Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

One Giant Step

dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:26:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
for single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms. This is a possible explanation for that step in our evolution. Comments?

http://www.msn.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 6:44:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:26:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
for single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms. This is a possible explanation for that step in our evolution. Comments?
http://www.msn.com...

The original eLife journal here: [http://elifesciences.org...] For members interested, although it is a rapid publication ejournal, eLife has also declared a rigorous, peer-reviewed process. [http://elifesciences.org...]

Thank you for the post, DH. As well as making interesting progress in detailing the mechanisms for a critical step in changing prokaryote to eukaryote, it also illustrates how powerful a simple mutation can be.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 7:09:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I'm afraid there's another way to tell this story. One could observe that all of observable life, including single celled organisms, are fabulously sophisticated. In other words, there is not primitive and advanced life, but small and large life. It's analogous to microprocessors and multi-core Windows engines - similar technologies, just sized differently. So it turns out that at least some single celled species, (not just choanoflagellates) have cooperative behaviors. So the technologies that enable multi-cellular life forms are used in slightly different forms in cooperative single celled communities. [Some antibiotic resistance is in fact cooperative info sharing, btw]. Just a little code tweak and you can network cheap processors together like a supercomputer. So this whole story is perfectly compatible with ID, when you change a few assumptions.

The thing to note here, which is not arguable, is that if one mutation can produce dramatic new behavior, then that behavior was already latent in the genome. So it's a form of genetics, not evolution proper. It's not the slow accumulation of small changes that is Darwinian evolution (I know, Darwin has been discarded in favor of more dramatic magic like this).

Same old same old, in other words. I've been reading these breathless stories for almost 40 years, and they ALWAYS are less than meets the eye.
This space for rent.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 7:17:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 7:09:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I'm afraid there's another way to tell this story. One could observe that all of observable life, including single celled organisms, are fabulously sophisticated. In other words, there is not primitive and advanced life, but small and large life. It's analogous to microprocessors and multi-core Windows engines - similar technologies, just sized differently. So it turns out that at least some single celled species, (not just choanoflagellates) have cooperative behaviors. So the technologies that enable multi-cellular life forms are used in slightly different forms in cooperative single celled communities. [Some antibiotic resistance is in fact cooperative info sharing, btw]. Just a little code tweak and you can network cheap processors together like a supercomputer. So this whole story is perfectly compatible with ID, when you change a few assumptions.

The thing to note here, which is not arguable, is that if one mutation can produce dramatic new behavior, then that behavior was already latent in the genome.

That is an unsupported assertion you cannot demonstrate. The capability did not exist before the mutation occurred. You can in no way demonstrate it was extant even a latent way.

"So it's a form of genetics, not evolution proper. It's not the slow accumulation of small changes that is Darwinian evolution (I know, Darwin has been discarded in favor of more dramatic magic like this).

This is not magic. A speaking a universe into existence is magic.

Same old same old, in other words. I've been reading these breathless stories for almost 40 years, and they ALWAYS are less than meets the eye.

Only because you wish them to be so. Your arguments against evolution are based on emotion and you try to back them up with pseudoscience and logical fallacy. I note that you use the products of science (computers, the Internet, and all the other modern accoutrement) without arguing or objection. Why do you so strongly object to that branch of science?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 7:47:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 7:17:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

The thing to note here, which is not arguable, is that if one mutation can produce dramatic new behavior, then that behavior was already latent in the genome.

That is an unsupported assertion you cannot demonstrate.

True. It's a logic objection, not the sort of thing one demonstrates.


"So it's a form of genetics, not evolution proper. It's not the slow accumulation of small changes that is Darwinian evolution (I know, Darwin has been discarded in favor of more dramatic magic like this).

This is not magic. A speaking a universe into existence is magic.

I once saw a movie where a guy turned his lights off by clapping his hands. But it wasn't magic, it was a sound-sensitive switch.

So the Genesis account of God speaking emphasizes his power and authority. The idea is like a king - whatever he says goes. There's no hint of magic in the text.


Same old same old, in other words. I've been reading these breathless stories for almost 40 years, and they ALWAYS are less than meets the eye.

Only because you wish them to be so. Your arguments against evolution are based on emotion and you try to back them up with pseudoscience and logical fallacy.

lol. This is obviously a wishful thinking objection on your part. I mean, feel free to challenge what I say on logical grounds, but accusing me of emotion, that's ironic.

I note that you use the products of science (computers, the Internet, and all the other modern accoutrement) without arguing or objection.

Yeah, I design computers. It's what I do for a living. Shocking, ain't it? As I say, I think it's being anchored in the hard sciences that won't let me be an evolutionist. I get the 30,000 foot case for evolution, I'm just stuck on the fact that the proposed mechanisms are not capable of producing the observed result.
This space for rent.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 8:42:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 7:47:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:17:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

The thing to note here, which is not arguable, is that if one mutation can produce dramatic new behavior, then that behavior was already latent in the genome.

