Original Research--join In

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You'd need to ask the designer these questions. And are you suggesting that birds do not always produce birds?
. . . . . .

What about penquins? Do they count as birds, still? They came from birds, but they swim instead of fly.

What about Kiwis? Do tjhey count as birds, still? They don't even have wings, and they snuffle around more like small mammals.

If those are still birds, just how different would they have to get before they aren't birds any more?

 

[justlookinla]

Again with the semantics. You simply don't have the basic knowledge necessary to discuss the topic.

You attempting to use "evolution" as a monolithic term. It's not.

Yes. Do you?

Here is an explanation of how recombinant human insulin is made:

How did they make insulin from recombinant DNA?

They designed an E. coli strain with an exact copy of a human gene (i.e. the exons from the human gene). This is an obvious and clear violation of the nested hierarchy, and humans did it with ease. There is absolutely no reason why God would be more limited than humans are, so why would God be limited to a nested hierarchy when humans are not?

Again, you'd have to ask the designer/creator as to why He designed and created as He did. And no, I don't think you realize what you're saying. Someone is conceiving, designing and creating genetic information. Think about it.

Are you ignorant of where babies come from? They don't come from a designer.

It's not about where babies come from, we're all familiar with sexual reproduction. The issue is the incomprehensible complexity of the human body, it's design and construction and our inability to show that only random/chance mutations designed and constructed such a mechanism.

No, it didn't. The descendants of birds will always be birds.

The only thing going south is your understanding of cladistics.

The first life form was a bird? Birds will always produce birds?

 

[justlookinla]

What about penquins? Do they count as birds, still? They came from birds, but they swim instead of fly.

What about Kiwis? Do tjhey count as birds, still? They don't even have wings, and they snuffle around more like small mammals.

If those are still birds, just how different would they have to get before they aren't birds any more?

Birds don't always produce birds? Some life form in the past which wasn't a bird, produced a bird?

 

[EternalDragon]

According to common descent, one creature that wasn't anything
produced all the variety of creatures we see today from insects to
man.

The recipe is sunlight, water, time and chance.

Apparently......

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archean : The First Life on Earth

Biogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Birds don't always produce birds? Some life form in the past which wasn't a bird, produced a bird?

Yes to the second. The first, it depends on how you define a bird. Is a Kiwi a bird? Probably we would say it is, still, but in the same way you and I are still apes.

Birds evolved from warm blooded, feathered dinosaurs.

 

[sfs]

sfs posted: "So on average, the defective gene [dystrophin] persists in a reproductive individual for 2 generations.

Any gene persists in a reproductive individual until they die. I think you must have meant that a defective gene persists in a given lineage... for two generations, if real life conformed to your calculations.

No, I meant that it persists in reproductive individuals in the lineage for two generations. On average it persists for somewhat longer than that, in non-reproductive individuals. (The "two generations" was meant to imply that it persisted in different individuals.)

Several problems exist: first, if she had nine children, which is quite common in undeveloped cultures, the math is off.

What matters to the math is the average number of children. Throughout most of the history of our species, the average number of children as been right around replacement level, which is why I said it was a good approximation. (The fact that some women have lots of children and some have none affects the variance in the mutation's survival time, but not the mean.)

Further, you are assuming a 100% selection pressure--i.e. that all boys die without reproducing. These boys frequently live to be 30y/o, sometimes more. The average age of sexual "debut" today is 14 and 1/2. I have seen a pregnant 9-year-old. Granted, the father was not likely to have been a 9-year-old, nor a DMD sufferer. It's not completely unthinkable, however.

Until recent medical improvements, survival of those with DMD was rare past age 20, and they were substantially disabled well before that. Reproduction was rare, rare enough that it doesn't matter to the estimate. If 5% of males with DMD reproduced, that would increase the estimated survival time of the mutation by 0.1 generations.

You suggested that it would take millions of years for natural selection to remove a DMD mutation, and now you're quibbling about whether the real time is two generations or three? Seriously? You were wrong by a factor 50,000.

The point you seem to be missing, related to this gene, is that it is outrageously long--something that cannot even be modeled without computers far advanced of what I own. The natural appearance of stop codons under any kind of modeling should have prevented this gene from ever coming into existence.

Without model for how it came into existence, there's no way to tell what effect mutations would have on the process. I doubt we have any information on the origins of this gene.

And its huge length means that it is more prone to being damaged by random mutations--that's why is keeps showing up over and over again in human populations. This fact regarding its length should make everyone wonder about its origins. Every mutation of it that I am aware of effectively results in a shortened gene and product. It does not make sense to believe that this gene was created originally by random mutations.

