Topic: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability. (Read 17761 times)

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #100 on:** January 11, 2007, 11:32:00 AM »

Quote

Okay then... Here's your chance to shine. Tell us how DNA managed to form itself in the first place. Actually I'll make it easy on you; just tell us how proteins formed all by themselves.Then demonstrate how the genetic information wrote itself and actually became more complex over time, as species became more complex. Tell us how "simple one-celled creatures" which everything evolved from are actually very complex indeed. I'm sure you have thousands of studies to demonstrate irrefutable evidence. Remember, adverbs like "could", "maybe", "possibly", etc. imply a language of speculation.

It's quite difficult not to use words like "could," "maybe," "possibly," etc. when you're talking about an event that happened in the billions of years ago. And seeing that this is a very active area of research as of right now, I obviously cannot provide a certain answer for you. There are two plausible ideas. The first is of course the "primordial soup" idea, which suggests that these complex molecules emerged from a sea of various elements that would have been present on early earth. It would have been, instead of survival of the fittest, more like survival of the stable. Lightning strikes would have had the ability to produce the building blocks for these complex molecules. Not surprisingly, researchers in the lab have submitted tubes with the same composition of materials as hypothesized on early earth, subjected it to shocks, and have gotten the building blocks for nearly all of the complex molecules we see today (amino acids for proteins, nucleotides for RNA and DNA, etc.). The entire scenario is described well in The Selfish Gene. The other idea has to do with crystals, and suggests that the organization of crystals provided the organization and complexity of the genetic replicating molecules. There is also strong evidence for this idea, and is being worked on. I don't want to go into detail about how it works, but you can read about it here: http://originoflife.net/

Quote

Here's the one for the dissent from Darwinism:
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
Sorry, it's not 500 it's up to 600 now.

I suspect all of those scientists were Christian before they signed that statement. Do you know how many scientists still fully support the idea of Darwinian Evolution. Well there's a lot more than 1200 scientists around, so a lot more than 600 still support it... That's not evidence against evolution (especially when Francis Collins is the only scientist among the "best and the brightest" who signed that thing, and he still supports evolutionary theory!)

I'm not discussing Darwinism, by the way. Is "Darwinism" in the title of this thread? I don't think I've even mentioned the term until now. I'm not sure how Darwinism is different from evolution, but we'll stick with "evolution" for now, if that's ok with you, which by the way Francis Collins happens to be a huge fan of.

Quote

You mean, the same way you completely avoided dealing with the data on the atmospheric deficit of helium? Don't worry, you're not alone; the rest of the evolutionary community has been sidestepping that one, too. Here's the reason I dismissed your nipples and appenixes questions: If there was no time for the evolutionary process to take place, it would seem that your very worthy questions are moot, don't you think?

No, not really. That is complex science that I don't understand. There is plenty of active research being conducted in that area as we speak. You can't just take something that science hasn't yet answered and use it as counter-evidence. People have done that with so many other things, and scientists have slowly been answering each question, one by one. Don't you think that yours will fall victim to the same fate. I am confident that researchers will have a simple answer in the near future. I concede that this is a point for you. But there are so many points against you! So, if you would, please answer my questions (these aren't complicated science questions, and I allow room for speculation, but not ridiculous speculation). And no, my answers to them aren't ridiculous, because I STILL contend that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. You haven't even come close to uprooting the overwhelming evidence for that. So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, give me a reasonable explanation for these from a creationist/ID perspective.

Here they are, again:
Why do men have nipples? Why do humans have tailbones and appendices? Why are female orgasms hardly correlated with sexual intercourse? Why are there oftentimes complications with the female pelvis during birth? Why are 99.9% of the species in the fossil record now extinct? Why would God have such a fascination with beatles (I believe there are 250,000-350,000 unique species)? Why are completely arbitrary sequences of nucleotides in the genetic code conserved in nearly all species, but with slight variations?

Quote

But as long as we're on the topic, does Darwinism explain why humans only use 10% of our brain capacity? Or for that matter, how does evolution explain that the average Neanderthal brain was somewhere in the range of 200 cc's larger than ours on average?

First of all, we use a lot more than 10% of our brains. In fact, we use very near 100%. I saw that MYTH busted on Mythbusters a few years ago. I thought everyone knew that. Activity in every brain area in humans is well documented in neuroscientific literature. It's ok though, not a big deal. That WAS a widespread rumor, and even I subscribed to it until I learned repeatedly in school that it simply wasn't true.

