though the knowledge is the evidence we find to make predictions. How is the knowledge wrong? And how is not CD not questioned and can be considered wrong?

I use the videos analogy. CD is a queen in the castle that can never be touched because you have a thrown room and walls and a moot and a village outside the walls of the castle. It claims that the queen never gets touched and is always protected but in fact the thrown room is penetrable. Therefore, CD cannot be proven wrong even if it has evidence and predictions that show it is.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:06:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 12:26:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:


Paul Nelson gives a very good seminar on how genetics research is ruling out Darwin's tree of life hypothesis, and pointing out the implausibility of universal common ancestry.

I hopped through it, but wow, didn't know about ORFans specifically. Here's an NIH link for anyone wanting to get up to speed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
This space for rent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 4:34:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 1:43:08 PM, Pennington wrote:
CD + KNOWLEDGE of biochemical function = prediction of biochemical invariance

This is the basic fundamentals of the video. The video says that our predictions are having problems with either CD or knowledge. But, the CD is never questioned and it is assumed that Knowledge is wrong. Though the knowledge is the evidence we find to make predictions. How is the knowledge wrong? And how is not CD not questioned and can be considered wrong?

I use the videos analogy. CD is a queen in the castle that can never be touched because you have a thrown room and walls and a moot and a village outside the walls of the castle. It claims that the queen never gets touched and is always protected but in fact the thrown room is penetrable. Therefore, CD cannot be proven wrong even if it has evidence and predictions that show it is.

CD can't be wrong, it just can't be. That would leave only one answer for life's origins, a Creator. That would mean that scientists, a good many who are atheists, can no longer claim to have a monopoly on knowledge about the world, and atheistic naturalists would no longer have any claim to validate such worldviews. It's not hard to see why the queen is so well protected, but as you stated, the throne room is indeed penetrable. It can't be made totally impenetrable because it is not built on truth.

It is no longer a matter of whether or not CD is true. It isn't, it has been falsified and shown to be a failed hypothesis. It's now a matter of getting the word out and un-indoctrinating people. This is why people like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, John Morris, Phillip Johnson, Mike Riddle, etc, are so despised by hard-core evolutionists.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

Do you have transcripts? Articles?

Or would you dare to explain the content of what you're posting instead of simply posting it?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 5:30:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:06:36 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/9/2013 12:26:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:


Paul Nelson gives a very good seminar on how genetics research is ruling out Darwin's tree of life hypothesis, and pointing out the implausibility of universal common ancestry.

I hopped through it, but wow, didn't know about ORFans specifically. Here's an NIH link for anyone wanting to get up to speed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

ORFans are definately interesting. I also found topoisomerase to be a very difficult thing to explain from an evolutionary perspective.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

Do you have transcripts? Articles?

Or would you dare to explain the content of what you're posting instead of simply posting it?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 6:10:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

Do you have transcripts? Articles?

Or would you dare to explain the content of what you're posting instead of simply posting it?

It's a matter of wasting time. If you gave me the transcript instead of the lecture, I could probably go through it in ten or fifteen minutes.

And again, if you don't have any text or such, you can always just EXPLAIN IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:37:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 4:34:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 1:43:08 PM, Pennington wrote:
CD + KNOWLEDGE of biochemical function = prediction of biochemical invariance

This is the basic fundamentals of the video. The video says that our predictions are having problems with either CD or knowledge. But, the CD is never questioned and it is assumed that Knowledge is wrong. Though the knowledge is the evidence we find to make predictions. How is the knowledge wrong? And how is not CD not questioned and can be considered wrong?

I use the videos analogy. CD is a queen in the castle that can never be touched because you have a thrown room and walls and a moot and a village outside the walls of the castle. It claims that the queen never gets touched and is always protected but in fact the thrown room is penetrable. Therefore, CD cannot be proven wrong even if it has evidence and predictions that show it is.

CD can't be wrong, it just can't be. That would leave only one answer for life's origins, a Creator. That would mean that scientists, a good many who are atheists, can no longer claim to have a monopoly on knowledge about the world, and atheistic naturalists would no longer have any claim to validate such worldviews. It's not hard to see why the queen is so well protected, but as you stated, the throne room is indeed penetrable. It can't be made totally impenetrable because it is not built on truth.

