Original Research--join In

Split Rock · Dec 15, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Whether these did come about through natural selection or were
created that way, it is in no way an example of Darwinian evolution.
The fish is still a fish. All you have is a variety of different fish. Exactly
how natural selection is supposed to work, and does work.

Do you actually read anything here? I am asking because I know I have responded to many posts like this before from you and yet you continue to make the same mistakes over and over. How many times do I have to point out that evolution does NOT assert that fish evolve into anything that is not a fish? We are still apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc., just like our ancestors. You cannot escape your ancestry. That is why there is a nested hierarchy in the first place.

Split Rock · Dec 15, 2014

WisdomSpy said:
How many assumptions are you making when you say that one gene used for pancreatic purposes "evolved" into another gene used for anti-freeze purposes? Did you see it happen? Can you demonstrate genomic evidence from before and after, like Lenski can? And if not, then why are you jumping to conclusions regarding origins? Why are you equating associations and similarities with causation? Venter's creation looks similar to many other things but we cannot make assumptions about similar origins.

Ah yes, the "did you see it happen?" argument. Obviously no one saw it happen, as you already know. Why then do you ask? Should we give up on finding criminals because no one saw them commit the crime?

Science is a lot about inference, based on all the available evidence. The best inference based on the data is that these proteins evolved from trypsinogen, based on the evidence today. If you have evidence that these genes were genetically engineered by some one like Venter, then provide that evidence.

WisdomSpy said:
Split Rock said: "...so that we can test the predictions of our hypotheses and theories."

Are you really testing it... or simply defending something you are committed to? When comparing observed data to predictions based upon evo theory, at what point of non-correlation are you willing to consider it falsified? If it fails to explain the data 40% of the time, would that achieve a passing grade in anyone's class? 50%? Show some courage and decide on a realistic number and then let's review some actual data.

Where is the non-correlation that you are referring to?

WisdomSpy said:
My research is driving at the point that a logical mechanism must be shown for meaningful new molecular sequence generation under methodologically natural conditions. Base substitution mutations cannot account for this and virtually all other types of mutations run a high chance of creating premature stop codons. Do the math.

Look at the data provided in the paper and those associated with it. What part of the evolution of these antifreeze genes cannot be accounted for by genetic mutation?

WisdomSpy said:
Walk through a mechanistic biochemical simulation of what it would take to go from point A to point B (i.e. E. coli to a paramecium, or E. coli to a flagellated bacterium), and do an honest accounting of molecular resource usage. Don't assume that chemistry will get lucky and "win the lottery" each time with a one-in-a-million result.

They did this for these antifreeze genes in the paper and also in the related papers you can find under "related content." Now you want to shift the goal posts to every step in the evolution of a bacterium to a paramecium, which probably isn't even what happened anyway. Where is your desire for rigor when it comes to this mysterious Venter wannabe?

WisdomSpy said:
Producing a flagellum requires numerous genes to produce it but more importantly, it requires specific epigenetic controls which dictate timing, sequence of assembly, rate of production, etc. Realistically, this may involve 20-30 elements of complex inter-related genomic information to accomplish. And most of those elements are lengthy sequences without stop signals truncating them. Imagine a step-by-step naturalistic method of generating all that and then do the math on the molecular precursors needed to fund the search for the correct solution, and add up the amount of junk which would naturally be generated along the way.

People smarter than I have done this already and although they believe in the evolutionary paradigm they have made the following statements:

"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations" James Shapiro.

In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneouslyand every reason to believe they cannot. --Leslie Orgel

I prefaced these comments by saying that they "believe" in the evolutionary paradigm. The word belief becomes more and more important as one looks carefully at cellular biochemistry and demonstrable evidence rather than wild speculation.

Quote mining does not impress me. Probability calculations are useless as well. What is the probability that someone with your exact genetic sequence would be born on the day you were born? does the answer have any meaning?

Split Rock · Dec 15, 2014

SkyWriting said:
It is an excellent example of the Natural Selection story.
But it's not a scientifically supported story until a hostile
researcher recreates the event and get the same results.

Science can only create fictional stories about long past events.

I suppose its much better to rely on your interpretation of an old book written by people who had no understanding of our planet's past.

JacksBratt · Dec 15, 2014

lasthero said:
If you ask two scientists what a species is, you'll likely get similar answers. If you ask two creationists, they'll differ wildly. Why do you think that is?

Firstly, you cannot assume the answers anyone would give, scientist or creationist.

Secondly, what makes scientists and creationists separate identities. Are there not scientists that are creationists?

And thirdly, you are wrong. The debate of what a species is, is alive and well...
See this link:

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JacksBratt · Dec 15, 2014

Split Rock said:
I suppose its much better to rely on your interpretation of an old book written by people who had no understanding of our planet's past.

If the book is inspired by a God that created it..... Yeppers

lasthero · Dec 15, 2014

JacksBratt said:
Firstly, you cannot assume the answers anyone would give, scientist or creationist.[/color]

I assume nothing. I've met creationists, on this board alone, who make wildly different and inconsistent claims about what kinds re.