Second, the human/Neanderthal brain discrepancy is most likely to be due to their huge bodies. Bigger bodies require bigger brains for management. These guys were incredibly robust. That's why elephants have such huge brains. They're still dumb, though. I'm not saying Neanderthals were dumb. Many believe they were very smart. And 200cc's is nothing, by the way. There's a 600cc variation within homosapiens themselves (that's a conservative guess, but I think it's actually a larger range).

And it's interesting you bring up neanderthals. How do you explain the dozens of pre-human species that appear in the fossil record. Did they just happen to go extinct in order of increasing brain size? And in order of increasing height? Seems strange to me...

Quote

Oh, by the way, I noticed you didn't have much to say about Mary Leakey's little statement, or the statement from Nature either. People in glass houses...

I'm not sure what the Mary Leakey quote means, and I don't know much about her, besides that she is one of the world's top paleontologists. I'll look it up later. Certainly you don't think this disproves evolution, or is even 'strong' evidence? I would hope you don't expect to boost your case with quotations.

As for the Nature quote, the explanation is simple. He's saying that the linear depiction from CHIMPS to MAN that is commonly used is false. We didn't descend from chimps, rather we both descended from a common ancestor. And the process isn't linear or goal-oriented, both of which the diagram imply.

Gotta go out for lunch. I eagerly await your next post, which will certainly contain answers to my questions!

8d82thebone · « **Reply #101 on:** January 12, 2007, 12:01:25 PM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 11, 2007, 11:32:00 AM

It's quite difficult not to use words like "could," "maybe," "possibly," etc. when you're talking about an event that happened in the billions of years ago. And seeing that this is a very active area of research as of right now, I obviously cannot provide a certain answer for you. There are two plausible ideas. The first is of course the "primordial soup" idea, which suggests that these complex molecules emerged from a sea of various elements that would have been present on early earth. It would have been, instead of survival of the fittest, more like survival of the stable. Lightning strikes would have had the ability to produce the building blocks for these complex molecules. Not surprisingly, researchers in the lab have submitted tubes with the same composition of materials as hypothesized on early earth, subjected it to shocks, and have gotten the building blocks for nearly all of the complex molecules we see today (amino acids for proteins, nucleotides for RNA and DNA, etc.). contend that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. You haven't even come close to uprooting the overwhelming evidence for that.

Speaking of shocks, if you're not already sitting down, you may want to.
Not surprisingly, it was proven that the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment were skewed (I'll avoid saying 'purposely rigged') to get the desired result of producing amino acids. The artificial atmosphere which they passed electric current through contained a far higher percentage of methane than Earth's atmosphere ever contained.(this was stated by NASA in the '80s I believe) You're also speculating that a 'primordial soup' ever existed, of which there is absolutely no proof of in the fossil record. But speaking of that, how do you account for the sudden explosion of life that is seen in the fossil record, the so-called "Cambrian Explosion".
Biologists also agree that the idea of spontaneous generation is a myth. In other words, non-living matter such as a grain of sand, does not have the ability to become living matter. Even when elements do mutate into isotopes, such as Nitrogen becoming C14 when hit by solar radiation, they gradually deteriorate back to their original state again, which is what is observed with C14 radiation. What it clearly does not do is evolve into living matter.

Quote

Here they are, again:
Why do men have nipples? Why do humans have tailbones and appendices? Why are female orgasms hardly correlated with sexual intercourse? Why are there oftentimes complications with the female pelvis during birth? Why are 99.9% of the species in the fossil record now extinct? Why would God have such a fascination with beatles (I believe there are 250,000-350,000 unique species)? Why are completely arbitrary sequences of nucleotides in the genetic code conserved in nearly all species, but with slight variations?

But explain to me how any of these prove what you are saying. Can you tie humans to any 'common ancestor' which did have a tail? Of course not.
Can you find any species related to homosapiens in which the male had functioning breasts? Again no. Even with billions of years, there still is not sufficient time for 250,000 species of beetles (beatles was the band) to evolve. So what's your point?

Here goes:
1) Don't know
2) There may yet be a reason for them, as yet unknown.
3) My wife doesn't have that problem.
4) What complications are you referring to? Are you a obstetrician?
5) The entire Cambrian layer could be the result of the Flood.
6) Because He could.
7) I'll need to look at that one some more.

Okay are you happy now?

