Prove it or remove it challenge

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right you nailed that. Good job. re: abiogenesis. Somehow or other, we were produced from the dust of the ground.

The rest is a convenient cop out based on ignorance. If you don't care about it that's cool too.

... what? No. That's got nothing to do with what I said.
I'll repeat it: "It[abiogenesis]'s accepted since it's the only scientific hypothesis that can be connected with the evidence."
Okay. Look at the last seven words: "that can be connected with the evidence." And specifically look at that last word: "evidence."
There is no evidence to say that we were created by a deity or an alien lifeform or something else.
There is no 'convenient cop out'.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Um okay right, I think I get it now. Thanks.

The convenient cop out part is the separation between ToE and abiogenesis. For those of us who care, DNA had to come from somewhere. Leaves kind of a big hole, especially since we are finding out just how complex "simple" life really is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Um okay right, I think I get it now. Thanks.

The convenient cop out part is the separation between ToE and abiogenesis. For those of us who care, DNA had to come from somewhere. Leaves kind of a big hole, especially since we are finding out just how complex "simple" life really is.

There is no copout! Abiogenesis is a hypothesis only, not a theory like evolution. No scientists will categorically say that DNA came about by abiogenesis.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The convenient cop out part is the separation between ToE and abiogenesis. For those of us who care, DNA had to come from somewhere.

It's not a cop out. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. As Warden said, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. Does the germ theory of disease need to explain the origin of life too?

 

[Paterfamilia]

There is no copout! Abiogenesis is a hypothesis only, not a theory like evolution. No scientists will categorically say that DNA came about by abiogenesis.

So where do they say DNA came from?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So where do they say DNA came from?

They don't know. That's why the hypothesis of abiogenesis was created. To try and answer that question.
And please: before you answer, no, the fact that scientists do not know where DNA comes from does NOT invalidate the theory of evolution.
Now it is 10 minutes to 1 in the morning GMT, so I am heading to bed. That is why I shall not answer swiftly.

 

[Paterfamilia]

And please: before you answer, no, the fact that scientists do not know where DNA comes from does NOT invalidate the theory of evolution.

Ha ha I think I got that part.

At the same time, wouldn't you agree, that to maintain a dogmatic separation between the origination of life on earth and the process of diversity development on earth doesn't make good common sense, or good scientific sense?

If we have such a good full understanding of the ToE, and additionally the practical process of evolution, shouldn't that shed at least a flicker of light on how it all started?

I understand that you guys make the separation of the two clear, and it is clear (please believe me Warden ha ha) but it's clearly a hole in your world view, if not properly in the theory.

What's the Deist view Warden?

 

[Paterfamilia]

I was very slightly wrong in my description of what the judge did according to Eugenie Scott. This video goes over how the Discovery Institute was outed as a creationist organization:

She begins to go over the books around the thirteenth or fourteenth minute it builds slowly and the punch line is delivered at 21:00.

Why wouldn't Ken Miller be classified as a creationist? He invokes the supervenience of God over all of creation. How does he get a pass on the "creationist" label?

 

[HitchSlap]

Ha ha I think I got that part.

At the same time, wouldn't you agree, that to maintain a dogmatic separation between the origination of life on earth and the process of diversity development on earth doesn't make good common sense, or good scientific sense?

If we have such a good full understanding of the ToE, and additionally the practical process of evolution, shouldn't that shed at least a flicker of light on how it all started?

I understand that you guys make the separation of the two clear, and it is clear (please believe me Warden ha ha) but it's clearly a hole in your world view, if not properly in the theory.

What's the Deist view Warden?

How does not knowing something classify as a "hole in your world view?" It's the not knowing that leads to discovery, by honest, knowledgeable, hard working scientists. Prior to 1859, we had a huge hole in biological distribution of life. Now we don't. That's how science works. It starts with an "I think..." idea, and is followed by diligent research. We have a huge hole in abiogenesis. Hopefully in my lifetime, we won't.

Just because you have a religion, doesn't give you the latitude to make poop up (if you want to be taken serious by anyone other than your cohorts). Which is why ID/IC/creationism is anathema to the scientific method, as it starts with an answer, then looks for supportive data. It's bass ackwards. Which is why it's not considered science, and as such, has no utility in science. What's the point, really, running around and slapping a bright orange "goddidit" sticker on the back of real scientific discoveries?

