• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟64,539.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No, it really doesn't. There is no single standard use of "theory" in science.

Really? Why? Please show your calculations.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Mutation destroys, creates, and changes information.

The fraction of beneficial changes can range from zero to something like ten percent, depending on the situation. Why would deleterious mutations produce "devolution", though? Do you understand natural selection?

In what sense of "complex specified"? If you mean by Dembski's definition, good luck supporting your claim.

Assertions of uncertain meaning couched as questions? What sudden arrival of information-rich DNA?

They're not part of the discussion of evolution.

The scientific community is in no way divided about the reality of common descent.


I didn't say anything about theory being title defined but do you deny my positive definition? Strawman

Seriously? You are not familiar with the Cambrian explosion? Only the center of research publishing since the 1980s. Stop faking it!

If you have no research background and are unfamiliar wi the claims then do some research before faking it.

Origin of info rich dna is part of the larger discussion of naturalism vs evolution which is germane to the OP. Which again was obvious but you missed it.

There are a lot of unknowns in all research.

Scientific research has a wide number of methods based on differing fields.

Scientific knowledge progresses over time despite political concerns.

I'm committed to the fact that God could have created entirely using secondary causes. He could have used secondary causes combined with special creation. He could have used special creation followed by natural reproduction.

I'm committed to following the data.

I don't have a dog in the hunt as to what it shows.

But I'm intolerant of people pretending to understand science research and misrepresenting the basics.

I'm intolerant of the intellectually lazy who rely on rhetorical flourish and logical fallacies like straw men.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
i need to demonstrate that a motor is evidence for design? realy?

Yes - merely calling a structure a "motor" does not make it 'designed by humans' - after all, the ONLY designers we know of are humans. Is it your camp's position that humans designed flagella and molecular 'motors'?

what about this spinning fan ( a basic motor)?:

mini-kaze-60.jpg


Mini Kaze 60mm Quiet Fan

can we conclude design or not?


Obviously that is designed because we know that humans design things like that. Further, it is made from materials that we know humans produce and manipulate.

Flagella are made from bio-organic compounds.

You are using what all anti-science people use - argument from analogy, despite the facts that analogies are not evidence.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
if creation is true we should find evidence for design (in the genetic level or in the morphological level). we indeed found such evidence. DNA bases are basically instructions to make functional structures. since genes code for motors, and since motors are the product of design and not a natural process- this finding (DNA) fully support creation and can't be explain by a natural evolution. now feel free to disprove this prediction.

Bacterial Flagellum

Not only is that not a real prediction (in that it's incredibly vague), it's an equivocation fallacy to boot.

Try again.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The Flat Earthers have a conspiracy against NASA and government, whilst the Evolutionist have a conspiracy against the Single Intelligencia.

Conspiracy?

I think not.

The advocates of a 'Single Intelligencia' could do their camp a big favor and actually provide a real, legitimate, corroborated, verifiable bit of evidence that would compel skeptics to accept their version of reality, rather than hiding behind excess verbiage, unwarranted condescension, and bible verses.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟64,539.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Not only is that not a real prediction (in that it's incredibly vague), it's a complete non-sequitur as an argument.
This is called an abductive inference to the best explanation of the data we find. It is what Darein used methodologically for his Origin.

Stop faking it.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
what important parts? if a single trait can evolve by convergent evolution why several traits cant? this is my main point. and indeed we found such an example:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160204150559.htm
Uh, what? I never said several traits couldn't evolve via convergent evolution. More that a single fin could not be the result of recent shared ancestry while the rest were the result of convergent evolution. I explained that in my entire post you decided wasn't worth responding to in whole.

It wouldn't make sense for 1 fin to end up being similar enough for recent shared ancestry while the rest weren't, due to the genetics of how fins develop and the contradiction in all the genes for one part of the body being very similar while the rest are so much more dissimilar (yes, I can assert that the organisms being compared in your example were genetically dissimilar, given the distance between their existences and that one was a reptile and the other is a mammal).
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
even a simple light detector can't evolve stepwise. since there is no stepwise to form a light detector. any light detector is itself evidence for design. therefore it cant be the result of a natural process.

a single photoreceptor is about 300 amino acid long. the sequence space is about 20^300. we know that about half of the protein sequence required for his minimal function, so the chance to evolve even the simplest light detector may be low as 20^150.