Now I want answers to mine:
How did genetic code write itself? And don't try passing off any of that 'primordial soup' crap on me either.

1) Explain the existence of the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record. This occurred far more quickly than would have been possible by evolutionary means:Fully-formed species, without common ancestors or progressive species in between.
2) If chimpanzee genes are 96% identical to humans, why are mouse genes over 99% identical?
3) With the Miller-Urey experiments discredited, how did proteins and DNA form themselves?
4) Which component or step of the human blood-clotting process can be removed without interrupting the process and causing death? If none, explain how the process could have evolved?
5) Why do sharks have a much more complex eye than those of humans or other primates, which logically should be more highly evolved?

Go.

So now "Mythbusters" is science, is it? Typical evolutionist tactic of not holding their own opinions up to the same standard as they require of creationists. You were skeptical of data from creation scientists who did work via reputable labs, but completely accept Mythbusters as fact.

Quote

Second, the human/Neanderthal brain discrepancy is most likely to be due to their huge bodies. Bigger bodies require bigger brains for management. These guys were incredibly robust. That's why elephants have such huge brains. They're still dumb, though. I'm not saying Neanderthals were dumb. Many believe they were very smart. And 200cc's is nothing, by the way. There's a 600cc variation within homosapiens themselves (that's a conservative guess, but I think it's actually a larger range).

It has been proven that there is no correlation at all between body size and cranial capacity. Larger bodies do not necessarily mean larger brain size. And the variation in humans is actually somewhere around 1100 cc's, not 600. The 200 cc's was in average cranial capacity, between humans and Neanderthal, which can easily be called 'modern homo-sapiens' physiologically speaking, right down to the hyoid bone which is necessary for speech.

Quote

And it's interesting you bring up neanderthals. How do you explain the dozens of pre-human species that appear in the fossil record. Did they just happen to go extinct in order of increasing brain size? And in order of increasing height? Seems strange to me...

You are describing the "African Eve" model, which implies there is a very neat, orderly progression of species from Australopithecus to Homosapiens. Looks good on paper, but the trouble is when you look at the fossil record, it's pure smoke and mirrors;
There is no proof whatsoever that these 'dozens' of species went extinct in any
specific order. What the fossil record does show , is that humans were alive at the same time as most of these other ones. There is also no evidence that some of these 'pre-human' species ever walked upright. Some were mistakenly assembled to appear so, but have since been proven wrong. "Modern" remains have been found right beside remains of Neanderthal and other species.

Quote

I'm not sure what the Mary Leakey quote means, and I don't know much about her, besides that she is one of the world's top paleontologists. I'll look it up later. Certainly you don't think this disproves evolution, or is even 'strong' evidence? I would hope you don't expect to boost you case with quotations.

All I'm saying about her quote is that here is one of the world's premier paleontologists who spends her entire career promoting an ideology about man's ancestry being from monkeys, and then right before she passes away, makes a statement in the Associated Press that strongly implies it's all bull***t, in so many words.

Quote

As for the Nature quote, the explanation is simple. He's saying that the linear depiction from CHIMPS to MAN that is commonly used is false. We didn't descend from chimps, rather we both descended from a common ancestor. And the process isn't linear or goal-oriented, both of which the diagram imply.

Of course it's false, linear or any other way, as are Haekels' Embryos. Tell me why they are still represented in High School textbooks then?

Later...

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #102 on:** January 12, 2007, 07:39:06 PM »

hahaha take an anthropology course. this will be a waste of my time until you do at least that much.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #103 on:** January 15, 2007, 09:59:13 AM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 12, 2007, 07:39:06 PM

hahaha take an anthropology course. this will be a waste of my time until you do at least that much.

Youre missing the point. Any course is just a collection of facts assembled to support a particular pov. As I have demonstrated facts can be assembled to support either one.
What is important to realize is that there must be something behind the facts. The facts themselves are not the reality. To evolutionists, what lies behind the facts is a blind, random process which cannot even begin to explain the existence of the universe. To the creationist, what lies behind the facts is an intelligent Designer who has left His fingerprint on the universe with the unbelievable degree of complexity that we have always been able to see to some degree. As our technology increases, so do the levels of complexity that we are able to detect.( The Fabonnacci Sequence, for instance, was understood in the 12th century.) The reason that so many scientists, (these are doctoral scientists, not a bunch of hacks, as you try to imply...) have dissented from the Darwinist theory, is precisely this. Any logical person realizes at some point that random variation simply cannot account for the overwhelming complexity that is seen in the universe. A theory that tries to speculate that a blind, random and unguided process can in any way explain the complex universe that we see and live in is, as they say, not sufficient. A scientific establishment that only allows for the possibility of this theory has put itself into a box and has thus become impotent and unable to find the truth.

