Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[The Cadet]

Simple assertions, anti-religion bias and a lack of understanding about creation and creationists. Creationists are basically those who believe that God created the universe and everything in it. You might be surprised that there are creationists that hold PhD's in biology and other fields of science like biochemistry, Astrophysics and physics, mathematics and many others.

Yeah. There are. You can find crackpots in any field. However, it's perhaps worth noting that a lot of them are total failures.
To take an example I found on youtube: Dr. Russel Humphreys.

That's a failed academic career. That's someone who just couldn't hack it. And honestly, I have yet to see a creationist scientist who did actually publish in the field he used his credentials to pollute while maintaining the young earth claims.

Dr. Georgia Purdom, for example, is one of the folks AiG trots out on a regular basis. She has a real PhD, but a failed academic career; she's published only 3 papers since she got her PhD in 2000, and she was only third-place author on all three papers, meaning that she was at best the fourth-most-significant contributor to that paper. That's pathetic. Or Dr. David Menton, who, over a 40-year academic career (34 years spent at prestigious research universities!) published 27 papers. That's downright sad. If you're spending your life at a research university and you can't get a paper per year published, something has gone horribly wrong (usually, the error can be traced back to someone in the department responsible for granting tenure). If nobody considers that meagre work worth reading or citing, then you've super failed.

Well what about the ones who do seem to have real academic careers? Andrew Snelling, for example, is a real academic with a real academic career, but when he publishes in peer review, he has absolutely nothing to say about a young earth - in fact, his work consistently supports an old earth! He's a lot like Judith Curry in that regards; he blogs about anti-science, but then publishes real science which consistently runs afoul of his anti-science nonsense, leading to the conclusion that he is an intellectually dishonest git.

They might talk a big talk on the blogs, but when it comes to real academia, they either push aside their unscientific religious beliefs to have a real academic career, or they don't have much of an academic career at all. And even then, they're a tiny minority. How many of these guys are there? Not many.

The reason for all of this is pretty straightforward: young earth creationism is not science. It is not scientific. It is not supported by the evidence. If you want to be a young earth creationist, you basically have to ignore all the evidence. And in peer review, you can't do that! If your material isn't up to date, if there are trivial mistakes therein, if your hypothesis is fundamentally unfalsifiable, then you're going to fail. Indeed, any creationist coming out of university with a degree in life sciences should ask for a refund, as their university clearly failed to teach them the very basics of science and the very basics of their own field. Although given that many of them go to university specifically to be able to prop up their evangelizing, in countries where the state pays for it, the state should be asking them for their money back.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Out of curiosity, can you name 5 YEC with PhD's in biology and/or biochemistry?

I don't know of any personally.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Indeed, Oncedeceived, who exactly are these individuals?

You may freely concur with the orthodox teaching that all non christians are in fact under the sway of, and are deceived by Satan the Father of Lies. Hence you are personally responsible for that endorsement and your tenacious propounding of that credo here and wherever you find the opportunity. You have everything invested in this, more so with every passing day. The God delusion. You carry a heavy onus.

It is not me arrogating that creationism is the account of origin of this, and by extension, any universe, and that it accounts for biogenesis and subsequent speciation on this stupefyingly beautiful planet, where entropy takes such an interesting path within the inevitable heat death fate of the universe.

It is you who are aligning yourself with odious creationism. Hence you are bent on preying on the vulnerable, who know no better, as they are profoundly uneducated, don't read and study, don't edify their intellect and empower themselves, and can't apply critical thinking. You want to nip all that in the bud and get them converted, saved from nothing. Sin is negative [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. It's all about taboos, sex and curtailing self determinism, autonomy.

How mean spirited. Get a life. Get an education. Report me, go on, you know you want to. Let's find out just how easy it is to get banned on christian forums, oncedeceived.

All that 'bless and do not curse' scripture dictum was imposed on my text, by some algorithm filter, I can only presume. That is puerile and ridiculous. Atheist and free thinking forums don't apply such nonsense.