It is no longer a matter of whether or not CD is true. It isn't, it has been falsified and shown to be a failed hypothesis. It's now a matter of getting the word out and un-indoctrinating people. This is why people like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, John Morris, Phillip Johnson, Mike Riddle, etc, are so despised by hard-core evolutionists.

No, they're probably despised for many of the same reasons that other con-men are looked down upon.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:30:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 6:10:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

Do you have transcripts? Articles?

Or would you dare to explain the content of what you're posting instead of simply posting it?

It's a matter of wasting time. If you gave me the transcript instead of the lecture, I could probably go through it in ten or fifteen minutes.

And again, if you don't have any text or such, you can always just EXPLAIN IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

I think you're just afraid to be exposed to someone explaining things from a different viewpoint than the one you're comfortable with.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:54:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

It's best never to watch or comment on videos. It only encourages folks to post more of them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 3:47:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 10:30:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:10:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

Do you have transcripts? Articles?

Or would you dare to explain the content of what you're posting instead of simply posting it?

It's a matter of wasting time. If you gave me the transcript instead of the lecture, I could probably go through it in ten or fifteen minutes.

And again, if you don't have any text or such, you can always just EXPLAIN IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

I think you're just afraid to be exposed to someone explaining things from a different viewpoint than the one you're comfortable with.

Yeah, that's why he asked you to explain it to him twice.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 8:19:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:54:32 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

It's best never to watch or comment on videos. It only encourages folks to post more of them.

I generally agree. But, if one feels this way, there's a simple solution - just don't watch it. Coming on a thread and whining "I don't want to watch your video" - that's kind of bogus.

I posted a link, btw. It's to a government web site, it's safe (it's not creationist). And if somebody can't get up to speed reading the source materials - watch the good doctor, let him explain it.
This space for rent.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 8:29:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 8:19:45 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/10/2013 12:54:32 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

It's best never to watch or comment on videos. It only encourages folks to post more of them.

I generally agree. But, if one feels this way, there's a simple solution - just don't watch it. Coming on a thread and whining "I don't want to watch your video" - that's kind of bogus.

I posted a link, btw. It's to a government web site, it's safe (it's not creationist). And if somebody can't get up to speed reading the source materials - watch the good doctor, let him explain it.

I see WHAT they are I want to know what it has to do with challenging evolution.

If I don't want to take the time to watch an hour long film, and I can-

A: Ask the poster to either explain it in his own words or find a text that is relevant

B: Ignore whatever point the poster is trying to make for the simple reason that he posted a video without explanation in his OP.

You seem to be horrified that I chose A instead of B.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 9:27:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 8:29:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/10/2013 8:19:45 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/10/2013 12:54:32 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

It's best never to watch or comment on videos. It only encourages folks to post more of them.

I generally agree. But, if one feels this way, there's a simple solution - just don't watch it. Coming on a thread and whining "I don't want to watch your video" - that's kind of bogus.

I posted a link, btw. It's to a government web site, it's safe (it's not creationist). And if somebody can't get up to speed reading the source materials - watch the good doctor, let him explain it.

I see WHAT they are I want to know what it has to do with challenging evolution.


Well then you already know the apparent problem they are for evolution. Quit being coy. The "look alike" isn't as alike as expected when you pop the hood.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 9:29:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 8:29:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
....

You seem to be horrified that I chose A instead of B.

But no, btw, I think you're quite justified in asking for A, for whatever that's worth.
This space for rent.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 9:35:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's not really chopping down the "Tree of Life". Common Decent from a single life for was always questionable because the definition of Life is vague, and there is no consensus for a single definition.

Most people claiming Common Decent from a single life form normally give a definition of Life that includes only Cellular Life. If you use a definition that includes Viruses and Prions then the Common Decent doesn't work very well. It's also been entirely possible for two, or any number of, different single cell life forms to come out of ambiogenesis. That doesn't remove common decent though. All mammals still come from the same origin.