Oh, and I believe you still owe me some answers...

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #104 on:** January 15, 2007, 11:56:39 PM »

you, sir, have a gross misconception of reality. evolution doesn't attempt to explain the the complexity of the universe. that is cosmology. evolution successfully attempts to explain the complexity of life on earth. and it's not blind and random. it has elements of randomness, but is guided by a systematic selection process. i can't believe that you don't understand it. i could waste my time explaining it to you, but you wouldn't get it. it would be a waste of time.

Quote

1) Explain the existence of the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record. This occurred far more quickly than would have been possible by evolutionary means:Fully-formed species, without common ancestors or progressive species in between.
2) If chimpanzee genes are 96% identical to humans, why are mouse genes over 99% identical?
3) With the Miller-Urey experiments discredited, how did proteins and DNA form themselves?
4) Which component or step of the human blood-clotting process can be removed without interrupting the process and causing death? If none, explain how the process could have evolved?
5) Why do sharks have a much more complex eye than those of humans or other primates, which logically should be more highly evolved?

1) I don't know much about the Cambrian explosion besides that this question has been addressed by evolutionary biologists all over the globe. you're wrong, it would be possible. just because we haven't yet found common ancestors doesn't mean that they don't exist. we can't find every fossil! some are lost forever. others TAKE TIME to find. evolution can happen extremely rapidly, and this has been demonstrated MANY MANY MANY MANY times. scientists have evolved a new species of spiders in the laboratory. that's in the course of a human lifetime (an extremely short period of time when you're talking about fossils)
2) where did you hear that? that's not true. chimps are 98.5%. mice are 96%. maybe using some different standard of measuring? i'm not sure. i've learned numerous times 98.5% and 96%, but i also know there are different ways of measuring...
3) first, miller-urey has not been discredited. second, i gave you a link to an entirely different, plausible theory. and the theory doesn't say that these things arose out of crystals. it's so frustrating when you ask questions that have been explained numerous times in the literature. READ A BOOK. the questions i asked you have NEVER NEVER NEVER been explained from an ID/creationist prespective, because, well they can't be (besides 'because God wanted to')
4) I know nothing about this process, but I am POSITIVE IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE LITERATURE. READ UP.
5) What are you talking about?

Seriously dude, you are wasting my time. I'm done. But please though, read a book. There are dozens out there that will improve your understanding of evolution and also address your questions. If you've already read them, then I will be very very sad.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #105 on:** January 16, 2007, 10:18:54 AM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 15, 2007, 11:56:39 PM

scientists have evolved a new species of spiders in the laboratory. that's in the course of a human lifetime (an extremely short period of time when you're talking about fossils)

Do you have a link for this?

8d82thebone · « **Reply #106 on:** January 16, 2007, 12:02:48 PM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 15, 2007, 11:56:39 PM

you, sir, have a gross misconception of reality. evolution doesn't attempt to explain the the complexity of the universe.

Hard to blame them if they can't even explain complexity on Earth; anyhow, doesn't panspermia suggest that life originally came to Earth from space? How convenient to be able to duck and run from failing to explain how life could have begun here on Earth, and not having to account for complexity in the universe at the same time...

Quote

1) I don't know much about the Cambrian explosion besides that this question has been addressed by evolutionary biologists all over the globe. you're wrong, it would be possible. just because we haven't yet found common ancestors doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I think I heard that same thing regarding WMD too...

And Sasquatch...and the Loch Ness Monster,...and the Easter Bunny... but I shouldn't poke fun: There are only one of these... how could millions of common ancestors manage to hide so successfully? I KNOW!!! Osama Bin Laden is the Common Ancestor! QUICK!! Somebody call GWB and tell him to call it off before somebody bombs the Common Ancestor!!
Great! Now some FBI guy has got me on file because I said the OBL word!

Quote

2) where did you hear that? that's not true. chimps are 98.5%. mice are 96%.

Check this thread. I believe it was reported in a wide variety of publications, but here's one:http://usatoday.com/new/science/2002-12-04-mouse-genome_x.htm

Quote

3) first, miller-urey has not been discredited.