Phenotype, the two of us have been down this path before. I know the unholy trinity in which you worship. <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-is-darwinism-so-dangerous-2.7820964/page-32#post-65605389">Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (2)</a>
Now I know your religion is evolution, so I won't report you this time but lets keep to the topics and leave ad hominem from the posts.

The link wouldn't work. So I'll pm you with it. That way the mod's won't have to clean up the thread.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah. There are. You can find crackpots in any field. However, it's perhaps worth noting that a lot of them are total failures.
To take an example I found on youtube: Dr. Russel Humphreys.

That's a failed academic career. That's someone who just couldn't hack it. And honestly, I have yet to see a creationist scientist who did actually publish in the field he used his credentials to pollute while maintaining the young earth claims.

Dr. Georgia Purdom, for example, is one of the folks AiG trots out on a regular basis. She has a real PhD, but a failed academic career; she's published only 3 papers since she got her PhD in 2000, and she was only third-place author on all three papers, meaning that she was at best the fourth-most-significant contributor to that paper. That's pathetic. Or Dr. David Menton, who, over a 40-year academic career (34 years spent at prestigious research universities!) published 27 papers. That's downright sad. If you're spending your life at a research university and you can't get a paper per year published, something has gone horribly wrong (usually, the error can be traced back to someone in the department responsible for granting tenure). If nobody considers that meagre work worth reading or citing, then you've super failed.

Well what about the ones who do seem to have real academic careers? Andrew Snelling, for example, is a real academic with a real academic career, but when he publishes in peer review, he has absolutely nothing to say about a young earth - in fact, his work consistently supports an old earth! He's a lot like Judith Curry in that regards; he blogs about anti-science, but then publishes real science which consistently runs afoul of his anti-science nonsense, leading to the conclusion that he is an intellectually dishonest git.

They might talk a big talk on the blogs, but when it comes to real academia, they either push aside their unscientific religious beliefs to have a real academic career, or they don't have much of an academic career at all. And even then, they're a tiny minority. How many of these guys are there? Not many.

The reason for all of this is pretty straightforward: young earth creationism is not science. It is not scientific. It is not supported by the evidence. If you want to be a young earth creationist, you basically have to ignore all the evidence. And in peer review, you can't do that! If your material isn't up to date, if there are trivial mistakes therein, if your hypothesis is fundamentally unfalsifiable, then you're going to fail. Indeed, any creationist coming out of university with a degree in life sciences should ask for a refund, as their university clearly failed to teach them the very basics of science and the very basics of their own field. Although given that many of them go to university specifically to be able to prop up their evangelizing, in countries where the state pays for it, the state should be asking them for their money back.

YEC is a very small percentage of creationists. Very small. I wasn't referring to YEC when I commented about those who hold PhD's and are in numerous fields in Science.

 

[Jimmy D]

YEC is a very small percentage of creationists. Very small. I wasn't referring to YEC when I commented about those who hold PhD's and are in numerous fields in Science.

Who are you referring to exactly?

'Creationists' would imply that they don't accept the TOE or common descent. Is that what you mean?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who are you referring to exactly?

'Creationists' would imply that they don't accept the TOE or common descent. Is that what you mean?

That is false. There are creationists that accept both.

 

[The Cadet]

YEC is a very small percentage of creationists. Very small. I wasn't referring to YEC when I commented about those who hold PhD's and are in numerous fields in Science.

Okay. Then biologists who reject the theory of evolution then. Who do you have?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay. Then biologists who reject the theory of evolution then. Who do you have?

The point was and it seems you have forgotten was that there were creationists that held PhD's in all areas of science. There are however biologists (non-creationists even) that are questioning Natural Selection for the diversity of life, as a side point.

