Evolution problems

[Vidav]

Go read The Blind Watchmaker. Quick!

[Chizzang]

What Seattle is arguing is actually the historical standard model for God...
Everything that was not completely understood was attributed to God - floods - earth quakes - etc.

So there is a group of guys who have found some "holes" and are filling it with God - just like the old days
Which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do - humans have been doing it for over 10,000 years

The difference here is (as CID1990 has pointed out) is the willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance required to drag Evolution into this ancient exercise of "inserting God" into the unknown

But it is an old practice and comes from ignorance and fear (that's why God makes us feel better)
He's like Santa Clause (I love Santa)

[SeattleGriz]

Go read The Blind Watchmaker. Quick!

I that why Dawkins won't debate anyone other than a high schooler? Guy got his ass handed to him so many times he quit debating anyone with a basic understanding of the issues.

[SeattleGriz]

What Seattle is arguing is actually the historical standard model for God...
Everything that was not completely understood was attributed to God - floods - earth quakes - etc.

So there is a group of guys who have found some "holes" and are filling it with God - just like the old days
Which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do - humans have been doing it for over 10,000 years

The difference here is (as CID1990 has pointed out) is the willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance required to drag Evolution into this ancient exercise of "inserting God" into the unknown

But it is an old practice and comes from ignorance and fear (that's why God makes us feel better)
He's like Santa Clause (I love Santa)

And you walked right into the opening statement and embraced it like it was your own.

To be fair though, one should not expect the practitioners and promoters of a theory to be serious skeptics. Evolutionists sometimes say they would love to falsify their theory, as that would make them famous. But in science there are enormous conformance pressures, ranging from social to monetary. And this is even more so with evolution. If you genuinely question evolution (not just question a sub hypothesis) then you become an anathema. You will be called a creationist. You will be blackballed and rather than becoming famous, you become infamous.

Like fish in a barrel.

And once again, how about an argument on the merits instead of your God rants?

[Chizzang]

I want there to be a God...
If there is a God all my problems are solved

I remember years ago Joltin Joe and I debated (I liked debating with Joe) because he admitted that behind all of his debates "He wanted there to be a God" that was his motivation... he never lied like you do about it, he was intellectually honest about it and just said so

Joe would hardly ever reference science - he referenced faith as the cornerstone of all his debates
Because he is honest

I want God
I'm excited about the potential of God being real - I'm a big "Prime Mover" argument guy

But to watch you on this forum is amazing...

[SeattleGriz]

I want there to be a God...
If there is a God all my problems are solved

I remember years ago Joltin Joe and I debated (I liked debating with Joe) because he admitted that behind all of his debates "He wanted there to be a God" that was his motivation... he never lied like you do about it, he was intellectually honest about it and just said so

Joe would hardly ever reference science - he referenced faith as the cornerstone of all his debates
Because he is honest

I want God
I'm excited about the potential of God being real - I'm a big "Prime Mover" argument guy

But to watch you on this forum is amazing...

I lied. That's a pretty big accusation, especially considering this thread is about the problems of evolution, and I've said many times in this thread that I believe God is the Intelligent Agent.

Where exactly have I lied, and you still haven't added ANYTHING to the substance of this thread. Nothing.

[LeadBolt]

Go read The Blind Watchmaker. Quick!

The Blind Watchmaker was the biggest circular argument I've ever seen.

Next to no facts and those that were used hardly hung together. It was mostly made up of Dawkins opinions. Dawkins argument seemed to come down to there is no God because I don't want there to be.

I read it trying to understand the case for atheism, totally random selection, and the logic behind the "secular scientific view" but found it to be hugely disappointing.

[SeattleGriz]

Go read The Blind Watchmaker. Quick!

The Blind Watchmaker was the biggest circular argument I've ever seen.

Next to no facts and those that were used hardly hung together. It was mostly made up of Dawkins opinions. Dawkins argument seemed to come down to there is no God because I don't want there to be.

I read it trying to understand the case for atheism, totally random selection, and the logic behind the "secular scientific view" but found it to be hugely disappointing.

No no! That is real science. You either just don't get it, or you just don't understand! Just thought I would beat the others to it - thanks for the post, for I have not read that book.