Really?http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm

Quote

second, i gave you a link to an entirely different, plausible theory. and the theory doesn't say that these things arose out of crystals. it's so frustrating when you ask questions that have been explained numerous times in the literature. READ A BOOK. the questions i asked you have NEVER NEVER NEVER been explained from an ID/creationist prespective, because, well they can't be (besides 'because God wanted to')

It's one thing to ask questions of me but apparently quite another to provide truly plausible evidence yourself. There have been all kinds of theories of how proteins, DNA etc. could have formed themselves, including being formed by repeating themselves in clay, but nothing plausible. On the one hand, you tell me repeatedly to "Read a Book", but on the other,you seem to be truly unaware of the facts yourself.

Quote

4) I know nothing about this process, but I am POSITIVE IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE LITERATURE. READ UP.

I have read up! That's why I'm asking you about it.

Quote

Seriously dude, you are wasting my time. I'm done. But please though, read a book. There are dozens out there that will improve your understanding of evolution and also address your questions. If you've already read them, then I will be very very sad.

No, you're wasting mine: I haven't heard a single plausible bit of evidence come from you yet. I don't need to understand anymore about a bankrupt theory that began with Darwin in the Galapagos Islands, and has now sunk to the pitiful depths of having to believe that life originated in outer space and came to earth on a meteor or something.

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #107 on:** January 16, 2007, 09:38:54 PM »

Wow. You clearly have NOT read up on the literature.

Sure, there are doubts about it, but I don't consider your intelligent design site a legitimate discrediting of the experiment. And guess what? Nearly identical experiments have been repeated numerous times with all sorts of different atmospheric compositions, and surprise surprise, you get the same molecules! Go figure... On top of that, there is always the possibility that life arose around deep sea hydrothermal vents (nowhere near the atmosphere), in which case these experiments wouldn't even matter. Finally, science doesn't claim that abiogenesis is a common event. But the earth had billions of years to work with. Even IF you are convinced those experiments are all wrong, that's just saying "in less than one lifetime we were unable to replicate an event that happened once in a (fill in a huge number of years) in earth's history. Not a strong case.

Not even gonna talk about the Cambrian explosion. Here's a link for you though that spells out why your case is terrible. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

About the mice, your link didn't work. Next, I bet I can find a dozen links for each one of yours that says otherwise. Here's an excerpt from National Geographic that I found within ten seconds of typing in "mice chimps humans DNA similarity" into Google:

"Further experiments by the same team showed that 98.5 percent of DNA sequences are shared by humans and chimps. The same methods showed that two humans share 99.9 percent of their DNA. In contrast, the DNA of humans and mice is only around 60 percent similar."

And here's the link, in case you don't trust me. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

As far as your list of 600 scientists goes, it's okay to be skeptical of Darwinism. That doesn't say anything about the legitimacy of evolution. It's healthy to be skeptical. And the scientists weren't rejecting Darwinism. Read the statement they had to sign:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

That's not rejection. And did you know that 80% of the scientists who signed that weren't biologists? There were engineers, mathematicians, philosophers, etc. And what were their reasons? This is such a poor argument... but I'll tread on.

Now read this statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

Guess how many SCIENTISTS signed this statement, which is much more specific than the other? Well, if we only count the scientists in the U.S. named "Steve" who signed this, there are well over 500. There are 480,000 scientists in the United States alone who study life sciences and earth sciences. If all you can muster is a list of 600 who signed a statement of dissent on Darwinism, well, that leaves about 99% who don't. And this isn't even to mention scientists in foreign countries. The United States has the largest creationist population of first world countries. Not surprising that we also score the worst on standardized tests. In other words, an even larger proportion of scientists elsewhere accept evolution. Again, yours is a weak argument. Doubts have risen about evolution ever since it's beginnings, but it has withstood the test of time amazingly well.

As for blood clotting, here's a link with even more links that discuss this OLD question: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html

Hope this helps.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #108 on:** January 16, 2007, 10:56:44 PM »

Could you post a link with more information about those spiders, please?

8d82thebone · « **Reply #109 on:** January 17, 2007, 08:43:48 AM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 16, 2007, 09:38:54 PM

Wow. You clearly have NOT read up on the literature.