 

[whois]

Okay. Then biologists who reject the theory of evolution then. Who do you have?

i believe you are asking the wrong question.
i believe there are a large number of scientists that believe life is more than what physical laws can account for.
another thing, i seriously doubt if you will ever get an honest answer from a scientist, simply because, well you know why.
even you yourself must have thoughts along these lines, and the only conclusion you can come to is maybe science will figure it all out.
i know this, we will NEVER find the answer steadfastly goosestepping to the status quo.
i'll make a bet with you, modern genomics will reveal that life is so complex that will never be able to coherently catalog it.
what makes sense genomically will not make sense species wise.
we need standards, and what is a "standard" human?
these areas are already starting to be revealed in genomic research

when you ask a scientist if they reject evolution, the only possible answer they can give is no, so it's the wrong question to ask.

 

[bhsmte]

i believe you are asking the wrong question.
i believe there are a large number of scientists that believe life is more than what physical laws can account for.
another thing, i seriously doubt if you will ever get an honest answer from a scientist, simply because, well you know why.
even you yourself must have thoughts along these lines, and the only conclusion you can come to is maybe science will figure it all out.
i know this, we will NEVER find the answer steadfastly goosestepping to the status quo.
i'll make a bet with you, modern genomics will reveal that life is so complex that will never be able to coherently catalog it.
what makes sense genomically will not make sense species wise.
we need standards, and what is a "standard" human?
these areas are already starting to be revealed in genomic research

when you ask a scientist if they reject evolution, the only possible answer they can give is no, so it's the wrong question to ask.

Sure, those scientist types just love to be told what they can say and not say.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

the last thread was most likely closed because we just can't have scientists such as koonin running amok, slapping darwin in the face.

Why not? Nothing he ever proposed has turned out to be correct. Every single one of his finches interbreed and produce fertile offspring - showing the stupidity of continuing to try to claim they underwent speciation and became separate species. A subject all of you seem so eager to avoid discussing for some reason?

 

[The Cadet]

Why not? Nothing he ever proposed has turned out to be correct. Every single one of his finches interbreed and produce fertile offspring - showing the stupidity of continuing to try to claim they underwent speciation and became separate species.

Hey, you're back! Gonna respond to any of the points I made earlier? Maybe apologize for dragging Dr. Saccheri's name through the mud?

A subject all of you seem so eager to avoid discussing for some reason?

A subject I have addressed every single time you have brought it up. Start a thread on it and I will address it again.

i believe you are asking the wrong question.
i believe there are a large number of scientists that believe life is more than what physical laws can account for.

I'm sure there are. Most biologists in the USA as recently as 2005 were Christians, so it's fair to assume that some large portion of them believe in a soul. However, this is not a scientific belief. This is a scientist disregarding the scientific method to hold an opinion based on weak or non-existent evidence. This is why you can find YECs with cute little letters behind their name in the popular press decrying evolution, but you will never see anything like that in refereed journals, because in peer review, you have to back up your assertions with evidence.

another thing, i seriously doubt if you will ever get an honest answer from a scientist, simply because, well you know why.

What, you mean the massive international conspiracy among all scientists and all scientific disciplines, ongoing for the past 150 years, including countless religious believers of all faiths to promote one specific scientific explanation of the diversification of life on this planet and to systematically reject all evidence to the contrary (and then cover up that the evidence was ever rejected or valid at all)? Or do you mean because every time they speak in public about their work, a little Darwin Devil takes control of their mind (in accordance with the demonic pact Darwin signed) and forces them to lie about things they know are wrong?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I did not name names or make accusations. I humbly request you do the same.

I call it like I see it. It is the evolutionists that every time attempt to switch it to apologetic debate - knowing they moderators are going to close the thread when they do. I for one have no problem defending my beliefs - nor showing the futility of yours.

Thank you. I could not find the fulltext of the article, although admittedly I didn't look very hard. But this doesn't help your case.

Your welcome, took all of 5 seconds. Oh it proves my case.