That is an unsupported assertion you cannot demonstrate.

True. It's a logic objection, not the sort of thing one demonstrates.

Then it is baseless. I appreciate your concession,


"So it's a form of genetics, not evolution proper. It's not the slow accumulation of small changes that is Darwinian evolution (I know, Darwin has been discarded in favor of more dramatic magic like this).

This is not magic. A speaking a universe into existence is magic.

I once saw a movie where a guy turned his lights off by clapping his hands. But it wasn't magic, it was a sound-sensitive switch.

So the Genesis account of God speaking emphasizes his power and authority. The idea is like a king - whatever he says goes. There's no hint of magic in the text.

There is nothing but magic since no methodology or explanation is given. God spoke, it happened. Magic by definition.


Same old same old, in other words. I've been reading these breathless stories for almost 40 years, and they ALWAYS are less than meets the eye.

Only because you wish them to be so. Your arguments against evolution are based on emotion and you try to back them up with pseudoscience and logical fallacy.

lol. This is obviously a wishful thinking objection on your part. I mean, feel free to challenge what I say on logical grounds, but accusing me of emotion, that's ironic.

I note that you use the products of science (computers, the Internet, and all the other modern accoutrement) without arguing or objection.

Yeah, I design computers. It's what I do for a living. Shocking, ain't it? As I say, I think it's being anchored in the hard sciences that won't let me be an evolutionist. I get the 30,000 foot case for evolution, I'm just stuck on the fact that the proposed mechanisms are not capable of producing the observed result.

The fact is that they do, you simply reject facts you find disagreeable.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 9:01:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 8:42:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:47:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:17:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

The thing to note here, which is not arguable, is that if one mutation can produce dramatic new behavior, then that behavior was already latent in the genome.

That is an unsupported assertion you cannot demonstrate.

True. It's a logic objection, not the sort of thing one demonstrates.

Then it is baseless. I appreciate your concession,


"So it's a form of genetics, not evolution proper. It's not the slow accumulation of small changes that is Darwinian evolution (I know, Darwin has been discarded in favor of more dramatic magic like this).

This is not magic. A speaking a universe into existence is magic.

I once saw a movie where a guy turned his lights off by clapping his hands. But it wasn't magic, it was a sound-sensitive switch.

So the Genesis account of God speaking emphasizes his power and authority. The idea is like a king - whatever he says goes. There's no hint of magic in the text.

There is nothing but magic since no methodology or explanation is given. God spoke, it happened. Magic by definition.


Same old same old, in other words. I've been reading these breathless stories for almost 40 years, and they ALWAYS are less than meets the eye.

Only because you wish them to be so. Your arguments against evolution are based on emotion and you try to back them up with pseudoscience and logical fallacy.

lol. This is obviously a wishful thinking objection on your part. I mean, feel free to challenge what I say on logical grounds, but accusing me of emotion, that's ironic.

I note that you use the products of science (computers, the Internet, and all the other modern accoutrement) without arguing or objection.

Yeah, I design computers. It's what I do for a living. Shocking, ain't it? As I say, I think it's being anchored in the hard sciences that won't let me be an evolutionist. I get the 30,000 foot case for evolution, I'm just stuck on the fact that the proposed mechanisms are not capable of producing the observed result.

The fact is that they do, you simply reject facts you find disagreeable.

FYI, if it helps:

Magic:

"the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

So, you are right, V is proposing Magic.

Specfically, a Spell:

"A word or formula believed to have magic power."

or an Incantation:

"ritual recitation of magic words or sounds"
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 5:56:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 8:42:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:47:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:17:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

The thing to note here, which is not arguable, is that if one mutation can produce dramatic new behavior, then that behavior was already latent in the genome.

That is an unsupported assertion you cannot demonstrate.

True. It's a logic objection, not the sort of thing one demonstrates.

Then it is baseless. I appreciate your concession,


"So it's a form of genetics, not evolution proper. It's not the slow accumulation of small changes that is Darwinian evolution (I know, Darwin has been discarded in favor of more dramatic magic like this).

This is not magic. A speaking a universe into existence is magic.

I once saw a movie where a guy turned his lights off by clapping his hands. But it wasn't magic, it was a sound-sensitive switch.

So the Genesis account of God speaking emphasizes his power and authority. The idea is like a king - whatever he says goes. There's no hint of magic in the text.

There is nothing but magic since no methodology or explanation is given. God spoke, it happened. Magic by definition.


Same old same old, in other words. I've been reading these breathless stories for almost 40 years, and they ALWAYS are less than meets the eye.

Only because you wish them to be so. Your arguments against evolution are based on emotion and you try to back them up with pseudoscience and logical fallacy.

lol. This is obviously a wishful thinking objection on your part. I mean, feel free to challenge what I say on logical grounds, but accusing me of emotion, that's ironic.

I note that you use the products of science (computers, the Internet, and all the other modern accoutrement) without arguing or objection.