Sure, there are doubts about it, but I don't consider your intelligent design site a legitimate discrediting of the experiment. And guess what? Nearly identical experiments have been repeated numerous times with all sorts of different atmospheric compositions, and surprise surprise, you get the same molecules! Go figure... On top of that, there is always the possibility that life arose around deep sea hydrothermal vents (nowhere near the atmosphere), in which case these experiments wouldn't even matter. Finally, science doesn't claim that abiogenesis is a common event. But the earth had billions of years to work with. Even IF you are convinced those experiments are all wrong, that's just saying "in less than one lifetime we were unable to replicate an event that happened once in a (fill in a huge number of years) in earth's history. Not a strong case.

I guess they don't want to talk about the fact that there is no substantiation in the geological record for this process to have occurred? Large amounts of methane present in the early atmosphere would have left large amounts of organic carbon in the sedimentary rock. If the process claimed by Miller-Urey had actually occurred, tar would have been one of the primary products, and therefore should have covered the Earth. There is absolutely no evidence in the geological record of either having occurred.

Quote

Not even gonna talk about the Cambrian explosion. Here's a link for you though that spells out why your case is terrible. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

How, may I ask, do a few sponges and complex cellular organisms, which we already know very sparsely preceded the Cambrian Explosion, have any ability at all to explain the sudden and vast amount of life which is present all at once, in the fossil record?(speaking in evolutionary time) They don't. It's that simple.

Quote

As for blood clotting, here's a link with even more links that discuss this OLD question: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html

Hope this helps.

No, doesn't help in the least , which is not surprising? Your "literature" of which you so highly speak, simply ducks the question. Simply stating that the process is built of proteins which are commonly available is laughable, if it's an attempt at an explanation.
I know Dolphins don't need Hageman factor, but humans do.

So again, I ask the question: Which component or step of the human blood-clotting process can be removed without the process becoming interrupted and death ultimately occurring? Hageman factor? Christmas factor? Accelerin? Proaccelerin?
And again, if none, how does the process evolve?

Gotta go, more later.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #110 on:** January 18, 2007, 11:10:52 AM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 16, 2007, 09:38:54 PM

About the mice, your link didn't work. Next, I bet I can find a dozen links for each one of yours that says otherwise. Here's an excerpt from National Geographic that I found within ten seconds of typing in "mice chimps humans DNA similarity" into Google:

"Further experiments by the same team showed that 98.5 percent of DNA sequences are shared by humans and chimps. The same methods showed that two humans share 99.9 percent of their DNA. In contrast, the DNA of humans and mice is only around 60 percent similar."

Sorry about the other link. The statement is from Alison Abbott,Nature( 4/20,19-26 Dec. 2002) Humans and mice both have around 30,000 genes. The mouse gene was sequenced in 2002, and the difference was found to be around 300 genes. "The two genes, as it turns out, are remarkably similar: 99% of mouse genes have a direct human counterpart." Don't know how National Geographic came up with 60%.
However, I do know that the "98.5 %" similarity between humans and chimps was an "accepted fact" ever since the 1970's, even though the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome wasn't even completed until 2001, as I said earlier in this thread. After the project was completed, a new figure of 94.5% was proposed by the man who published the earlier figure, Roy Britten.(California Institute of Technology)

"For almost 30 years,[from about 1972] researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting [Baltimore, 2002] suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks in homologous sections of DNA that weren't noticed in previous studies." Science 298(25 Oct./02): 719.

Quote

Guess how many SCIENTISTS signed this statement, which is much more specific than the other? Well, if we only count the scientists in the U.S. named "Steve" who signed this, there are well over 500. There are 480,000 scientists in the United States alone who study life sciences and earth sciences. If all you can muster is a list of 600 who signed a statement of dissent on Darwinism, well, that leaves about 99% who don't.

Of course: Do they like their job? Robert Gentry, the physicist who did the Helium research I quoted earlier, ended up getting fired from Oak Ridge National Laboratory after presenting his findings to the "respected" journals. It's pretty hard to stay on the "gravy train" that way, don't you think? The common axiom in the acadmic field is "publish or die". But if you're a scientist who doesn't tow the line, it's "publish and die."

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #111 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:19:11 PM »

Are you suggesting that an enormous number of scientists actually believe in creationism, but they just don't publish their findings because they don't want to get fired? Dream on... Don't you think tens of thousands of scientists (even hundreds of thousands) would be getting fired annually if the conspiracy you allude to were true?