Let's look at the entire article, instead of just a couple sentences of it, shall we? Like, you know, the table immediately below the statement you quoted. There's exon shuffling, and transposons, and horizontal gene transfer, and all the typical things you like to bring up... But also mentioned on the list (the second item):

"Gene Duplication: classic model of duplication with divergence". There's also retroposition, where a sequence is duplicated and inserted elsewhere in the genome. Your list of known processes does indeed include exon shuffling. I do not deny that that plays a substantial role in evolution. But it also clearly and definitively states that many gene duplicates have probably evolved new functions. But according to you, this doesn't happen. Or am I misinterpreting your position?

Apparently you missed the key words "duplicated" and "inserted". Duplicated what? Something that didn't exist prior??????

...But with rearrangement, mutation, and duplication of "01", you can get to "0110101110110" or "0101000001101100011001010110000101110011011001010010000001001100011001010110000101110010011011100010000001010111011010000110000101110100001000000100100101101110011001100110111101110010011011010110000101110100011010010110111101101110001000000100100101110011" or to "the contents of Skyrim.exe". This is the crucial thing you seem to be missing, and which I keep trying to help you understand. If you take a list of characters and duplicate it, you have now doubled your information content. If you are then allowed to change literally every letter in the second list of characters, you could very easily come up with completely novel information.

Again - rearrangement and duplication of what? Already pre-existing genetic information. Creating new information would be your starting from C and showing me how we end up with CTAG? Simple to complex right? I'll give you CAT, go ahead - rewrite and copy those C, A and T's all you like and show me how you get G? This is what I thought - you can only work within a pre-existing framework and can never create new genetic information - required in your simple to complex belief system.

Let me put this simply. In order for the first organisms to have the genetic material to account for every possible gene that gene duplication followed by point mutation could create, it would have to have literally infinite genetic material. But here's the thing - the same is true of each of its ancestors, as any of their progeny's genomes could hypothetically produce any string of "CAGT" through duplication and point mutation.

But none of them had it at the beginning - they were one-celled living organisms, they did not possess that infinite genetic material - simple to complex. Or are you know arguing from infinitely complex to more infinitely complex?

I'm just sort of wondering what is missing here. You seem to accept that genes are duplicated. Do you reject that point mutations exist? I'd like to think that you don't reject point mutations, but if that's the problem, it would explain a whole lot.

Of course I am not arguing mutations do not exist - they clearly do.

I'm just objecting to any claim you are making that from C we can get to CATG, by mutating, copying, rearranging C in any manner you so choose.

But duplication+mutation is most certainly not nothing! I have no idea where that came from at all

I know mutation not nothing, just useless. (see above)

Didn't create anything new - just what already existed.

On page 6 there is a table of new genes with known age. Before you accuse me of not reading the paper, please read it yourself and examine the conclusions it reaches. Thank you again for finding the fulltext for me - it's considerably more damning.

Based upon their incorrect pre-concieved beliefs of how evolution by mutation occurred. I know you are certainly not claiming they have 25 million year old DNA to prove it with are you?????? So in reality they don't have a clue as to how long those genes have been there - besides with LGT it simply means at most when that genetic sequence was inserted from another host.

You are mistaking the careful language of scientific discourse for a complete lack of knowledge. The narrow range involved makes it extremely likely that the culprit is a point mutation

Lack of knowledge? Never said such a thing - try deliberate propaganda to cover up their flawed theories. Like finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring being separate species. You still avoid that topic for some unknown reason?

Why would one even suspect horizontal gene transfer in this case? I'll be honest, I don't know enough about the case to say one way or another. What I can do is send him an email about it. What I can say is that this:

Is nothing but baseless slander and absolutely not useful to this discussion.

Also, no comments on genealogy?

We were discussing genetics, what, suddenly the subject needs to be changed? We haven't finished showing all of your false beliefs yet.

Why wouldn't you suspect Lateral gene transfer? Since all these sights are from ERV's and we know all retroviruses are foreign to the genome and are known to bring genes across species lines and amongst the same species? Why would you not consider it, unless you don't want to have to because it takes away your claims of lineage?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey, you're back! Gonna respond to any of the points I made earlier? Maybe apologize for dragging Dr. Saccheri's name through the mud?

