Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Guy Threepwood]

You have been corrected on this before. Do we need to do so again?

recent phylogenomic evidence favours the hypothesis that the T3SS derived from the flagellum

1. Abby SS, Rocha EP (September 2012). "The non-flagellar type III secretion system evolved from the bacterial flagellum and diversified into host-cell adapted systems". PLOS Genetics. 8 (9): e1002983. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002983. PMC 3459982. PMID 23028376.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Experimental evidence of what? You already admitted three times that you have no evidence.

If you think being silly is a good debating strategy, try again. The Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments are well-measured examples of adaptive evolution. Of course, you don't have the mathematical skills to understand these experiments, so instead, you make false claims about what I've said.

Yep, so are you saying that you are not a real scientist? That appears to be the case here. You are a one trick pony with a fairly decent understanding of statistics, but that is about it. And no, my statement was far more accurate than any of yours. Calling it a "code" and trying to refute evolution because codes are manmade is a far worse failure. Context matters.

What I'm saying is that training in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics doesn't give biologists good preparation for understanding the thermodynamics and mathematics of biological evolution. It is sloppy preparation that is appropriate for someone that thinks that DNA is on the order of a recipe for slop.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Atheists are not the only ones who do not embrace any "sophistication in design.
The Flagellum Unspun | The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" |Kenneth R. Miller
Also see 2 Christian scientist and one atheist:

So why can't Miller explain what the purpose of helicase and gyrase was before DNA existed?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Posts like this would be much more convincing if you knew what was and what was not evidence in the sciences.

So you think that the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments are not evidence? No wonder you are so confused about the subject of biological evolution.

By the way, how far along are you in developing a test on your non-hypothesis? What reasonable test based upon your idea's merits could possibly refute it?

You have to take more than a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics to understand the thermodynamics and mathematics of DNA microevolutionary adaptation.

 

[Frank Robert]

The crux of the argument was that the type III secretion system represented an intermediate evolutionary step towards the flagellum.

What many are still not aware of, is that the Flagellum predates the type III secretion system.
i.e. this would be like presenting a penguin as an intermediate evolutionary step towards flight.

How is that evidence for ID?

 

[Frank Robert]

So why can't Miller explain what the purpose of helicase and gyrase was before DNA existed?

I don't know if Miller can explain it or not. Ask him? However, whatever he comes up with does not excuse you from providing a specific definition for macroevolution. Misdirection won't get you there.

 

[Ophiolite]

What I'm saying is that training in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics doesn't give biologists good preparation for understanding the thermodynamics and mathematics of biological evolution. It is sloppy preparation that is appropriate for someone that thinks that DNA is on the order of a recipe for slop.

You have, so far, failed to demonstrate that your grasp of relevant biological disciplines is adequate for you to successfully apply your self-promoted skills in mathematics and physics to biology. Here is a tip: constantly demeaning others and boasting about your own abilities is not the way to do it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How is that evidence for ID?

Building this nanomachine requires a lot of information, quaternary digital code, written according to a code convention that specifies sequences using 20 common amino acids, which when properly connected then fold to create these 3 dimensional functional machines.

This is very similar to computer aided design and manufacturing techniques we use today.

The point is not that this is merely uncannily similar to our own products of creative intelligence- but that we understand what is at minimum necessary for their production, and how this exceeds the inherent limitations of natural mechanisms.

 

[Frank Robert]

What's insulting about the fact that biologists take a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics as their scientific training? That's the well know curriculum of biologists.

Because calling any PhD requirement "dumbbell" is insulting to the students, professors and college.

Specifically, 2 genes subject to 3 simultaneous selection pressures. If we are talking about a genome with 20,000 coding genes, that's 2/20,000 equals a fraction of 0.0001 or 0.01%. But that number will be much smaller if you include portions of the genome which control the coding portions.

That is not a definition of macroevolution so it doesn't help you with Miller's challenge. Try again.

If you think this is not correct, post an experimental example of DNA evolution demonstrating otherwise. Tell your buddy Ken Miller and Joshua Swamidass to learn something about the mathematics of DNA adaptive evolution. Then they might understand why 3 drug combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.

I am not making any claims by asking you to address Miller's & Swanidass's challenges.

 

[Frank Robert]

Building this nanomachine requires a lot of information, quaternary digital code, written according to a code convention that specifies sequences using 20 common amino acids, which when properly connected then fold to create these 3 dimensional functional machines.

This is very similar to computer aided design and manufacturing techniques we use today.

The point is not that this is merely uncannily similar to our own products of creative intelligence- but that we understand what is at minimum necessary for their production, and how this exceeds the inherent limitations of natural mechanisms.

Neither "uncannily similar" nor not having 100% knowledge become evidence for ID. On the surface ID can explain everything so if all you want is a superficial explanation there is no disagreement.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I don't know if Miller can explain it or not. Ask him? However, whatever he comes up with does not excuse you from providing a specific definition for macroevolution. Misdirection won't get you there.

I did ask him and he couldn't explain it. He said, "That's a good question".

