Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Good example of uncovering evolutionary path

slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 8:26:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is another good article of studies that try to uncover the actual base pair mutations that result in a different features of an organism.

It is my belief that the evolution theory will be undeniable as these mutations are found which explain how one feature in an organism changed to be another completely different feature set.

I have posted other examples of this previously, such as how a chicken creates a hard shell egg and the genetic pathway that allows that. Those were embeded in evolution topics, but never responded to.

In this case 19 mutations were found that attributes to how hummingbirds are attracted to sweet flavors. this is a mutation on the umami receptor, which is designed to taste the savory flavor, which is protein. How can an unami receptor change into a receptor which no longer "tastes" proteins, but rather sugars, a completely different structure?

For those who argue against evolution, what is the mechanism which would stop these mutations from happening to change a unami receptor to detect sugar?

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Together they showed that in chickens and swifts the receptor responds strongly to amino acids -- the umami flavors -- but in hummingbirds only weakly. But the receptor in hummingbirds responds strongly to carbohydrates -- the sweet flavors.
"This is the first time that this umami receptor has ever been shown to respond to carbohydrates," Baldwin said.
Toda mixed and matched different subunits of the chicken and hummingbird taste receptors into hybrid chimeras to understand which parts of the gene were involved in this change in function. All told, she found 19 mutations, but there are likely more contributing to this sweet switch, Baldwin and Liberles suspect.
"If you look at the structure of the receptor, it involved really dramatic changes over its entire surface to accomplish this complex feat," Liberles said. "Amino acids and sugars look very different structurally so in order to recognize them and sense them in the environment, you need acompletely different lock and key. The key looks very different, so you have to change the lock almost entirely."
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:19:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
what is the mechanism which would stop these mutations from happening to change a unami receptor to detect sugar?

Are you claiming that the hummingbird's taste receptor evolved? That sounds like a hasty assumption, as all was provided was a hypothetical estimation of how many mutations it would take. Although it is a valid possibility.

You are claiming that this is a good evidence for Darwinian evolution. Well, lets say the taste bud did evolve from an ancestor hummingbird, describe the type of mutations involved, and then explain how these type of mutation can create multicellularity, or invent, create, and assemble an organ of your choosing.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 9:28:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:19:55 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
what is the mechanism which would stop these mutations from happening to change a unami receptor to detect sugar?

Are you claiming that the hummingbird's taste receptor evolved? That sounds like a hasty assumption, as all was provided was a hypothetical estimation of how many mutations it would take. Although it is a valid possibility.

I'm not claiming, but since they found 18 base pairs that were involved (likely some more) with turning a unami receptor to detect sugar rather than proteins, it is very possible.

You are claiming that this is a good evidence for Darwinian evolution. Well, lets say the taste bud did evolve from an ancestor hummingbird, describe the type of mutations involved, and then explain how these type of mutation can create multicellularity, or invent, create, and assemble an organ of your choosing.

It is quite a jump to go from one cell to multi cell organisms let alone a fully formed organ in an organism. This paper was dealing with a taste bud, not as lofty things as you want the magic bullet laid out for you.

Baby steps, baby steps. You get the cart far in front of the horse. As knowledge is gained with DNA and how changes in it change an organism, it should be possible to show a step by step change from organism A to organism B.

Like I said this will be an argument that gets won or lost at the microbiology level. Give it the time it deserves, rather than rushing to judgement to support a preconceived notion.

In the mean time read about how the distinct and separate electric eels in this study all seemed to have developed a pathway to make an organ that can build and discharge electric potential even though it is thought they developed that organ after already being split from their descendants.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 8:09:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 9:28:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
...

Baby steps, baby steps. You get the cart far in front of the horse. As knowledge is gained with DNA and how changes in it change an organism, it should be possible to show a step by step change from organism A to organism B.


And when you've shown that, you will have officially moved into the realm of scientific theory. But as of now you only have a further elaboration on the hypothesis. You are admitting that evolution still doesn't have the baby steps. The only thing we can see clearly are changes based upon pre-existing information in the DNA. There are not even baby step demonstrations of actual Darwinian evolution.