It's not my fault you and he thinks taking something that already exists, copying it and inserting it so it becomes dominant instead of recessive means something new. It should be dragged through the mud when he knows it's only the rearrangement of what already exists into new dominant and recessive traits or as he admits LGT or..... taking those claimed Junk DNA and making it coding DNA. Laughable.

A subject I have addressed every single time you have brought it up. Start a thread on it and I will address it again.

A subject you run from and are still doing so. What's wrong with discussing finches that interbreed right here and now while we are on the subject of genetics????

 

[The Cadet]

Apparently you missed the key words "duplicated" and "inserted". Duplicated what? Something that didn't exist prior??????

Again - rearrangement and duplication of what? Already pre-existing genetic information. Creating new information would be your starting from C and showing me how we end up with CTAG? Simple to complex right? I'll give you CAT, go ahead - rewrite and copy those C, A and T's all you like and show me how you get G? This is what I thought - you can only work within a pre-existing framework and can never create new genetic information - required in your simple to complex belief system.

Fundamentally, we can't get new base pairs from existing base pairs. However, the first living organism (we're not dealing with abiogenesis here) must have had those four base pairs. This is our basis for evolution. And with CTAG, you can code literally any combination of CTAG through insertion, deletion, duplication, and mutation. You absolutely can get to new information, because what matters is not the individual base pair, not even the individual codon, but the gene.

I think we might be talking past each other. At no point in the evolution of existing life was any jump in genetic material needed to add an extra base pair. When we talk about the increase in genetic information, we typically are not referring to the origins of life. I will freely admit that we don't know how the earliest lifeforms came to be, nor how DNA originated. However, this does nothing to affect the fact that genetic information can increase within extant creatures, because we don't NEED extra base pairs, we just need different proteins, which are made with strings of base pairs of non-determinate length! Case in point:

Didn't create anything new - just what already existed.

If I start with a genome that can only code for three specific proteins, and then later end up with a genome that can code for three different specific proteins, is there anything new? What if I start with a genome that can code for three specific proteins, and then later end up with a genome that can code for those three, plus three more entirely different proteins, did I create anything new?

Based upon their incorrect pre-concieved beliefs of how evolution by mutation occurred.

Please tell me the basis for their claim that the Jingwei gene is 2.5 million years old.

Lack of knowledge? Never said such a thing - try deliberate propaganda to cover up their flawed theories.

Oh, okay, then you're not just wrong.

Like finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring being separate species. You still avoid that topic for some unknown reason?

I will give you the same answer I give every single time: I am not qualified to answer this question, the jury is still out on a scientific consensus, the problem is that "species" is not very rigorously defined, and no, I don't think that they're the same species. I offer several qualifiers and caveats, but ultimately give you an answer to the question based on my own (meager) research on the subject. And look, my answer seems to agree with you. The finches probably were not different species. I don't know how much more direct I can be at this point. I am not avoiding this question. I keep on giving you a straight answer, and you keep on accusing me of dodging it. Here, once again, in size-7 red letters, in case it keeps going under among the caveats:

The finches in my opinion probably were not different species.

We were discussing genetics, what, suddenly the subject needs to be changed? We haven't finished showing all of your false beliefs yet.

It was one of the issues you brought up, and it's one which is crucial to genetics, as without an understanding of this, there's not really a good way to explain how mutations in individuals propagate through a population. This is important.

Why wouldn't you suspect Lateral gene transfer? Since all these sights are from ERV's and we know all retroviruses are foreign to the genome and are known to bring genes across species lines and amongst the same species? Why would you not consider it, unless you don't want to have to because it takes away your claims of lineage?

Okay, so in other words, HGT is easily detectable?

"We have not found any evidence to suggest that the carbonaria mutation is the result of horizontal gene transfer."
-Dr. Saccheri

So in that case, I can upgrade my statement to "It was almost certainly not HGT".

 

[The Cadet]

It's not my fault you and he thinks taking something that already exists, copying it and inserting it so it becomes dominant instead of recessive means something new.