And as far as the DNA, there are MULTIPLE WAYS to measure similarities between two species' DNA. There are plenty of studies showing the opposite relationship between human vs. mouse vs. chimp DNA. I'm sure each and every one of the researchers that performed the studies you cited can answer your question. The fact is, you don't know anything about the different methods of measuring DNA similarities, nor do you know whether the same methods were used in the two different studies you cited. This attempt at an argument is incredibly weak.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #112 on:** January 23, 2007, 09:22:43 PM »

<---- falls over and dies waiting for Z-man to produce actual evidence, quotes, ANYTHING to substantiate that he himself actually knows what he's talking about, and isn't perhaps just hiding behind the skirts of those in authority.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #113 on:** January 24, 2007, 08:03:48 AM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 23, 2007, 03:19:11 PM

Are you suggesting that an enormous number of scientists actually believe in creationism, but they just don't publish their findings because they don't want to get fired? Dream on... Don't you think tens of thousands of scientists (even hundreds of thousands) would be getting fired annually if the conspiracy you allude to were true?

No. I'm saying that plenty of them know that the emperor has no clothes, though. The ones with enough backbone tell it like it is.
And the 'conspiracy' is well-known by any ID or creation scientist.

Quote

And as far as the DNA, there are MULTIPLE WAYS to measure similarities between two species' DNA. There are plenty of studies showing the opposite relationship between human vs. mouse vs. chimp DNA. I'm sure each and every one of the researchers that performed the studies you cited can answer your question. The fact is, you don't know anything about the different methods of measuring DNA similarities, nor do you know whether the same methods were used in the two different studies you cited. This attempt at an argument is incredibly weak.

Tell that to Mr. Britten then, not me. 94.5% was his number, not mine. Or did you gloss over that too?

Have they found any Common Ancestors yet? Maybe we should start calling them Uncommon Ancestors?

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #114 on:** January 25, 2007, 12:10:15 AM »

Quote

No. I'm saying that plenty of them know that the emperor has no clothes, though. The ones with enough backbone tell it like it is.
And the 'conspiracy' is well-known by any ID or creation scientist.

This is purely speculation. If your argument relies on a belief such as this, then it is simply not well-founded. I could say something like "the Discovery Institute paid scientists to sign that petition," but the fact is, I don't have any evidence supporting such a claim. I could also say "well a lot of the people who signed that made a large deposit in their bank accounts within a week of signing," but again, I hope you see that this doesn't show anything. Where is your evidence of this widespread conspiracy? Scientists take opposing stands all the time on new, contraversial theories. If there were significant reasons to doubt evolution, a lot more than 600 would be taking a stand against it. There would be some sort of movement forming within. Actually, this all would have happened over a hundred years ago when evolutionary theory first came out, and the theory would be completely dead. It's not. If your evidence is one guy getting fired, then I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. Plenty of scientists who DO believe in evolution get fired all the time.

Quote

Tell that to Mr. Britten then, not me. 94.5% was his number, not mine. Or did you gloss over that too?

Have they found any Common Ancestors yet? Maybe we should start calling them Uncommon Ancestors?

What? Mr. Britten knows that there are different ways. I don't doubt that, using whatever method of comparitive analysis he chose, that the results come up 94.5% similar. There are different ways of measuring similarities between any two objects, though. This doesn't mean that Mr. Britten's method wasn't valid. And nor does it mean that no other test is valid, either. It just means that the results of two comparitive analyses cannot be compared if the analyses were performed using DIFFERENT METHODS.

As for the common ancestors- do you realize that IDists and creationists have been pointing out gaps in the fossil record ever since evolutionary theory was proposed? The fossil record isn't perfect. Very specific conditions need to met in order for an organism to be fossilized. The result is that a very small percentage of dead animals end up even becoming a part of the fossil record. And finding these animals is no easy task. But I will point out that since evolutionary theory has been proposed, the gaps have only been closing, and slowly but surely the creationists and IDists have been able to point and shout at less and less. We all know the fossil record isn't perfect. Who cares? Your observation means nothing.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #115 on:** January 25, 2007, 08:53:01 AM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 25, 2007, 12:10:15 AM

8d8 said: No. I'm saying that plenty of them know that the emperor has no clothes, though. The ones with enough backbone tell it like it is.
And the 'conspiracy' is well-known by any ID or creation scientist.

Quote

This is purely speculation. If your argument relies on a belief such as this, then it is simply not well-founded.

Oh, the irony...