Secondly, what makes scientists and creationists separate identities. Are there not scientists that are creationists?

Click to expand...

Creationism isn't science, so yes, there has to be a distinction.

And thirdly, you are wrong. The debate of what a species is, is alive and well...
See this link:

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I've already read that link, and I'll tell you what I told the last person who brought it up - there's a difference between a word with a fuzzy definiton and something with NO definition. Under no definition of species are koala bears and Grizzly bears the same species, but under your definition of kind - that it's whatever a 5 year old would consider to be the same kind - koalas and Grizzlies would have to be the same kind. I've met creationist who've claimed that all dogs are the same kind, then turn around and say all spiders are the same kind, when there are over 1,000 species of spiders and only one species of dogs. I've even had creationists who claim that all bacteria are one kind, when there are MILLIONS of known bacteria species.

There is NO consistency, whatsoever. It's not even comparable to the species problem.

Give a consistent, reliable definition of 'kind'. Make a claim and stand behind it. I dare you.

Split Rock · Dec 15, 2014

JacksBratt said:
If the book is inspired by a God that created it..... Yeppers

Inspiration doesn't help if you don't know anything about the subject.

EternalDragon · Dec 15, 2014

Split Rock said:
Do you actually read anything here? I am asking because I know I have responded to many posts like this before from you and yet you continue to make the same mistakes over and over. How many times do I have to point out that evolution does NOT assert that fish evolve into anything that is not a fish? We are still apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc., just like our ancestors. You cannot escape your ancestry. That is why there is a nested hierarchy in the first place.

Putting labels on things because of similarities is not evidence for
common ancestry. If fish did not come before apes then show me the
timeline and tell me where humans came from. All the way back to the
last common ancestor. And show evidence of this with a link.

Here is my link of what evolution shows as far as the timeline.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PsychoSarah · Dec 15, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Putting labels on things because of similarities is not evidence for
common ancestry. If fish did not come before apes then show me the
timeline and tell me where humans came from. All the way back to the
last common ancestor. And show evidence of this with a link.

Here is my link of what evolution shows as far as the timeline.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He never said fish didn't come before apes, they did. And we are vertibrates, just like they are

Zosimus · Dec 15, 2014

lasthero said:
Give a consistent, reliable definition of 'kind'. Make a claim and stand behind it. I dare you.

Although the definition of "kind" is fuzzy, there is no definition of the word kind that would lump apes and humans together.

Therefore, it is just as valid as a definition of "species" that would never lump koalas and grizzlies together.

Split Rock · Dec 15, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Putting labels on things because of similarities is not evidence for
common ancestry. If fish did not come before apes then show me the
timeline and tell me where humans came from. All the way back to the
last common ancestor. And show evidence of this with a link.

Here is my link of what evolution shows as far as the timeline.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes fish came before apes. When did I say they did not? We evolved from the Sarcopterygii or lobe-finned fish. Sarcopterygii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus, phylogenetically, we are still lobe-finned fish. We look quite different from the average fish today, though we have the same basic skeletal structure, and thus we don't call ourselves "fish." A good book to read on the subject is "Your Inner Fish," by Neil Shubin.

For this reason, we are indeed "a variety of a different fish," as you say.

JacksBratt · Dec 15, 2014

lasthero said:
JacksBratt said:

Firstly, you cannot assume the answers anyone would give, scientist or creationist.[/color]

I assume nothing. I've met creationists, on this board alone, who make wildly different and inconsistent claims about what kinds re.

Creationism isn't science, so yes, there has to be a distinction.

Thanks, but I've already read that link, and I'll tell you what I told the last person who brought it up - there's a difference between a word with a fuzzy definiton and something with NO definition. Under no definition of species are koala bears and Grizzly bears the same species, but under your definition of kind - that it's whatever a 5 year old would consider to be the same kind - koalas and Grizzlies would have to be the same kind. I've met creationist who've claimed that all dogs are the same kind, then turn around and say all spiders are the same kind, when there are over 1,000 species of spiders and only one species of dogs. I've even had creationists who claim that all bacteria are one kind, when there are MILLIONS of known bacteria species.

There is NO consistency, whatsoever. It's not even comparable to the species problem.

Give a consistent, reliable definition of 'kind'. Make a claim and stand behind it. I dare you.

Click to expand...

I didn't say creationism (is that a real word? Guess so the spell checker allowed it) was a science. I said are there not creationists that are scientists. If so then you cannot use your comparison.

It's like saying "Scientists believe X but SCUBA divers believe Y.....

Secondly, I have never been goaded into anything by the word "dare".

Thirdly, just post any definition of "kind". It won't matter. The point being made in Genesis is that God created all the animals in their form as the animal they are. It means that they did not evolve. He made the cow as a cow, he made the koala as a koala, he made the baracuda as a baracuda. He did not make a troglabyte to turn into a turtle or a fish to turn into a comodo dragon or a single celled organism to turn into a guppy.