And why 'should' it be possible? You don't do science by wanting certain things to be true, you should just follow the evidence where it leads, which means being open to the possibility that your interpretation of data may currently be wrong.

Like I said this will be an argument that gets won or lost at the microbiology level. Give it the time it deserves, rather than rushing to judgement to support a preconceived notion.


Indeed. But how about paying some attention to the overwhelming normal functioning of reproduction while you're at it, which serves to make species adaptable while still preserving the basic form of the species?

You're trying to find a needle in a haystack when you have no particular reason to think there is a needle. Maybe you're not finding it because it's not there. Maybe this rare and elusive accumulation of random mutations to form entirely new things just doesn't happen. Especially since it would have to happen pretty regularly to form an ecosystem of our complexity in only a billion years or so. A giga-year isn't really very long to get to humans who can design gigahertz computers, you know?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 9:16:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To put it all a bit more succinctly: What the article does is say "If hummingbirds evolved sweet preference, here's how it happened". It's like "If John came to work from home, here's the route he must have taken" And the deduction of that route may be based on all kinds of sophisticated satellite imagery and traffic analysis, but if John spent the night at a friends, the whole deduction is wrong.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 12:13:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:16:26 AM, v3nesl wrote:
To put it all a bit more succinctly: What the article does is say "If hummingbirds evolved sweet preference, here's how it happened". It's like "If John came to work from home, here's the route he must have taken" And the deduction of that route may be based on all kinds of sophisticated satellite imagery and traffic analysis, but if John spent the night at a friends, the whole deduction is wrong.

Expanding upon this logic, it could potentially be possible come up with an entire evolutionary pathway from the first proto life to all extant life explaining every single organ, transition and appendage.

And you would still reject it.

Every explanation like this is another nail in the coffin of Creationism; a coffin that has been buried for 100 years and so full of nails already that it throws off compasses a thousand miles away.

This explanation should not be possible in a sequence of life generated by divine creation; unless you can provide a plausible scientific explanation of why so many of these pathways have been analysed and determined.

Like so many things, all you will be able to do is present an unsubstantiated excuse.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 1:55:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 8:09:45 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/24/2014 9:28:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
...

Baby steps, baby steps. You get the cart far in front of the horse. As knowledge is gained with DNA and how changes in it change an organism, it should be possible to show a step by step change from organism A to organism B.


And when you've shown that, you will have officially moved into the realm of scientific theory. But as of now you only have a further elaboration on the hypothesis. You are admitting that evolution still doesn't have the baby steps. The only thing we can see clearly are changes based upon pre-existing information in the DNA. There are not even baby step demonstrations of actual Darwinian evolution.

And why 'should' it be possible? You don't do science by wanting certain things to be true, you should just follow the evidence where it leads, which means being open to the possibility that your interpretation of data may currently be wrong.

Like I said this will be an argument that gets won or lost at the microbiology level. Give it the time it deserves, rather than rushing to judgement to support a preconceived notion.


Indeed. But how about paying some attention to the overwhelming normal functioning of reproduction while you're at it, which serves to make species adaptable while still preserving the basic form of the species?

You're trying to find a needle in a haystack when you have no particular reason to think there is a needle. Maybe you're not finding it because it's not there. Maybe this rare and elusive accumulation of random mutations to form entirely new things just doesn't happen. Especially since it would have to happen pretty regularly to form an ecosystem of our complexity in only a billion years or so. A giga-year isn't really very long to get to humans who can design gigahertz computers, you know?

I agree with what you say to a degree. The scientific process is designed to use inductive reasoning to postulate theories. There indeed are many a theory that were proven wrong. It is possible that evolution specifically the ability for life to randomly change into other forms without intelligence could be proven wrong. There is very little evidence that it will be wrong. The only thing one could do to sink this ship is to prove that there is a wall that is impassible by random genetic changes such as every mutation either results in death when it reaches a certain amount of change. There is no such proof that could eliminate the effects of random base pair changes. In fact growing evidence of pathways were new features are born from possible mutations. In other words there is no evidence that rules out random non-intelligent changes.