Quote

I could say something like "the Discovery Institute paid scientists to sign that petition," but the fact is, I don't have any evidence supporting such a claim. I could also say "well a lot of the people who signed that made a large deposit in their bank accounts within a week of signing," but again, I hope you see that this doesn't show anything. Where is your evidence of this widespread conspiracy?

Tell you what; if you can find any mainstream scientific journal that has knowingly publshed anything produced by a Creation/ID scientist in the last decade, I will retract my claim on this thread.

Quote

Actually, this all would have happened over a hundred years ago when evolutionary theory first came out, and the theory would be completely dead.

If you'll bother to check it out for yourself, you'll find that Ernst Haeckels published his "embyos" even before completing his research.(If he had, he would have seen that they were nothing like his pictures of embryos.) Many of his contemporaries did know it was false, and made claims that his work was bogus at the time. Yet they were still published, and believed by the general public and the establishment. And as I said before, Haeckels' Embryos are still being published in high-school textbooks today. Like they say, 'truth is the first casualty...'
Darwin himself also had concerns about the problem of lack of evidence for his theory in the fossil record, yet that small detail didn't stop him from publishing the TOE.

Quote

What? Mr. Britten knows that there are different ways. I don't doubt that, using whatever method of comparitive analysis he chose, that the results come up 94.5% similar. There are different ways of measuring similarities between any two objects, though.

Like 'apples to apples?' maybe? Sounds like thats what Abbot was talking about when she stated ,"99% of mice embryos have a direct human counterpart" The difference of 300 genes would leave a 1% differential. Now, if you want to do apples to oranges comparisons, or apples to tse-tse flies, or whatever, of course you're going to come up with something different.

Quote

This doesn't mean that Mr. Britten's method wasn't valid. And nor does it mean that no other test is valid, either. It just means that the results of two comparitive analyses cannot be compared if the analyses were performed using DIFFERENT METHODS.

Z-man's science 101 class:

Z-man:"Students,are mouse genes 99% identical to humans?"
Student #1: "After conducting my research, Yes!"
Student #2: "After conducting mine, No!"

Z-man:"You both get an "A".

" Be careful out there on the way home, students! After conducting my gravity tests with Helium balloons, I have concluded that the anti-gravity is strong today, and you could possibly float away into outer space when you leave the school...

More on fossil evidence later...

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #116 on:** January 25, 2007, 10:16:43 AM »

Quote

Oh, the irony...

Wow, I am in awe. My argument is not grounded in pure speculation. It's grounded in real evidence and the consistent scientific interpretation of that evidence. Claiming that there's a conpiracy out there, and that all those scientists really know creationism is true, but are just afraid to say anything is, for lack of a better word, bullpoo-poo. I have advisors who are scientists, teachers who are scientists. They all regularly laugh at creationist claims. I suppose they could be faking the laughter, so that the authorities who are driving the anti-creationist conspiracy don't fire them. Oh my god! bonerboy, I think you might be on to something!

Quote

Tell you what; if you can find any mainstream scientific journal that has knowingly publshed anything produced by a Creation/ID scientist in the last decade, I will retract my claim on this thread.

I'm not going to go through scientific journals and look for creationist work... what a waste of time...

And you STILL don't understand my DNA point. I suspect this is because you don't understand DNA. Do you know what introns and extrons are? You can compare just introns, or introns AND extrons. And I'm sure there are other reasonable comparitive methods out there that I just haven't learned yet. How do you know that the 94.5% chimp study and the 99% mouse study used the same methods? You know, instead of getting your panties all up in a bunch over this, why don't you just go read your studies and check out what their methods were. I bet the were different...

8d82thebone · « **Reply #117 on:** January 25, 2007, 10:20:54 AM »

Quote from: zjohnso2 on January 25, 2007, 10:16:43 AM

Quote
Oh, the irony...

Wow, I am in awe. My argument is not grounded in pure speculation. It's grounded in real evidence and the consistent scientific interpretation of that evidence.

Pardon my saying, but I believe we're all still waiting...

Author Topic: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability. (Read 17761 times)

zjohnso2

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

8d82thebone

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

zjohnso2

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

8d82thebone

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

zjohnso2

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

TheDoctor

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

8d82thebone

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

zjohnso2

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

TheDoctor

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

8d82thebone

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

8d82thebone

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

zjohnso2

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

Anthony Horvath

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

8d82thebone

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

zjohnso2

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

8d82thebone

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

zjohnso2

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.

8d82thebone

Re: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.