proving evolution as just a "theory"

[tas8831]

Funny you should mention that. Here's a quote from a MD who practiced medicine for over 20 years.

"Not one example could be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine." -Dr. Tommy Mitchell, MD from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

What did Tommy use in his medical career that he gleaned from Scripture?


Of course, there is a thing called Darwinian Medicine.


Can you point me to information on Jehovian Medicine?

 

[tas8831]

lol! There's a doctor to avoid.... I wonder if he administered any vaccines to anyone...?

EDIT: Nope, no, turns out he doesn't practice medicine anymore - apparently preaching pays better! Lists of creationist scientists - RationalWiki

Figures...

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps you could answer his challenge then and give one example of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine.

MDs like Tommy are, sorry to say it, basically technicians.

There is medical RESEARCH - the stuff that informs people like Tommy what they should be doing and why.

 

[tas8831]

I think he makes a very valid point. If modern medicine is predicated upon the ToE then it behooves those making this claim to back it up. However since we know that there is not a single documented example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another, nor a single example of an observed random mutation adding new and beneficial gene increasing type information to the genome of a multi celled organism, then I can't see how it could.

There you go again, with your step-by-step demands.


The ones you claim not to make.

So where are YOUR finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major created Kind to an In-Kind variant?

These MUST exist, unless you want your ark to sink.

And since they must have been around only a few thousand years ago, and thus not had the time for geological forces to damage them, there SHOULD be millions of examples of, say, the fossil of the pre-Ocelot Kind.


Where is it?


And regarding this word salad:


" single example of an observed random mutation adding new and beneficial gene increasing type information"

How do you propose we 'observe' a random mutation?

And why the "new and beneficial" part?

Do you think a mutation creates a gene?

If so, why?

And since you mention information - tell me about the information flow in this documented event:

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

Science 27 Sep 2002:
Vol. 297, Issue 5590, pp. 2253-2256
DOI: 10.1126/science.1074170

ABSTRACT
... Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis ofCyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5′ end of the Cyp6g1 gene.


This indicates that the ability to resist DDT in fruit flies was caused by a mutation - an insertion of an Accord element (a type of transposon) in a gene that alters its expression.

The protein itself was not altered, just the amount produced, yet this keeps the flies alive in the presence of DDT.

Clearly, this is a beneficial mutation, allowing the flies to adapt to a hostile environment.


Show us that your claims regarding 'information' are not just paraphrased sound bites that you gleaned from YEC/ID websites, rather that you actually understand enough biology and information theory to address a real example of adaptation via mutation.

Explain it - was this an increase in information or not? Why or why not? Was this beneficial? Why or why not?

Lets see you put your money where your mouth is.

 

[tas8831]

No I said that the less advanced life is often found in the deeper strata layers and the more advanced shows up in the upper layers,

So all things alive today are 'advanced'?

which is what you would expect to find if they had all been deposited in one world wide global flood.

The logic escapes me. Are you saying that less advanced life would just sit there and drown?

And why were they killed in the first place? what did they do?

However you made the claim that they are not found this way and you expected me to prove you wrong. That's not how it works. You get to prove your case. I will be more than happy to support mine but I won't run around trying to disprove yours.

Actually, Brad, I don't think you will be happy to support mine seeing as how I have yet to see a post from you that even tries to do this.

Maybe I missed them...

 

[tas8831]

Well here's some that I'm sure you will find irrelevant along with their irrelevant publications.

Grant Lambert biochemist (and creationist)“Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]: He states that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would be completely overcome by incredibly high numbers of errors. However the editing enzymes are made themselves by DNA. This is an incredible argument for design. Lambert never openly exclaims his creationist world veiwpoint and leaves the readers in a dilemma as an unresolved problem in biologic theory (p.401), and I am sure that for this reason many of my oponants here wont count his paper, but by all reasonable standards it is countable.

D. Axe "Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds." (Journal of Molecular Biology), Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315. His study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, only about "one in 1064 signature consistent sequences forms a working domain and that the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077." Axe's conclusion is that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." And because evolution theory says that only organism with a functional advantage are preserved, his study shows how difficult it would be for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. The study also demonstrates that there are high levels of very specific and complex structures in enzymes, a predicted indicator of intelligent design. Conformation that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design has even been made by Axe himself in other interviews. But again, in the actual paper he does not wave his creationist banner high and mention creationism or intelligent design for that matter for obvious reasons.

Michael J. Behe & David W. Snoke "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," (Protein Science), Vol 13:2651-2664 (2004).