Here is another one I posted before. One little mutation on one gene and poof Tibetans seem to have an advantage in high altitude over the rest of us schmucks.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 2:46:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 8:09:45 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/24/2014 9:28:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
...

Baby steps, baby steps. You get the cart far in front of the horse. As knowledge is gained with DNA and how changes in it change an organism, it should be possible to show a step by step change from organism A to organism B.


And when you've shown that, you will have officially moved into the realm of scientific theory. But as of now you only have a further elaboration on the hypothesis. You are admitting that evolution still doesn't have the baby steps. The only thing we can see clearly are changes based upon pre-existing information in the DNA. There are not even baby step demonstrations of actual Darwinian evolution.

And why 'should' it be possible? You don't do science by wanting certain things to be true, you should just follow the evidence where it leads, which means being open to the possibility that your interpretation of data may currently be wrong.

Like I said this will be an argument that gets won or lost at the microbiology level. Give it the time it deserves, rather than rushing to judgement to support a preconceived notion.


Indeed. But how about paying some attention to the overwhelming normal functioning of reproduction while you're at it, which serves to make species adaptable while still preserving the basic form of the species?

You're trying to find a needle in a haystack when you have no particular reason to think there is a needle. Maybe you're not finding it because it's not there. Maybe this rare and elusive accumulation of random mutations to form entirely new things just doesn't happen. Especially since it would have to happen pretty regularly to form an ecosystem of our complexity in only a billion years or so. A giga-year isn't really very long to get to humans who can design gigahertz computers, you know?

I agree with what you say to a degree. The scientific process is designed to use inductive reasoning to postulate theories. There indeed are many a theory that were proven wrong. It is possible that evolution specifically the ability for life to randomly change into other forms without intelligence could be proven wrong. There is very little evidence that it will be wrong.

No, that's not the way science works. You must have positive proof (in the general sense) for scientific claims. Something is not science because nobody proved it wrong.

The only thing one could do to sink this ship is to prove that there is a wall that is impassible by random genetic changes such as every mutation either results in death when it reaches a certain amount of change.

So you recognize that there is a wall. Granted, if we could show the wall is impassible, that would do it. But failure to prove it's absolutely impassible is not proof that it is passable.

If you were arguing that a human could jump a 10' wall, and I claimed it was impossible, the way to settle the argument would be to get somebody to jump the wall. I don't know how you would prove it un-jumpable, other than having every last human try. So eventually evolutionist are going to have to admit they can't evolve squat because it's an utterly fantastic bit of blarney.

In other words there is no evidence that rules out random non-intelligent changes.


But there's no evidence OF random changes that produce significant changes, and especially changes not inherent in the DNA.

Here is another one I posted before. One little mutation on one gene and poof Tibetans seem to have an advantage in high altitude over the rest of us schmucks.


Yeah, it's selecting from existing information. Nobody is debating adaptation. It's the idea of blood and the circulatory system itself evolving that is a belief in magic, in my opinion.

Consider the hummingbird again: Evolving a taste for sweetness would be just one tiny part of the equation. The hummingbird must simultaneously evolve the whole hummingbird humming thing in order to feed off of nectar. Wings, bones, muscles, the command and control changes to the central nervous system must all have the right sequence of random mutations so the unique hummingbird will both find and eat nectar before dying of starvation.

Really? I mean, it doesn't pass the smell test, is the thing that baffles me. I really can't imagine how such deep mysticism ever got to pass for science. It's far more akin to sacrificing to the sun god than it is to science. It's a belief in magic.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:18:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 2:46:18 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 8:09:45 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/24/2014 9:28:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
...

Baby steps, baby steps. You get the cart far in front of the horse. As knowledge is gained with DNA and how changes in it change an organism, it should be possible to show a step by step change from organism A to organism B.