And it is proven that for a photoreceptor of 300 amino acids in length that there is a 1 in 177^499 chance that a supernatural entity exists in entity space.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
This is called an abductive inference to the best explanation of the data we find. It is what Darein used methodologically for his Origin.

Stop faking it.

You might want to check your post for autocorrect/spelling. Not sure who Darein is or what an 'abductive' inference is. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I didn't say anything about theory being title defined but do you deny my positive definition? Strawman

Seriously? You are not familiar with the Cambrian explosion? Only the center of research publishing since the 1980s. Stop faking it!

If you have no research background and are unfamiliar wi the claims then do some research before faking it.

Origin of info rich dna is part of the larger discussion of naturalism vs evolution which is germane to the OP. Which again was obvious but you missed it.

There are a lot of unknowns in all research.

Scientific research has a wide number of methods based on differing fields.

Scientific knowledge progresses over time despite political concerns.

I'm committed to the fact that God could have created entirely using secondary causes. He could have used secondary causes combined with special creation. He could have used special creation followed by natural reproduction.

I'm committed to following the data.

I don't have a dog in the hunt as to what it shows.

But I'm intolerant of people pretending to understand science research and misrepresenting the basics.

I'm intolerant of the intellectually lazy who rely on rhetorical flourish and logical fallacies like straw men.

LOL.

It might be wiser not to make assumptions about people.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,218
10,104
✟282,759.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Hmm?

I shared standard distinction between general and special usage of the word theory and you create a strawman about there being no such thing as scientific proof. Did I say "proof?"

No!

I said "THEORY!"

Is there such a thing as scientific theory??

Stop the propaganda.

Stop putting words in people's mouths they didn't say.

Stop trying to shame and lecture people especially when phrases like scientific epistemology confuse you.
Do you agree that you said this?

"I would suggest not using the word "theory" to mean hypothesis, or unproven.
Theory in scientific knowledge means proven via experiment."


You didn't say "proof", but you did say "proven".

Your statement "Theory in scientific knowledge means proven via experiment", as written, is incorrect. That is not at all what theory means. Validating part or all of a hypothesis by multiple experiment constitutes part of a theory, but not all of it. Moreover your statement is rendered ambiguous by your indiosyncratic use of the phrase "scientific knowledge". You appear to mean, simply, "science", but I am not sure and would not wish to be accused of putting words in your mouth. (To avoid that try writing with greater clarity.)

At any rate, I can't see any other plausible interpretation of your statement other than an assertion that theories are fundamentally about proof. If that is not what you meant, try writing with greater clarity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,794.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
if creation is true we should find evidence for design (in the genetic level or in the morphological level). we indeed found such evidence. DNA bases are basically instructions to make functional structures. since genes code for motors, and since motors are the product of design and not a natural process- this finding (DNA) fully support creation and can't be explain by a natural evolution. now feel free to disprove this prediction.
This is not a prediction: we already know that cellular structures are coded for by DNA. It's also depends on a wholly unsupported claim, "motors are the product of design."

So no, not a successful prediction of genetics.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,794.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Instead of taking 2 minutes to search on scholar google you went the lazy route and fired off a generic post wi boilerplate skepticism.
Not quite accurate. I took the lazy route of spending eighteen years reading and contributing to the genetics literature.
Gauger AK, Axe DD (2011) The evolutionary accessibility of new enzyme functions: a case study from the biotin pathway. BIO-Complexity 2011(1):1-17. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2011.1
I'm familiar with Axe and Gauger's work, which in this case was published in the house journal for the Intelligent Design movement. Perhaps you could explain how one determines, from the mutations needed to transform one specific enzyme into another, very different enzyme, how difficult it is for random mutations acting on all enzymes to generate new functional enzymes. As I said before, please show your calculations.
Doug Axe

His research uses both experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After a Caltech PhD, he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. His work and ideas have been featured in many scientific journals, including the Journal of Molecular Biology, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Nature.