John Bracht, CiteSeerX "Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design,"

John Bracht, Metanexus “The Bacterial Flagellum: A Response to Ursula Goodenough,” Views, 2003.01.16.

Stephen Meyer “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” , PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 117 (2004): 213-239.

Lönnig, W. “Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity,” DYNAMICAL GENETICS (2004), pp. 101-119.

William A. Dembski THE DESIGN INFERENCE: ELIMINATING CHANCE THROUGH SMALL PROBABILITIES, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” , Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and
C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

Meyer, S. C DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, .(Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

Jonathan Wells "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," , Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

​

At least a couple of those are web essays, but whatever.

There are more pubs than that in a single issue of "Evolution".

But whatever.

I like this one:

Jonathan Wells "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," , Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

it is classic IDC.

He presents no tests of his claims, no real evidence. He just says centrioles look like little turbines, so they are!

He claims that centrioles spin, which is how they generate this force. But he provides no evidence that they spin - well, except for pointing out that in real-time microscopy of cells undergoing mitosis it looks like the cytoplasm is being blown around.

Amazing science!

 

[tas8831]

Layers get laid down covering less mobile (more primitive) organisms while the more mobile scurry out and the next layer comes in over and over until only the most mobile organisms make to the top and are finally covered over and succumb.

So mobility is the hallmark of advancement?

I guess birds and fish are more advanced than us...

 

[tas8831]

No, it’s like just being able to admit to yourself that they use virus to insert genomic material into specifics cells. Nothing random about it except in your invalid argument....
Not common ancestory, common infection and what we call genome therapy, just on a natural, not laboratory scale.

Wow...

It seems that you understand how viruses operate about as well as you understand population genetics.

Tell us all how a virus inserts its genome into a host - do all viruses act that way?
When they insert their genome into a host - where is that done? Anywhere?

Do tell!

 

[tas8831]

Just a rather prickly member of my family.

Is his name Spiny Norman?*


*a perhaps arcane reference...

 

[tas8831]

that conjures up a marvellous image......
Why should Giant sloths want to outrun anything. they do not even try that today. Their tactic is disguise, stillness, and keeping out of reach.

How would that fare in the face of rising flood waters?

 

[xianghua]

It's not really that exceptional, especially when dealing with aircraft that operate in remote areas. It's more the norm in those situations.

here are several kinds of aircraft:

as you can see- all of them shared wheels.

(image from https://www.amazon.co.uk/Aircraft-Book-DK/dp/1409364801)

Now on the flipside, you could argue that the logos do have functional importance but they aren't necessarily conserved within a given set of objects. For example, there are plenty of trucks, mugs and roofs not bearing the Ford logo. So in that context, the Ford logo wouldn't necessarily be an indication of a conserved design within a given class of objects.

of course, since those objects were made by different designers.

 

[tas8831]

There is not a single solitary fossil in any museum that supports evolution. Every single fossil for any type remains the same for every fossil found of that type......

And the original Asian kind - how did that person come to be when his parents were both middle eastern and there were no 2 groups to hybridize?

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

How would that fare in the face of rising flood waters?

they are excellent swimmers and can hold their breath underwater for 40 minutes and swim 3 times faster than they move on land.

 

[xianghua]

Do cars breed and produce offspring?

No?

lets say yes in this case.

 

[xianghua]

Yes, it is - because we KNOW that humans designed watches and robots.

we also know that humans designed genomes.

Are you claiming that humans designed humans?

not humans but any intelligent.

 

[pitabread]

here are several kinds of aircraft:

Are you already ignoring the other examples I posted?

as you can see- all of them shared wheels.

And I've already given you other examples. Your premise has already failed.

of course, since those objects were made by different designers.

But they're not "conserved" in those cases.

The whole point is that artificial objects and designs don't necessarily follow the same constraints as biology. Hence why using the same premises don't work.

 

[Speedwell]

we also know that humans designed genomes.

So, given a genome and no other information, how would you tell if it was designed by a human or ocurred naturally?

 

[rjs330]

Depends on your outlook. ALL Humans are the descendants of Adam. We have the superior intelligence which ONLY Adam and God have Gen 3:22 AND we also have the DNA of ancient prehistoric people in our genetics. Our common ancestor is Adam.

That's been my point all along. We are are the descendents of Adam. We do not have a common ancestor with spiders and monkeys.

 

[tas8831]

lets say yes in this case.

Why would we do that?

 

[tas8831]

we also know that humans designed genomes.

And we also know that humans designed flying contraptions, therefore humans invented birds?

not humans but any intelligent.

That is quite an extrapolation - all you ever use are analogies to human activity, yet the only entities we know of capable of designing things the way humans do are other humans.