And when you've shown that, you will have officially moved into the realm of scientific theory. But as of now you only have a further elaboration on the hypothesis. You are admitting that evolution still doesn't have the baby steps. The only thing we can see clearly are changes based upon pre-existing information in the DNA. There are not even baby step demonstrations of actual Darwinian evolution.

And why 'should' it be possible? You don't do science by wanting certain things to be true, you should just follow the evidence where it leads, which means being open to the possibility that your interpretation of data may currently be wrong.

Like I said this will be an argument that gets won or lost at the microbiology level. Give it the time it deserves, rather than rushing to judgement to support a preconceived notion.


Indeed. But how about paying some attention to the overwhelming normal functioning of reproduction while you're at it, which serves to make species adaptable while still preserving the basic form of the species?

You're trying to find a needle in a haystack when you have no particular reason to think there is a needle. Maybe you're not finding it because it's not there. Maybe this rare and elusive accumulation of random mutations to form entirely new things just doesn't happen. Especially since it would have to happen pretty regularly to form an ecosystem of our complexity in only a billion years or so. A giga-year isn't really very long to get to humans who can design gigahertz computers, you know?

I agree with what you say to a degree. The scientific process is designed to use inductive reasoning to postulate theories. There indeed are many a theory that were proven wrong. It is possible that evolution specifically the ability for life to randomly change into other forms without intelligence could be proven wrong. There is very little evidence that it will be wrong.

No, that's not the way science works. You must have positive proof (in the general sense) for scientific claims. Something is not science because nobody proved it wrong.

That is the way science works. Theories are not proven. If they were they would be called facts not theories. It would be very difficult to generate facts if there were not inferred theories and hypothesis which allow predictable tests. As our knowledge of DNA and cell functions grow we expand upon our ability to test evolutionary theories.

The only thing one could do to sink this ship is to prove that there is a wall that is impassible by random genetic changes such as every mutation either results in death when it reaches a certain amount of change.

So you recognize that there is a wall. Granted, if we could show the wall is impassible, that would do it. But failure to prove it's absolutely impassible is not proof that it is passable.

I don't recognize any wall, unless someone can give evidence to think something as such exists. Nobody has given proof of such wall. Most arguments against stem from abstract information type analogies. So to use scientific logic, don't believe in things which can not be inferred. Go ahead and infer, but be prepared to test those inferences by creating testable hypothesis. Run the tests, gather knowledge and either abandon the inference or adjust it to fit the data.

Currently the data suggest that it is possible to have random and environmental base pair changes which alter gene and/or gene expressions, which in turn can change the functions internal to an organism. There is nothing to stop many small gene and gene expression changes from changing an organism to have very different functions in a successive line of offspring so that the end organism looks and/or operates very different than the original organism.

Until someone finds the wall, it is very proper to be open to the above inference and assume there is very good possibility new species can happen through non-intelligent means.

If you were arguing that a human could jump a 10' wall, and I claimed it was impossible, the way to settle the argument would be to get somebody to jump the wall. I don't know how you would prove it un-jumpable, other than having every last human try. So eventually evolutionist are going to have to admit they can't evolve squat because it's an utterly fantastic bit of blarney.

In other words there is no evidence that rules out random non-intelligent changes.

There is no evidence that rules out a pink pony with glitter in its mane who answers to the name of John Baxter that creates new species either. Now you are learning the lesson. Fitting the theory to the acquired learning and observations is part of the scientific process. If I prove no intelligence is needed to create or change life, why do I need any proof of a second means to creating life? There could be a second process, but that in itself needs to go through the scientific process if there was reason to infer a second process.

But there's no evidence OF random changes that produce significant changes, and especially changes not inherent in the DNA.

Here is another one I posted before. One little mutation on one gene and poof Tibetans seem to have an advantage in high altitude over the rest of us schmucks.


Yeah, it's selecting from existing information. Nobody is debating adaptation. It's the idea of blood and the circulatory system itself evolving that is a belief in magic, in my opinion.