[LeadBolt]

The Blind Watchmaker was the biggest circular argument I've ever seen.

Next to no facts and those that were used hardly hung together. It was mostly made up of Dawkins opinions. Dawkins argument seemed to come down to there is no God because I don't want there to be.

I read it trying to understand the case for atheism, totally random selection, and the logic behind the "secular scientific view" but found it to be hugely disappointing.

No no! That is real science. You either just don't get it, or you just don't understand! Just thought I would beat the others to it - thanks for the post, for I have not read that book.

Thanks, I needed that! I'd send you my copy, but I recycled it. I considered that the best and highest use of the book...

Instead, you might try reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest" by Turek and Geisler that devotes the first portion of the book to science including evolution and the holes in our scientific knowledge that the author imo successfully argues are greater than those in the faith argument.

[SeattleGriz]

No no! That is real science. You either just don't get it, or you just don't understand! Just thought I would beat the others to it - thanks for the post, for I have not read that book.

Thanks, I needed that! I'd send you my copy, but I recycled it. I considered that the best and highest use of the book...

Instead, you might try reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest" by Turek and Geisler that devotes the first portion of the book to science including evolution and the holes in our scientific knowledge that the author imo successfully argues are greater than those in the faith argument.

Seems as if you hit the nail on the head in regards to Dawkins. What a crackpot!

Now see you started a thread on this turd. Oh well, good to get the news out on him. The Icon!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ned-to-you" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JMU DJ]

Scientifically? How?

I don't have time for all three, but can talk about functional DNA now. If you want, I will explain the others later, but not tonight - getting ready for bed.

So, if we are the culmination of thousands of years of evolution, our DNA should have tons of errors and tons of genes that are no longer functional. Our DNA would collect a ton of "junk DNA" and would serve no purpose. I would also like to add that evolutionists have been using the term "junk DNA" as a pejorative term. It was supposed to be a slap in the face for those who didn't believe in evolution. Many said, your God is so stupid, for there is no way He would put so much Junk in the DNA.

Junk DNA is all the DNA that is not functional - pretty much just sits there and doesn't do a whole lot.

Well, everyday they are finding new functions for this junk DNA, and if you read my link about Moran and his tantrum, it is about how he didn't like the new findings saying something like 80% was functional. He stated that they have the definition of functional wrong.

It is a huge pissing match and I personally feel many are holding onto a very narrow definition of functional. If you find junk DNA that has a role in certain diseases, wouldn't you consider that as having a function? Much of the "junk DNA's" job is not to be "functional" in the traditional way, but to help regulate where, when and how genes are expressed. Bolded be cause I took that quote from the following article.

This article states only 8% of our DNA is useful and the other 92% is crap.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... al-baggage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above statements are a far cry from the ENCODE project (link below) - remember, different definitions of "functional":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA and/or chromatin associated event in at least one cell type. Much of the genome lies close to a regulatory event: 95% of the genome lies within 8kb of a DNA-protein interaction (as assayed by bound ChIP-seq motifs or DNaseI footprints), and 99% is within 1.7kb of at least one of the biochemical events measured by ENCODE.

Decent analysis. But how does this scientifically validate ID? i.e. what hypothesis was tested in these studies that resulted in the identification of an intelligent designer? Pretty much what I'm gathering from your statement is that we should rely on the 2012 study as the 2014 study is just quibbling about a definition? Also, what do you consider function? Say a segment of DNA is transcribed to RNA. That RNA then is not translated into a protein... the RNA also doesn't serve in any biochemical cellular mechanisms... something happened with the DNA, something was made from that DNA....but is the process of making a useless RNA sufficient to denote function? Last, how do you feel about pseudogenes? There's a nice publication from the ENCODE project discussing them, specifically in primates.





This post and dash brought to by JMU DJ who will probably not be back for a couple of weeks/months.

[SeattleGriz]

I don't have time for all three, but can talk about functional DNA now. If you want, I will explain the others later, but not tonight - getting ready for bed.