Yeah, I design computers. It's what I do for a living. Shocking, ain't it? As I say, I think it's being anchored in the hard sciences that won't let me be an evolutionist. I get the 30,000 foot case for evolution, I'm just stuck on the fact that the proposed mechanisms are not capable of producing the observed result.

The fact is that they do, you simply reject facts you find disagreeable.

So if you don't understand something it's magic? The universe exists yet its presence cannot logically have a scientific explanation because such an explanation must be in terms of already existing material, so there you go the universe exists and does so due to magic.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 6:34:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 5:56:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/12/2016 8:42:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:47:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:17:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

The thing to note here, which is not arguable, is that if one mutation can produce dramatic new behavior, then that behavior was already latent in the genome.

That is an unsupported assertion you cannot demonstrate.

True. It's a logic objection, not the sort of thing one demonstrates.

Then it is baseless. I appreciate your concession,


"So it's a form of genetics, not evolution proper. It's not the slow accumulation of small changes that is Darwinian evolution (I know, Darwin has been discarded in favor of more dramatic magic like this).

This is not magic. A speaking a universe into existence is magic.

I once saw a movie where a guy turned his lights off by clapping his hands. But it wasn't magic, it was a sound-sensitive switch.

So the Genesis account of God speaking emphasizes his power and authority. The idea is like a king - whatever he says goes. There's no hint of magic in the text.

There is nothing but magic since no methodology or explanation is given. God spoke, it happened. Magic by definition.


Same old same old, in other words. I've been reading these breathless stories for almost 40 years, and they ALWAYS are less than meets the eye.

Only because you wish them to be so. Your arguments against evolution are based on emotion and you try to back them up with pseudoscience and logical fallacy.

lol. This is obviously a wishful thinking objection on your part. I mean, feel free to challenge what I say on logical grounds, but accusing me of emotion, that's ironic.

I note that you use the products of science (computers, the Internet, and all the other modern accoutrement) without arguing or objection.

Yeah, I design computers. It's what I do for a living. Shocking, ain't it? As I say, I think it's being anchored in the hard sciences that won't let me be an evolutionist. I get the 30,000 foot case for evolution, I'm just stuck on the fact that the proposed mechanisms are not capable of producing the observed result.

The fact is that they do, you simply reject facts you find disagreeable.

So if you don't understand something it's magic? The universe exists yet its presence cannot logically have a scientific explanation

And yet, there is a scientific explanation, but I understand you are compelled to lie about that due to being incredulous to what is true and real.

because such an explanation must be in terms of already existing material

What does that have to do with anything?

so there you go the universe exists and does so due to magic.

The scientifically illiterate speaks.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 2:31:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 5:56:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/12/2016 8:42:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:47:43 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:17:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
...

The thing to note here, which is not arguable, is that if one mutation can produce dramatic new behavior, then that behavior was already latent in the genome.

That is an unsupported assertion you cannot demonstrate.

True. It's a logic objection, not the sort of thing one demonstrates.

Then it is baseless. I appreciate your concession,


"So it's a form of genetics, not evolution proper. It's not the slow accumulation of small changes that is Darwinian evolution (I know, Darwin has been discarded in favor of more dramatic magic like this).

This is not magic. A speaking a universe into existence is magic.

I once saw a movie where a guy turned his lights off by clapping his hands. But it wasn't magic, it was a sound-sensitive switch.

So the Genesis account of God speaking emphasizes his power and authority. The idea is like a king - whatever he says goes. There's no hint of magic in the text.

There is nothing but magic since no methodology or explanation is given. God spoke, it happened. Magic by definition.


Same old same old, in other words. I've been reading these breathless stories for almost 40 years, and they ALWAYS are less than meets the eye.

Only because you wish them to be so. Your arguments against evolution are based on emotion and you try to back them up with pseudoscience and logical fallacy.

lol. This is obviously a wishful thinking objection on your part. I mean, feel free to challenge what I say on logical grounds, but accusing me of emotion, that's ironic.

I note that you use the products of science (computers, the Internet, and all the other modern accoutrement) without arguing or objection.

Yeah, I design computers. It's what I do for a living. Shocking, ain't it? As I say, I think it's being anchored in the hard sciences that won't let me be an evolutionist. I get the 30,000 foot case for evolution, I'm just stuck on the fact that the proposed mechanisms are not capable of producing the observed result.

The fact is that they do, you simply reject facts you find disagreeable.

So if you don't understand something it's magic? The universe exists yet its presence cannot logically have a scientific explanation because such an explanation must be in terms of already existing material, so there you go the universe exists and does so due to magic.

You obviously don't have a clue about the actual theory. Read up on it. There's also a very good book called 'A Universe from Nothing' by a physicist, Laurence Krauss, that will give you a deeper explanation about the most current version of what is mis-named 'The Big Bang Theory'. Once you have a handle on that then we can discuss it. Right now it's useless because you don't have a complete understanding of the theory or you would know this statement of yours is meaningless.