Consider the hummingbird again: Evolving a taste for sweetness would be just one tiny part of the equation. The hummingbird must simultaneously evolve the whole hummingbird humming thing in order to feed off of nectar. Wings, bones, muscles, the command and control changes to the central nervous system must all have the right sequence of random mutations so the unique hummingbird will both find and eat nectar before dying of starvation.

Really? I mean, it doesn't pass the smell test, is the thing that baffles me. I really can't imagine how such deep mysticism ever got to pass for science. It's far more akin to sacrificing to the sun god than it is to science. It's a belief in magic.

Micro biology mysticism? There is nothing mystical about how this scientist uncovered the 18 mutations involved with changing a receptor to receive sugar rather than protein.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:58:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 3:18:13 PM, slo1 wrote:
...

I don't recognize any wall, unless someone can give evidence to think something as such exists.

The wall exists. Species go extinct, individual organisms die. Too much change, either external or internal, clearly often leads to failure. Again, this is observed repeatedly, while new features due to accumulated change have never been observed nor demonstrated.


There is no evidence that rules out a pink pony with glitter in its mane who answers to the name of John Baxter that creates new species either. Now you are learning the lesson. Fitting the theory to the acquired learning and observations is part of the scientific process. If I prove no intelligence is needed to create or change life, why do I need any proof of a second means to creating life?

You haven't proved any such thing, lol. Not sure why you can't get this. This is living in fantasy land, man. There is no demonstration that life can emerge or diversify by non-intelligent means, it's just a hypothesis. There is only evidence that life incorporates an ability to adapt. Genetics can be demonstrated, evolution can not be.


Micro biology mysticism? There is nothing mystical about how this scientist uncovered the 18 mutations involved with changing a receptor to receive sugar rather than protein.

Did he uncover 18 mutations? Or did he uncover 18 differences? The circular reasoning is bone deep in evolutionary literature, and I don't have access to the entire article, so I can't say for sure. But I don't know how you would 'uncover' a mutation, I think you'd have to infer them.

He sure as hell didn't uncover the evolution of the hummingbird, I hope you can at least realize that. He did an A-B comparison with an assumed ancestor, which is a few light years from actually observing or reproducing any sort of evolution.

This is one of the frustrating things about evolution, quite apart from it's wrongness or rightness - You've always got to get this imaginative story from which you have to work to extract the hard data. What is wrong with saying "We sequenced the hummingbird and wren genome and found 18 differences related to taste"? Seems like that would be a lot more professional. You can put your novella at the end of the paper, but start with the hard science.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 4:01:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, a little mea culpa here - I see that the article referenced is not the paper at all, so a little journalistic storytelling is an entirely different thing.

And you did quote the hard data in your opening post. So, my bad, never mind! that last point, lol.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 4:19:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 3:58:35 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/25/2014 3:18:13 PM, slo1 wrote:
...

I don't recognize any wall, unless someone can give evidence to think something as such exists.

The wall exists. Species go extinct, individual organisms die. Too much change, either external or internal, clearly often leads to failure. Again, this is observed repeatedly, while new features due to accumulated change have never been observed nor demonstrated.


There is no evidence that rules out a pink pony with glitter in its mane who answers to the name of John Baxter that creates new species either. Now you are learning the lesson. Fitting the theory to the acquired learning and observations is part of the scientific process. If I prove no intelligence is needed to create or change life, why do I need any proof of a second means to creating life?

You haven't proved any such thing, lol. Not sure why you can't get this. This is living in fantasy land, man. There is no demonstration that life can emerge or diversify by non-intelligent means, it's just a hypothesis. There is only evidence that life incorporates an ability to adapt. Genetics can be demonstrated, evolution can not be.


Micro biology mysticism? There is nothing mystical about how this scientist uncovered the 18 mutations involved with changing a receptor to receive sugar rather than protein.

Did he uncover 18 mutations? Or did he uncover 18 differences? The circular reasoning is bone deep in evolutionary literature, and I don't have access to the entire article, so I can't say for sure. But I don't know how you would 'uncover' a mutation, I think you'd have to infer them.