I'm still not seeing the connection. If a mutation makes a longer gene, and the longer gene has a benefit that outweighs the increased load of deleterious mutations, it will be a beneficial mutation and therefore favored by natural selection. The benefit doesn't have to be very large for that to be true: the risk of a deleterious mutation anywhere in the gene is only about 1/10,000 per generation. The additional risk caused by increasing its length by 10% would be ~1/100,000. That's a very small selection coefficient and easily outweighed by a modest gain of some kind.

Also, there are certainly many better examples of defective genes which are not associated with very high selection pressures, if any at all.

Many genes experience lower selection pressures. There's an entire field of study -- population genetics -- that calculates what happens to mutations with effects ranging from highly deleterious to highly beneficial. Genes that are under weaker constraint are still maintained by natural selection. Those that aren't constrained -- that serve no useful function -- don't survive long enough to worry about. Mutation destroys them. Quite a lot is now known about the degree of constraint on different genes, e.g. this paper by some friends of mine. This stuff is what we do for a living; we really do have some idea what we're talking about.

Considering cancer rates observed in humans, it would seem rational to conclude that our genomes are gradually accumulating more and more defects rather than removing them by NS.

I fail to see the connection. Given the known efficiency of natural selection (despite your denial of it), humans should not be accumulating more deleterious variants. On the contrary: our large population size now means that natural selection is more effective than in the past.

This begs the question, then, of what the original genome may have looked like. The creationist paradigm would start with a "very good" (perhaps perfect or near-perfect) genome which has subsequently been acted upon by numerous mutations and sometimes by a degree of selection. Trying to look retrospectively and discern which areas are which is a very difficult proposition, however (especially if one is committed to purely evolutionary presuppositions).

The creationist paradigm does not describe the genetics of life on this planet, I'm afraid.

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry, but that question (assuming it's an actual GMAT question, which isn't clear to me) does not validate your claim. The remainder of the sentence uses "data" as a plural, so treating it as singular in the underlined portion is ungrammatical, regardless of whether singular usage is acceptable in general or not. I have no trouble believing that the GMAT uses the plural with "data"; I'm looking for evidence that they will take off points solely for use of the singular.

In any case, let's turn to the OED for a more authoritative opinion: "The use of data as a mass noun became increasingly common from the middle of the 20th cent., probably partly popularized by its use in computing contexts, in which it is now generally considered standard... However, in general and scientific contexts it is still sometimes regarded as objectionable." As I said, usage is not uniform.

By OED I can only assume that you are referring to the Oxford English Dictionary. This source is not authoritative.

The Chicago Manual of Style classifies data as a plural noun. CMS is the authoritative publication for the Americas just as Hart's Rules is authoritative for the UK. In no sense of the word could the OED be considered authoritative for anyone or anything.

 

[Zosimus]

The command structure of the army is a nested hierarchy. Other aspects (e.g. training, equipment) are not.

You don't have to explain anything about any subject. But if you're trying to understand the natural world -- trying to do biology, in other words -- then yes, you do indeed need to explain the patterns in genetic similarity.

I'm not trying to do biology. Nor are any of you doing biology by posting here. I am simply casting doubt on the claim that intelligent beings cannot or do not create nested hierarchies.

 

[Zosimus]

Why do science-deniers think they do not need to explain the evidence?

I don't deny science. I simply accept it for what it is–a biased endeavor undertaken for the purpose of obtaining federal funding.

 

[Loudmouth]

But your comparison to the human genome is completely illogical. Why? The average length of gene in humans is several orders of magnitude higher than this.

That screeching sound you hear is the goal posts being moved. That was not the challenge you gave me.

Every casino on earth is hoping you will come play their games! You, like so many evolutionists are failing to apply the law of averages. Why don't you do something original and spend time with the online random DNA sequence generator. See how long it takes you to generate a 100 codon sequence (300 nucleotides) which fortuitously lacks internal stop codons. More importantly than time, calculate how many nucleotides would be needed, ON AVERAGE, to fund the search for such a "gene" and honestly recon with the fact that under abiogenesis, this number would have to occur, ON AVERAGE, for each new gene originated. And then, figure out how a "protocell" or a cell could possibly function in the presence of such overwhelming junk. Only after this exercise are you ready to credibly address the Dystrophin gene. --WisdomSpy [emphasis mine]
​

The only requirement you made for gene size was 300 base pairs. The other requirement was an amount of non-coding DNA that was not overwhelming and comparable to living species. I met that requirement with flying colors. Being generous, 3% of the human genome is made up of bases that fall within codons. In our random model, 8% of the bases fall within within codons. That is less non-coding DNA in our random genome than in the human genome.