The only problem is for those foolish enough to believe that life only occurred once and only once. It also plays games with the fermi paradox since if this is right we might have a way of possibly calculating a reasonable value for the odds of life occurring under the right conditions to use in the drake equation that's just a bunch of guesses until you have that value. However if life occurred more than once on the Earth then the Fermi Paradox become more confusing, not less.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 9:40:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:54:32 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:56:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:20:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not listening to an hour long lecture.

That's how we feel when you guys post links to stuff where we know we're going to have to read through the evo-speak and spin, and try to figure out where the actual scientific facts are, like talkorigins.

Unfortunately no, I can't find a text version.

It's best never to watch or comment on videos. It only encourages folks to post more of them.

If the video were just something made by the typical youtuber I could understand your point. When it's a lecture given by a legit expert in his field then it is no different than sitting through a lecture in college or high school.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 9:41:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think videos like this one are good for several reasons. They are organized presentations of information, by people who are qualified in their field, and are use to speaking in public. Most times there are also visual aids that help make important points, that make the video more informative than just reading a text article.

Secondly, we typically hear how Common Descent is a fact, science supports it, and there is no debate in the scientific community about it. Videos like this might be the only exposure that one gets to the truth. No, the science doesn't support it, in spite of the claims. Yes, there is debate about it within the scientific community, and that debate is based on science, not religion.

So basically, objections to videos boils down to 3 things. Time constraints, which is the only legitimate excuse, but if you're on the forums at DDO then obviously you aren't all that pressed for time. Apathy on the issue, which is fine. If one doesn't care one way or another that's his/her decision, but if you're not willing to look into the issue beyond what you've been told to believe then you have no credibility when commenting on the issue. Last, your mind is closed on the issue and you just simply don't want to expose yourself to an opinion presented from a different perspective. That's fine, but if that's your stance then you cannot claim to have looked at the issue fairly, and your position is purely ideological.

Bottom line, watch the video if you want. Don't watch it if you don't want. The evidence is out there to disprove CD, ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:21:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 9:35:47 AM, medv4380 wrote:
... It's also been entirely possible for two, or any number of, different single cell life forms to come out of ambiogenesis.

It is? Just like that, because somebody says so?

All mammals still come from the same origin.


There you go, that was easy. What do we need all these fancy labs for when we can just assert stuff and have it be science!

Unfortunately, one of the things that emerges when you pop the hood and start trying to line up the DNA between species, is that too much of it is completely unique to each species. That's one of the things that's explained in the video.
This space for rent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 11:31:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One of his first objections is that CD from a lower life form, one that doesn't use nucleic acid, to a form that does, violates the Principle of Continuity. The PoC should act as an umpire, and if the hypothesis violates the PoC, then the hypothesis is falsified. He points out though, that with CD if there is a conflict, then CD is favored rather than the PoC.

There is a "gulf of impossibility" that such a change must cross. He likens it to a small plane flying through the air, being rebuilt into a fighter jet, while still flying. He gives other instances of the gulf of impossibility that evolution must cross, and shows how the PoC excludes CD from happening. Yet evolutionary biologists are willing to throw out the PoC, the umpire, rather than deal with the possibility that CD can't be true. They protect CD like a queen in her throne room. CD is priviledged and protected, and if anomolous data comes in it is dealt with so that it can't threaten the queen. That kind of thinking makes CD axiomatic, an a priori assumption. It is no longer testable science.

He then goes on to generate a prediction using CD as the hypothesis. That prediction is that if all organisms are related, then the release factors in ribosomes should be the same, since they would be inherited. It turns out that they aren't the same, different microbes have different release factors. How is that possible if they are inherited from a common ancestor?? Where is the natural pathway that should exist between ancestors and descendants?? That is just one example of known scientific facts being inconsistent with the hypothesis of common ancestry.

This is why I recommend the video. His presentation is so much more informative than what I can present here.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 9:35:47 AM, medv4380 wrote:
That's not really chopping down the "Tree of Life". Common Decent from a single life for was always questionable because the definition of Life is vague, and there is no consensus for a single definition.

Most people claiming Common Decent from a single life form normally give a definition of Life that includes only Cellular Life. If you use a definition that includes Viruses and Prions then the Common Decent doesn't work very well. It's also been entirely possible for two, or any number of, different single cell life forms to come out of ambiogenesis. That doesn't remove common decent though. All mammals still come from the same origin.

