Let's compare real science to "scientific creationism".

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
npeterly, i don't claim to be an expert. I don't need to be. A protein which is truncated that severly cannot function. The mRNA transcript would likely be degraded before it was even translated.

Assuming you're correct, that doesn't tell you anything about what would happen to the organism if it wasn't truncated, now, does it?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by alexgb00
few people laugh at my jokes.

Count me as one of the few.

Originally posted by alexgb00
God bless you, brother, and have a good night.

Alex

Right back atcha, guy.

 

[WinAce]

Well, if you fixed the identically broken vitamin C gene that we share with chimps, for one, humans would no longer get scurvy in its absence...

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by WinAce
Well, if you fixed the identically broken vitamin C gene that we share with chimps, for one, humans would no longer get scurvy in its absence...

Okay, then, fix it and see if there are all benefits and no unexpected complications. Let me know when you've got some hard data to show me. (HINT: THIS is called science. Saying it's broken and calling that evolution is called fairy tales.)

 

[WinAce]

Well, every mammal except humans, chimps and a few others have no 'unexpected complications' from having a working copy of the gene. We know it functions to produce vitamin C for those species. Oddly, it doesn't in our own and that of chimps.

Works, doesn't work. Seems to satisfy every reasonable definition of 'broken' unless you have theological issues at stake that require you to reject evolution out of hand like AiG does.

Common ancestor hypothesis offers simple, clean, elegant explanation. Common designer hypothesis makes the designer look rather stupid, even compared to humans. You know, quality control and all that usually prevents defective car radios, broken by the exact same error, from being placed in two different cars anyway in a General Motors factory.

So, what do we have with intelligent design? No way of predicting this. What's more, it looks ridiculous via design. What's more, it can't be falsified because a designer *could* do this, or anything else, if he was stupid enough. Fairy tales, anyone?

What do we have with evolution, on the other hand?

1. Observe that virtually all mammals, with a few exceptions, produce vitamin C
2. Evolution says that this indicates it was present in the common ancestor of all mammals, because the odds of it appearing independently in so many independent species is astronomically low
3. Evolution thus predicts any mammals that don't produce vitamin C will have a vestigial copy of the gene that codes for it anyway; the reason they don't produce it is because a random mutation deactivated it
4. Surprise, surprise... we find a vitamin C gene that doesn't produce vitamin C, with what appears to be a large mutation of the type we directly observe creating new pseudogenes, breaking it right down the middle

So, the prosecution has the murder weapon (mutations deactivating functional genes), a bloody hole in the body caused by that murder weapon (deactivated vitamin C gene), the suspect's fingerprints all over murder weapon and body (the fact it's present in both humans and chimps), and no alibi whatsoever (alternative explanations that aren't just hand-waving).

Johnny Cochran: "But your honor, spirits might have incriminated my client! Mr. Alfonso Evoluto didn't do this!"

/me watches as poor little common designer hypothesis whimpers and vanishes in a puff of logic

 

[RufusAtticus]

In guinea pigs the gene for the protein that makes Vitamin C is also broken. Except that in this case it is a different mutation. Aside from the issue of why a competant designer would include pseudogenes, why would he do it differently. If he was completely willing to share the same code between the GLO genes in the unrelated apes, why did he chose to not share it with guinea pigs? Maybe a second designer was responcible for guinea pigs? Under the common design hypothesis, polytheism is the most elegant answer. However, most Christian creationists don't realize this unintended consequence of their argument.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
In guinea pigs the gene for the protein that makes Vitamin C is also broken. Except that in this case it is a different mutation. Aside from the issue of why a competant designer would include pseudogenes, why would he do it differently.

I don't know. But before you can even speculate, you'll have to fix both the gene in humans AND in guinea pigs and see what happens. Then you'll have to break the guinea pig gene the SAME way the human is broken, and see what happens. Then you'll have to break the human gene the same way the guinea pig gene is broken and see what happens. Then you'll be able to formulate a reasonable theory about whether or not the genes are actually "broken", whether or not there is a beneficial or detrimental result, and whether or not there is a reason for the difference.

But this should all be very obvious to a scientist. What's the matter -- don't you guys understand how the scientific method works? The way you guys talk, one could only assume evolution has no science in it whatsoever.

 

[WinAce]

I have a better idea. How about we not formulate any ideas at all until we prove every single last detail to within no doubt with a 100% accuracy as per the desire of every layman whose theology feels even slightly threatened by the advance of human knowledge. So what if we won't be able to achieve anything, at least it'll make Saint Nick feel more comfortable with the scientific method.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Nick,

I take it from your comments that you don’t understand why these GLO genes are broken. It’s because they have mutations that produce premature STOP codons. This causes translation to produces a shortened protein that in non-functional. That is how we know that it is broken. (Not to mention the obvious fact that we are prone to scurvy.) There is also further evidence from the sequence that the pseudogene is not under selection and thus is by all accounts definitely functionless.