So, if we are the culmination of thousands of years of evolution, our DNA should have tons of errors and tons of genes that are no longer functional. Our DNA would collect a ton of "junk DNA" and would serve no purpose. I would also like to add that evolutionists have been using the term "junk DNA" as a pejorative term. It was supposed to be a slap in the face for those who didn't believe in evolution. Many said, your God is so stupid, for there is no way He would put so much Junk in the DNA.

Junk DNA is all the DNA that is not functional - pretty much just sits there and doesn't do a whole lot.

Well, everyday they are finding new functions for this junk DNA, and if you read my link about Moran and his tantrum, it is about how he didn't like the new findings saying something like 80% was functional. He stated that they have the definition of functional wrong.

It is a huge pissing match and I personally feel many are holding onto a very narrow definition of functional. If you find junk DNA that has a role in certain diseases, wouldn't you consider that as having a function? Much of the "junk DNA's" job is not to be "functional" in the traditional way, but to help regulate where, when and how genes are expressed. Bolded be cause I took that quote from the following article.

This article states only 8% of our DNA is useful and the other 92% is crap.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... al-baggage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above statements are a far cry from the ENCODE project (link below) - remember, different definitions of "functional":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Decent analysis. But how does this scientifically validate ID? i.e. what hypothesis was tested in these studies that resulted in the identification of an intelligent designer? Pretty much what I'm gathering from your statement is that we should rely on the 2012 study as the 2014 study is just quibbling about a definition? Also, what do you consider function? Say a segment of DNA is transcribed to RNA. That RNA then is not translated into a protein... the RNA also doesn't serve in any biochemical cellular mechanisms... something happened with the DNA, something was made from that DNA....but is the process of making a useless RNA sufficient to denote function? Last, how do you feel about pseudogenes? There's a nice publication from the ENCODE project discussing them, specifically in primates.





This post and dash brought to by JMU DJ who will probably not be back for a couple of weeks/months.

I will give a response tomorrow. Please don't tell me you are going with GULO.

Anyway, it is my son's birthday tomorrow and have been busy getting it all ready.

[SeattleGriz]

I don't have time for all three, but can talk about functional DNA now. If you want, I will explain the others later, but not tonight - getting ready for bed.

So, if we are the culmination of thousands of years of evolution, our DNA should have tons of errors and tons of genes that are no longer functional. Our DNA would collect a ton of "junk DNA" and would serve no purpose. I would also like to add that evolutionists have been using the term "junk DNA" as a pejorative term. It was supposed to be a slap in the face for those who didn't believe in evolution. Many said, your God is so stupid, for there is no way He would put so much Junk in the DNA.

Junk DNA is all the DNA that is not functional - pretty much just sits there and doesn't do a whole lot.

Well, everyday they are finding new functions for this junk DNA, and if you read my link about Moran and his tantrum, it is about how he didn't like the new findings saying something like 80% was functional. He stated that they have the definition of functional wrong.

It is a huge pissing match and I personally feel many are holding onto a very narrow definition of functional. If you find junk DNA that has a role in certain diseases, wouldn't you consider that as having a function? Much of the "junk DNA's" job is not to be "functional" in the traditional way, but to help regulate where, when and how genes are expressed. Bolded be cause I took that quote from the following article.

This article states only 8% of our DNA is useful and the other 92% is crap.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... al-baggage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above statements are a far cry from the ENCODE project (link below) - remember, different definitions of "functional":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Decent analysis. But how does this scientifically validate ID? i.e. what hypothesis was tested in these studies that resulted in the identification of an intelligent designer? Pretty much what I'm gathering from your statement is that we should rely on the 2012 study as the 2014 study is just quibbling about a definition? Also, what do you consider function? Say a segment of DNA is transcribed to RNA. That RNA then is not translated into a protein... the RNA also doesn't serve in any biochemical cellular mechanisms... something happened with the DNA, something was made from that DNA....but is the process of making a useless RNA sufficient to denote function? Last, how do you feel about pseudogenes? There's a nice publication from the ENCODE project discussing them, specifically in primates.





This post and dash brought to by JMU DJ who will probably not be back for a couple of weeks/months.