Also, dystrophin and other genes in the human genome are the product of 3 billion years of evolution, not abiogenesis. Comparing genes that have not gone through the process of evolution to genes that have is not a fair comparison. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is claiming that dystrophin came about through purely random sequence. It evolved.

You can’t even make a hemoglobin molecule with only 100 codons.

Hemoglobin-like molecules are found in anaerobic bacteria, such as ferredoxin.

Ferredoxin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These molecules are made up of about 60 aa, almost half the size of the gene length that you required in the random model above. They use an iron and sulfur cluster to transport charged ions, much like hemoglobin. In addition, the first life would not have needed hemoglobin since single celled organisms do not have blood that transfers oxygen. In fact, the earliest life didn't need oxygen at all.

Also, RNA genes and enzymes would not be affected by stop codons to begin with since they are never translated into protein.

Also, all evidence suggests that a free-living life form of any kind would need at least 1500-2000 genes in order to confer independence of metabolism and reproduction capacity.

Yet again you make a claim about evidence, and present none of it.

Take the next step and see how many molecules would be used up, on average, when trying to generate a potential gene of 500 codons (1500bp)—a very average size for numerous ‘primitive’ cells.

Can you please show us these early genomes? I was unaware that anyone had sequenced the genome of 3 billion year old cells.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't deny science.

You deny that the scientific method is a valid process for modeling reality. You deny that you need to explain some of the most important observations within biology, the observation that complex life falls into a nested hierarchy. You can't explain anything in science, and refuse to accept well supported theories. That is denial.

 

[Zosimus]

It isn't just the Council of Trent. It was all modern biblical commentators. Did you read the quote or not?

" Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, . . . Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek…."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Cardinal Bellarmine was also fearful of God and contradicting God's word. That is why he put Galileo on trial, because Heliocentrism contradicted God's word.

What I find interesting is that creationists refuse to learn from this lesson.

Debunking the Galileo Myth - Dinesh D'Souza - Page full

the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. They were open to Galileo’s theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. This was the view of the greatest astronomer of the age, Tyco Brahe. The Church’s view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” Galileo had no such proofs.

Please, no more myths about Galileo. He was a devout Catholic who insisted on being carried to mass when he became to weak to walk there himself. All of his discoveries (the few there were) were confirmed by Jesuit priests. All of Galileo's major opponents were natural philosophers, the forerunners of what we now call scientists.

 

[Loudmouth]

sfs posted: "So on average, the defective gene [dystrophin] persists in a reproductive individual for 2 generations.

Any gene persists in a reproductive individual until they die. I think you must have meant that a defective gene persists in a given lineage... for two generations, if real life conformed to your calculations. Several problems exist: first, if she had nine children, which is quite common in undeveloped cultures, the math is off. Further, you are assuming a 100% selection pressure--i.e. that all boys die without reproducing. These boys frequently live to be 30y/o, sometimes more. The average age of sexual "debut" today is 14 and 1/2. I have seen a pregnant 9-year-old. Granted, the father was not likely to have been a 9-year-old, nor a DMD sufferer. It's not completely unthinkable, however.

The point you seem to be missing, related to this gene, is that it is outrageously long--something that cannot even be modeled without computers far advanced of what I own. The natural appearance of stop codons under any kind of modeling should have prevented this gene from ever coming into existence. And its huge length means that it is more prone to being damaged by random mutations--that's why is keeps showing up over and over again in human populations. This fact regarding its length should make everyone wonder about its origins. Every mutation of it that I am aware of effectively results in a shortened gene and product. It does not make sense to believe that this gene was created originally by random mutations.

Also, there are certainly many better examples of defective genes which are not associated with very high selection pressures, if any at all. Considering cancer rates observed in humans, it would seem rational to conclude that our genomes are gradually accumulating more and more defects rather than removing them by NS. This begs the question, then, of what the original genome may have looked like. The creationist paradigm would start with a "very good" (perhaps perfect or near-perfect) genome which has subsequently been acted upon by numerous mutations and sometimes by a degree of selection. Trying to look retrospectively and discern which areas are which is a very difficult proposition, however (especially if one is committed to purely evolutionary presuppositions).

I have asked you this simple question before, and I am still curious if you have an answer.

Why do you think that the DMD disease allele is far less common than the non-disease allele in the human population? What is your explanation for this observation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Debunking the Galileo Myth - Dinesh D'Souza - Page full


Please, no more myths about Galileo. He was a devout Catholic who insisted on being carried to mass when he became to weak to walk there himself. All of his discoveries (the few there were) were confirmed by Jesuit priests. All of Galileo's major opponents were natural philosophers, the forerunners of what we now call scientists.