He sure as hell didn't uncover the evolution of the hummingbird, I hope you can at least realize that. He did an A-B comparison with an assumed ancestor, which is a few light years from actually observing or reproducing any sort of evolution.

This is one of the frustrating things about evolution, quite apart from it's wrongness or rightness - You've always got to get this imaginative story from which you have to work to extract the hard data. What is wrong with saying "We sequenced the hummingbird and wren genome and found 18 differences related to taste"? Seems like that would be a lot more professional. You can put your novella at the end of the paper, but start with the hard science.

All the hard evidence, including molecular biology, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, vestigiality, atavisms, fossile evidence and comparative fossile anatomy cross validated by genetics, geography and chronology all point solely and universally to evolution from a single common ancestor; these are all cross validated by the physics of dating, known geological processes and timings that are derived from them. All of the above stand against a magical divine creator.

All of these are unambiguous facts; comparative genomics, anatomy and all of the above show what life is. The pattern of what life is, is ONLY consistent with a system of gradual adaptation and divergence of species over long periods of geological time because all evidence shows a gradual adaptation of species over long periods of time. Such comparrisons are not simply flukes of coincidence because of our ability to generate the same pattern when analysing life by time, geography, genetics and phylogeny.

None of it is consistent with a divine being able to summon up creatures at will unless the divine creator has deliberately attempted to make it look like life has been designed. The divine creator, being divine and all that, can create life in any conceivable way; an almost infinite number incompatible with evolution and one single way that is. And guess which we see around us?

Evolutionary pathways are not proof of evolution; they are corroberation of it. The facts of evolution have long since been established and long since been put beyond any sort of reproach.

These explanations should exist for the evolution of almost every single trait and gene that exists; and if evolution is true such pathways should be mostly determinable in many respects for many species.

And what do you know, many such pathways continue to be found to continually reinforce the founding evidence of evolution. In many cases such evolutionary pathways provide exciting avenues of research that actually provide beneficial applications.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 7:43:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 4:19:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

All the hard evidence, including molecular biology, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, vestigiality, atavisms, fossile evidence and comparative fossile anatomy cross validated by genetics, geography and chronology all point solely and universally to evolution from a single common ancestor; these are all cross validated by the physics of dating, known geological processes and timings that are derived from them.

Correlation is not causation.

All of the above stand against a magical divine creator.


Which is why you accept evolution, of course. It's an alternative to the God you don't like for whatever reason. I say this because this last sentence is a complete non sequitur from the things that preceded it.

All of these are unambiguous facts; comparative genomics, anatomy and all of the above show what life is. The pattern of what life is, is ONLY consistent with a system of gradual adaptation and divergence of species over long periods of geological time

Even if true, this would not require evolution. As I've pointed out many times, the history of transportation, or telecommunications, would show a similar pattern, and these are ID.


None of it is consistent with a divine being able to summon up creatures at will unless the divine creator has deliberately attempted to make it look like life has been designed.

Little freudian slip there? Yeah, life sure does look designed, doesn't it?

But there's no magic in the Biblical account. Maybe somebody presented it to you as magic, but there's no magic in the text. Read it again, doing your best to throw off all preconceived notions, just read it as it reads.

The divine creator, being divine and all that, can create life in any conceivable way; an almost infinite number incompatible with evolution and one single way that is. And guess which we see around us?


Yeah, you're sort of alluding to the loaded dice idea. But it's nonsense, the natural dice are clearly loaded to find the lowest energy state, not build an ecosystem. If nobody rolls the dice, they just settle and sit there.

No, Ram, you can't hear me because you've got God issues, but the problem with evolution is primarily scientific. It's nonsense, it can't possibly happen as Darwin proposed, that's the problem with his hypothesis.

Evolutionary pathways are not proof of evolution; they are corroberation of it. The facts of evolution have long since been established and long since been put beyond any sort of reproach.


No, that's a myth, or maybe an outright lie. The 'fact' of evolution has indeed been accepted, but by fiat. So all data must now, by order of the high priests of science, be interpreted according to the model of evolution, and extra points are granted for presentations that promote evolution in a heartwarming way.