Many substitutions were nonconservative according to Dayhoffs conservative category (131, and there were two stop codons in the human sequence. Since both New World and Old World monkeys are deficient in GLO, whereas prosimians possess this enzyme (141, the loss of GLO in primates is thought to have occurred before the divergence of New World monkeys and Old World monkeys (3545 million years ago) and after the divergence time of the prosimian and simian lineages (50-65 million years ago). Thus the very many substitutions found in the human nonfunctional gene have occurred at random for over some 40 million years since the gene stopped functioning and became free of selective pressure.

Nishikimi et al. J Biol Chem 269:13685, 1994

You seem to be arguing that it does have a purpose, but that produces another question. Why would any competent designer include a pseudogene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, but not a functioning gene that produces L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase? There is no reason why both can’t be there. Is there some higher purpose for requiring simians and guinea pigs to consume Vitamin C and not make it? Maybe the designer wanted to make it difficult for humans et al. to sail the oceans. If so, the designer couldn’t be the one spoken about in the O.T. since that god wanted man to subdue the earth (Gen 1:28). That is kind of difficult when you’re prone to scurvy.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Okay, then, fix it and see if there are all benefits and no unexpected complications.

Done. The fixed copy exists in house mice. Tell you what. Don't buy oranges for six months & watch to see if your mice's teeth fall out.

Better yet, tell me what this code will do without running it:
#include "iostream.h"
void main ()
{
int a;
int b;
/* a = ++b;
b = a++;
cout (two "less than" signs) a; */
}


Dang vBcode.


You can do anything you like to find out what it will do, but you cannot change the code I have written. You are allowed to look at the code for other programs.

 

[RufusAtticus]

What the code will do depends on the compiler.

 

[chickenman]

npeterly, even if the gene were fixed, and it turned out that it was deleterious to human health to have a working copy, common design is still in big trouble.

Because if the designer didn't want humans to have a working GLO because it was detrimental, why would he include a "broken copy" rather than have no copy at all? Its energetically wasteful to have processed psuedogenes.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by WinAce
...at least it'll make Saint Nick feel more comfortable with the scientific method.

Oh no! Santa Claus is a creationist too?

 

[Didaskomenos]

LOL!

 

[Cantuar]

I have a question, Cantuar. Are you a Christian? If not, there's no point in arguing this with you.

No. However, I have no reason to believe that the Anglican Bishop of Oxford isn't a Christian, and this is what he has to say about biblical literalism:

First, the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it._ This was quickly seen by Frederick Temple, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that God doesn't just make the world, he does something even more wonderful, he makes the world make itself._ God has given creation a real independence and the miraculous fact is that working in relation to this independent life God has, as it were, woven creation from the bottom upwards: with matter giving rise to life and life giving rise to conscious reflective existence in the likes of you and me._ The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago with life beginning to evolve about 3 billion years ago simply underlines the extraordinary detailed, persistent, patience of the divine creator spirit.

The second reason I feel sad about this attempt to see the Book of Genesis as a rival to scientific truth is that stops people taking the bible seriously._ The bible is a collection of books made up of very different kinds of literature, poetry, history, ethics, law, myth, theology, wise sayings and so on._ Through this variety of different kinds of writing God's loving purpose can come through to us._ The bible brings us precious, essential truths about who we are and what we might become._ But biblical literalism hinders people from seeing and responding to these truths.

Then there is science._ Science is a God-given activity._ Scientists are using their God-given minds and God-given creativity to explore and utilise God-given nature._

Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute.

Here's the original source:

http://www.oxford.anglican.org/docs/101618522743334.shtml

In Genesis, after each day God looks at the world and says "it is good." If each day was several epochs, i can't imagine God would like animals killing and competing, suffering through ice ages and meteors. God isn't a sadist who tortures the world.

Animals are killing and competing and suffering through global warming right now. There's nothing sadistic about it; it's the way life works.

Evolution is atheistic. You're right. I can't imagine how it can fit the Bible without completely messing up the Bible.

I didn't say it was. I said creationists say it is. I said that it's exactly like any other branch of science - the scientific method is a naturalistic method in everything it does. Evolution is no different. The fact that biblical literalists say it contradicts the Bible is the biblical literalists' business, it isn't part of the basis for the theory.

How haughty. I can see you're thinking Christians are generally stupider than atheists.