To answer a question with a question, how did evolution prove that junk DNA supported their research? This is the point of my thread. Darwinists are willing to accept "ideas" that supposedly support evolution, instead of real research to support the theory.

As to your question about 2012 vs 14, I really don't know what should be considered functional. I was trying to give both sides, so Skelly could get a fair understandting. Personally, I think anything that gets translated or transcribed and is used. Your example about the translated RNA makes me then ask, "how is evolutionarily advantageous?" Natural selection should have gotten rid of dead sequences long ago, for they are a cost to the cell.

Onto psuedogenes. I have been reading a lot lately of how pseudogenes have been discovered to show function, even the pseudozymes have function. My personal opinion is that the DNA will be vindicated and show that it is not only very conservative, but very functional as well. As the research progresses, more and more "junk" DNA is becoming useful.

I am not sure if I answered your post sufficiently, so please let me know.

[biobengal]

I have been. I have been saying that an intelligent agent or an undiscovered natural law is the missing piece to evolution (fossil record, junk DNA and convergent evolution to name three).

WHY... why... why, why, why.... WHY!!!!???

[SeattleGriz]

I have been. I have been saying that an intelligent agent or an undiscovered natural law is the missing piece to evolution (fossil record, junk DNA and convergent evolution to name three).

WHY... why... why, why, why.... WHY!!!!???

Because of the inaccurate predictions the theory produces, only to get an Evolution of the Gaps explanation.

I know you know your stuff, and have assumed you teach at some level, so please, help me where I am wrong. You should be able to see I don't pull any bullshit, and try not to mislead.

This thread needs more scientific oomph!

[biobengal]

Because of the inaccurate predictions the theory produces, only to get an Evolution of the Gaps explanation.

I need more help... what are these inaccurate predictions? Let's really nail them down.

Microevolution to macroevolution, evolution of complex systems, "random" process produces "order", mutation leads to chaos, missing links (transitions), abiogenesis.... what is your favorite?

[SeattleGriz]

Because of the inaccurate predictions the theory produces, only to get an Evolution of the Gaps explanation.

I need more help... what are these inaccurate predictions? Let's really nail them down.

Microevolution to macroevolution, evolution of complex systems, "random" process produces "order", mutation leads to chaos, missing links (transitions), abiogenesis.... what is your favorite?

Let's start with junk DNA first.

How is it that the definition of functional keeps moving? How does Encode come up with 80% functionality, and other research comes up with 8%? We know it is a difference in definitions, but where do you sit?

My whole gist I'd that I laugh at how Darwinists are willing to proclaim victory, where there is none.

You want some more senior level work, how about the lack of how our genetic code originated?

How about the lack of producing an accurate tree of life?

How about a lack of producing high levels of complex and specified information?

Let's go!

[CID1990]

WHY... why... why, why, why.... WHY!!!!???

Because of the inaccurate predictions the theory produces, only to get an Evolution of the Gaps explanation.

I know you know your stuff, and have assumed you teach at some level, so please, help me where I am wrong. You should be able to see I don't pull any bullshit, and try not to mislead.

This thread needs more scientific oomph!

evolution is not predictive theory and it has never claimed to be so

another fallacy

[SeattleGriz]

Because of the inaccurate predictions the theory produces, only to get an Evolution of the Gaps explanation.

I know you know your stuff, and have assumed you teach at some level, so please, help me where I am wrong. You should be able to see I don't pull any bullshit, and try not to mislead.

This thread needs more scientific oomph!

evolution is not predictive theory and it has never claimed to be so

another fallacy

Exactly! Thanks for proving my point - end thread.

Actually, a theory must predict reliable outcomes, or it needs to be retooled. Evolution is laughable in that category in many instances.
Like I said before, 21/3=7, but evolution finds the need to keep saying 6.93 is the same due to complex additions.

[CID1990]

evolution is not predictive theory and it has never claimed to be so

another fallacy

Exactly! Thanks for proving my point - end thread.

Actually, a theory must predict reliable outcomes, or it needs to be retooled. Evolution is laughable in that category in many instances.
Like I said before, 21/3=7, but evolution finds the need to keep saying 6.93 is the same due to complex additions.

evolution of species cannot be predicted because the stressors that drive evolution are by nature unpredictable

we can do this all day but again- your arguments are based in magic, i.e., faith

you can flail all day but in the end you might as well just say "because the bible tells me so" and it would be the same thing

[SeattleGriz]

Exactly! Thanks for proving my point - end thread.

Actually, a theory must predict reliable outcomes, or it needs to be retooled. Evolution is laughable in that category in many instances.
Like I said before, 21/3=7, but evolution finds the need to keep saying 6.93 is the same due to complex additions.

evolution of species cannot be predicted because the stressors that drive evolution are by nature unpredictable

we can do this all day but again- your arguments are based in magic, i.e., faith

you can flail all day but in the end you might as well just say "because the bible tells me so" and it would be the same thing

Francis. Relax. What I am saying, is that the expected outcome of mutation and natural selection (Evolution), is not being achieved. If you have a theory, and you expect X, but get Y, wouldn't you look at your assumptions?

Give it a minute for BioBengal to reply - he knows his shit. He is most certainly not on my side, but his take is VERY much appreciated. I only go to level 5, he goes to 11.

[biobengal]

Exactly! Thanks for proving my point - end thread.

Actually, a theory must predict reliable outcomes, or it needs to be retooled. Evolution is laughable in that category in many instances.
Like I said before, 21/3=7, but evolution finds the need to keep saying 6.93 is the same due to complex additions.

evolution of species cannot be predicted because the stressors that drive evolution are by nature unpredictable

we can do this all day but again- your arguments are based in magic, i.e., faith

you can flail all day but in the end you might as well just say "because the bible tells me so" and it would be the same thing

Predictive to a degree, examples of convergent evolution tell us this is the case. Yet, this is true, future changes to organisms are often difficult to predict, but not impossible. Yoshida 2003, Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system, is a great example of a predictable outcome from an evolutionary process.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory has led to numerous predictions that were later verified:

1) Transitional organism MUST exist linking fishes to tetrapods
2) Human origins in Africa
3) Organisms living in harsh conditions have higher mutation rates
4) Evolution is rapid during speciation
5) And many, many, many more.

Evolution is predictive, it makes predictions about all life on Earth. For example, evolutionary theory would suggest fossil humans (or rabbits) will never be found in the precambrian... if they were, trouble for evolution. Is there a similar statement that could be made for ID?

[JohnStOnge]

Evolution is predictive, it makes predictions about all life on Earth. For example, evolutionary theory would suggest fossil humans (or rabbits) will never be found in the precambrian.

That's not prediction. Prediction is when you predict that something that hasn't happened yet will happen.

That's one of my biggest beefs about the evolution thing: Calling things that aren to prediction "prediction."

Not quite as big as my beef about stating cause and effect without controlled experiments that support the statements. You know, like maybe doing an experiment in which a population of singled celled organisms transitions into a population of multicellular organisms. That sort of thing. But still big.

Bear in mind that I do believe in evolution. But this thing of saying it makes "predictions" which turn out to be correct is largely crap.

[biobengal]

Francis. Relax. What I am saying, is that the expected outcome of mutation and natural selection (Evolution), is not being achieved. If you have a theory, and you expect X, but get Y, wouldn't you look at your assumptions?

What, what, what.... WHAT? Example?

Genetic drift, hitch hiking, biased mutation, migration... there are many mechanisms which lead to evolution. In fact, it is a bit more complicated than that, even.

[SeattleGriz]

Francis. Relax. What I am saying, is that the expected outcome of mutation and natural selection (Evolution), is not being achieved. If you have a theory, and you expect X, but get Y, wouldn't you look at your assumptions?

What, what, what.... WHAT? Example?

Genetic drift, hitch hiking, biased mutation, migration... there are many mechanisms which lead to evolution. In fact, it is a bit more complicated than that, even.

We are talking about junk DNA for the most part (haven't made it past this point...yet).

That was my question to you. Where do you fall in the whole functional debate? You believe only 8% is functional, like the study linked previously in this thread, or the 80% like Encode says?

We are trying to deduce whether there is functional DNA or a ton of crap (jetsam, flotsam) like evolution predicted.