And this order of Caesar has confused the non-science-literate layman, and many professionals, into supposing that evolution was proved somewhere along the line.


And what do you know, many such pathways continue to be found

Well OF COURSE variations between the DNA of different species will continue to be found, lol. Just think about it a little, will ya?
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 1:08:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 7:43:38 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/25/2014 4:19:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

All the hard evidence, including molecular biology, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, vestigiality, atavisms, fossile evidence and comparative fossile anatomy cross validated by genetics, geography and chronology all point solely and universally to evolution from a single common ancestor; these are all cross validated by the physics of dating, known geological processes and timings that are derived from them.

Correlation is not causation.

Of unrelated things...

These, however are not unrelated.

What we see in ALL of life, in every facet of life now and in the past are the same as one would expect to see if the processes we measureably see operating today operated over the billions of years in which life has existed.

This again, is validated by innumerable other methods of validating the interrelatedness of organisms.

Really, I'm not kidding when I say everything about life points to evolution and none of it points to divine creation. Everything matches in every single way with a pattern of descent with modification. From fossiles, to genetics, to chronology, to geology.

All of the above stand against a magical divine creator.


Which is why you accept evolution, of course. It's an alternative to the God you don't like for whatever reason. I say this because this last sentence is a complete non sequitur from the things that preceded it.

Why?

Seriously, why? You seem to not want to deal with any of the failures of your own religion, and the success of evolution in explaning why the world is the way it is.

I'm assuming that you are simply ignoring this because creationism has no explanation of why life is the way it is, whereas Evolution can explain and demonstrate all the way from the global scale, all the way down to the molecular level

All of these are unambiguous facts; comparative genomics, anatomy and all of the above show what life is. The pattern of what life is, is ONLY consistent with a system of gradual adaptation and divergence of species over long periods of geological time

Even if true, this would not require evolution. As I've pointed out many times, the history of transportation, or telecommunications, would show a similar pattern, and these are ID.

Firstly it IS true.

Secondly, they don't. None of those systems produce unviolated nested heirarchies with comparative phylogeny breaking down on any designed system, none of them show attavisms, vestigiality, and genetic remenants; solely for the fact that they were designed.

You don't see a 2014 Ford Taurus coming off the production line tires from the 1960's. You don't see a teeny tiny vestigial starter crank in the front of all cars. You see massive quantum leaps in designs, chimera designs from mixed and matched design idea's. There is always an element of improvement in designed things, but as designers are free to do as they please and are not constrained by simply putting one improvement in front of the other every single "designed" thing shows fundamentally different properties when compared "phylogenically" to life. For the very reason that they were designed.

And as you so often ignore, NONE of the things you describe have babies that are marginally imperfect copies. It's that that makes a system capable of evolvoling.


None of it is consistent with a divine being able to summon up creatures at will unless the divine creator has deliberately attempted to make it look like life has been designed.

Little freudian slip there? Yeah, life sure does look designed, doesn't it?

But there's no magic in the Biblical account. Maybe somebody presented it to you as magic, but there's no magic in the text. Read it again, doing your best to throw off all preconceived notions, just read it as it reads.

Supernatural creation. Suspension of the laws of physics IS magic.

I particularly like the way at no point through this entire post do you even begin to try and explain why life looks like it has evolved. No attempt to even acknowledge every single facet of the tapestry of evidence that solely points to evolution.

The divine creator, being divine and all that, can create life in any conceivable way; an almost infinite number incompatible with evolution and one single way that is. And guess which we see around us?


Yeah, you're sort of alluding to the loaded dice idea. But it's nonsense, the natural dice are clearly loaded to find the lowest energy state, not build an ecosystem. If nobody rolls the dice, they just settle and sit there.

Why? Because you say so?

No, Ram, you can't hear me because you've got God issues, but the problem with evolution is primarily scientific. It's nonsense, it can't possibly happen as Darwin proposed, that's the problem with his hypothesis.

Why not?