Ann Gauger
Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
Well, that's nice. Is there any explanation in there for why they didn't publish this in a real scientific journal? Or an answer to the question I actually asked?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,794.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I didn't say anything about theory being title defined but do you deny my positive definition?
Yes, I deny it.
Seriously? You are not familiar with the Cambrian explosion? Only the center of research publishing since the 1980s. Stop faking it!
Yes, I'm familiar with the Cambrian explosion. Which of your numerous assertions is that supposed to be relevant to?
If you have no research background and are unfamiliar wi the claims then do some research before faking it.
I have an extensive research background, I dare say quite a bit more extensive than yours. So if you could stop condescending for a moment, try responding with substance.
Origin of info rich dna is part of the larger discussion of naturalism vs evolution which is germane to the OP. Which again was obvious but you missed it.
That appears to be a non-answer. What DNA are you talking about?
I'm intolerant of the intellectually lazy who rely on rhetorical flourish and logical fallacies like straw men.
And I'm intolerant of people who make broad claims and then fail to support them.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,087
9,040
65
✟429,501.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Not really.

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

And these methods that were applied successfully in these papers and in this court case have also been used to trace primate evolution which includes us

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

Yes still an assumption. We assume that chimps and humans are related and that we came from a common ancestor. It's assumed that the commonality of the coding sequences mean we came from a common ancestor. It's still an assumption.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,087
9,040
65
✟429,501.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Not quite accurate. I took the lazy route of spending eighteen years reading and contributing to the genetics literature.

I'm familiar with Axe and Gauger's work, which in this case was published in the house journal for the Intelligent Design movement. Perhaps you could explain how one determines, from the mutations needed to transform one specific enzyme into another, very different enzyme, how difficult it is for random mutations acting on all enzymes to generate new functional enzymes. As I said before, please show your calculations.

Well, that's nice. Is there any explanation in there for why they didn't publish this in a real scientific journal? Or an answer to the question I actually asked?

Perfect example of dismissal. Intelligent design movement therefore it can be summarily dismissed. It's where evolution fails again. Anything that counters current thought is just waved away. This despite the fact that there is obvious problems with evolution that is pointed out. Evolutionists have a lock on the teaching and anything that counters the thought is waved off as not science. Despite the fact that evolution isn't real science either since it can't be observed tested or reproduced.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,087
9,040
65
✟429,501.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Conspiracy?

I think not.

The advocates of a 'Single Intelligencia' could do their camp a big favor and actually provide a real, legitimate, corroborated, verifiable bit of evidence that would compel skeptics to accept their version of reality, rather than hiding behind excess verbiage, unwarranted condescension, and bible verses.

We can't verify God anymore than you can verify evolution from a common ancestor. I'm okay with that. At least I am willing to admit that I can't prove God by scientific method. Evolution can't prove common ancestry either by scientific method but that doesn't stop it from being taught as fact.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,794.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Perfect example of dismissal. Intelligent design movement therefore it can be summarily dismissed.
I dismissed it as not being part of the scientific literature, and as not supporting the claim made by the poster.
This despite the fact that there is obvious problems with evolution that is pointed out.
Except your fact isn't a fact. When examined, the "obvious problems" generally turn out to be a lot of poorly supported hand-waving.
Despite the fact that evolution isn't real science either since it can't be observed tested or reproduced.
Please tell my employers that what I do isn't real science. They are under the mistaken impression that it is. I'm sure they will find your bald assertion persuasive.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,218
10,104
✟282,759.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Evolution can't prove common ancestry either by scientific method but that doesn't stop it from being taught as fact.
Possibly, prior to university level education, the provisional nature of all scientific theories and hypotheses would benefit from a little more emphasis.However, I have seen no evidence that this is the case at any reasonable quality university. (If you have such evidence, please present it.)

When we examine the wealth of evidence from an amazing variety of specialities we find that the best explanation to account for the myriad observations is that of descent with modification from a common ancestor. The evidence and the logical network connecting the various aspects is so profound (and no equivalent scientifically rigorous explanation is available) that to withhold acceptance would be unsupportable.

Yes, that acceptance is provisional, but so is the expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It is, therefore, for practical purposes wholly reasonable to think of it - on a day to day basis - as a 'fact'.

If your faith prevents you from accepting this 'fact', I have no problem with this. If you wish to deny common ancestry on the basis of your faith go ahead. But please, do not have the bad taste to twist science, the scientific method, and the sincerity of tens of thousands of sincere, hardworking scientists, many of whom are Christians, by denying common ancestry based upon your distorted interpretation of the science.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.