Do you actually have any substantive rebuttals to his published research, or are you just going to fling feces around?

It should be dragged through the mud when he knows it's only the rearrangement of what already exists into new dominant and recessive traits

But it's not. And we know it's not because of his research.

or as he admits LGT

Again, you're just wrong. You know nothing of his work and you shouldn't be disparaging it.

or..... taking those claimed Junk DNA and making it coding DNA. Laughable.

Laughable is an odd word to use. A claim is usually laughable when it's so absurd or wrong as to be more likely to be a joke, or so stupid that the person in question is worth laughing at. I'm not sure how the statement that non-coding regions can become coding regions is laughable, given that it's actually correct.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952515000347
http://www.genetics.org/content/179/1/487.abstract
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/10/1693.full.html

Indeed, this was a mild paradigm shift within genetics as far as I can tell.

Now, you want laughable, try this one on for size:

And then they are hitchhiking as he puts it because he's too scared to say Horizontal Gene Transfer and all that would imply.

Now that's funny.

 

[whois]

I'm sure there are. Most biologists in the USA as recently as 2005 were Christians, so it's fair to assume that some large portion of them believe in a soul.

that isn't quite what i meant, but since you brought it up:
why on earth would degreed biologists believe they have a soul if evolution has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt?
believing in a soul or god is not what i had in mind when i made my comment you quoted.
we could probably snag an even larger group of scientists if we asked "is life more than what the current physical laws can explain".
the next question of course is "why do these people feel this way if evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt?"
i think this is the primary reason most people question evolution, not because they believe in a god, but because they simply know something isn't quite right.
evolution must be true, but yet people feel there is more to it, but yet can't get their hands around an unseen intelligence.
the complexity of DNA and its transcription system is beyond phenomenal, the data storage density is far beyond what man can design and produce.
they can decode it and sequence it, but yet cannot reproduce it by natural means.
like i've stated numerous times, i'm not arguing for a god, simply because i wouldn't know where to start.

"gut feelings" aren't scientifically valid either but they are the prerogative of all military generals, ship captains, and airline pilots.

What, you mean the massive international conspiracy among all scientists and all scientific disciplines, ongoing for the past 150 years, including countless religious believers of all faiths to promote one specific scientific explanation of the diversification of life on this planet and to systematically reject all evidence to the contrary (and then cover up that the evidence was ever rejected or valid at all)? Or do you mean because every time they speak in public about their work, a little Darwin Devil takes control of their mind (in accordance with the demonic pact Darwin signed) and forces them to lie about things they know are wrong?

you are making a very big mistake if you think "it can't happen here".
my primary concern in this area is what is being taught to our children.
unfortunately i can't go from K to 12 again to find out.

so, what is the story with evolution?
i believe the answer is going to be far more complex than what we can imagine.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm just objecting to any claim you are making that from C we can get to CATG, by mutating, copying, rearranging C in any manner you so choose.

Original "C"
Duplication Mutation "CC"
Duplication Mutation "CCCC"
Single Mutation "CACC"
Single Mutation "CATC"
Single Mutation "CATG"

Done

 

[Loudmouth]

another thing, i seriously doubt if you will ever get an honest answer from a scientist, simply because, well you know why.

That's false. The problem is that you refuse to accept their answers because it goes against what you believe.

when you ask a scientist if they reject evolution, the only possible answer they can give is no, so it's the wrong question to ask.

I'm sorry, but your fantasies about a conspiracy within biology aren't evidence of anything other than your willingness to invent fantasies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why wouldn't you suspect Lateral gene transfer? Since all these sights are from ERV's and we know all retroviruses are foreign to the genome and are known to bring genes across species lines and amongst the same species?

Where is your reference demonstrating that retroviruses shuttle host DNA between species?

Why does being "foreign DNA" prevent retroviral insertions from being evidence of common ancestry? It is the very fact that it is foreign DNA that makes it such a valuable genetic marker. Why don't you understand this?