You're rather quick to jump to conclusions. I was summarising the results of surveys done on the religious makeup of scientists. It showed a larger proportion of members of the National Academy of Scientists (which would be among the country's senior scientists) were atheists than scientists in general. Here:

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Study, so they read about it. And whatever they read, they will believe, because it's from a "friendly" source.

No, by "study" I was referring to people doing research in various fields of evolutionary biology. They're the ones doing the experiments and getting the results.

You have said that you used to accept evolution. Were you a Christian at the time? What sort of science education do you have?

Yes, i understand. I know Christians who accept evolution. But i'll tell you a secret -- most of them are weak in their faith. They take man's allegations over God's Word.

Well, if you're going to define "weak in their faith" as accepting evolution, then you're arguing in circles. I've seen people define "weak in their faith" as referring to people who cling to biblical literacy because it saves having to think and ask questions. One Lutheran minister on another board says fairly often that there is no conflict between good science and genuine faith.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Cantuar
No. However, I have no reason to believe that the Anglican Bishop of Oxford isn't a Christian, and this is what he has to say about biblical literalism...

Cantuar, it doesn't work to judge a group of people by a quote from one person. The pope doesn't believe in a literal hell, but almost all Christians do. I'll take your word on this, that these are the man's words, but for future reference, it helps to have a source. 

The second reason I feel sad about this attempt to see the Book of Genesis as a rival to scientific truth is that stops people taking the bible seriously._ The bible is a collection of books made up of very different kinds of literature, poetry, history, ethics, law, myth, theology, wise sayings and so on._ Through this variety of different kinds of writing God's loving purpose can come through to us._ The bible brings us precious, essential truths about who we are and what we might become._ But biblical literalism hinders people from seeing and responding to these truths.

I don't see Genesis as a rival to truth -- many scientists have supported Genesis with solid proof. What does he mean by "myth?" Which part of the Bible is that?

Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the Bible but Christianity itself into disrepute.

Cantuar, how can this statement be supported?

Animals are killing and competing and suffering through global warming right now. There's nothing sadistic about it; it's the way life works.

That's true. There is a lot of suffering, but it wasn't in God's plan. How many times have you heard this: "we live in a fallen world." According to Genesis, man sinned after the world was created. Before, there was no death. To me, this sets Creation and evolution on completely different sides. Evolution supposedly works on "natural selection," so only the best-fitted animals will continue to survive. This kind of "cleansing" is sort of a nazi-esque idea.

I didn't say it was. I said creationists say it is. I said that it's exactly like any other branch of science - the scientific method is a naturalistic method in everything it does. Evolution is no different. The fact that biblical literalists say it contradicts the Bible is the biblical literalists' business, it isn't part of the basis for the theory.

I think you just confirmed that evolution is atheistic. That God isn't involved. Just a few paragraphs back, we argued whether or not evolution could fit the Bible. See, we keep switching sides when it's beneficial to our argument. It doesn't matter. It seems we agree on this point anyway, right?

You're rather quick to jump to conclusions. I was summarising the results of surveys done on the religious makeup of scientists. It showed a larger proportion of members of the National Academy of Scientists (which would be among the country's senior scientists) were atheists than scientists in general. Here:

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

That's good that you cited the source. But, ma'am, do you believe this is a good thing, that only about 7.5% of scientists believe there is right and wrong, for example? I think this is a pity.

No, by "study" I was referring to people doing research in various fields of evolutionary biology. They're the ones doing the experiments and getting the results.

I can understand doing experiments to test laws in physics and chemistry, but can't imagine an experiment with evolution. I know there have been things involving bacteria mutating, but not one of those ever resulted in making a more complex creature in the laboratory. Cantuar, please help me understand how you do an experiment in evolution.

You have said that you used to accept evolution. Were you a Christian at the time? What sort of science education do you have?

I was born an atheist, and became a Christian around seven years ago. For the next five or so years, i have continued to believe in evolution. As for my education, i'm no expert in science. All i know about Creation i learned from different books and films.

Well, if you're going to define "weak in their faith" as accepting evolution, then you're arguing in circles. I've seen people define "weak in their faith" as referring to people who cling to biblical literacy because it saves having to think and ask questions.

No, ma'am. By "weak," i mean spiritually. My uncle is an atheist, and believes in many things, including aliens and flying saucers, but doesn't believe in God. He's an exceptionally smart man, but his mind is filled with so many useless things. When God comes into a person's heart, He gradually changes the person's habits, language, etc. The Bible opens up and becomes understandable to the person, and his faith grows. When you read the Bible, your faith in God grows. On the other hand, when you're a Christian and you don't feed your spirit, you become weak spiritually. I also need to make it a priority to read the Bible more. OK, sorry for the long paragraph. I need to learn to talk less.

One Lutheran minister on another board says fairly often that there is no conflict between good science and genuine faith.

I know that. It's true. Don't think i'm against science. But some of the things that have recently snuk into the category of science are not science. Some colleges offer courses on rap "music." But it isn't a science or a knowledge of any kind. Yet some people will say that it's a complex branch of sociology or phsychology.

 

 

[chickenman]

But some of the things that have recently snuk into the category of science are not science.

who are you to be the judge of this

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
npeterly, even if the gene were fixed, and it turned out that it was deleterious to human health to have a working copy, common design is still in big trouble.

Because if the designer didn't want humans to have a working GLO because it was detrimental, why would he include a "broken copy" rather than have no copy at all? Its energetically wasteful to have processed psuedogenes.

What are you finding so difficult about the concepts I've been expressing?

1. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Bible clearly says that creation was cursed as a result of the fall. So it is entirely possible that, assuming this pseudogene is in any way deficient and not intended for a beneficial purpose, this could be one of the affects of the fall.

2. You won't even acknowledge the possibility that there may be a point to the pseudogene. You're only guessing, you haven't done ANY experiments to see if any of your guesses are worth the CO2 you produce making them, and then you have the gall to assume that your guess is good enough to draw conclusions about evolution or a designer.

3. So there's a stop codon. Whoopie. What happened to your evolutionist imagination? Surely if you were motivated to do so, you could come up with dozens of fairy tales to explain how a stop codon that produces what you currently THINK is a non-functional protein could actually turn out to be a purposeful design detail. I can think of a few right off the top of my head, but I won't bother sharing since that would lower me to the same level as evolutionists, which is way out of the bounds of science.

4. It's energetically wasteful? Sez you! It is only energetically wasteful IF ALL OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE TRUE. And you haven't done ANYTHING to prove that they are. You simply assume they are. Fix it. Change it. Experiment. Prove it. Stop pretending to be a scientist and actually do some real scientific work to find out if anything you think has any merit.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


What are you finding so difficult about the concepts I've been expressing?

1. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Bible clearly says that creation was cursed as a result of the fall. So it is entirely possible that, assuming this pseudogene is in any way deficient and not intended for a beneficial purpose, this could be one of the affects of the fall.

Then why were simians also cursed? And guinea pigs, but differently? It is amazing how flaws resulting from the fall just happen to look like Humans share ancestors with the rest of life. Maybe were all just a bunch of Jobs?

2. You won't even acknowledge the possibility that there may be a point to the pseudogene. You're only guessing, you haven't done ANY experiments to see if any of your guesses are worth the CO2 you produce making them, and then you have the gall to assume that your guess is good enough to draw conclusions about evolution or a designer.

So there might just be a purpose to the designer making us, apes, old world monkeys, new world monkeys, guniea pigs, and a strain of mouse succetiple to scurvy? That doesn't make much sense if humans are supposed to subdue the world, including the fish. Doesn't sound much like the OT god to me.

3. So there's a stop codon. Whoopie. What happened to your evolutionist imagination? Surely if you were motivated to do so, you could come up with dozens of fairy tales to explain how a stop codon that produces what you currently THINK is a non-functional protein could actually turn out to be a purposeful design detail. I can think of a few right off the top of my head, but I won't bother sharing since that would lower me to the same level as evolutionists, which is way out of the bounds of science.

So what if you got Malibu Stacy for Xmas. My dad got me a pony, but it's at our ranch and I'm not allowed to take friends to see it. I had some pictures of it but the Walmart machine ate them.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Then why were simians also cursed? And guinea pigs, but differently? It is amazing how flaws resulting from the fall just happen to look like Humans share ancestors with the rest of life. Maybe were all just a bunch of Jobs?

Cursed monkeys and guinea pigs... Yes, logically i deduce that we must be related to some apes. Rufus, this doesn't make sense. Please bridge this gap for us lesser-minded.

So there might just be a purpose to the designer making us, apes, old world monkeys, new world monkeys, guniea pigs, and a strain of mouse succetiple to scurvy? That doesn't make much sense if humans are supposed to subdue the world, including the fish. Doesn't sound much like the OT God to me.

Scurvy isn't something you catch -- it is the effect of a physical deficiency in a vitamin. Before the fall, perhaps there was no disease. Or maybe people and animals were much more healthy.

So what if you got Malibu Stacy for Xmas. My dad got me a pony, but it's at our ranch and I'm not allowed to take friends to see it. I had some pictures of it but the Walmart machine ate them.

That's not even worth any comments.