God's creation of all creatures is pointed. One minute there are no horses. Then, we have horses. One minute we have no red tailed hawks, then we have them.... That is what it means.

lasthero · Dec 15, 2014

Thirdly, just post any definition of "kind".

Okay.

Kind is the equivalent to to the highest rank in taxonomy. Therefore, all life is the same kind.

No argument now. Thanks. Koalas, dogs, and barracudas are the same kind.

justlookinla · Dec 15, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
If you can point to another life form which has the resilience of a water bear, I would love to see that.

As I thought, you can't point to another life form with the tremendously advanced attributes of a human. That's because there's not any.

There used to be other species which were argeiuably about as intelligent as humans; we killed them/they went extinct.

Show me their intelligent designs and creations.

The niche our species occupies cannot be shared, any species around us that had those traits ended up competing with our species for resources. We just happened to be more violent and organized.

Prove it.

JacksBratt · Dec 15, 2014

lasthero said:
Okay.

Kind is the equivalent to to the highest rank in taxonomy. Therefore, all life is the same kind.

No argument now. Thanks. Koalas, dogs, and barracudas are the same kind.

Happy now? Print yourself out a badge.

Here is another definition:

kind 1 (k nd) adj. kind·er, kind·est. 1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature. 2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word.

It still doesn't change the context of Genesis.

JacksBratt · Dec 15, 2014

Split Rock said:
Inspiration doesn't help if you don't know anything about the subject.

How do you define "inspired" Ha ha just joking.

Maybe I should have said Scripture that is the true words of God, breathed and dictated by God to be penned by the men that wrote it.

lasthero · Dec 15, 2014

JacksBratt said:
Happy now? Print yourself out a badge.

Here is another definition:

kind 1 (k nd) adj. kind·er, kind·est. 1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature. 2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word.

It still doesn't change the context of Genesis.

Never said it did. But Genesis supports evolutionary theory.

WisdomSpy · Dec 15, 2014

An important point is being missed regarding "kinds". Traditionally, many Christians in past years, particularly those you might describe as ultra-Calvinists, have believed that everything we see around us today was created by God. I don't believe that. I believe that many years of reproductive shuffling of the genetic decks of cards, plus some effects of mutations, has changed things substantially. IOW, Genesis "kinds", such as a dog group, allows for the idea that over the years many different varieties of dogs had the same ancestor, whose genome contained all the information to produce the varieties.

The research I spoke of when I started this thread is very applicable here. Mutations of existing genes have a high likelihood of creating premature stop codons and thus, tons of meaningless junk to clutter up cells. Undirected processes simply cannot create a meaningful cadre of new and uniquely useful genes which could turn one genome--say of a dog--into a substantially different one--say of a cat. Responsible evolutionists should take the cell biochemistry seriously and conduct step-by-step simulations, as I have done, accounting for molecular resources necessarily used during the steps.

Here's a fairly simple example: during any kind of random assemblage of sequences of nucleotides (something that MUST be accounted for during presumed abiogenesis), how many molecules would be used up, on average, in the search to produce genes that are only 100 codons long (with a stop codon only at the last position)? Venture a guess or do some practical research using the random DNA sequence generator site (google it).

WisdomSpy · Dec 15, 2014

There are many kinds of hummingbirds. Also, many kinds of finches exist. Do I, as a believer in creation, have to believe that all of them descended from a single pair of birds that contained all possible bird genes? Not necessarily. The two categories differ substantially in patterns of flight, suggesting the need for a separate cadre of unique genes.

If you take off your evolutionary spectacles (presuppositions and biased conclusions), genomic comparisons might lead to the correct answer here. The key is to remember what mutations and natural selection CANNOT do. When you find "transitions" that defy these demonstrable limitations, then Venter or someone like him was required to generate it. That's the conclusion I arrive at from this research.

WisdomSpy · Dec 15, 2014

To explain the logic, try this analogy:

Suppose a group of men said that they could produce a modern automobile entirely from the natural resources found in Norway. They have manpower, factories, energy, steel, etc. They believe that the "Norway natural" can happen.

But I would contradict that idea and say that they would have to use some imported products to complete the task, because I'm quite sure rubber trees won't ever grow in Norway, and I know rubber is an essential component of many car parts. Relying on knowledge about limitations--what can't be done--is just as valid as knowledge of what can be done.

This is why it is imperative to study simulations of what mutations can and cannot accomplish and to pay attention to Lenski's results and all other similar experimental data. Those who fail to do this and instead concoct ad hoc just-so stories in a retrospective way are not advancing science, unless you call it science fiction.

Based on my knowledge, I believe that abiogenesis by purely natural means is impossible and that "transitions" between significantly different genomes is also impossible. It took a lot of research, thought and number-crunching, but that is my conclusion.

Original Research--join In

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Newbie

Conflation of Blathers

Counselor

Chaotic Neutral

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Conflation of Blathers

Searching for Truth

Newbie

Regular Member

Searching for Truth

Searching for Truth

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency