AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Southstar

form_srcid: Southstar

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.33.176

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Southstar

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Southstar%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2011/11/08 06:25:44, Link
Author: Southstar
Hello everyone,

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post, and actually I tried putting in a new subject post and it won't allow me.

I have some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory.

May I post them here

Thanks
Martina

Date: 2011/11/08 07:05:21, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,06:46)
This thread is for Southstar/Martina.

She has "some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory."

Over to you Southstar/Martina.

I, Woodbine, am in no way responsible for how this thread turns out. I just opened it. It's not mine. In fact it has nothing to do with me. Quick look over there - a shiny thing!

Thanks

My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.

So I wrote up in one of their forums on evolution and began shining some light on their very dim wits. It was all fine and dandy and I was about to prove that their whole idea was rubish when the called in their version of Darth Maul.

Now see I'm not a biologist and my knowlege of genetics is very superficial.

That said:
I had posted a study regarding mutation rates in humans. The study quoted in the talkorigins archive (Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304). was a bit outdated a new study Roach JC, Glusman G, Smit AFA, Huff CD, Hubley R, Shannon PT, Rowen L, Pant KP, Goodman N, Bamshad M, et al. 2010. Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole-Genome Sequencing. Science [Internet] 328:636–639. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126....186802) finds that the amount of mutations is about half of the previous study. This new study does create quite an imbaresment for the evolution theory, and creates havok in the timeline.

Any ideas on how I could get out of this

I have other questions but let's take one at a time

Thanks for your help!!
Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 07:46:06, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,07:39)
I'm afraid I can't help you.

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.

While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.

Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

Date: 2011/11/08 08:01:57, Link
Author: Southstar
http://www.sciencemag.org/content....636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

Date: 2011/11/08 09:00:00, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 09:06:32, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:07)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Quote
Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.

As described here:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog....10.html

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 09:24:56, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:27)
Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?

Siete ritardati?

As I explained,
1) i was drawing from talk origins site
2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard
3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.

Cheers
Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 09:51:30, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,09:46)
Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,09:40)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

It's common stripe of creationist.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.

Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 11:39:29, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,08:51)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,05:46)
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

"Macro-evolution" really boils down the emergence of new species from old ones.

The answer is "YES."

I have compiled a list of dozens of speciation events that is handy when creationists claim that there are none.

"Emergence of new species."

Hi,

Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.

To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?

I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?

This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 11:59:40, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,10:08)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position.  That is all.  Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that."  Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is.  Ask what their research program is.  Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

Hi,

Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.

Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 12:10:49, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,09:38)
Let me explain.

You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.

I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)

If you are legitimate you have my apologies.

One question, though; how did you find AtBC?

Hi,

Well as I explained I was using the Talkorigins.org website as the major inspirational tool. But Alas, some things weren't very clear, (I stopped taking Biology in standard 7).  So the postes I made came increasingly under attack by some that were apparently at least more knowelgble than I. So I needed some help. There is a link on the site to a forum Panda's thumb. From there I got here. :)

Cheers
Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 13:41:37, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:13)
Dara O'Brian

Hi,

God I could stop laughing at this, I sat all during supper gigeling like an idiot!

Thanks
It was worth it just for this!

Marty

Date: 2011/11/08 14:05:24, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,13:41)

Okay,

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil.
Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on this
Marty

Date: 2011/11/09 06:26:40, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,16:54)
BTW: Southstar,

I don't want you to get your hopes up.  Creationists are wedded to their beliefs.  They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.

Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, ‘stranger than fiction’ expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".

Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...

Cheers
Marty

Date: 2011/11/09 06:39:15, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,04:45)
[quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 08 2011,12:23]   [quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,09:39]Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe.  These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes.  In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less).  Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it.  What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/09 08:01:30, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,07:55)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 09 2011,06:39][quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,04:45]
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe.  These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes.  In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less).  Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it.  What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 should work.  If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Hi,

I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."

They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.

Thanks anyway
Marty

Date: 2011/11/09 12:18:30, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 09 2011,10:59)

Okay,

I have a question for me ;)

It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't

At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/10 12:18:22, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 09 2011,19:01)

Hi,

Here is a question that was posted on the site. Which I have a little of a hard time answering.

After mentioning speciation which caused wide spread panic. Obvioulsy a few of them started changing the goal post and started asking for exapmles of new families forming. I answered that you will only see them formed after they are formed and looking back you'll say well at about this time the dog became a ciuaua (which to me classifies as a different spiecis ;) )

Some asked for proof of fish turning into mice, which is great cause it would be proof against evolution if ever it was found.

But then the usual chap comes up with this:

To verify up to what point speciation can lead to macro changes you need to see how much "weight" these changes have in genetic and especially molecular terms. This you need to do in terms of measuring the amount of information that has been modified but more importantly how much information has been added.

I would answer this way: Well if it's a new species, there's got to be different information, probably non much different information but a little different it would get more different the farther away you were from the speciation event. It's the added part that I can't get..

Any ideas?
Marty

Date: 2011/11/11 06:27:47, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27)

Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/11 08:56:55, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 11 2011,07:33)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27)

Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

Thanks
Marty

In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question

Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.

But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.

Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug.
Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?
Marty

Date: 2011/11/11 10:09:11, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 11 2011,09:08)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56)
Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?
Marty

Define "new bug"!

Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug.

Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA.

The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years.

What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.

Date: 2011/11/11 11:24:47, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,13:08)
Thirded.

Ask them for an exact measurement process.  What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics.

Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.  

My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in.  Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well.  I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

It's in the creationist playbook.

Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical

Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....om_walk

He sites the following research as a base for his further arguments:
http://www.tbiomed.com/content....47

I have no idea where he is headed with this stuff...

Marty

Date: 2011/11/11 13:47:32, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,12:12)
I will personally make you a deal... I have, sitting one row of cubes over from me, 10 mathematicians, 3 with Masters degrees, and 1 Ph.D. candidate in math.  I also have access to an even dozen psychometricians (all with Ph.D.s in statistics and/or statistical analysis).  You are free to tell them that you have access to these people as well.

All the creationists have to do is type up their mathematical processes and then you post it here and we can take care of the analysis.  I promise you, in over 5 years of dealing with this, not a single creationist has ever taken me up on the offer.  

Lol okay I've sent the challenge let's see what happens :)

Thanks!!
Marty

Date: 2011/11/12 09:38:48, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,22:25)

Goodness even Italians are churning out books

Take a look at what they threw at me here:
http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2....nge.php

Marty

PS Still waiting for them to give us a definition of information and how to measure it in biology ;)

Date: 2011/11/14 03:32:43, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 13 2011,02:26)

Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

Date: 2011/11/14 07:26:53, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2011,05:49)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,03:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 13 2011,02:26)

Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

If you hold that science has not progressed with regard to the OOL since that paper was published, then yes, your assumption would appear to be valid.

If, however, there's been more research done since 1976 then perhaps not.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/focus-g....of-life

Damn, sorry I forgot to check the date :(

Sorry
Marty

Date: 2011/11/14 07:30:07, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:26)

Okay so here is a new article out regarding problems with evolution this time from oxford:

http://www.biosignaling.com/content....-30.pdf

What are you're thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/15 12:21:13, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
 
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?
2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong?
3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?
4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right?
5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?
6) Aside from the one link supplied do you have other links that would help debunk durston?
7) If you have other fav sites (asides from talkorigins that in some things is a little outdated) that debunk Idiots in general let me know.  
Thanks for all your help!
Marty

Ps Some info on the Breed of Idiots that I have picked a fight with:
1) A few are hard core nuts, most are just ordinary street people who know next to nothing about anything except tomorrow nights reality show. So alot of the stuff that I explain needs to be explained in simple terms. Giving basic examples and giving complete but information without overdoing it.
2) Aside from the information theory thing. They do not supply their version. They seem to be following tactic: Show that whatever scientific theory is not certain and has problems (do this by throwing everything including the kitchen sink at them), proceed in showing that therefore scientist base their theories on faith. But since the theory is off, their faith is misplaced and esentially relies on errors. The real faith is about ecc... I'll spare you the rest. Is there a name for this spiecies of Idiot?
3) Given the above you'd say well you must have something better to do "go to a party or something". But I feel it's wrong, ordinary people are getting sucked up by this, I mean if it weren't lies it would be be okay, I mean if it makes you happy fine. But it's lies and this bothers me.
4) When they run out of arguments they start insulting and saying that I don't understand and change the subject. But they can do this only a limited number of times already some ordinaries in the forum have started to show signs of saying hey she's got a point.

You guys are probaby really used to all this stuff. And my post is way to long.

Thanks... really thanks :)

Date: 2011/11/16 00:41:50, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 14 2011,20:14)
I was confused by this passage from the penultimate paragraph of Bard's review:

 
Quote
Complex systems have properties that cannot be pre- dicted, albeit that they can be understood with hindsight, and it may well be that the network for some trait (e.g. bone growth or pigmentation pattern) in the offspring has quantitative properties that are very different from those of the parents, not because of new mutations but because the novel mix of the rate constants will yield a trait that is an outlier of the normal distribution (known as a sport in breeding circles). As a result, the offspring may be able to colonise a novel environment far better than its peers. Equally important, this variant will naturally be heritable because it derives from the kinetics of the network (minor variation) rather than additions or losses to the proteins that comprise them.

I understand and agree that a novel combination of existing alleles could result in the offspring having a novel phenotype due to particular network interactions. But how would that novel phenotype be heritable? If it depends on an unlikely combination of alleles, it's not likely to recur in the subsequent generation.

And even if it did result in selective fixation of the relevant combination of alleles, how does that go beyond existing evolutionary theory?

I feel like I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what.

I guess we should really answer this question:

how does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype? At least in some detail if we are to trash the book review

or am I missing something

Marty

Date: 2011/11/16 01:33:21, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 14 2011,19:02)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,05:30)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,07:26)

Okay so here is a new article out regarding problems with evolution this time from oxford:

http://www.biosignaling.com/content....-30.pdf

What are you're thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

Very odd that this fellow doesn't know much about Lamark. I ended reading the reviews thinking that books could easily be better than the reviewer.

Yes I agree, here is a linki to shapiros work. I feel he is on to something interesting

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Ce....ol.html

The Idiots will not be happy

Marty

Date: 2011/11/17 10:04:30, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 15 2011,15:01)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 15 2011,12:21]    
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
     
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi everyone,

here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:

------transcript starts here -----------

Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?

Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)

By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.

As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.

Please note that the modification of a nucleotide is an extremely rare event, 2 nucleotides are immensly rare, 3 are astronomicaly rare, 4 are next to impossible.

Seeing as that the smallest and most simple proteins are composed of 10's of aminoacids,("translated" from the comparison of the triplet codon / anticodon)  for example myoglobine has 153, which is about 459 nucliotide bases.

So we're talking about 1 or 2 nucleotide changes on 459, and in most cases the changes don't even cause a variation in the translated aminoacid (every aminoacid can be translated by more codons, therefore by more necleotide sequences).

See these are the measures I'm refering to with regards to the mutations, or at least the most probable one's that can arrise which lead to the adding of information under the form of new codifing sequences: I don't really cionsider the other mutations as they are deleterious, they have a wider applicability on the sequences and therefore the probability of adding codifing information is reduced.

In simple terms, one thing is to change a letter in one chapter of a book at random, and another is to change whole sentences or words.

Southstar said: Well even if your nucleotide is smaller, how did you go about determening a loss of information?

Isobe said: Well simple, just by the fact that the nucleotide sequence is no longer able to codify the same protiens, which then seize to function or at least function less.

Southstar said: Yes and in terms of evolution this is no problem we have a lot of species out there that have lost functions. See evolution dosen't have to have a direction.

Ioseb said: Well yes but it's still proof of a loss of information. Besides the point is that there is no way that you could go from bacteria to human by just changing randomly one or two nucleotides and even then you need to have these passed down to the following generation which is even rarer.

See your silly evolution rests on mutations which don't occur and natural selction which is essentially passive. Selection will never and can never add information, it could favour and organism on the basis of fisical circumstances, but in small it's totaly random and blind.

Southstar said: Still you have shown a loss of ability sooo what? Hamsters have lost their tails, dolphins went back to the sea and?

Isoeb said: Don't be stupid! You don't have the faintest idea of what it would take to do the kind of mutations that you have just mentioned. Your not a scientist like me. You're just a silly girl. What do you know about molecular biology?

Ah and by the way those silly studies that you posted regarding macroevolution well that was all microevolution. You know you don't have any proof of macroevolution so don't try pawning micro studies. Remember what carl sagan said: Great claims require great proof. You don't have any.

Southstar said: goodness Carl is shaking in his tomb and could visit you tonight. I'd watch my back.

---- end of transcript ----

To me it seems he's avoiding the difficult questions with technobable. But I would need some valid arguments to take him down. If I just reply that it's rubbish the fence sitting people will say "why do you say that"? So I need to show that it's rubbish.

Cheers
Marty

Date: 2011/11/18 02:55:11, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 18 2011,00:54)
It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information.
He pointed out the following paper as important to his argument:
http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf

It's our well known friend Behe, but it's peer reviewed. Still reading through it I don't see anything that could be a visioned as anti-evolution. He does seem to lean towards evolution only subtracts though.

And I believe that his argument will be: see on a molecular level all that can happen is negative - loss of function / information. Therefore there is no way that you could have increased complexity through evolution. So your only option is things were "created" complex or through "divine" genetic intervention.

Marty

Date: 2011/11/19 01:17:41, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2011,22:50)
One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

Yes I often remind them that the absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Unfortunately for them they always have to agree to this cause all of there idea stands on this principle.

marty

Date: 2011/11/19 02:47:02, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 19 2011,01:43)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2011,22:50)
One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...
What did the Intelligent Designer do?
When did the Intelligent Designer do it?
What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?
What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?
Etc, etc...

Oh come'on such easy questions to answer? ;)

What did the Intelligent Designer do?

Answer: look around

When did the Intelligent Designer do it?

1st Answer: It doesn't really matter...
2nd Answer: some (unspecified) records indicate it's around 6000 years ago.
3nd answer: The designer has never stopped doing whatever you think he might have done.

What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?

Answer: It doesn't really say how he did it besides it's not really our business to know.

What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?

Answer: That's not the question, the question we should ask is: (and then they ask another totally different question which they can answer!) - itallian polititians also use this way out often :D

Cheers
Marty

Date: 2011/11/20 06:15:12, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 19 2011,04:59)

Hello everyone,

What do you think of this research?

http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/Journal....21o.pdf

I noticed it's from a known Idiot Wolf-ekkehard lonnig. However the article seems peer reviewed.

Here's a link to a rundown of this paper:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010....91.html

Any ideas how to throw this out the window?

Marty

Date: 2011/11/20 10:21:34, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 18 2011,00:54)
It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Hello,

Finaly I forced Ioseb to give me some more information on what he considers as information and how he plans to measure it here is the transcript:

----------transcript starts here-------------


Southstar:    You measured what? As I have shown by the nucleotide sequences above you were not able to tell which had more information... case closed. Until you do so you're really going to need another argument.

Ioseb: Sorry you didn't prove anything with your little game.
I have already told you that we are not interested in measuring the information. The real question is whether information exists and if this information is specified and complex.

You've just run out of critisims haven't you that's why you keep asking for measurement.

Anyway here's how it's done let me explain it to you since you and your friends are stupid beyond belief. We look at the position of the nucleotied and/or the aminoacid within biological molecules these have always a precise physical, chemical and structural significance. These represent specific information, all that needs to be done is to count the nucleotides and the aminoacids in the sequence so as to determine the intrinsic complexity.
 
This is the measure of information I'm talking about.

For example the section of a ribosome of 1600 amminoacids and a nucleotide is obviously more complicated than a Myglobin of 153 aminoacids

But between the two molecules of 150 aminoacids i'm in no way interested in determening which has more information. But rather what information they hold. You know Information is commonly used in biology.

Regarding your stupid quiz let me show you and your ignorant friends how real biology is done.

Let's take three sequences the first two are your invented sequences. The third is a real sequence. (See scientists use real things not like the ones you make up).

Sequenza 1:AAAAAAAAAAAA
Sequenza 2:ATGACCGACTAG
Sequenza 3:AUGGUUAAGGGA

See now sequence 3 has the same probability of being genereated by chance as the other two, but it is a real RNA sequence starting with a codon (AUG) and the codons for translating amminoacids valinm lisin and glicin.

So if we make the assumption that this sequence codifies in the begining a protiene, it would not contain only information of the random sequence of letters but it would also contain information (contained in the example in the first triplet regarding) reagarding the amminoacid start, the same for each triplet which together contains a specific information which can be chemical/physical or structural. This is INDESPENSIBLE for the function of the protiens produced.  

Now my sequence is the only one of the three that permit the formation of a protiene,

if you change it from


AUGGUUAAGGGA

to

AGGGUUAAGGGA

all that simply happens is that the robosome will  not recognise the RNA and won't even start the translation process.

So what do we have protien non produced = loss of function = problems or death of the organism

Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.

Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example

sequence1: get me some cheese
Sequence2: eef hg thki loffr

See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.

So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen. You wouldn't get up to get the cheese with the second sequence would you.

Southstar Said: Well listen in the end of the game even if you are right you have just proved a loss of function sooo what this in no way disproves evolution. look here, here is a study that just goes to show gain of function http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085 - Biology on a chip.

Ioseb said: Thanks i rest my case! You brought a study which proves that without inteligence nothing happens. I'll be using this little jewel that you supplied to me many more times. But first I tell your decendent from monkey friends why:
Now let's see evolution requires processes that are by chance and that there is no divine intervention and what do you bring here. A study that proves that you can't get there unless you skew the chances and you interviene through intelligence. Wow
The scientists in this study have created a controlled enviorment , and skewed the program so as to give them the resault they wanted. THE PRESTIGE! This people is what the fake science is pawning you. Because they were not able to find proof in nature they fabricated it. just like the whole theory, it depends on pure fabrications.

Go home to your monkey friends and tell them thanks for further proof AGAINST evolution. If they wound stop playing videogames they might understand that nature is designed by God.


Southstar said: Okay so in the ndo you just proved a loss of function sooo what? Evolution doesn't have a direction. A lot of animals have lost functions so?

Ioseb said: well see you evolutionists suggest that we have passed form simple organisms to complex organisms. Read your silly theory. From bacteria to humans. So according to the theory we have moved from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. In accordance with this there must have been a increase in biological information humans have many more functions than bacteria. So we had to have new functions that had to develop naturally (not in your stupid PS2 game), new functions would have led to new organs and new life forms.  

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything...
Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase

See I have presented a peer reviewed study by an eminent scientist that proves that loss of function is almost the law. You have shown nothing!

To the readers of this forum: I think that we can rest assured that science, the real science has and will triumph over this blinded and evil idea.

--------- transcript ends here----------

I think it is obvious that he is now mixing up meaning with information. He would chose the churchil speech and say: That what counts is that it gives you extra information it makes you do something. Now he's not interested in counting the duration of the speech he's counting the extra quality what it makes you do.

Any idea on how to break this down?

Cheers
Marty

Date: 2011/11/21 16:02:40, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 14 2011,19:07)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2011,13:50)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 14 2011,03:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 13 2011,02:26)

Hi everyone,

I came accross this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7900443

Should we then assume that life must have originated elsewhere?

marty

Go to my blog  ogremk5.wordpress.com

and click on the abiogenesis link in the right hand column under 'categories'.

I enjoy studying abiogenesis and there are literally 100s of new articles published every year.  I've got many links, reviews, etc.

One thing about abiogenesis, it is simple to falsify.  All someone has to do is show that a required chemical reaction cannot happen.  In the 40+ years abiogenesis research has been going on, no one has been able to say, 'x reaction cannot happen therefore abiogenesis is impossible'.

There's a fair bit of research indicating that comets have a high level of organic compounds and it very well might be that a comet strike dumped a couple of tons of concentrated organic chemicals which got life on Earth really cooking.  We will never know how it happened.

The fact that we can know it is possible and that it did happen and there is nothing (so far) that requires divine intervention is enough.

Ah HA! I say Ah HA!

You could also see my Short Outline of the Origin of Life because it is short.

It is also in need of updating.

Hi,

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/22 03:26:10, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2011,23:50)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 21 2011,14:02)
Hi,

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

Thanks
Marty

"The first 3 or 4 pages are about why the origin of life has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

The rest show that there is no insurmountable barrier to the natural origination of life.

Any god could do the job in much less trouble than we know actually has taken place. Unless that is, if you are a theistic evolutionist. In that case, goddidit no matter how. That is actually OK with me.

Hi,

Don't get me wrong I fully understand what you mean. But a logical argument could be made along the lines of:

Well even if you have, all the ingridients of a recipe, you don't really have a way of backing the cake. But worse you don't even know what cake you are baking or even if it is a cake at all.

The devils advocate.

Date: 2011/11/22 07:55:52, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 20 2011,11:51)
P.S. What's your interest in trying to "break this down?" If you're just trying to understand how Ioseb's arguments are flawed, or you're trying to convince others how he's wrong, fair enough. But if you're hoping to convince Ioseb that he's wrong, forget it. It's not gonna happen.

Hi,

Well my intrest is:
1) Seeing how his argument is flawed
2) Learning by his mistake what the real version is
3) Proving to others in the forum that he dosen't have a leg to stand on.
4) Gain knowlege on how to counter future arguments.
5) Have fun.

PS some good new my brother is out! now I'm going to stay there until others snap out of it too... or until they kick me out. But even then I've learned sooo much that i'm going to gatecrash another forum so that I can learn some more and have a good time too.

Marty

Date: 2011/11/22 09:34:18, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,08:37)

Lol I got to post this:

--------- Transcript begins here---------

barnabe said: Right the next thing she'll come up with is that light can come from nothing.

Marty: Ehm actualy some chap in Sweden already did that:
http://blogs.nature.com/news....011
11/light_coaxed_from_nothingness.html

--------- Transcript ends here --------------

Lol.
Marty

Date: 2011/11/24 07:19:16, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,11:30)

Hi everyone,

I'm sure you guys are really used to debating this seeing all th threads on this site. I'd like to share with you some things that i began to realise regarding the debate.

1) There seems, (at least in my forum) to be very few educated people. There are some still convinced that god is behind gravity or lightening and I totally get it that these guys accept that god did it cause they are to lazy or ignorant to do some reading..
2) There are a very few who actually know something and they tend to be the ringleaders. You can't "save" them they are lost but you need them to "save" others.
3) Being polite helps alot, people sometimes ask really dumb and stupid questions (I do too) but it's not an excuse to run them down if you take the time to explain they listen. Even the dumbest question if answered politely gets respect.
4) In my discussions I've tried to avoid any athiest remark or remarks that could be interpreted as offensive to religion. I'm there to see what they've got and to show that they are looking the wrong way in scientific terms.
5) Most people have the wrong or stereotype ideas of evolution which I have noticed are continually encouriged by the ringleaders... things like man descends from monkey, or you'll never have all the fossils.. I try to be patient and every time explain why this is not so (i've explained both points like 50 times) and people have understood that it's not the case.
6) I do not respond to direct offense, (even though behind the computer I screem!) I shrug it off, i'm not there to fight i'm there to explain. I politely indicate that it's not the cristian way to offend, they should critisize the studies I present and not me.
7) Most people as suckers for the truth but are unable to understand the meccanics of biology or of even far simpler things. Analogies I find go a long way.
8) Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

Just a few ideas.

Marty

Date: 2011/11/24 13:23:44, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 24 2011,08:22)

Hi everyone,

finally Ioseb has run out of amo and all he can say is:

Studies in which only the abstract is visable are not real studies... My studies are available for everyone to read...

LOL

Unfortunately some people don't understand that some studies belong to universtities and you need subscribtion to access them but this by no means, indicates that they are less important.

Btw I found this study that I thought you might find useful too... It's nice 'cause it's even got a reference to IDiots false claims and macroevolution.

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19....sis.pdf

Marty

Date: 2011/11/25 07:12:00, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,00:36)

Hi,

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap... He's a JW!! So you see they got their own private scientists, although that's a contradiction in terms...

Questione 1) How do you know if a paper is peer reviewed and who the reviewers are?

Questione 2) Here's the latest work of art http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVe....006.pdf

Have you ever heard of this almighty natural law?

Question 3) Do you know of any review of this paper in scientific literature.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/25 08:51:01, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 24 2011,08:17)

Hi Ogre,

I was reading the forester thrashing and noticed that you mentioned that you said:

"I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus".

Can you give me the link to the genus study?

Could really use it on my front

Marty

Date: 2011/11/25 11:01:52, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26)
Quote
Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap


It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

Date: 2011/11/25 12:00:29, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,11:29)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,11:01)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26)
   
Quote
Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap


It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

While that is true it's also true that ID has been going a long time now and it's just not going anywhere.

   
Quote
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


Darwin's idea caught on because it had explanatory power. It could explain observed facts in a way that no other idea could.

The question to ask those who claim a new enlightenment is coming is "What does your idea explain better that current ideas do not?"

If nothing, on what basis do they hold to it or claim it is better then existing ideas?

Another point to raise is that there is a difference between positive evidence for ID and simply picking holes in evolution.

Picking holes in our current understanding is fine, but what do they propose to replace it with?

For example, they have a paper that shows that gene X is impossible to evolve using current known mechanisms of evolution. That does not support ID in any way, shape or form. What ID needs to support ID is positive evidence for ID, not "negative" evidence for evolution.

Until they can actually produce such positive evidence then they've got nothing.  

So, again, this new wave of enlightenment proposes to do what? Replace the idea of evolution with an idea that better explains observed evidence?

Just ask them what it explains and how....

"It was designed" is the typical answer. Which is always good for a laugh.

It's also amusing that in no peer reviewed paper from the usual gang (Dembski, Behe etc) the "Intelligent Designer" has ever been mentioned. They allude to it, but never actually use the phrase. So again it's just a case of picking holes in our (admittedly) incomplete understanding of evolution, not actually generating support for their idea, whatever that idea actually is!

Ask them when they predict evolution will be debunked.

When they answer give them this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/Answers....se.html

I get the feeling that they are looking for something you can't answer which sooner or later comes up then they say:

(Here's a mock argument)

Southstar: Well we can't really explain x yet, but science is working on it besides just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean the designer™ did it.

TARD1: Well see, you have faith in the science... even though you don't have an answer you have faith, so science is a faith.

TARD 2: Ah and not to mention that it's a sect, see they all have faith in each others work, nobody even bothers to check if something is wrong they just assume it's right cause another scientist said so. Just look at a research paper full of assumptions of other scientists your just building a house of cards on nothing. on faith. Since when does a biologist check to see if an astronmers conclusions are right they just believe they are right.

So if you have faith in science, it's misplaced, cause we hold all the faith cookies.

Date: 2011/11/25 12:26:13, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,12:10)
The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith.

If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting.

no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say.

'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based.  Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got.

Don't want to go there...

Date: 2011/11/25 13:16:41, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,12:35)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,05:12)
[quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 25 2011,00:36]


What I susspect these people are doing is just throwing random Google search results at you to waste your time. Start insisting they explain why this, or that paper is relevant.

No it's not random, this lonning chap, is a JW. And he got kicked out of the Max Plank institute because according to him he had a enlighing thought that was against the evil science of our age...

Nuff said.

Date: 2011/11/25 15:19:38, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,13:59)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,13:48)
...
They've had since the beginning of recorded history and how did they do? Since the enlightenment progress in understanding our universe has been somewhat more rapid.

Brilliant!  :D

The "dust bunny" argument that just wiped them out!!

Lol

They're running all over the place trying to justify that the dust bunny is less complex than a cell and is therefor more likely to appear under my bed.

Date: 2011/11/26 02:55:10, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08)
Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up).
So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'.
So.
Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder.

I don't think it's a good idea to go down this road. One cause most scriptures both cristian and of other religions are generally very complex texts and one can litiraly find proof of anything in them as long as you interpret them the way that suits you in that moment.

So if you ask: well what did the Bible/Quran predict? one can arguably find and construct a pritty convincing case for almost anything using the fine and distinguished art of free interpretation and cut past collage quotes. Hell they even used the bible to back more than one war in the past, an let's not even get into the contorted use of the Quran.

Date: 2011/11/27 10:18:44, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2011,08:44)

Some help needed to fight behe's silly work.

Okay I have made the following case against this paper presented by the Tards. but before I write it down I want to check with you guys if I'm on track. I don't want to mess this part up.

here is the link to the paper:
http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf
Ioseb is using the paper in the following way:

He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations. So evolution can't occur. So it's all wrong.

Here are my accusations:

1) The paper is limited in that it only analises bacteria and viruses. No eukyrots are analised. So how the hell can you say that it applies to life in general.

2) The paper is limited to artificial experiments in which the process of natural selection has been removed. The only natural case examined was malaria.

3) Concerning the case Gain of FCT function i found a comment on a critic site: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010....w-paper

stating that: "The construction by mutation of a new promoter, intron/exon splice site, or protein processing site are gain-of-FCT mutations. Also included in this category is the divergence by mutation of the activity of a previously duplicated coded element.” In other words, mutations in this category produce new genes, parts of genes, or confer drastic new capabilities on genes by adding new splicing sites.

Also note that because almost no bacteria or viruses have introns in their cellular genes, it’s impossible to even see one class of this mutation in lab experiments on these groups.

a) What does this last paragraph mean?
b) How does this relate to FCT gains?
c) Is there evidence to support this?

4) Behe states regarding Lenskies experiments:
If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy
gain-of-FCT mutation.

Do we have examples of gain-of-FCT mutations in experiments similar to Lenskies?

5) Is there a specific reason that has arisen in other papers as to why most of the experiments lead to loss of FCT? I would answer that it is only due to the experimenters removing natural selection from the equation. Would I be right?

6) The work is based on three organisms, prokaryotes, viruses and hemoglobin?
Eukyrotes are not included in the study. Or does table 1 automatically include eukyrotes?

7) Plasmodium falciparum (malaria) is a eukyrote but the genetic mutation that is being studied is of Hemoglobin not of the malaria. Is this correct?

8) Isoeb makes the following case: The adaptation to Malaria is the sickle cell. Which is obviously due to FCT loss and leads to premature death.  Only on extremely rare occasions do we get gain of FCT by Chloroquine Complexity Cluster or C Harlem. How rare is this gain let me tell you with C Harlem where the are two conections sites in the plasmid: it required 10^40 organisms to get this mutation. Seeing as there is only one known case.

Want to know how many organisims are estimated to have been around since start of life on the planet? 10^40.
Do you know how may conection sites ther are in a cell 10.000.

Okay point one: I would say that he's making the stupid probability error again so I just fight this with the "evil killer dust bunny".
Point two: What has this got to do with anything???

8) Ioseb calls my attenton to this site: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7574/
Saying that you see another study say exactly the same thing.

I looked at it and could find nothing of the sort...

9) My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what?

Thanks for your imput on this

Marty

Date: 2011/11/27 11:04:32, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 27 2011,10:28)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18)

He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations.


Hardly any is still a number greater then zero. And that's all that is required.

 
Quote
My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what?


This is where I usually bring out the evil designer options.

The parasitical brain sucking wasp, for example.

It exists because

A) It was designed to be like that.
B) It evolved.

If A) then the designer is a shit.

If B) Then, well, we all agree.

They might choose option C) which is that it was once "good" and due to the fall it devolved into what it currently is. And that's good because it means they have already left the realm of science far behind.

So even if it "devolved" from it's original perfect state that does not actually help them because that means that evolution can significantly change organisms, and that's what they are disputing.

Ask then who designed this behavior, evolution or their "designer"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......id_wasp

Either way they lose.

As far as I can infer they assume that organisms are somehow evil if they do evil things tu humans, in this case either they are possesed or are created by the "evil one®".

In the case of your wasp they would say well it's just nature god created them to take care of the pests so actually they are a blessing.

So no evil designer™ in my forum

Marty

Date: 2011/11/27 11:51:42, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,11:17)
Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it.  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip.

The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency).

According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.  

You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed.  In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary.

To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'.  There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done.  That's the claim.

The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful).  So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works.

The critique to Darwinian evolution on a chip, was that it was totally artificial and had no basis in nature.

The scientists skewed the variables to create positive gain of FCT mutations.

Question if his paper was falsified, is there a paper that address this. So I can say it's not only marty that's got this idea.

Marty

Date: 2011/11/27 12:15:57, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 27 2011,11:06)
"Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin,  Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767

Do you have an access link for the whole study?
I was only able to find the abstract

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/28 01:03:45, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,21:53)

Okay thank's for the imput everyone, but I ask you to be patient with me

I would really need my particular questions aswered. For the following reasons:

1) Some of the questions were placed by other readers of the forum and I'd like to answer them as they are pertinent questions.
2) Some of the questions are my personal questions that help me with the better understanding.
3) Some of the questions were placed directly at me by Ioseb

Yes of course I will finish with the conclusions that you have brought up and that should take care of the paper, but it's important to tie up the loose ends and give a more complete understanding.

Marty

Date: 2011/11/28 13:17:01, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 28 2011,10:52)
I'm indexing a professor's textbook on communication, reading The Origin and Development of Cultures, and also contemplating my own book (nowhere near the proposal stage yet) on the chicken-egg question of the creation of records and archives and a mind that thinks in terms of records and archives. (Ugh, does that make sense?)

A weird thought ran through my head as I read this professor's textbook discussing oral versus written communication: are anti-evolutionary movements primarily oral rather than written?

Certainly, books on "creation science" and ID have been written, but their secondary life strikes me as orally passed down in a manner not unlike Bible studies, in which a presumed authoritative text is interpreted, and understood, and ingested orally. I would consider Bible studies to be largely an oral tradition, just as in the past one literate member of a community reading the Bible to members who could not read is largely an oral trad. Homeschooling could also fall into the oral trad category, despite the use of study aids. (The culture of "Jesus Camp" struck me as placing the oral/experiential above the written text and above cultivated literacy.)

Then, of course we have UD, which is written but which seems to engage in largely oral tradition behavior (uncritically repeating the quote mines of ID "authorities," rehashing rumors and urban legends, personal testimonials (GilDodgen in particular) etc.). I'm beginning to wonder if this professor might classify some online behavior as "oral" rather than written. But then, Pharyngula and other blogs could fit this "oral" category, as well - or do they?

Is it fair for me to label anti-evolution movements as largely oral, in contrast to the obvious written legacy of scientific literature? If fair, what could be the consequences of such a dichotomy?

In most cultures going back a few centuries you would have an extremely high portion of the population as illiterate. So yes most scripture and creation ideas would only be possible to pass orali. A few detained the knowlege to read and interpret, and preached the word.

It might be useful to take a look at how oral traditions have influenced various African cultures, which do not have handwriting. In South Africa certain myths are still passed down through the generations without any writen text at all.

Marty

Date: 2011/11/30 13:38:03, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 28 2011,19:58)

Hi

Thank's for this it was really useful!

Just a consideration, is it possible that oraganisms left to themselves, without the pressures of natural competative selection would automatically tend toward loss of function.

After all they would just be responding to the new situation which requires less complex machinery.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/11/30 14:56:57, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 30 2011,14:42)

Look's like a nile crock... should i be worried? Did I say something wrong?


;)

Marty

Date: 2011/12/02 01:01:38, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Verbena @ Dec. 01 2011,15:32)
[quote=Robin,Dec. 01 2011,14:51] [quote=Verbena,Dec. 01 2011,14:15]

Hi Everyone,

Having lived in africa for most of my life I can tell you that there is no advantage between man and woman in surviving in the savannah.
A pack of lions would easily kill even the strongest man.
I would see no advantage at all in being a man in a crocodile attack.
Snakes would bite both without hesitating and both would have equal chance of dieing.
A Hippo running at 60Km/h would flatten man/woman alike.
Incidentely the highest number of deaths today is linked to Hippos. And yes mostely are women but only because it is the womans job to go get the water from the river or wash clothes.

The only advantage I can think of is when technology comes into play. Things like heavy armour, bows, heavy swords and the like would might put a woman at a disadvantage. I say might because it would depend on the upbringing.

Lastly the example of lions is quite interesting as the females are the ones that do all the work. They hunt and take care of young. They are less heavy than male lions but have developed teamwork as a tradeoff for muscle power.

Date: 2011/12/02 01:22:57, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I think that it really depends on alot of variables. Which are being assumed.

One is the type of prey, I really can't immagine ancient man (without any even primative tecnology like stone point spears) picking dangerous prey. So let's say for hunting bunnies I would see no difference between man and woman.
And even with technology one would tend to catch easy stuff. Like older or wounded animals. Nobody would want to go attack a pride of lions for meat.

Another variable is the type of tacitcs strategy used: hunting in packs has advantages and would alow for hunting larger animals with lower risk. On the other hand hunting alone also confirs advantages depending on the type of prey. Specialisation would occur if these strategies are continued for long times.

Gathering exposes you to a whole lot of other threats as you become a target by exposing yourself. The bush is full of critters that can't wait for you to come out of your cave. That's why harvesting probably was a good idea. You could gather in a controled safe area.

Date: 2011/12/02 13:22:15, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 02 2011,00:53)

I'm begining to understand your lack of patience with Idiots..

Goodness my is wearing so thin! If I had one of those idots at firing range I would shoot them dead and do the gene pool a favour!

Marty

Date: 2011/12/02 13:40:44, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 02 2011,12:14)
Forastero,
Not sure if you noticed, but if you click on your own name to the left of each message everything you've ever written is displayed.

http://antievolution.org/feature....=Submit

As such it's easy to find posts that answer specific points, if you claim to have answered them already, and provide links (the permalink icon) to them.

Funny how both lawyers and criminals will regress to repeating a questions over and over again when things are not going their way.

but anyway its to bad  we dont have a good keyword search tool

Now see if somebody askes you something it is good that you answer. If you don't answer it means you are either:

1) Ignorant
2) Stupid
3) or you missed the question (that's why it's repeated).

Please select which one of the above represents your case so that the people of this forum may treat you accordingly.

Marty

Ps you may choose more than one option.

Date: 2011/12/03 12:17:53, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 02 2011,13:22)

New chew toy people, since Ioseb has found this forum, I've asked him if he would like to come here a debate with you directly. He has some "fascinating" ideas about Behe and co.

I challenged him to come here and debate with you guys. Hopefully he'll say yes. I really hope he does...

let see..

Marty

Date: 2011/12/06 12:54:11, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2011,17:18)

Hi,

I've been looking for some example of gain-of-function mutation that has derived from speciation.

Do you have any good examples

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/07 09:57:52, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 06 2011,13:03)
Perhaps this recent example?

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

 
Quote
“Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Hi,

The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/08 08:12:05, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 07 2011,21:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 07 2011,09:57)
The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?


Mutations are genetically based, by definition. And the DNA analysis did not confirm the the lizards were genetically identical. It only confirmed that the PM lizards were genetically indistinguishable from the PK lizards by the method employed. The test was only designed to show that the lizards collected on PM were, in fact, descendents of the original 5 pairs of PK lizards that were introduced to PM. That test was not designed to identify possible mutations in the PM lizards that might account for the observed physical differences.

   
Quote
another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

No, I don't think you can't say the the development of cecal valves could only occur with an increase in the amount of genetic material. Remember that these lizards are descended from a total of 10 original lizards. So, any particular gene locus could have been present in multiple different versions (alleles) in the founding population. As the population expanded, those alleles would have reassorted into many combinations that weren't present in any single founding lizard. In addition, most traits are influenced by combinations of lots of genes and loci. So the appearance of cecal valves might not involve any new mutations. It might just involve new combinations of alleles that already existed individually in the founding population.

The fact that these traits appeared in only ~ 30 generations suggests to me that reassortment and selection of existing alleles is probably a significant factor here, though it's possible there were novel mutations as well.

Note that this is not really the same as saying that the genes were somehow latent, though your anti-evolutionist acquaintences may try to claim as much.

The problem here as I understand it:

There is a basic claim that the creationists make (well actually they are to scared to make a real claim)  that evolution cannot "produce new information".

The example of the P.siculae lizard is brushed off as being a mix of adaptation And epigenetics:
According to the original paper, approximately 1 percent of reptiles include cecal valves  meaning that there are around 80 species of reptile with cecal valves , including some Lacertid lizards besides Podarcis sicula. This suggests then that the genes that code for cecal valves may in fact be in all lacertid lizards, except the genes are not expressed, or turned "off". In the Pod Mr?aru population, adaptive pressures from the environment (i.e., lack of insects) triggered the expression of these genes.

No genetic testing hase been done on the lizards as far a sI can tell so we have no real way of saying that there has been a gain of function or a increase of genetic material in the new lizards.

Incidentely the claim of epigenetics is also called into question to explain what Lenski found in  the CitT.

The argument is that it is impossible that millions of nucleotide sequences were generated in 30 years.

So the line is the following:
There are so very few examples of novel genetic material and most of them are deleterious to the organism anyway. (the examples so far are just twisted examples of very simple epigenetics). No new information is ever added. As Behe's study on "evolutionary law" showed most are loss of function or at best M.

The main tactic is as follows:
They do not argue that these mutations don't exist and they do not argue that microchanges are natural but just that  99% of these are loss of function and the 1% is mostly deleterious, the remaining slice is positive, but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution. Therefore evolution is false. They do not (at this moment) indicate that there is a designer anywhere along the line but simply that the theory is a hoax.

Furthermore all examples of speciation are in line with their spiecies according to spiecies model, and none of them have any novel genetic material, or at least such a few have that it is neglegeble.

As further evidence of the impossibility of evolution there is the recent finding of ancient microbes that share 98% of the dna with modern versions. This is proof that the microbes are unable to evolve even in millions of years.

I wish I could find a knowlegble biologist willing to debate over there.

Thanks
marty

Date: 2011/12/08 11:06:19, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)
but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.

If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.

Playing devils advocate
Marty

Date: 2011/12/11 03:49:59, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 09 2011,01:47)
The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

The problem is that speciation (they don't deny speciation) is the means by which evolution occurs. It is therfore important to prove that novel genetic material is added at a somewhat constant rate at the base of speciation so as to create biodiversity.

Further it seems that loss of genetic material is more common than gain of genetic material. Which would lead in the long run to a depletion of genetic material.

To disprove their idea we would need:

1) to find at least a few clear examples of speciation that is due to creation of novel genetic material (which cannot be attributeded to genes already present which were turned on)
2) Have a specific study which shows that novel genetic material is constantly being added and selected by natural selection.
3) Have a study that shows that loss of FCT (in behe's terms) cannot swamp out gain of FCT cases.

Are these valid questions or am I missing the point.

Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/11 05:59:17, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 09 2011,01:47)
The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

Regarding the aphid study, they would point out that there is no new genetic material as the study indicates at this point:

"These results suggested an evolutionary scenario that several copies of cathepsin B genes were present in an ancestor of these social aphids, and one of them acquired a novel venom function in the soldier caste."

It is again a question of a latent gene that was not expressed until this point.

Marty

Date: 2011/12/11 06:35:36, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2011,05:42)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,03:49)
Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Even if it's wrong if they've nothing to replace it with then it makes sense to stick with a "wrong" idea until a better idea comes along. Do they have that better idea?

I'm sure that there is plenty that is wrong about our best understanding of evolution but I think once you get to that point it's gone beyond the point where you, I or those people you are talking to could sensibly participate in the conversation.

Some here for sure. But once you get down to the details it's hard work, just pick up any textbook.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley.....C20.pdf

And that's for students, not people on the cutting edge (where it could be "wrong") of research.

If, as they say, the theory of evolution is wrong then ask them (as presumably they've read it) what page the first factual error in "The Greatest Show on Earth" is? As that does a great job of detailing the evidence for the theory of evolution they can use that as a indicator of what's wrong specifically.

Nobody at UD ever pointed out the first factual error.

So to me science is about sticking with a wrong idea until a less wrong idea comes along. To the people you are talking to replacing a wrong idea with a better idea is not part of their mindset - their book of knowledge has been set in stone for the best part of 2000 years and they don't want it to change. They are not interested in finding out the truth, they already *know* the truth, praise the lord.

Hmm no you can't answer like that at all, cause they will pull you to pieces by simply stating: there you see even they don't agree with their idea, they know it's wrong, they have faith in a wrong idea. So actually what does science have to offer, a just so idea, which they agree is wrong.

It takes just as much faith to sustain such ideas as it does to sustain ID or creationism. Which they will say is sustained by a scientifically wrong idea until such time as a new and better idea comes along.

This kind of argument just get turned around against you.

Regarding the "the greatest show on earth" I haven't read it yet, but I ask can the claims posted in my previous post be used against this book?

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/12 05:32:02, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 11 2011,20:18)

Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun,  show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics.

Or in any case give us an example of evolution that cannot have "other" alternative explanations. These are simple people asking this question

To this last question I would answer cetacian evolution. We have a very good fossil record that shows step by step evolution.

Your thoughts on all of this?
Marty

Date: 2011/12/12 05:58:19, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2011,16:57)

Quote
What, universal front loading? In short, no. How can it be? If it were then there are consequences for that. How is the latent gene activated? Does the designer do it manually? And so on.


The latent gene is activated by different ambient conditions, in the case of the lizard, different diet. The designer is not called into question.

Remember their aim is to show that evolution cannot work. by reducing the possibility of having novel genes and by showing that loss of information can outpace even the few rare examples of gain.

The designer for the moment is not called into question by them. He will be for sure, but for now they are out to disprove that evolution could work.

Their strategy is very simple:

1) Show people that evolution is faith based
2) Show people that evolution can't work using scientific peer review papers al la mr. behe's work.
3) Ask people why they put their trust on such a falascious system
4) Provide a framework for an alternative which requires just as much faith and is simpler to understand and is backed by "scientific work".
5) initiate brainwashing procedures.

marty

Date: 2011/12/12 11:05:50, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 12 2011,09:39)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:32)
Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun,  show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics

As has already been noted above, speciation doesn't have to involve the appearance of brand new genes. And again - mutations can never be classified as epigenetics. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. Epigenetics is changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in DNA sequence.



If so, you're never going to be able to cite a lab study showing the complete evolution, from scratch, of some complex new structure like an eye. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to observe that directly.

In fact, you might remind them that that's their hypothesis - that some "intelligent designer" can supposedly create new functions and whole new creatures in an instant. Where's their evidence for that?

It's true we can't watch a mouse-like animal evolve into a bat-like animal in a lab. But we can observe mutations that alter gene functions. We observe the appearance of novel genes and novel biochemical functions. We observe transitions throughout the fossil record that are consistent with gradual evolution, not with instantaneous design. We observe genetic relationships between organisms, and between functions, that are very consistent with the fossil record. We can even observe related genes in different species, infer a likely evolutionary path from an ancestral organism, predict the likely gene sequence and function that ancestral organism should have had, make that predicted ancestral gene, and show it has the predicted function!

So, while it's true that we can't observe everything about evolution, it's very much false that belief in evolution is just as much faith as is belief in ID.

Quote
Why the insistence on new species with "novel DNA?"

Because for them it would show that new more complex species could arise. It would be an example of how life became complex.

In the lizard example since the genome was not sequenced we don't know what the cause of the alterations are, so epigenics could be the cause as well as modified DNA or new DNA. But we can't use this example untill we know. Although I read a further study that did say that these morphological changes were already present at the embrionic stage suggesting that there is a genetic link, but we can't know for sure.

Quote

I suspect what your opponents are really objecting to is not speciation, which merely requires reproductive isolation. I think they're disputing that evolution can produce new genes and new functions.


Yes that's why I thought to ask them how we can get to humans with 400 - 700 alleles in under 4000 years from Noah's 16. Without having a HUGE amount of increase in genetic information.

I don't want a lab study that would show complete evolution, it would be sufficient to show that a morphological mutation that occured due to novel genetic material was selected by natural selection and was passed down to a new species. That's all they are asking. So for example have a skink develop from a snake in nature. Showing that the skink has new genetic material (that was not already present in the snake) for protolegs and is otherwise very genetically similar or identical to a snake.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/13 05:28:50, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 12 2011,16:20)
Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

Remeber these people hold behe's work and the bible next to each other.

So in the example of the lizard, they say yes it may have mutated but no new novel functions or genetic material is involved. It's just epigenics.

What they say is show us that the DNA of the original lizard and the "new" lizard has been totaly sequenced and show us where there is added information. Until you do so you are assuming that there is without a drop of proof.

This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.

marty

Date: 2011/12/13 07:43:06, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,07:21)
Why does there have to be "novel genetic material" and what does that actually mean? If a series of mutations altered existing genes and led to some new function, would that count as new added genetic material?

See in there minds, nothing new can be created by nature. Remember Behe's study? Almost all mutations are negative or involve a loss of function. This for them is a law.

They state that if you don't have new genetic material how do you create new organs, how do you get from bacteria to humans without new genetic material.

That's why for them the ultimate proof of evolution is something that disproves this. Although I have no doubt that they will move the goal post once you offer them this proof.

I have to add that because most of them are not very learnered (niether am I actually at least in biology I have a degree in international economics) what they want to see is a new species (preferebly an animal)  that arises due to new genetic material.

The example of the lizard would have been great but the evolution could have been due to other factors not necessarily new genetic material.

Another thing that would greatly weeken their argument is a peer reviewed paper that is critical of Behe's work.

Marty

Date: 2011/12/13 08:04:45, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,07:43)

By the way this is one example of how the creationist would try to convince us that superevolution after the flood is real. As an answer to how 8 people gave rise to 700 allele. I have put in bold the phrase that I think is rubbish. Would you agree?

Marty
_
Millions of Species in a Few Hundred Years?

Some people who object to a recent-creation interpretation of Genesis point to the fact that such a view requires that all modern animal species on earth must have descended from these same species saved on the Ark. If the Ark had roughly 30,000 animals (less than 15,000 species or different kinds), how could the animals on the Ark produce millions of species within a few hundred, or a few thousand, years after the Flood? Surely this would require a faster evolutionary rate than even the most ardent evolutionist would propose.

However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science.

Evolution, defined as large-scale changes that produce one kind of organism from another kind, is not capable of producing the millions of species observed today from the 15,000 different kinds of animals on the Ark. However, the genetic potential of each kind of animal and the freedom from genetic equilibrium, combined with mutations, would allow the appearance of many different species from the few animals on the Ark.

Genetic Potential for Variation

The genetic potential to produce a wide range of variation in any animal kind or species, regardless of how these terms are defined, easily provides 30,000 different species from fewer than 15,000 different kinds. Genetic potential is the amount of variation that a kind or type of organism can produce from the genetic material that is already present. It is possible for a pair of animals to harbor nearly all of the alleles (variations of a type of gene) for their kind in their genome.

Other alleles result from mutations to existing genes (human red hair color would be a good example of this). For example, two humans (Adam and Eve?) could have all the common DNA variations (called polymorphisms) found in all ethnic groups. This would require only one DNA base difference every 667 bases between the two of them. This is hardly a difficult situation for the genomes of two people and can account for much of the genetic variation observed in people today. Rare polymorphisms are few in number compared to common polymorphisms and are likely the result of the accumulation of mutations. These rare polymorphisms are frequently referred to as personal polymorphisms, since they can be used to identify an individual.

The effects of common and rare polymorphisms can be easily illustrated by all domesticated animals and their various breeds. Dogs, cattle, hamsters, and tropical fish all have many different breeds that easily demonstrate what genetic potential is. Of course, these are all artificially selected animals and selecting for these breeds has led to a much faster rate of variation (what some call evolution) than would be expected in the wild. (Most dog breeds have been developed in the last 200 years.)

Date: 2011/12/13 08:12:14, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,08:04)

Sorry I forgot to add the second part of their magical explanation...

Marty
---------------------------------------


Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

The other important factor to be considered in this scenario is something called genetic (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium for the gene frequencies of a particular population of organisms. The change in gene frequency is used in evolutionary theory as evidence for microevolution, but this theorem can also be applied to a creation scenario since it does not involve the formation of novel genes from no genes. Hardy-Weinberg theory states that gene (or more accurately, allele) frequencies will remain constant as long as these requirements are met: random mating, no migration in or out of the population, no mutation, no genetic drift (chance changes in gene frequencies), and no selection for traits.

When the animals left the Ark none of these conditions would be met, enabling microevolution (change in allele frequency) and speciation events. These events include the selection of mates (for humans specifically), environmental selection of some traits, accumulation of mutations, chance genetic drift, and migration of animals taking with them different combinations of genetic material. Because of the small populations of animals immediately after the Flood, gene (allele) frequencies would rapidly be altered as animals migrated around the globe, adapted to various environments based on their genetic constitution, and became reproductively isolated.

This would result in many variations of the original animals on the Ark, just like artificial selection produces many variations in domestic animals. This is not just a creation paradigm. Many population genetic studies, for any animal, include migration and reproductive isolation leading to speciation. The migration of humans around the globe is well-documented and based on the changing gene frequencies (such as ABO blood alleles and mitochondrial DNA) in each population. It is also well documented from DNA and protein sequences that all animals had migratory events that contributed to the ecological, behavioral, and geographic speciation events observable today.
Sorry i forgot to add the second part of their explanation:

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

The other important factor to be considered in this scenario is something called genetic (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium for the gene frequencies of a particular population of organisms. The change in gene frequency is used in evolutionary theory as evidence for microevolution, but this theorem can also be applied to a creation scenario since it does not involve the formation of novel genes from no genes. Hardy-Weinberg theory states that gene (or more accurately, allele) frequencies will remain constant as long as these requirements are met: random mating, no migration in or out of the population, no mutation, no genetic drift (chance changes in gene frequencies), and no selection for traits.

When the animals left the Ark none of these conditions would be met, enabling microevolution (change in allele frequency) and speciation events. These events include the selection of mates (for humans specifically), environmental selection of some traits, accumulation of mutations, chance genetic drift, and migration of animals taking with them different combinations of genetic material. Because of the small populations of animals immediately after the Flood, gene (allele) frequencies would rapidly be altered as animals migrated around the globe, adapted to various environments based on their genetic constitution, and became reproductively isolated.

This would result in many variations of the original animals on the Ark, just like artificial selection produces many variations in domestic animals. This is not just a creation paradigm. Many population genetic studies, for any animal, include migration and reproductive isolation leading to speciation. The migration of humans around the globe is well-documented and based on the changing gene frequencies (such as ABO blood alleles and mitochondrial DNA) in each population. It is also well documented from DNA and protein sequences that all animals had migratory events that contributed to the ecological, behavioral, and geographic speciation events observable today.

All of the examples given above do not require creation of new genes or genetic information via natural processes from genetic information not previously in existence (evolution). The genetic information we observe today was supplied at the time of creation in these animals in their genomes, and their genetic potential has created the variations frequently classified as species. It is true that mutations create many new variations, but this is not an example of Darwinian evolution. Mutations work on pre-existing genetic material, are accompanied with a loss of information, and lead to extinction, not the conversion of one animal kind into another animal kind, regardless of how many years mutations are given.

Date: 2011/12/13 09:44:48, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 13 2011,09:30)
It's coming from here FYI: http://www.icr.org/article....als-ark

ICR, lol....

Do they have anything more substantial? Anything peer reviewed?

I wondered why they sent it to me in a Pm an why the english was so good...

See it's even from a Phd in molecular biology...

LOL
Marty

Date: 2011/12/13 10:09:53, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,09:44)

For my understanding:

1) Only 2 allele are found per gene correct?

2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.

3)  Of these 700 each gene will only have a specific 2 correct?

Thanks for you patience.

Marty

Date: 2011/12/13 11:27:52, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (JAM @ Dec. 13 2011,11:14)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,09:09)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,09:44)

For my understanding:

1) Only 2 allele are found per gene correct?

2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.

3)  Of these 700 each gene will only have a specific 2 correct?

Thanks for you patience.

Marty

No, yes, no.

You have no fundamental understanding, which is funny since you are claiming to have a greater understanding than do those who actually do research.

If you can't distinguish between "you" and "your," there's not a lot of hope for you when it comes to high-school level genetics.

Hello? I'm on your side, I'm trying to convince some IDots for the case of evolution. Unfortunately my understanding of genetics isn't as good as I wish it was, that's why i posted questions here.

I made a specific point as you can read in my past posts against their silly argument that if the Ark story was true they would have to explain how we could get from 16 alleles to the 700 found now.

However since my understanding is limited and I'm debating in Italian I like to learn more as the different questions arise. Thanks to the people here I've learned alot already.

Perhaps I see where the mistake is, I've corrected the questions
1) Only 2 allele are found per human correct?
2) The 700 HLA-A alleles represents the total pool available.
3)  Of these 700 each human will only have a specific 2 correct?
4) These 700 would have to have developed since the flood if their TARDsm was true.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/13 11:38:58, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 13 2011,11:21)
Right.  One allele from each parent.  

An allele is a variant of a gene.  Everyone has two alleles for blood type.  I happen to have an 'A' allele and a 'B' allele... so my blood type is AB.  I got the 'A' from my mom (who is blood type A) and the 'B' from my dad (who is blood type B).

My kid picked up a 'B' allele from me (since I could only give him one of the two) and an 'O' allele from my wife, so he's blood type 'B'.

Having two different alleles means you are heterozygous for that gene.  Having two alleles that are the same means you are homozygous for that gene.

There are 673 HLA-A alleles... all variants for the HLA-A gene.  Every person has two alleles.  That's all that they can have... one from mom, one from dad*.

So either, after the flood a maximum of 10 alleles** (assuming that everyone on board was heterozygous) somehow mutated into 673 in less than 4000 years (depending on the date of da Flood), which results in sometime like 1 valid mutation every 6 years... in the HLA-A gene.***

Their other choice is front-loading.  Which, simply has been proven wrong.  The human genome would have to contain another 671 HLA-A alleles, another couple hundred HLA-B alleles, another few hundred HLA-C alleles, plus all the blood type alleles, etc. etc. etc.

As I said, the human genome has been sequenced completely.  Those other alleles were not found.  Therefore, frontloading didn't happen.  Think about it, in 4000 years, with a mutation rate than YEcs can accept, there is no way that several thousand alleles would be changed so much as to be impossible to see in the genome... in everyone's genome.  

Another way to think about that last bit is that you must have a population of 340 people to have every possible HLA-A allele expressed.  Given birth rates, if everything went perfectly for Noah and his offspring, then it would still take over 60 years just to have every allele in an expressed position.  And honestly, what is more likely, that every child born will just happen to have two completely unique alleles? or will there likely be some doubling going on?

So a minimum time for this is 60 years, if every parent has two children and all parents and offspring survive to reproduce and all parents have children well into their elderly years (like 70+).  If you assume anything reasonable, the minimum time approaches several hundred years for all HLA-A alleles to be expressed.

Then you have to get rid of all those extra alleles so that they don't show up when the human genome project finishes some 4000 years later.  It can't be a lucky mutation in just a few people... it must be a concerted effort to hide the evidence of those hundreds of alleles that now, must not exist in the population... and the YECs have less than 4000 years... probably less than 3000 years to do it.  Again, with what we know of mutations and mutation rates, there is no way that these populations would survive the massive mutation rates.  (remember it has to happen to multiple genes, not just HLA-A)

Finally, we get into the whole haplotype, which is used to trace human migration patterns over the course of human existence.  Not only did kids have to be born with unique alleles, but they also had to get those in such a way as to allow certain haplotypes to move into certain regions at the same time.

For example, The Super-B8 haplotype is enriched in the Western Irish, declines along gradients away from that region, and is found only in areas of the world where Western Europeans have migrated. The "A3-B7-DR2-DQ1" is more widely spread, from Eastern Asia to Iberia. (from wikipedia)

This is akin to having a giant jar with thousands of marbles of all different types all mixed up.  You dump the jar out and all the marbles not only roll into groups, but the groups are consistent within each other (all the turtles in one pile, all the aggies in another pile, all the pearls in a different pile.  Again possible, but massively unlikely.

So, in conclusion, to accept the YEC belief, you must accept at least 3 widely improbably claims (not to mention the ark, the animals, feeding, where'd the water come from, where'd it go, depth, heat generated by rainfall, etc, etc, etc).  And all of those claims are directly opposite of what is known to actually occur.

One must ask the question, when did the rules change and why?

Their only option is many, many miracles.  But that's not science.


*With the exception of a couple of trisomy issues, but those are universally bad.

** 2 from Noah, 2 from his wife, and 6 from the three wives.  Noah's boys don't count, because they could only have what Noah and his wife have.  If you make an allowance for mutation in every single allele for the boys (which is highly unlikely), then you could make the claim for 16 alleles.

*** Considering that there is more than one gene with a massive number of alleles, you end up looking at something like 2-3 valid mutations per year in the entire population.  Which is fine if your population is 7 billion.  If your population is 20, that's a big deal.  And that fact destroys any chance of the YECs saying 'mutation is bad', 'mutation degrades the genome', ect. etc.  They MUST have massive positive mutation rates... which BTW are way higher than any biologist would consider feasible.

Thank's for having given a great explanation that I can really use!

Cheers
Marty

Date: 2011/12/13 14:28:38, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,13:15)
Marty,

I still want to know what they consider "new genetic information." Which of these would qualify, in their opinion?

A) a mutation in an existing gene that has no effect on gene function
B) a mutation in an existing gene that modifies the existing function (eg maybe changes gene expression levels, or changes catalytic rates of an enzyme encoded by the gene)
C) a mutation in an existing gene that creates a new function (eg the encoded enzyme can now act on a different substrate, or the encoded protein can now bind to a different DNA sequence)
D) an existing gene that gets duplicated, with no change in the DNA sequence
E) a gene that gets duplicated with some sequence change that either modifies gene function (E1) or creates a new function (E2)
F) duplication of a large stretch of the genome, without or with modified or new functions
G) duplication of the entire genome (polyploidy)
H) introduction of DNA from an outside source, such as integration of viral DNA into the host's chromosome
I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.

That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.

Their argument is that it would take "10^40 critters to make the gains seen by Behe feasible for the creation of the biodiversity". Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity. Sure it's enough for small changes and microscale evolution but not to justify biodiversity in nature. Actually he challenged us to provide a peer reviewed paper that would prove him wrong, regarding gain of functions and/or that proved Behe's findings to be off.

I mentioned that Lenski had in fact seen a gain of function in 2008 with CITL but this was shrugged off as a typical example of epigenics, "and even if it that wasn't the case it was still so rare that it's a negligible event"  

I've asked him to show me the equation that got him that number (10^40) but got no answer.

To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Marty

Date: 2011/12/14 03:20:17, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 13 2011,22:24)

Quote
Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.


I believe they would say sequence the DNA of the original lizard population then sequence the DNA of the "evolved" lizard if there is extra stuff for creating cecal valves then that's new material.

Quote
If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.


Well they turn the argument the other way round, saying since you can't prove that there is new material how can you say it's an example of evolution, it's just the same lizard that has adapted to the new diet all the morphological features are due to epigenics. Nothing new has been added.

Quote
Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"


They I assume they would reply: well you're the one who brought up the lizard in the first place as an example of evolution, but you have not shown that on a genetic level there is something new. All that you have shown are morphological differences based on genetic plasticity. We don't deny this we're just saying that it's not an example of evolution, it's adaptation of alread existing genetic material. Nothing new here, move along.

Also they have as yet not shown that they accept ID, that would leave them open to any sort of attack. They're just out to show the theory is wrong as according to them it can't be used to explain biodiversity as has been prooven in Behe's peer reviewed paper.

Date: 2011/12/14 03:56:27, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


 
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

Date: 2011/12/14 04:13:53, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 13 2011,22:14)

For forestiero:

Would you be so kind as to answer the following two simple questions:

1) Do you think/believe/know that god is omnipotent?
2) Do you think/believe/know that god created man?

Please select the correct verb above in accordance with your line of reasoning and answer the question (yes/no answers will do just fine, and would be appreciated).

Cheers
Marty

Ps:Let's let the man answer these pertinent questions ;)

Date: 2011/12/14 04:50:41, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,11:56)
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


   
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

   
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

 
Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

oh yeah a study that proves Behe wrong....


What was it 42 days at Dover?


Behe the twit in the headlights. The git with the gaffs.

Exponding on palm readers and an imagined conversation with Le Grand Fromage Hisself.

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.

Behe swore on a stack of 50 biology books he wasn't decended from no monkeys or apes or summit.

In any case after he was thoroughly sacked, he declared victory!

The circus had moved on by then, although the creationist clowns were still stuck under a collapsed big tent.

One day when they have stopped squirting each other with fake plastic flowers they will wake up.

Behe is no more relevant than a hoola hoop.

Yes don't get me wrong I'm on your side.

But consider these lines:
1) Behe's work in PLOS does not support ID it simply points to creating difficluties for evolution to work. Its a starting point in showing "see no gain of function, it's all loss". The people I'm debating with are using this paper to show that the biggest research ever carried out in the history of the planet shows that loss outweighs gain to such an extent that there is no way that evolution can work.
2) As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed paper out there that goes against this particular study. They use this fact as proof that the scientific community agrees with Behe's argument. So for them the case is closed.

That's why I thought of asking them to explain how we got from 16 alleles in Noahs ark to 700+ if Behe's work is right.

These guys are not pushing ID they're pushing "evolution doesn't/can't work"

Cheers

Date: 2011/12/14 05:06:38, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
New genetic info: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....02.html

   
Quote
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


Case closed. Citations provided at the linked page.

And as evolution in a simulated digital environment can be directly observed, bit by bit, it might be interesting also:

http://www.pnas.org/content....63.full



Quote
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

Quote
EDIT EDIT: http://pandasthumb.org/archive....nt.html


This is great, and the Picard picture lol!

Thanks
marty

Date: 2011/12/14 05:28:05, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2011,05:09)

Quote
Could you clarify what, precisely, people are taking as if the scientific community agrees? That certainly doesn't sound like it could describe the Behe and Snoke article that was the topic of part of the cross-examination of Michael Behe in 2005.


http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf

This is the paper they hold next to their Bible. The claim is: this is what science believes since no scientist has ever published a paper that disprooves and or critisises Behe's "epic" work.


Marty

Date: 2011/12/15 09:33:28, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 14 2011,07:00)

Quote
In essence the consensus seems to be that as a paper there's nothing particularly wrong with it, but the conclusions touted by ID supporters are not actually mentioned within or supported by the paper itself.


But isn't it skewed? I mean okay he does point out the limits of the paper calling them possible objections, but still it's all the stuff that he doesn't consider that's worring,like that the historical evidence from eukaryotes genome shows that most of the kinds of mutations that would have been important could not have occurred in the experiments.

And aren't the definitions of what is L,M,G skewed too? I mean there is no basis in the literature for these definitions so they're really arbitrary aren't they?

Lastely the law which turns to "rule of the thumb" doesn't that go overboard?

One could easily do a counter review redifine L,M,G add the stuff that Behe willingly left out and have at least a more complete paper.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/17 02:09:58, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 16 2011,15:30)

I was wondering if anyone new why has the talk origins archive not any longer updated .

Also would it be possible to translate it into other languages? Any idea on who I should talk to?

Also I was wondering about the Bio-complexity org. I mean anyone can see that it's a fake pseudoscience journal, where the peer -reviewers are the same people as the editors. Doug Axe has writtne 3 out of the 5 articles and he's the managing director LOL. But If I mention it, people could answer well, it's just because you don't know enough, no real scientist has anything to say about this respectable institute.

Now I'm sure this is not true... do you have any links to science journals/scientists that indicate what this organisation really is...?

Marty

Date: 2011/12/18 01:57:03, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 17 2011,07:54)
Bio-Complexity != Biologos

Bio-Complexity is disreputable and should be known to be so.

Okay and is there an association of scientific writers/scientists who have made a statement in that sense? Or at the very least single scientists that have taken apart the "research" done there?

This comes out as the ID crowed use this particular organisation calling it the only "true" science based organisation which no other scientist has refuted.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/18 06:30:58, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 18 2011,04:21)
There's a variety of online essays going into why Douglas Axe's numbers are cooked, if that's what you want. But the pretense that balderdash is only rebutted if the rebuttals appear in the technical literature is a non-starter.

Quote
I'm not sure why one would expect an illegitimate operation to get respectful treatment in the technical literature.


I don't but I would expect someone to at least denounce the fact that it's a illegitimate operation. As long as it's me or you that say so it's just our word against theirs.  If it's an association of scientists or a respected journal that would be different.

Actually I don't expect the balderdash to be rebutted, except on terms of exercise for students and to expose where the errors lie. But I do expect it to be denounced as such by relevant organizations. A lot of times I get the argument see, no-body says there is something wrong with these "legitimate studies" so the logical conclusions are (1) they are legitimate and (2) they are so good that no one can disprove them.

Marty

Date: 2011/12/18 08:48:56, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 18 2011,08:08)
Bio-Complexity published three articles in 2010. Each of these articles has been cited twice according to Google Scholar.

Gauger was cited by a blog post and in an announcement.

Montanez article was cited by Ewert, who's second author of the Montanez article, and by Robert Sheldon, who posts occasionally at Uncommon Descent.

Axe's paper was cited by Sanford in The Journal of Creation and in an "article" at viXra.org, which "has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate." LOL.

If any of these articles were contributing anything worthwhile, they would've been cited outside of their little circlejerk. As it is, they aren't cited at all. That doesn't mean nobody can "disprove" them, it means there is no substance to be disproved.

In a formal debate you would get no points for that argument. Don't get me wrong I do agree with you in every point but:

1) You have not shown that the articles are "unscientific"
2) the measure of citation for items which are on the cutting edge of science might be expected to be low and is in any case really a subjective measure of the value of a study.
3) If I write a theory of the spaghetty flying monster that explains string theory with the use of Zibibop power. Someone with a normal mind has got to denouce the fact that I've lost it especially since I have an organisation that supports the SFM and that I call myself a respectible scientist.
4) If you're ignoring something you either don't know that it exists or if you do it just means that you:
a) Can't find the time to call it rubbish (shameful)
b) Can't find a reason to call it rubbish (verry worring)
c) Can't find a problem with the item and just don't know what to do with it, which would not mean that it is not useful but that you can't understand it. (I believe that this is not the case with the Bio-complexity articles which are in fact junk).
5) Just because google scholar / pub-med do not indicate results it does in no way demish the particular value that a study may have.

What are your thoughts on these points
Marty

Date: 2011/12/18 09:05:01, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 18 2011,08:43)
As far as I know nobody has written a rebuttal to the Timecube guy's claims. That does not mean he's right...

Wow, I went to check the timecube thing I gotta lie down now...

The difference is that:
1) Ray is not calling himself a respectable scientist
2) Ray does not belong to a center that claims peer review of articles
3) Ray has not published "in depth studies" using scientific jargon.

Marty

Date: 2011/12/18 10:41:43, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 18 2011,09:58)

Quote
We've hashed Behe's article to death. It's not horribly unscientific (though is categories of loss, modification and gain are pretty subjective), but we've explained repeatedly how his paper doesn't show what it's proponents claim. Wesley linked to discussions of Axe's paper, showing why it's a crock. Quite a few other ID papers have been extensively debunked in various places as well. At some point, it becomes a game of junk-paper whack-a-mole.


Yes all points taken and used to the fullest but my reference in the case was to the Bio-complexity org. As an organization to promote "science".

Quote
No. Nobody has any obligation to say a word about it. You're theory would be bogus either way. If enough people started believing you, and that affects others, then perhaps respectable people will start to denounce you. And that's exactly the case with ID & "scientific" creationism. Respectable scientists (like Elsberry) have taken the time to denounce this stuff as the crap that it is.


Yes Point taken, I agree totally with you. Do you have some links specific to the Bio-complexity org. I would need them on my front.

Quote
It's not being ignored. It has been called rubbish, and the reasons that it's rubbish have been given repeatedly.


That's great can you send me some links specific to the Bio-complexity org.  The only link I had was from panda's thumb that was posted here. Do you have other links?

Quote
I'm not quite sure what you're expecting here. Even if the NAS came out with a list saying "These journals and these papers are junk," so what? ID proponents would claim conspiracy, just like they have already. The real issue is whether these papers and claims hold up to scientific scrutiny, and they don't.


Yes I understand, but you would have them on the defensive, they would be the ones who once again play the conspiracy card but that's their move.

Let me put it to you this way here's kind of how the debate is going on my front:

Someone has confronted me with 2 papers by D. Axe saying well see this proves that what we say is true. A respectable scientist has articles in a peer reviewed science journal which is of the highest standards as can be viewed in it's peer review standards.

Marty answers: Peer review my ass, D.Axe is the MD of the place and is also the author/co-author of the papers. That's one heck of a peer review that you got there.

Answer: Well so what, it's the science that counts right? and these papers show what they show and no one can deny that they are not science. They have passed a peer review (by definition of the term) the organization is bent on promoting real science, all the people involved are honest scientists that hold posts in universities. Which by the way goes to show that not all of science agrees with the evolution theory. (this last point is one of their wedges, ie. create impression that science is not unanimous on evolution theory)  

Here are the specific "papers" being quoted:
"The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations"
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs.....2010.4

"The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway"
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs.....2011.1

Seeing as I consider, and as I presume you too think, that all papers of this institute should be identified as codswallop, there must be more than one site that denounces this organization.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2011/12/18 11:29:57, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 18 2011,10:52)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,10:41)
and these papers show what they show and no one can deny that they are not science.

So the question is what do those papers actually show?

What exactly are the claims that are being made on the basis of those papers?

Starting from Behe's paper I stated that Behe did in no way indicate that there was not enough time for evolution to take place all he said in the paper was that in the short term with the limitations clearly described in his paper, that loss was more common than gain. And that if they wanted to say that there had not been enough time they would have to prove it with some peer reviewed work.

That's when Doug Axe was ushered in with the following two claims in answer to my request:

1) The first study uses a model structured on bacteria that demonstrate the impossibility of sufficient mutational changes can take place in the time limit imposed by the age of the earth.  

They quote from the article:

In the end, the conclusion that complex adaptations cannot be very complex without running into feasibility problems appears to be robust. Finally, this raises the question of whether these limits to complex adaptation present a challenge to the Darwinian explanation of protein origins. The problem of explaining completely new protein structures—new folds—is so acute that it can be framed
with a very simple mathematical analysis [1]. Greater mathematical precision is needed when we consider the small-scale problem of functional diversification among proteins sharing a common fold. All such proteins are thought to have diverged through speciation and/or gene duplication events. In many cases, however, attempts to demonstrate the corresponding functional transitions in the laboratory require more than six base changes to achieve
even weak conversions (see, for example, references 28–30). Although studies of this kind tend to be interpreted as supporting the Darwinian paradigm, the present study indicates otherwise, underscoring the importance of combining careful measurements with the appropriate population models.


2) The second study analyses the changes necessary to convert two homologous enzymes which were specifically chosen to facilitate this operation.

They quote:
We agree with their rejection of chance, but we argue here
that the Darwinian explanation also appears to be inadequate.
Its deficiencies become evident when the focus moves from
similarities to dissimilarities, and in particular to functionally
important dissimilarities—to innovations. The extent to which
Darwinian evolution can explain enzymatic innovation seems,
on careful inspection, to be very limited. Large-scale innovations
that result in new protein folds appear to be well outside
its range [5]. This paper argues that at least some small-scale
innovations may also be beyond its reach.


Their final comment was: "as you can see it's case closed for evolution".

Marty

Date: 2011/12/18 12:01:20, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 18 2011,11:24)
No, I don't have any links that specifically denounce Bio-complexity org, nor do I have links that specifically deconstruct those papers by Axe. Axe's past work has already proven to be wrong (see Elsberry's link above). Behe's paper has already proven not to show what Ioseb and company claimed it showed.

At some point, it becomes a waste of time. People like Ioseb never admit any error, they just point to something new and say, "Well, can you disprove this?" After a while, it becomes tiresome dealing with people who don't discuss in good faith.

While I agree with you that it is time consuming and can become very tiresome (not to mention frustrating) and I'm certainly not out there to convince some people who have total blind faith and cannot reason beyond a very narrow view of the bible, I do believe that it needs to be done.

I have made some people over there reason, I have made people ask critical questions to which there was no answer beyond some vague statement like "it's the way that it is 'caus god made it that way" which is no answer at all, that's my little triumph.

I'm learning and that's always good, and many thanks to you guys.

But as the banner says above "Bring them on..." they are to chicken to do that themselves so I bring it to them.

Marty

Date: 2011/12/20 05:25:20, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,12:01)

Hmm would I be correct in saying that the Hla complex comprises 7196 alleles. Not 700 as we had previously stated?

http://hla.alleles.org/alleles....ex.html

Date: 2011/12/20 06:02:26, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 20 2011,05:25)

Just a follow up on the Noah alleles story.

I guess the ID crowd would also have to explain why Otzi the iceman's DNA is the same as todays human DNA.

Actually we could take that further, DNA analysis of mummies in egypt. But why stop there we should also have DNA samples of bodys dating to 500, 1000, 1500,  years ago.

There's really no way around this one.

Date: 2011/12/20 06:03:28, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 20 2011,06:02)
[quote=Southstar,Dec. 20 2011,05:25][/quote]
Just a follow up on the Noah alleles story.

I guess the ID crowd would also have to explain why Otzi the iceman's DNA is the same as todays human DNA.

Actually we could take that further, DNA analysis of mummies in egypt. But why stop there we should also have DNA samples of bodys dating to 500, 1000, 1500,  years ago.

There's really no way around this one.

Hat's off to to thorton on http://confessionsofayec.wordpress.com/2011....e-flood

for the Otzi idea.

Date: 2011/12/20 10:51:48, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 20 2011,09:40)
There are several HLA genes.  The 673 comes from HLA-A only.  There's also HLA-B and HLA-C and some other related genes.

I was trying to keep it simple, one gene with multiple alleles.

And you are totally right, except for the tactic JoeG is taking.  And this why do we assume that everything has to have a scientific explanation?  Why not just say that the designer could do it that way and leave it be?

I'll let you answer that one. ;)

hmm yes I get your point... why bother to think let's just let the designer™ do that for us.

Lol

Date: 2011/12/23 09:42:36, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 23 2011,04:58)
This may be of interest:
 
Quote
Meyer’s main argument for the inability of random
mutation coupled with natural selection (hereafter,
“RM + NS”) to add information to DNA is based on
the research of Douglas Axe, a scientist currently
working at the Discovery Institute’s Biologic Institute.
10
Meyer claims that Axe’s work demonstrates
that proteins are rare in sequence space—and argues
therefore that functional proteins cannot be converted
to different functions through RM + NS due to the
intervening nonfunctional space between islands of
function. There are several reasons why Axe’s work
cannot be used as evidence for such an assertion.


http://www.asa3.org/ASA........ema.pdf

Thanks very interesting...

I have one question regarding Lenskies experiments I have seen here:

http://www.nature.com/news....66.html

Are the mutations discussed new function mutations?

Another thing did Lenski ever get round to finding the origin of the CIT+ mutation, was it epigenics or a two step indipendant mutation.

By the way finally ioseb admitted the following:

"As far as science is concerned, I consider it valid only and esclusively if it is not in contrast with the word of Jehova".

Guess that makes him very objective on what he calls science.

Marty

Date: 2011/12/27 11:35:15, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 25 2011,11:02)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 23 2011,07:42)
By the way finally ioseb admitted the following:

"As far as science is concerned, I consider it valid only and esclusively if it is not in contrast with the word of Jehova".

ioseb might find the following observations worth think on for a while;

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches.  The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1.  (1273).

“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715)

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

Yes I could post them to him, but I'd rather let him do the damage that he is doing by himself to his followers.

Besides he is too full of himself to understand anyway.

Here is how he thought he solved the HLA complex and Noah problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....8489735

http://www.nature.com/ng....07.html

In two words: it's not mutation its recombination and or conversion lol

Merry christmas to everyone
Marty

Date: 2012/01/02 04:28:40, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 27 2011,15:37)

Concerning pure chance.

I found that most IDiots tend to use the word chance in the wrong way. As in mutations can't come by chance or life cannot arrise by chance.

So I have explained that chance is not an interruption of cause-effect as in something unexpected arrises that has no cause.

Rather chance is used to express that we don't know what mutations will arise.

To this end I wanted to add an analogy so that it is easier to comprehend. So I thought of using the roulette game. But actually this is not really a good analogy cause you could calculate the exact number that would come out by doing calculations on the weights and forces involved. Sure it would be impossible to do at the casino, but it would be certainly possible to do it elsewhere.

Do any of you have a good analogy? where the cause-effects are well understood, but the final event is not in any way predictable.

Thanks
Marty

Date: 2012/09/24 04:00:55, Link
Author: Southstar


Sounds familiar :)

Date: 2012/09/27 09:51:49, Link
Author: Southstar
If I may give my 2 cents worth.

For me this blog has been a lifesaver in more ways.

1) It gives you access to resources and you can discuss or see discussed tard arguments that otherwise would be difficult for an unlearned person.
2) It exposes fallacies in the tards. Sure one might not fall immediately but at least he is exposed to a truthful argument and people fundamentally are suckers for the truth.
3) It personally helped me in debating on other forums to help detard some people or at least initiate them on the path to detardation.
4) It has helped me to learn alot more about biology and evolution in general.
5) It's plain fun!

Also I think that it is important to note that there are many shades of tard, deep tard is perhaps not saveable, but lightly exposed tard is very saveable. And for all tards just the fact of presenting another verifiable opinion (unlike theirs) could be the spark to enlightment. Remember deep tards have to lie...

Date: 2012/09/27 12:47:00, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 27 2012,10:24)
2.  It does but I will never agree that "people fundamentally are suckers for the truth".  In fact I would argue that "people fundamentally are suckers for tard"
3.  Maybe, but even if it's true that you are pushing tards towards de-tard, is that a good thing.  If so, why?
4.  Hell Yeah
5.  SHIT yeah

do you have any examples of a verifiable de-tard event where the de-tard occurred as a dependent outcome of internetting tards?

Quote
2.  It does but I will never agree that "people fundamentally are suckers for the truth".  In fact I would argue that "people fundamentally are suckers for tard"


No I think people who fall for the tard argument are mostly  ignorant and lazy so they are happy to live their merry little lives in the belief that all has been created. Let's face it, the tards have all the answers. It's easy. Science is hard work and you don't have all the answers.
It's only when one starts seeing that little things don't add up and has the courage to dig further that one is on the road to detardation.

Quote
3.  Maybe, but even if it's true that you are pushing tards towards de-tard, is that a good thing.  If so, why?


Well none of us would care at all if all religious fanatics would just say, "just ignore reality, you'll never find a dammed clue to anything there, you got to just believe." (Which worked fine till around the 19th century) The problem is they are saying science is out to lie, their argument is: reality is telling you the truth you just got to see it our way (which is: ignore anything and everything that doesn't agree with what we think the old book says.)

So is it right to wake Neo up from the Matrix?

Quote

do you have any examples of a verifiable de-tard event where the de-tard occurred as a dependent outcome of internetting tards?


Yes my brother who was getting sucked into Jehovas witnesses sect and at least 4 other people that were on the their forum.

Date: 2012/10/01 09:39:48, Link
Author: Southstar
In my experience in debating in Italian forums, all the detard events I witnessed were by lurkers or people who posted very few times and I was aware of them only because they PM me, thanking me and asking me to go on.

I think it has to do with how strongly you were tarded, the more fundamentalist the more likely it is that when you de-tard you won't admit it to anyone (and sometimes not even themselves). I'm willing to bet that there are many tards out there that know perfectly well how things went, but are surrounded so they keep up the lie or just ignore the issue. So you won't get any feedback from these guys.

Further I bet many tards think that admitting to the de-tard event is equivalent to refuting their entire faith (which is a lot bigger than just accepting evolution). I think it's important to note that should science be wrong about evolution it would mean new science, new theories, new discoveries and generally happy scientists. Should science be right (and we know it is) it means the collapse of a faith, culture and way of life for many fundamentalists.

Date: 2012/10/18 04:20:22, Link
Author: Southstar
http://www.blogger.com/comment....1539816

Quote

Joe G said...

   The book introduces and explains the concept "built-in responses to environmental cues".

   It explains why most mutations are not random, chance events.


Quote

southstar said...

   So you changed your mind?
   And you accept that all mutations are pre-determined given a specific enviroment???

   Also I'm sure the author wrote to Lenski before hand telling him of the CIT+ mutation that would occur should he go ahead with his experiment.


Quote

Joe G said...

   Mutations do not have to be pre-determined. In a genetic algorithm only the solution is pre-determined.

   I never said, thought nor implied mutations are pre-determined. "Built-in responses to environmental cues" does not require them to be pre-determined.


LOL

Date: 2012/10/21 06:50:18, Link
Author: Southstar
very Rapid speciation event in starfish

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....ull.pdf

Date: 2012/10/23 10:12:59, Link
Author: Southstar
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....340.htm

Real-Time Evolution of New Genes by Innovation, Amplification, and Divergence.

Goodness someone confirms Lenski's work on another critter! Who would have ever thought.

Date: 2012/10/26 05:16:31, Link
Author: Southstar
The last article rgarding predictable genetic patterns will be heavily quote mined by tards

Date: 2012/11/02 13:15:12, Link
Author: Southstar
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

Date: 2012/11/02 13:34:04, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 02 2012,13:15)
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

Yes please do, if you wish, operationally define "intelligently designed and how it can be different from "designed by nature". I'm sure your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing makes a clear destinction. It would be just fine if you use your definitions and simply answer yes/no to the questions above.

Date: 2012/11/02 14:48:04, Link
Author: Southstar
So please answer the basic questions in accordance with your views.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Date: 2012/11/03 04:35:35, Link
Author: Southstar
Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

Date: 2012/11/03 11:09:49, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,08:46)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 03 2012,04:35)

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous.  End up reading:  

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple
3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory.  The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask.  And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive.  The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......osophy)

Philosophy is not science.  Therefore the second two are not even scientific questions, they are philosophical questions.  At their core, are questions that begin here, which do agree with theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....S5IrO0I

Okay here is an example of 1

here I present two nucleotide sequences one is random the other is designed by me (an inteligent agent). Please indicate which is which and show us your work:

A) GGC GTT ACTC
B) GGG CTT ATCC


i'll put examples of 2 and 3 lets see if it will help:

2) a random sequence and a sequence found in nature.

Here is an example again one sequence is random the other exists in nature: Which is which.

A) ACT CGT CGTG
B) GAT CTC CGTG

3) a sequence found in nature and one created by an inteligent agent..

Here is another set of sequences, one exists in nature the other is created by an intelligent agent (me): Which is which.

A) CCG AGT TCAA
B) GCC ATG AACT

Date: 2012/11/05 00:53:36, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?

Tried that, got the following crytpic message back.
Quote

"The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though."


...our lab is currently trying to find design in the statement above, but at the moment we are pretty sure there isn't any.

Date: 2012/11/16 07:05:15, Link
Author: Southstar
Don't know if anyone missed this:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms....46.html

"MicroRNA-mediated gene regulation is important in many physiological processes. Here we explore the roles of a microRNA, miR-941, in human evolution. We find that miR-941 emerged de novo in the human lineage, between six and one million years ago, from an evolutionarily volatile tandem repeat sequence."

Date: 2012/11/20 11:38:04, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12)
The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Sorry your maths is way off... ever study statistics? You should look into that before doing probability calculations.

The odds against  a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” the power. Yes... and what happened to all the other variables? did the cat eat 'em?

One of the fundamental variables is the number of amino acids evolved. I.e. how many acids are singularly playing the game. It's all fine and dandy to say that it's very hard to win the lottery but if your chances of winning are 1:1 million you can bet that if one million people play someone's going to win. What you have to ask yourself is how many amino acids can fit in a square meter of primal pond then ask yourself how many cubic kilometres of pond you have.

The second variable is time. How many attempts at combining are being played per second and how much time do they have to hit a meaningful combination... you haven't put this in your equation.

Third you don't need to get the complete sequence in the first shot you could have a cumulative sequence which would mean that you don’t reset the game if say on first time you get a string of 5 amino acids.

Now why don't you rewrite your math and add these variables in...

Date: 2012/11/20 11:47:04, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,11:28)
I just walked you through the analogy of the archer along with how specificity is calculated....how can you guys not grasp that?

In fact, it's just a take off of the same analogy the inventor of the term CSI used....

But on that, I didn't receive a single comment..LOL....

What is it you wish me to do, I've defined it precisely and showed the thread in very simplistic terms how to use it and what people do with it....It's a very simple concept using high school mathematics (or lower).

The analogy is NOT correct...

You need to multiply the number of archers, define the time per shot, set a total time available, allow for partial "close shots" that summed up give a hit (so as to allow for cumulative aggregation of the acids)

Date: 2012/11/26 07:36:52, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)

Okay let me give a try:

Quote
1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.


No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

Quote

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.


No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

Quote

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?


That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

Quote

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.


You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

Quote

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.


Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

Quote
Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?


ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

Quote

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.


How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

Date: 2012/11/26 10:14:21, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

Quote
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.


Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://http/....ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Date: 2012/11/26 11:40:46, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

 
Quote
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.


Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

http://www.nature.com/nature....72.html

Corrected the link

Date: 2012/11/27 03:40:06, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,23:56)
Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

Date: 2012/11/27 11:14:11, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2012,10:20)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2012,03:40)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,23:56)
Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that. It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment. Which one is the first to take a good guess that works is not necessarily an indication that the others are dumber, they were simply the first to find a successful solution to a problem. It's possible that another soon finds an even better solution.

Quote

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that.


Then your memory isn't very good please re-read his papers because the first time round you weren't present when you supposedly read them.

Quote

It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.


Really? Please point out which colonies didn't survive cause Dr Lenski isn't aware he has undead bacteria in his lab and he should be immediately warned of this horrific revelation.

Quote

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment....


Great so you say it was random chance that ara -3 got there before the others?  

Also it would be very useful if you could  please identify where the repository for generating tandem duplications of CIT+ is physically held in say generation 5,000 of colony ara -3. Please be specific.

Date: 2012/11/28 03:02:23, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2012,21:57)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 27 2012,21:35)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2012,21:30)
Relevant clue:
   
Quote
Evolution Under Environmental Stress at Macro- and Microscales
Eviatar Nevo*

Abstract

Environmental stress has played a major role in the evolution of living organisms (Hoffman AA, Parsons PA. 1991. Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Parsons PA. 2005. Environments and evolution: interactions between stress, resource inadequacy, and energetic efficiency. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 80:589–610). This is reflected by the massive and background extinctions in evolutionary time (Nevo E. 1995a. Evolution and extinction. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 1:717–745). The interaction between organism and environment is central in evolution. Extinction ensues when organisms fail to change and adapt to the constantly altering abiotic and biotic stressful environmental changes as documented in the fossil record. Extreme environmental stress causes extinction but also leads to evolutionary change and the origination of new species adapted to new environments. I will discuss a few of these global, regional, and local stresses based primarily on my own research programs. These examples will include the 1) global regional and local experiment of subterranean mammals; 2) regional experiment of fungal life in the Dead Sea; 3) evolution of wild cereals; 4) “Evolution Canyon”; 5) human brain evolution, and 6) global warming.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........3227405

Do you cite this paper to refer to Dr. Lenski's work?

No, I did not cite this paper to refer to Dr. Lenski's work. This paper discusses what I was talking about, while you and others tried to make it seem like it was impossible for me to be making perfect sense.

Gary Tard, the paper you have sited does nothing to advance your position.

You have constantly failed to show intelligence in any of these papers: Lenski, Eviatar Nevo, or Luria–Delbrück.  Actually you have failed to show intelligence in general.

You have refused to show where the "hardware" for making intelligent decisions is located in any cell.

You have ignored continual corrections that "molecular intelligence" is not what you think it is.

You have not read any of Lenski's work, that is clear by the stupid objections that you have made.

Please read the stuff then come back and we can talk about it.

Date: 2012/12/03 08:17:42, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,13:45)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,11:40)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

   
Quote
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.


Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

http://www.nature.com/nature.....72.html

Corrected the link

Gotcha...thanks, that is a different paper and a GOOD read thus far...I'll chew on it.

Jerry have you chocked on this or are you still chewing, you've been chewing for a week....

Date: 2012/12/03 09:10:49, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,16:46)
Hmmmm....

Where did the challenging posts go?

I thought you were soldiers in the army of truth....educating the ignorant public about the stupidity of EVEN questioning such a concept as Divine Darwinism....The magical POOFING of people from apes....the ethreal and deeply spiritual birth of wierd, scary mammals from very confused and lonely whales...Isn't that your mantra? And what a mantra....the mystical Silurian..... the deep, Devonian darkness.....scary, and such confusion in both the evolving organisms and the learned ones that lay witness to them....I'm afraid it all boils down to faith, doesn't it, my friends so studious in your celestial mythology. Please feel free to call it science if you must....But the truth is, it is faith.

I hope I haven't destroyed your faith thus far........It's very important to have faith....... Keep saying...I believe...I believe....I believe....  :)

Isn't it strange that creationist accuse science of saying that species "poofed" into existence.

Evolution says no such thing, evolution says that species gradually evolved from earlier ancestral species, on the other hand creationists like yourself require exactly this!!

Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines! This is what you need to prove, independently of who or what the "intelligent agent" is or how he goes about his work. Not only this, you need to prove that large populations were poofed into existence (creating one t-rex won't help, you need to create a viable genetic population spread across a specific geographic area so hundreds of adult specimens). Never mind a lowly 500bt chain of amino acids. Your theory requires whole adult populations to be poofed in! This is your claim...right?

Just out of curiosity according to your theory, when the t-rex's were "poofed in" were they "poffed in" as eggs which needed to hatch (were the nests also provide in the poofing?) or as adults?
Lastly please describe the last poofing event in detail, where, when, how etc...? (Please note that speciation, in quite a few species, is being currently studied, so you can indicate the poofing event/s in those studies).

Date: 2012/12/04 01:12:34, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:10)

Jerry:
Quote
It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.

Jerry:
Quote
I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it’s spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected.


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.

Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too..

Also I'd like to remind you that speciation is happening now so please show how your idea explains this.

Date: 2012/12/05 01:21:12, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)
[/quote]
Quote


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.


Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


 
Quote


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  


Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol


Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*

Great then since you have it all figured out please tell us in detail how quantum entanglement can be used to make a t-rex population. Please feel free to post your equations that show how vectors and energy is transferred between quantum states.
(this would be a fundamental breakthrough for energy transmission!)

Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??

Date: 2012/12/05 01:21:54, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)

 
Quote


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.


Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


 
Quote


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  


Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol


Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*[/quote]
Great then since you have it all figured out please tell us in detail how quantum entanglement can be used to make a t-rex population. Please feel free to post your equations that show how vectors and energy is transferred between quantum states.
(this would be a fundamental breakthrough for energy transmission!)

Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??

Date: 2012/12/05 07:53:54, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 05 2012,07:25)
One more thing for now, jerry.

When you say:

"And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things."

Are you claiming that DNA consciously, intentionally "codes" to do specific things?

Jerry:

"And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things."

and what about non coding DNA is that specified too?

Date: 2012/12/05 08:46:49, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 05 2012,08:02)
I had not seen this (shudder) before and would like to know about responses.

I've read this

The link to the website also includes an invited commentary that sets the record straight and a second article that supports evolution quite thoroughly. One wonders why these last two weren't also mentioned...

http://www.baylorhealth.edu/researc....12.aspx

Date: 2012/12/05 10:05:21, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,09:23)

Quote
Sorry, I don't have that math...people asked me for a model, there you have one...that's all it is.


Now it's really silly to say you don't have the math to support your idea of quantum creation. In QM if you don't have the maths that support your view you don't have dipshit. It's the equivalent of saying I have no idea what supports my words. But i'm in it for the game so: okay using words please describe in detail how quantum entanglement creates t-rexes (in a little more detail than "QM does it")


Jerry 03/12:
Quote
And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...


Jerry today (bold is mine) :
Quote

And, please attempt to stay away from fallacy in your arguments...I have never stated that I believe babies are "poofed" into existence like you Darwinists claim entire species are........people are created by genes from their parents...were they designed? Absolutely....By what? By DNA.......


Which is it Jerry?

Quote

Stangely enough, holding an envelope to my head like the mighty Carnac, I predict you will disagree that they were designed by an intelligent designer....i.e. DNA replication....


That really depends on the definition of "intelligent". If by intelligent you mean that it has foresight, ability to make pondered guesses and conscious thought then no DNA is not intelligent.

Further I would say no because nothing in nature is designed. A design by definition comes before a creation so you are saying that future mutations are stored in existing plans somewhere. Please specifiy where this information is held and how you know about it.

Date: 2012/12/06 05:34:24, Link
Author: Southstar
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Dec. 05 2012,11:53]
Quote
Oh...but you DO have the math to support abiogenesis, speciation of Archaeopteryx and people magically morphing out of monkeys? Let's see it...When we see your walk match your talk mathematically, then I'll try to come up to speed... ;)


Ehm now now don't turn the table, evolution does not cite quantum entanglement as having anything at all to do with speciation. YOU are the one who said that QM and quantum entanglement has something to do with it. Sooo YOU are the one that needs to supply the evidence and since quantum states are described in equations YOU have to supply the equations that show what you haven't yet described in words but that in some way lead to speciation.

For you relief and piece of mind I will kindly supply you the starting equations that describe quantum entanglement:




Right now show us your stuff... and win a ticket to Sweden!

Alternately you could again state that you are clueless as to the maths behind quantum mechanics in which case you admit that you have no idea as to the role of QM.

You know, it would really be helpful if you could just explain in words how you think quantum entanglement can create a species. What are the processes involved? what are the steps that you have identified? Where have you see this taking place? what is the order in which the events you will describe take place? What is your evidence for all of the above...you know that kind of stuff. (Please note saying that we are made out of atoms does not describe a process)

Quote
Who says that intelligence is only pondered guesses and conscious thought?  We need to get past the thinking that all intelligence hinges on an IQ test. That limits it only to humans (pretty much, anyhow)


Ah so you admit that you have to redefine the meaning of intelligence. Instead of redefining an existing term (which could really create a lot of misconceptions) why not invent a new term that fits your theory.

Since I suspect that this is not the only term you have arbitrarily redefined why don't you let us know what other terms you have created/redefined just so we can be clear that when you say something it means something totally different to what is commonly associated with that word and that in your world, that specific word has a different meaning that only you know.

Lastly I was wondering if you could tell us if non coding DNA is, according to your view, designed or not.

Date: 2013/02/13 06:48:13, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 13 2013,04:40)

Quote
Thoughts?


Date: 2013/02/23 08:41:38, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 23 2013,08:33)
The theory that is included for documentation goes into more detail.

Suggesting that I might have to abandon it completely ignores the fact that it's already here. Whether or not biologists care to attempt to model an intelligent causation event is irrelevant, in fact the only kind of biologist who would need to is a systems biologist working on such things as how multicellular intelligence developed. The theory helps show what to look for in virtual cells which have the potential to combine to produce multicellular intelligence, or a molecular intelligence system with the potential to combine to produce cellular intelligence.

From what I read online I learned that systems biology has a shortage of scientists. It's not something normally taught in K-12 public schools. This theory and the model at Planet Source Code helps increase interest in the field. A million dollars worth of the usual outreach programs likely cannot match the interest in SB this very challenging theory is already generating.

Quote
That's all that is needed for the Theory of Intelligent Design to already be in use, useful, and genuinely accepted.


Gaga where in this universe is ID:

1) in use?
2) useful?
3) or accepted?

Please be specific oh and don't limit yourself to the US pick any place in the globe.

oh wait you won't answer will you... wonder why...

Date: 2013/03/01 02:45:35, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2013,23:35)

Gary, drop all you are doing. Take a deep breath and buy this book.

http://www.dummies.com/store....46.html

At least then, people can stop making fun of the way you write and concentrate on makeing fun of what you write.

Date: 2013/04/09 06:30:26, Link
Author: Southstar
http://phys.org/news....on.html

Environmental change 'triggers rapid evolution'

Date: 2013/04/28 03:08:12, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2013,00:05)

Gary:
Quote
And will comply with that order by being patient for an admissible answer to the opening questions which metaphorically speaking commence sabering…


Okay let's try again, in rpg of court.
If Gary would be so kind as to answer some basic questions regarding his ideas. But first let's look at Gary's basic claim(s):
1) Right, you state that you have created a theory of life in which you show the mechanisms by which species are created, that is in which speciation occurs.
2) You have repeatedly stated that speciation occurs via an intelligent process, in which all life and in fact even molecules are, in fact, intelligent and make "good guesses".
3) To substantiate your claim you have shown that you have written a program, which, you say is a model for life the universe and everything.
4) You state that your model has already attained sufficient support that it is ready to be used by schools to teach science in every field.
5) Your claims are also supported by and support the so called "theory of intelligent design", giving it the much needed software it was lacking in previous court cases. Now that it is complete, thanks to you, it will replace Neo-Darwinian theory.

