True.Origins

God Fixation · #11 13th May 2002, 04:01 AM

Hey how you doin'?

ardipithecus · #12 13th May 2002, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by chickenman
I was so happy the other day when I used BLASTp to debunk a creationists claims about cytochrome c, I knew bioinformatics would be useful someday. This is great stuff, people need to know that most creation science is either erroneus or outdated

Just for the spectators, BLAST can be found here. It from the National Center for Biotechnology Information that is part National Institutes of Health.

What creationists claims about cytochrome c did you debunk? I debunked Hovind's sunflower cytochrome c using Entrez-protein which is another NCBI resource which is integrated with every useful PubMed.

chickenman · #13 14th May 2002, 01:52 AM

A creationist was claiming that cytochrome c in rhodospirillum rubrum, when compared to horse, human, mouse, fruit fly, yeastetc. was only ever ~70 percent different, and that if the difference in sequence was due to evolution, you'd expect the higher organisms to have more differences. So I plugged the R.rubrum protein sequence into blastp to compare and found that the 30 percent homolgy was confined to set sequences - then I went back to swiss prot and discovered that the conserved sequences were sites of haem group attatchment. Then I explained to this creationist why natural selection and the theory of evolution would predict that this 30 percent sequence homology would remain static over time - natural selection acts on that 30 percent of the sequence that is vital to the proteins function, limiting its mutation rate.

chickenman · #14 14th May 2002, 01:55 AM

I didn't explain that too well, the 30 percent homology between the different organisms always occured in the same regions of the sequence (the consensus pattern, and domains for haem binding)

RufusAtticus · #15 14th May 2002, 11:37 AM

Last year I read TrueOrigin's page on the Theory of Creation. I was disappointed. It made grand comments about disproving evolutionists by presenting a Theory of Creation. When I finished, I was still waiting for them to present it. I saw nothing there that said this is the testable theory of creation.

Here is the link. Maybe someone else can find it.

unworthyone · #16 14th May 2002, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Last year I read TrueOrigin's page on the Theory of Creation. I was disappointed. It made grand comments about disproving evolutionists by presenting a Theory of Creation. When I finished, I was still waiting for them to present it. I saw nothing there that said this is the testable theory of creation.

Here is the link. Maybe someone else can find it.

Maybe you can tell me the theory of evolution and then I'll tell you the theory of creation?

50% of evolution and creation are both unfalsifiable. How are you gonna "test" the first species of life and prove it existed? Its called speculation. THAT IS ALL.

RufusAtticus · #17 14th May 2002, 01:31 PM

Didn't we cover that on II during the two days you participated?

Idealy, I would refer you to Douglas Futuyma's text book, Evolutionary Biology.

But internet links are much easer.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Please, unworthyone, identify what 50% of evolution is unfalsifiable.

unworthyone · #18 14th May 2002, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Didn't we cover that on II during the two days you participated?

You didnt answer the question. What is the "theory of evolution"?

A link has already been provided for "the theory of creation". You say there was no theory....well what is the theory of evolution?

Please, unworthyone, identify what 50% of evolution is unfalsifiable.

Well evolution requires speculation on what started in the begining of life. Can't test it, never will. You can only speculate what you "think" could've happened, and even that is walking blindfolded.

RufusAtticus · #19 14th May 2002, 01:59 PM

Let me try again.

To explain evolution, I would ideally refer you to a college level textbook. (Douglas Futuyma's is the standard.) Since that is probably asking too much of you, you can read the link instead. If, after reading that you are still confused about ToE, I'd be happy to discuss it further with you.

Well evolution requires speculation on what started in the begining of life.

You are mistaken. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Can you find one relavant scientific source that states otherwise? Do you have anything else to offer to support your claim?

unworthyone · #20 14th May 2002, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Let me try again.

To explain evolution, I would ideally refer you to a college level textbook. (Douglas Futuyma's is the standard.) Since that is probably asking too much of you, you can read the link instead. If, after reading that you are still confused about ToE, I'd be happy to discuss it further with you.

You are mistaken. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Can you find one relavant scientific source that states otherwise? Do you have anything else to offer to support your claim?

May I suggest reading a book on the Theory of Creation to find the theory or maybe a link since they are "easier"? You are creating a double standard and its sickening. So Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life? Hmmm....So then at what point did evolution start?