I have given you direct quotes from the cardinal who ran his trial during the Roman Inquisition. This wasn't some random clergy. This was one of the highest ranking members of the largest christian church of the time. He was, in all effects, second only to the Pope. It clearly states that Heliocentrism contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. Of this there is no doubt. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Do you know what the purpose of the Inquisition was? They were trying to snuff out heresy. What is heresy? Ideas that contradict the Bible. Why was Galileo put on trial for heresy? Because his ideas contradicted their interpretation of the Bible. Of this there is zero doubt.

First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures….
Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….

--Cardinal Bellarmine, letter to Foscarini, 1615
​

 

[Zosimus]

You deny that the scientific method is a valid process for modeling reality. You deny that you need to explain some of the most important observations within biology, the observation that complex life falls into a nested hierarchy. You can't explain anything in science, and refuse to accept well supported theories. That is denial.

What makes a theory well supported? Apparently you think that a large number of logical fallacies makes a theory well supported. Well, sorry, I don't grant more weight to 100 logical fallacies than I do to one.

It's not possible for a theory to be well supported. Theories are just that... theories. One single observation contrary observation could refute them at any moment.

 

[Loudmouth]

What makes a theory well supported? Apparently you think that a large number of logical fallacies makes a theory well supported. Well, sorry, I don't grant more weight to 100 logical fallacies than I do to one.

It's not possible for a theory to be well supported. Theories are just that... theories. One single observation contrary observation could refute them at any moment.

Once again, you deny that the scientific method is a valid method for modeling reality. That is science denial.

 

[Zosimus]

I have given you direct quotes from the cardinal who ran his trial during the Roman Inquisition. This wasn't some random clergy. This was one of the highest ranking members of the largest christian church of the time. He was, in all effects, second only to the Pope. It clearly states that Heliocentrism contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. Of this there is no doubt. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Do you know what the purpose of the Inquisition was? They were trying to snuff out heresy. What is heresy? Ideas that contradict the Bible. Why was Galileo put on trial for heresy? Because his ideas contradicted their interpretation of the Bible. Of this there is zero doubt.

First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures….
Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….

--Cardinal Bellarmine, letter to Foscarini, 1615
​

Do you, then, seriously believe that the Sun is the center of the universe?!

Science, Reason & Faith

In 1616 the Holy Office formally censured two key tenets of heliocentrism: the sun is at rest (labeled “formally heretical”) and that the earth moves around the sun (labeled “erroneous in faith”).

That's right--the Catholics, horrible people that they are, considered insisting that the Sun is stationary heretical. News flash for you--the Sun probably moves.

The Galileo Affair

Galileo's other problem was that he insisted, despite the discoveries of Kepler, that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles. The Jesuit astronomers could plainly see that this was untenable. Galileo nonetheless launched his campaign with a series of pamphlets and letters which were circulated all over Europe.

Do you insist that the orbits of planets are perfect circles?

Bellarmine, in effect, challenged Galileo to prove his theory or stop pestering the Church. Galileo's response was to produce his theory of the tides, which purported to show that the tides are caused by the rotation of the earth. Even some of Galileo's supporters could see that this was patent nonsense. Determined to have a showdown, however, Galileo came to Rome to confront Pope Paul V. The Pope, exasperated by all this fuss about the planets, referred the matter to the Holy Office.

Are you of the opinion that the movement of the tides are proof that the Earth goes round the sun daily thus causing tides?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you, then, seriously believe that the Sun is the center of the universe?!

That has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Galileo was accused of heresy because he treated Heliocentrism as a fact.

You are just trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide the fact that the bible was translated as speaking of a Sun that moves about the Earth.

 

[Zosimus]

Once again, you deny that the scientific method is a valid method for modeling reality. That is science denial.

The so-called "scientific method" does not exist. If it did, and if that were the test of science, then no astronomer could be considered a scientist because none of them perform experiments. They merely observe planets in motion.

The scientific method, as outlined in high school textbooks, clearly involves multiple logical fallacies. Acknowledging that doesn't make me a "science denier." I have never denied that science existed or occurred. The naive faith that you place is science is unfounded. A simple look at the Raven Paradox shows that.

It would be far more accurate to call you a logic denier.

 

[Zosimus]

That has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Galileo was accused of heresy because he treated Heliocentrism as a fact.

You are just trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide the fact that the bible was translated as speaking of a Sun that moves about the Earth.

HELIOCENTRISM IS FALSE. The Sun is not an immobile center of the universe. Sorry to break it to you.