As for pigeon chess, here you go.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2367M3BJ05M82

You're welcome.

 

[Paterfamilia]

How does not knowing something classify as a "hole in your world view?" It's the not knowing that leads to discovery, by honest, knowledgeable, hard working scientists. Prior to 1859, we had a huge hole in biological distribution of life. Now we don't. That's how science works. It starts with an "I think..." idea, and is followed by diligent research. We have a huge hole in abiogenesis. Hopefully in my lifetime, we won't.

Just because you have a religion, doesn't give you the latitude to make poop up (if you want to be taken serious by anyone other than your cohorts). Which is why ID/IC/creationism is anathema to the scientific method, as it starts with an answer, then looks for supportive data. It's bass ackwards. Which is why it's not considered science, and as such, has no utility in science. What's the point, really, running around and slapping a bright orange "goddidit" sticker on the back of real scientific discoveries?

As for pigeon chess, here you go.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2367M3BJ05M82

You're welcome.

Do you feel you've contributed to the discussion with this post?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why wouldn't Ken Miller be classified as a creationist? He invokes the supervenience of God over all of creation. How does he get a pass on the "creationist" label?

Does he? I would like to see some links on that. But at the very worst that would make him a believer in theological evolution. He does not require miracles for life to advance the way that Behe does, in fact he was one of the early refuters of Behe. His simple mousetrap refutation caused Behe to reword his "IR" claim.

Didn't I see that you believed the Adam and Eve myth in another post of yours? Or was that some other poster here? At any rate a person that accepts theological evolution should not accept the Adam and Eve story since at no time were there only two humans on the face of the Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good points and I am glad you mostly agree with me. Your last point about longevity describing a difference between the two was especially helpful, and I'm sorry I missed it.

In cryptographic communication, we use codes to communicate information according to this flow chart:

Generation->Encryption->Transmission->Detection->Reception->Translation->Cognition

The encryption stage above is the stage where the normal sequence of our words is scrambled, and then conversion into electromagnetic pulses (usually binary) for transmission, the next step in the process.

Morse code is a simple example. ... is the code character for S. --- is the code character for O. So if a ship is sinking, they transmit ...---... ...---..., or SOS SOS, in the hopes someone will hear it and come to their rescue.

A transmission of random dits and dashes would not communicate any information and they would sink without help or anyone knowing they were in trouble.

In DNA, the information for red hair is not written out. We can't look in a microscope and see the words "Red hair gene" written on it. The information is coded in a language that the other relevant parts can read, translate, and build the proteins required for red hair.

I hope that explains it.

You do bring us to a new crossroad in the discussion.

You say that DNA goes back 3.5 billion years. The cell fossils we can see from back then look almost unchanged to our cells today.

How did DNA get its start, given everything we know about it? No natural selection forces to explain abiogenesis.

At least 3.5 billion years, but probably 3.8. And how can you say that ancient cyanobacteria look like modern cyanobacteria? All we can see is the shape of the cell at best:

All I can see is that they are roughly spherical and grouping together. And though they have not solved enough of the problems of abiogenesis they have solved quite a few of them. You have to understand that we could not really form a theory on abiogenesis until sometime after we had a full understanding of how the cell works in the first place. Otherwise all that they would have is guesswork. DNA is just one of the problems but they are well on the way to understanding it. Here is a link to one of the top researchers into abiogenesis:

http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

 

[bhsmte]

So where do they say DNA came from?

If we don't know something, it has to be God, right?

Ok, show us the evidence, it came from a God.

Ready, go.

 

[Paterfamilia]

All I can see is that they are roughly spherical and grouping together. And though they have not solved enough of the problems of abiogenesis they have solved quite a few of them. You have to understand that we could not really form a theory on abiogenesis until sometime after we had a full understanding of how the cell works in the first place. Otherwise all that they would have is guesswork.

Yeah I agree I don't know how they come to the conclusion. I felt it was a fairly trivial point so I didn't do a lot of reading on it, but every source said the same thing. Not on creationist websites by the way ha ha.

As far as Adam and Eve, I am not a literalist with regard to the creation events as recorded in the bible. In addition, my non-belief in evolution is not because I think theistic evolution couldn't have happened. On the contrary, I think there is some fairly compelling scriptural evidence for it.

I just don't think the numbers could possibly add up.

In a recent study for example, they determined, with fairly liberal hedging in fact, that a single point mutation required to evolve one functional protein into another very closely related protein would take 5950 years on average. The second point mutation at the same point or within range of the same point to induce the same change in the protein would take over 100,000 years. The third would take longer than the earth has been here. They calculated it would take at least four point mutations to complete the evolution of that single protein. Couldn't happen.

This is for one protein to evolve to very similar protein in the same family.

How many actual morphological differences are there between chimpanzees and humans? How many mutations to effect even one change? Because most take at least 4 to 7 point changes. And the old "we share 99.6% of our DNA" is a flat falsehood. It's like the "if a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters typed for a thousand years they would turn out the works of Shakespeare". The truth is they wouldn't put together a single seven letter word between all of them.

So how many differences? A hundred? A thousand? Five thousand?

There are other significant logical problems. You can say it's an argument from incredulity if you want, but I think,it's a bit more evidentiary than that. I just can't buy it, and the proponents lie too much, like the monkey thing for example. None of what I learned in high school evolution chapters is true today. That's a problem, because that means everything they said 40 years ago when I graduated was not true, but I'm supposed to believe everything they say now?? Can't do it.

This complexity problem is a real problem for evolutionists. It isn't going away. It is going to get worse. No doubt about it.

Back to Adam and Eve; however it happened, I believe that they were real people and that they were part of a real drama that really happened. The exact circumstances? I don't know, and I don't think that's the point of the account.

You have heard that mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Adam have been calculated to have possibly lived at the same time? Ha ha I just laughed at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah I agree I don't know how they come to the conclusion. I felt it was a fairly trivial point so I didn't do a lot of reading on it, but every source said the same thing. Not on creationist websites by the way ha ha.

You have to be careful when reading papers and seeing what they are actually saying when they say that the cyanobacteria of the past look like the cyanobacteria of today. The really one means in the very limited observation that they can do they have the same form. That is not saying too much.

As far as Adam and Eve, I am not a literalist with regard to the creation events as recorded in the bible. In addition, my non-belief in evolution is not because I think theistic evolution couldn't have happened. On the contrary, I think there is some fairly compelling scriptural evidence for it.

I just don't think the numbers could possibly add up.

In a recent study for example, they determined, with fairly liberal hedging in fact, that a single point mutation required to evolve one functional protein into another very closely related protein would take 5950 years on average. The second point mutation at the same point or within range of the same point to induce the same change in the protein would take over 100,000 years. The third would take longer than the earth has been here. They calculated it would take at least four point mutations to complete the evolution of that single protein. Couldn't happen.
This is for one protein to evolve to very similar protein in the same family.

That sounds like Sanford's refuted nonsense. That was a misrepresentation of how mutations occur so the whole argument is worthless. Please note even you admitted that they focused just on point mutations. That is only one kind of mutation that can occur. They ignored what was perhaps the most important type of mutation; gene duplication. In point mutation if an important gene mutates it is almost always a negative mutation. It results in a "loss of information". That does not happen with gene duplication. In that case one of the genes is free to mutate while there is no "loss of information" because the other is still there working. The mutated gene could even undergo several mutations before something positive happened and then it could become part of the functioning genome again. Genetics is very complicated and there is a lot to learn in it yet. Even with the findings of Project ENCODE over 80% of our genome is "junk DNA". Shut down genes, ERV's etc.. That part of the genome does mutate much faster than the rest because mutations in the active part of our genome are limited by natural selection. A bad mutation in the active genome may cause a miscarriage, or a person that does not survive to adulthood, or lack an ability to reproduce. Those mutations are self limiting. That does not happen in non-coding DNA. When someone says "couldn't happen" you need to make sure that they were not using a strawman argument as that one obviously was.

How many actual morphological differences are there between chimpanzees and humans? How many mutations to effect even one change? Because most take at least 4 to 7 point changes. And the old "we share 99.6% of our DNA" is a flat falsehood. It's like the "if a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters typed for a thousand years they would turn out the works of Shakespeare". The truth is they wouldn't put together a single seven letter word between all of them.

So how many differences? A hundred? A thousand? Five thousand?

There are other significant logical problems. You can say it's an argument from incredulity if you want, but I think,it's a bit more evidentiary than that. I just can't buy it, and the proponents lie too much, like the monkey thing for example. None of what I learned in high school evolution chapters is true today. That's a problem, because that means everything they said 40 years ago when I graduated was not true, but I'm supposed to believe everything they say now?? Can't do it.