You say it can't a lot, but provide no argument, or evidence, or description that holds up to any sort of minute scrutiny.

This is what I have issues with.

Evolutionary pathways are not proof of evolution; they are corroberation of it. The facts of evolution have long since been established and long since been put beyond any sort of reproach.


No, that's a myth, or maybe an outright lie. The 'fact' of evolution has indeed been accepted, but by fiat. So all data must now, by order of the high priests of science, be interpreted according to the model of evolution, and extra points are granted for presentations that promote evolution in a heartwarming way.
And this order of Caesar has confused the non-science-literate layman, and many professionals, into supposing that evolution was proved somewhere along the line.

I'm assuming you have an argument that actually justifies that it is a lie, or a myth. Other than "Because I say so."

I have provided a base summary the justification here. You have pretty much ignored it all to reply with a series of assertions that it isn't true.

If you think it's a lie, proove it. Otherwise I'm just going to highlight all the times where you simply say something is true and never provide any rationalisation for why.

If you look at all your posts, and all my responses, you will find that despite your pathological ability to ignore, selectively quote, change the subject, I very rarely, if ever make an argument without providing some justification.

You, on the other hand, seem to be the king of saying a bunch of stuff is true with not a care in the world for trying to justify why.

That right there should speak volumes.



And what do you know, many such pathways continue to be found

Well OF COURSE variations between the DNA of different species will continue to be found, lol. Just think about it a little, will ya?

I know you cannot present evolution honestly; as if you were able to, you wouldn't be a creationist.

You should well know, that most evolutionary pathways show the individual steps required for one thing to turn into another whilst remaining functional; modulation in heart protein, human vs chimp lower jaw explaining the specific changes needed to turn one thing into another.

But if you want to go there, remember we're not just talking about coding sequences. We are talking coding sequences that are in the same place, fitting into a broad pattern of ever increasing dissimilarity over all animal species; tagged with genetic markers, non-coding sequence changes, endogenous retrovirus insertions that match exactly the pattern of descent with modification; and none of which have any functional benefit to the organism in question.

The proteins aren't as important as the genomic landscape within all animals fit; which is solely and ubiquotously in support of evolution, and stands alien to any designed system one can think of.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 10:03:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 1:08:00 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/26/2014 7:43:38 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/25/2014 4:19:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

All the hard evidence, including molecular biology, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, vestigiality, atavisms, fossile evidence and comparative fossile anatomy cross validated by genetics, geography and chronology all point solely and universally to evolution from a single common ancestor; these are all cross validated by the physics of dating, known geological processes and timings that are derived from them.

Correlation is not causation.

Of unrelated things...


No, obviously the maxim applies to related things. Daylight always immediately precedes sunrise. They are very much related, but daylight does not cause sunrise.

Likewise, the correlation between the DNA of various species does not indicate that one species caused another. An iPod and an iPad also correlate in many respects. Perhaps they came from the same design team, rather than evolving through a long series of manufacturing glitches.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:11:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 10:03:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/26/2014 1:08:00 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/26/2014 7:43:38 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/25/2014 4:19:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

All the hard evidence, including molecular biology, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, vestigiality, atavisms, fossile evidence and comparative fossile anatomy cross validated by genetics, geography and chronology all point solely and universally to evolution from a single common ancestor; these are all cross validated by the physics of dating, known geological processes and timings that are derived from them.

Correlation is not causation.

Of unrelated things...


No, obviously the maxim applies to related things. Daylight always immediately precedes sunrise. They are very much related, but daylight does not cause sunrise.

Likewise, the correlation between the DNA of various species does not indicate that one species caused another. An iPod and an iPad also correlate in many respects. Perhaps they came from the same design team, rather than evolving through a long series of manufacturing glitches.

Considering the remainder of my posts, and the core portions of my previous posts deal with this point in detail. I will take your complete unwillingness to actually defend your unsubstantiated assertions as a concession that your argument is without merit.

I look forward to hearing your comprehensive rebuttal to the fundamentally damning points I raised in the previous post, that you completely ignored with this fatuous reply.