The only problem is for those foolish enough to believe that life only occurred once and only once. It also plays games with the fermi paradox since if this is right we might have a way of possibly calculating a reasonable value for the odds of life occurring under the right conditions to use in the drake equation that's just a bunch of guesses until you have that value. However if life occurred more than once on the Earth then the Fermi Paradox become more confusing, not less.

This is why evolutionists don't like to discuss the issue of the original common ancestor. They don't know if it was one organism, or many different organisms. I'd say they're better off sticking with one. The odds of life creating itself once are astronomical, but if you claim that it happened multiple times, all coming about in the same way resulting in the same dna being used for all life forms, you are massively increasing the unlikelihood. Not to mention the fact that you're bringing it more in line with Creation.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 3:29:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 11:31:15 AM, medic0506 wrote:
One of his first objections is that CD from a lower life form, one that doesn't use nucleic acid, to a form that does, violates the Principle of Continuity. The PoC should act as an umpire, and if the hypothesis violates the PoC, then the hypothesis is falsified. He points out though, that with CD if there is a conflict, then CD is favored rather than the PoC.

There is a "gulf of impossibility" that such a change must cross. He likens it to a small plane flying through the air, being rebuilt into a fighter jet, while still flying. He gives other instances of the gulf of impossibility that evolution must cross, and shows how the PoC excludes CD from happening. Yet evolutionary biologists are willing to throw out the PoC, the umpire, rather than deal with the possibility that CD can't be true. They protect CD like a queen in her throne room. CD is priviledged and protected, and if anomolous data comes in it is dealt with so that it can't threaten the queen. That kind of thinking makes CD axiomatic, an a priori assumption. It is no longer testable science.

He then goes on to generate a prediction using CD as the hypothesis. That prediction is that if all organisms are related, then the release factors in ribosomes should be the same, since they would be inherited. It turns out that they aren't the same, different microbes have different release factors. How is that possible if they are inherited from a common ancestor?? Where is the natural pathway that should exist between ancestors and descendants?? That is just one example of known scientific facts being inconsistent with the hypothesis of common ancestry.

This is why I recommend the video. His presentation is so much more informative than what I can present here.

Orfan Genes are not some absolute mystery. We've already traced how they mutate and are created within the genome.

They're examples of evolutionary novelty and adaptation, yet creationists take it to be evidence for Creationism. Go figure.

http://www.pnas.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Let's go over his objections:

1. Abiogenesis should have occurred with amino acids and DNA popping up out of nowhere otherwise you violate a "Principle of Continuity."

Response: Has this guy ever heard of the "Principle of Parsimony?" This kind of rationale would suggest Evolution is impossible unless the first self-replicating macromolecules were DNA. We know it's possible to have simpler self-replicating macromolecules, and we know DNA cannot form ex nihilo, so from this alone we should say Common Descent is impossible?

Come on, try a little harder.

No one, I repeat, no one in the scientific community for at least the past 30 years has thought that the first living organisms popped out of DNA.

He might as well posit endosymbiosis as a gulf of impossibility.

"That prediction is that if all organisms are related, then the release factors in ribosomes should be the same, since they would be inherited."

What on earth is this supposed to show other than extensive gene flow for asexually reproducing organisms? Does he have any actual research papers behind this or does he just put up a slide saying "I PROOFED DIS?" If he has research papers, I'll read them.
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 5:30:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can't watch any more. I saw the section about how proteins are manufactured and the prediction that for CD to be feasible the "release factor" in the ribosome struture that releases the manufactured protein from the ribosome should be the same across species.

I fail to see how that should be a prediction. Proteins are extremely complex in living organisms and we don't even have a strong understanding of them and how they get folded, etc and there is no reason to believe that protein processes could not have evolved into different processes across species. I would assume they would be different and not the same.

Alzhimers is now being figured as a protein being folded wrong and that is the plaque build up in the brain.

I can't speak to the entire video, but this guy is making predictions and then saying when the evidence does not fit his prediction, it indicates CD is wrong. i would say his predictions are wrong.