And didn't you read my response to your post in post #1458? You need to be a lot more attentive, but I'll post it again for you here:

Specifically, 2 genes subject to 3 simultaneous selection pressures. If we are talking about a genome with 20,000 coding genes, that's 2/20,000 equals a fraction of 0.0001 or 0.01%. But that number will be much smaller if you include portions of the genome which control the coding portions.

If you think this is not correct, post an experimental example of DNA evolution demonstrating otherwise. Tell your buddy Ken Miller and Joshua Swamidass to learn something about the mathematics of DNA adaptive evolution. Then they might understand why 3 drug combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV.

 

[Frank Robert]

I did ask him and he couldn't explain it. He said, "That's a good question".

That is an excellent answer w/o being insulting and not wasting with someone who is only looking to self promote himself.

And didn't you read my response to your post in post #1458? You need to be a lot more attentive, but I'll post it again for you here:

I don't know if I missed it or not, I'll take a look.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You have, so far, failed to demonstrate that your grasp of relevant biological disciplines is adequate for you to successfully apply your self-promoted skills in mathematics and physics to biology. Here is a tip: constantly demeaning others and boasting about your own abilities is not the way to do it.

Are you one of those macroevolutionists that thinks that biological processes are not subject to the laws of physics? Perhaps taking a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics is why you are so ill-prepared to understand the thermodynamics and mathematics of biological evolution. You have about the same amount of training as an auto mechanic has on this subject.

But go ahead and enlighten us on the relevant biological disciplines that explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. Perhaps it is fossil tea-leaf reading? You biologists are so poorly trained in the hard mathematical sciences that you can't even explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of the simplest evolutionary experiments. Of course, I'm talking about the Kishony and Lenski DNA adaptive evolutionary experiments.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That is an excellent answer w/o being insulting and not wasting with someone who is only looking to self promote himself.

His answer means that he can't refute this as an example of irreducible complexity. Perhaps Miller should write another book and call it "DNA replicase system unreplicated".

I don't know if I missed it or not, I'll take a look.

You do that.

 

[Frank Robert]

Specifically, 2 genes subject to 3 simultaneous selection pressures. If we are talking about a genome with 20,000 coding genes, that's 2/20,000 equals a fraction of 0.0001 or 0.01%. But that number will be much smaller if you include portions of the genome which control the coding portions.

It doesn't look like an answers to Miller's challenge, but if you think it is do you mind me putting it up at Peaceful Science for comments. Perhaps we can even get a comment from Dr. Miller.

It may take a day or two to get approved so if you need to change anything let me know.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Neither "uncannily similar" nor not having 100% knowledge become evidence for ID. On the surface ID can explain everything so if all you want is a superficial explanation there is no disagreement.

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal."
Richard Dawkins

But ID does not explain everything, that's the point- we can make a distinction between the capabilities of natural forces and creative intelligence- for forensic scientists and archeologists, making this distinction is a routine part of their job.

Products of intelligence have unique, objective, scientifically determinable fingerprints. The main confounding factor here, I think is merely a subjective preference for 'who dunnit' based on the vagaries of academic fashion.

 

[Frank Robert]

His answer means that he can't refute this as an example of irreducible complexity. Perhaps Miller should write another book and call it "DNA replicase system unreplicated".


You do that.

Best laugh I had today. Thanks!

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Because calling any PhD requirement "dumbbell" is insulting to the students, professors and college.

Everybody knows that biology majors take simplified math and physics courses compared to the course requirements for physics, engineering, and chemistry majors, the hard mathematical sciences. And your lack of understanding of the thermodynamics and mathematics of biological evolution shows as a consequence of this.

That is not a definition of macroevolution so it doesn't help you with Miller's challenge. Try again.

I am not making any claims by asking you to address Miller's & Swanidass's challenges.

I'm not going to repeat the mathematical definition of macroevolution a third time for you. If you haven't gotten it by now, you never will. Were you this inattentive in your dumbbell math courses and your survey of physics course? What were you waiting for in your training in biology, a course in fossil tea-leaf reading?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Best laugh I had today. Thanks!

Maybe you think that drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments are hilarious? Because that's what you get from people that take classes in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics and then think they can understand the thermodynamics and mathematics of biological evolution and the evolution of drug resistance.

 

[Frank Robert]

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal."
Richard Dawkins

But ID does not explain everything, that's the point- we can make a distinction between the capabilities of natural forces and creative intelligence- for forensic scientists and archeologists, making this distinction is a routine part of their job.

Products of intelligence have unique, objective, scientifically determinable fingerprints. The main confounding factor here, I think is merely a subjective preference for 'who dunnit' based on the vagaries of academic fashion.

Perhaps I am wrong but I look at things differently than you. For example, if I were a theist I would believe in theistic evolution for the very simple reason that we live in a natural world that follows natural laws so why wouldn't the Christian God create natural laws for the universe and let those laws do the grunt work of letting things like flagellum evolve naturally. It appears that the people who disagree with a natural world are the ones who believe in a literal reading of genesis.

If you believe in ID for whatever reason, I have no objection.