This complexity problem is a real problem for evolutionists. It isn't going away. It is going to get worse. No doubt about it.

Back to Adam and Eve; however it happened, I believe that they were real people and that they were part of a real drama that really happened. The exact circumstances? I don't know, and I don't think that's the point of the account.

You have heard that mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Adam have been calculated to have possibly lived at the same time? Ha ha I just laughed at that.

Yep, definitely the refuted work of Sanford. Sanford wrote Genetic Entropy. He also dishonestly tried to get it peer reviewed. It was a book on biology but when he submitted it to a publishing house he submitted it to the information sciences part of it. They could not spot the flaws in his claims and were about to give it a peer review stamp when some bright boy said "Hey, this book is about evolution, shouldn't we ask the biologists about this?" or something to that effect. They did and realized their error and pulled the "peer reviewed" stamp though it was still published. As result Genetic entropy was refuted before it was even published.

 

[Paterfamilia]

You have to be careful when reading papers and seeing what they are actually saying when they say that the cyanobacteria of the past look like the cyanobacteria of today. The really one means in the very limited observation that they can do they have the same form. That is not saying too much.



That sounds like Sanford's refuted nonsense. That was a misrepresentation of how mutations occur so the whole argument is worthless. Please note even you admitted that they focused just on point mutations. That is only one kind of mutation that can occur. They ignored what was perhaps the most important type of mutation; gene duplication. In point mutation if an important gene mutates it is almost always a negative mutation. It results in a "loss of information". That does not happen with gene duplication. In that case one of the genes is free to mutate while there is no "loss of information" because the other is still there working. The mutated gene could even undergo several mutations before something positive happened and then it could become part of the functioning genome again. Genetics is very complicated and there is a lot to learn in it yet. Even with the findings of Project ENCODE over 80% of our genome is "junk DNA". Shut down genes, ERV's etc.. That part of the genome does mutate much faster than the rest because mutations in the active part of our genome are limited by natural selection. A bad mutation in the active genome may cause a miscarriage, or a person that does not survive to adulthood, or lack an ability to reproduce. Those mutations are self limiting. That does not happen in non-coding DNA. When someone says "couldn't happen" you need to make sure that they were not using a strawman argument as that one obviously was.



Yep, definitely the refuted work of Sanford. Sanford wrote Genetic Entropy. He also dishonestly tried to get it peer reviewed. It was a book on biology but when he submitted it to a publishing house he submitted it to the information sciences part of it. They could not spot the flaws in his claims and were about to give it a peer review stamp when some bright boy said "Hey, this book is about evolution, shouldn't we ask the biologists about this?" or something to that effect. They did and realized their error and pulled the "peer reviewed" stamp though it was still published. As result Genetic entropy was refuted before it was even published.

Yeah no offense but nothing that you said about the source of my information is true. I read mostly journals and source documents.

When I say "couldn't happen" that's my own idependent conclusion, as I said. I made it a long time ago, but I didn't make it quickly. However, I do keep an open mind.

I'll have to read Mr Sanfords book now ha ha you hate him so much it has to be good! Ha ha

Edit: 80% still junk? Bull.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah no offense but nothing that you said about the source of my information is true. I read mostly journals and source documents.

When I say "couldn't happen" that's my own idependent conclusion, as I said. I made it a long time ago, but I didn't make it quickly. However, I do keep an open mind.

I'll have to read Mr Sanfords book now ha ha you hate him so much it has to be good! Ha ha

Edit: 80% still junk? Bull.

Then link them. And no, at least 80% still junk:

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/how-much-of-human-dna-is-doing-something/

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/fighting-about-encode-and-junk.html

Basically Project ENCODE gave an overly loose definition of "functional". Your junk DNA is still junk. And here's an easy way to realize that junk DNA exists. What is more complex, you or an amoeba?

 

[Armoured]

So hey, has OP proved or removed Creationism yet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So hey, has OP proved or removed Creationism yet?

No, but we of course have a strawman argument that says evolution could not happen.

 

[Shemjaza]

So hey, has OP proved or removed Creationism yet?

No, he seems to have left to talk about the flood. But there was a very smooth hand over to another brand-new-to-the-forum cdesign proponentsist.