Are the statements above correct? Please answer with yes or no. Should you answer "no" please give a short reason as to why it is not correct and give a corrected claim.

Date: 2013/04/29 06:24:19, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2013,08:24)
Quote (Southstar @ April 28 2013,03:08)
 
Gary:
   
Quote
And will comply with that order by being patient for an admissible answer to the opening questions which metaphorically speaking commence sabering…


Okay let's try again, in rpg of court.
If Gary would be so kind as to answer some basic questions regarding his ideas. But first let's look at Gary's basic claim(s):
1) Right, you state that you have created a theory of life in which you show the mechanisms by which species are created, that is in which speciation occurs.
2) You have repeatedly stated that speciation occurs via an intelligent process, in which all life and in fact even molecules are, in fact, intelligent and make "good guesses".
3) To substantiate your claim you have shown that you have written a program, which, you say is a model for life the universe and everything.
4) You state that your model has already attained sufficient support that it is ready to be used by schools to teach science in every field.
5) Your claims are also supported by and support the so called "theory of intelligent design", giving it the much needed software it was lacking in previous court cases. Now that it is complete, thanks to you, it will replace Neo-Darwinian theory.

Are the statements above correct? Please answer with yes or no. Should you answer "no" please give a short reason as to why it is not correct and give a corrected claim.

Seeing how the nonjudicial plaintiffs are still working a possible response to my sides opening questions I might as well answer yours, while we wait. You'll at least have that to work on, that I hope will brighten your Sunday too, Southstar.

None of the following are fully correct, so I’ll just provide a corrected claim for all of them:

1) Right, you state that you have created a theory of life in which you show the mechanisms by which species are created, that is in which speciation occurs.

It’s a 20+ year old “origin of life” theory that first pertains to molecular self-learning systems required for any species of “living things” to emerge from the behavior of matter, chemistry.

2) You have repeatedly stated that speciation occurs via an intelligent process, in which all life and in fact even molecules are, in fact, intelligent and make "good guesses".

A molecular system that cannot self-learn produces no species at all. Such reactions might produce rain when the temperature falls, CO2 bubbles by mixing an acid and a base, but they are not self-learning intelligent molecular systems which are required to produce living things like cells, insects, dolphins and humans.

3) To substantiate your claim you have shown that you have written a program, which, you say is a model for life the universe and everything.

I well enough explained how to program a model that it’s not vital to the theory for there to be one. It’s there to help show how to use and test the theory so it’s easier to see that it actually does work.

4) You state that your model has already attained sufficient support that it is ready to be used by schools to teach science in every field.

I would not say “support” it’s the sort of thing that is ridiculous to try fighting. When one goes overboard they prove to others to be a bully. Getting all authoritarian while using “evolution” specific theory that is 100% irrelevant is asking for the Baby-Dinosaur-like theory to bonk them for that.

5) Your claims are also supported by and support the so called "theory of intelligent design", giving it the much needed software it was lacking in previous court cases. Now that it is complete, thanks to you, it will replace Neo- Darwinian theory.

The software is only the icing on the cake, that doesn’t need court cases, but where necessary opponents who are talking about an entirely different theory don’t stand a chance in court for reasons that begin with a messed-up knowledge of what a theory even is that leads to statements like “it’s not a theory” that confuses the purpose of a hypothesis that boils down to a guess that is tested for whether it is true or false, as in the computer model where it calls that a "guess". This theory does not care about Darwinian anything, so all can still have fun with their Neo-Darwinism that I and others honestly find relatively boring but to each their own I guess. I need to follow the evidence wherever it leads from cognitive science that connects to ID that perplexes evolutionary biologists but works great in physics, chemistry, physiology and applies to medicine also world peace, even though it will likely never ever win a Nobel Prize in literature...

Okay now comes the fun part. You have made a series of claims which you have to back up, with facts. Let's look at each one.
Quote

1) It’s a 20+ year old “origin of life” theory that first pertains to molecular self-learning systems required for any species of “living things” to emerge from the behaviour of matter, chemistry.


Great please show where you have identified this behaviour in chemistry, show why sometimes life develops and why most of the time it doesn't. Please note that you have to supply proof as in evidence. Posting flow charts doesn't count as proof. You have to supply scientific peer reviewed research that expressly identifies  "molecular self learning" and indicates that has been determined to produce life.

If you can't show this then you don't have anything but delusions.

Quote

2) A molecular system that cannot self-learn produces no species at all. Such reactions might produce rain when the temperature falls, CO2 bubbles by mixing an acid and a base, but they are not self-learning intelligent molecular systems which are required to produce living things like cells, insects, dolphins and humans.


Well this is something that you have to prove. For example crystals form complex structures. Complex protein structures and amino acids have been shown to develop without intelligence. So here you would need to supply research that expressly indicates that without the ability to "self learn" these would not develop. You should show case studies carried out that indicate both positive and negative results.

Without specific case studies all you have are your own fantasies.

Quote

3) I well enough explained how to program a model that it’s not vital to the theory for there to be one. It’s there to help show how to use and test the theory so it’s easier to see that it actually does work.


Well like wow! So the whole bug thing is of no use to the theory, so what exactly does the theory rest on? You have not indicated any mechanism nor observable natural phenomena that your theory explains. Which means it lacks a subject and an object.

Quote

4) I would not say “support” it’s the sort of thing that is ridiculous to try fighting. When one goes overboard they prove to others to be a bully. Getting all authoritarian while using “evolution” specific theory that is 100% irrelevant is asking for the Baby-Dinosaur-like theory to bonk them for that.


Okay you acknowledge that your theory is not accepted by anyone... I and others agree on this.

Quote

I need to follow the evidence wherever it leads from cognitive science that connects to ID that perplexes evolutionary biologists but works great in physics, chemistry, physiology and applies to medicine also world peace, even though it will likely never ever win a Nobel Prize in literature...


I'm not sure what exactly is your claim in item 5. However please indicate how ID works great in physics, chemistry and medicine as you indicate above. To do this please list research papers that indicate ID showing any advancement in the fields you have indicated. I'm almost too afraid to ask, but for medicine please indicate which medicines have been developed specifically by ID. If you cannot supply the evidence you are either lying or deluded or both ;)

Date: 2013/04/29 06:25:37, Link
Author: Southstar
Okay Gary, now comes the fun part. You have made a series of claims which you have to back up, with facts. Let's look at each one.

Quote

1) It’s a 20+ year old “origin of life” theory that first pertains to molecular self-learning systems required for any species of “living things” to emerge from the behaviour of matter, chemistry.


Great please show where you have identified this behaviour in chemistry, show why sometimes life develops and why most of the time it doesn't. Please note that you have to supply proof as in evidence. Posting flow charts doesn't count as proof. You have to supply scientific peer reviewed research that expressly identifies  "molecular self learning" and indicates that has been determined to produce life.

If you can't show this then you don't have anything but delusions.

Quote

2) A molecular system that cannot self-learn produces no species at all. Such reactions might produce rain when the temperature falls, CO2 bubbles by mixing an acid and a base, but they are not self-learning intelligent molecular systems which are required to produce living things like cells, insects, dolphins and humans.


Well this is something that you have to prove. For example crystals form complex structures. Complex protein structures and amino acids have been shown to develop without intelligence. So here you would need to supply research that expressly indicates that without the ability to "self learn" these would not develop. You should show case studies carried out that indicate both positive and negative results.

Without specific case studies all you have are your own fantasies.

Quote

3) I well enough explained how to program a model that it’s not vital to the theory for there to be one. It’s there to help show how to use and test the theory so it’s easier to see that it actually does work.


Well like wow! So the whole bug thing is of no use to the theory, so what exactly does the theory rest on? You have not indicated any mechanism nor observable natural phenomena that your theory explains. Which means it lacks a subject and an object.

Quote

4) I would not say “support” it’s the sort of thing that is ridiculous to try fighting. When one goes overboard they prove to others to be a bully. Getting all authoritarian while using “evolution” specific theory that is 100% irrelevant is asking for the Baby-Dinosaur-like theory to bonk them for that.


Okay you acknowledge that your theory is not accepted by anyone... I and others agree on this.

Quote

I need to follow the evidence wherever it leads from cognitive science that connects to ID that perplexes evolutionary biologists but works great in physics, chemistry, physiology and applies to medicine also world peace, even though it will likely never ever win a Nobel Prize in literature...


I'm not sure what exactly is your claim in item 5. However please indicate how ID works great in physics, chemistry and medicine as you indicate above. To do this please list research papers that indicate ID showing any advancement in the fields you have indicated. I'm almost too afraid to ask, but for medicine please indicate which medicines have been developed specifically by ID. If you cannot supply the evidence you are either lying or deluded or both ;)

Date: 2013/04/30 02:39:13, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (timothya @ April 29 2013,16:18)
Here is a Google translation from Il Foglio's commentary on the Napoli science centre fire:

 
Quote
I have found that in the sheds of the former Italsider were being spread evolutionism, a nineteenth-century superstition still present in environments parascientific (evidently also in the residue environments songwriting). Darwinism is a form of nihilism and according to the philosopher Fabrice Hadjadj say to a guy who descended from apes means take advantage of his trusting nature to throw him into despair and cause it to behave like a monkey. They had to burn before the Science City.


Reads like gloating to me.

The newspaper was blasted for having printed that load of shit... Most of the major newspapers from the region wrote a piece describing the article in terms of "an avalanche of crap" or "complete idiocy".

By the way the author of the piece is also advocate of keeping women away from books and reading so that they may get back to being pregnant.

There's even a facebook page calling for him to be banned from being a journalist.

What can I say a pure loon...

Here is the wikipage on this Idiot http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki....Langone

Date: 2013/04/30 03:17:15, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2013,08:10)
.

What a matter Gary? Did you suddenly loose all that evidence to back your claims? Or are you just attempting to run away from reality?

Please provide supporting evidence for your claims listed above or shut up!

Since in all fairness you did respond to claim n.4 by making further claims, I will ask you to substantiate these new claims.

Quote

No, I explained why you and others are not even current enough in the relevant fields to have opinions that scientists or the general public are even interested in. Science goes on, without you even being where the action's at that changes it.


1) No you did not explain, you asserted... (this was already pointed out).
2) Please indicate what the relevant fields are and who are the people whom are "current enough" that share your opinion in these fields. Please provide evidence such as published research showing that your specific ideas are shared. Without supplying this evidence you are wilfully exposing yourself for the liar that you are...
3) Your last sentence indicates that you know where the "action's at". Please indicate how you know where cutting edge biology is being done (please indicate lab names/journal names) and show that you are a privy to this research.

Date: 2013/05/02 08:19:12, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 02 2013,08:00)

[quote=Jim_Wynne,May 02 2013,07:11]  
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2013,21:59)
Sorry for having to ignore you, like others in this area of science are.  


Please identify these "others" and show how they are ignoring Jim.

Also would you be so kind as to provide proof for all the claims you have directly made!

Date: 2013/05/06 00:53:54, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 06 2013,00:10)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 05 2013,20:26)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2013,15:03)
What does this forum recommend for a vision system?

Evolution.

Hmmmm....
What does this forum recommend for an environment?

I recommend you use the forty second astral plane, in which it is here known by others elsewhere that the laws of physics do not apply.

It is therefore very easy to programme as you need not look up any specifics and you can pretty much do what you want without any science and/or science stoppers getting in your way.

Apparently it also smells of strawberries and cinnamon this then greatly adds to the intelligence of your little bug as it will make it feel relaxed and happy, this helps in making good guesses while at the same time proving intelligent cause.

Programme could be done by adding this line to your amazing programme:

10 REM Create environment: 42nd astral plane

(Bold letters help assert facts, so they are important in invoking the 42nd astral plane by rendering it, you know, factual)

Date: 2013/05/08 04:24:02, Link
Author: Southstar
Gary have you implemented the 42 astral plane as your stable enviroment??

Trust me once you do it, all that reality and having to substantiate claims will just go away. It will also free you from science stoppers as they are unable to substantiate the 42 astral plane. So you will be a free man.

Do it!

Date: 2013/05/22 03:25:52, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 22 2013,02:29)

Hi Gaga,

According to the latest research link below, smaller plants evolve faster than taller plants and evolve much faster than animals.

I was wondering in your model thingy does it mean that plants are more molecularly intelligent than humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....424.htm

Date: 2013/06/20 06:36:05, Link
Author: Southstar
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 20 2013,06:03)
Quote (Nomad @ June 20 2013,03:33)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 20 2013,00:56)
If you have no brain mechanism to take a "guess", then you cannot make any form of guess at all.

Mixing numbers from what you know to make something as random as possible to you qualifies as a good random generator. The one in a PC is not perfect statistical randomness either, but good enough for a virtual critter.

I knew I should have added a statement saying that the question was directed towards people with a track record of demonstrating that they understand the meanings of words.

You still need to explain to me how you could take the two bit confidence register in your system, run it through a DAC to convert it into an analog signal, and what that analog signal would be.  You said it represents some kind of analog signal, so you should be able to do this unless you were lying to try to justify your incorrect use of terminology.

Once you do that, then we could get on to having you explain why you felt the need to say that if something can't take a guess, then it can't make a guess.  The only way I can figure it is if you were using two different definitions for the word "guess" in a single sentence.  Which might be a new record for you.

PLEASE examine closely the EXACT wording detail:



With that exact wording you are stuck in a logical paradox or whatever you call it, where once you remove that you're stuck not being able to make your mind up so bad you probably soon perish.

The two RAM bits that count from 0 to 3 for each confidence level can where circuited be hardwired into a 2 bit Digital to Analog converter that puts the 4 states onto a single connection, more like a neuron that has several firing states on a single connection, not 1 bit on/off for each bit needed to represent all the states it can be in. Neural network memories can work with an analog like that. Might even solve the problem caused by digital RAM being too predictable, where when conditions are just right gets stuck in a OCD type euphoria they can stay with forever without ever getting tired out.

To win against humans on a hard game show requires hypothesis generation like I now explain (where that is) in the comments for the new Lab with link to PBS article on babies and other things of interest found along the way to help hook it in, but would need Wesley or someone for that because Digital RAM from a simple array makes getting the GUESS connected in just right real easy. There is only one way it works real good, otherwise does not work at all but may seem so because of it still aiming at food but otherwise a guided missile zombie that bashes into food all right but RAM is not properly working with GUESS, is not intelligent. That's what happens when all the checkboxes for sensory  are unchecked, nothing being addressed hence no RAM in the circuit. In fact I just tried it with the version I'm now getting ready to upload that has error control and should be stable. It's quite hilarious in comparison, without RAM and therefore GUESS not working together, from having no RAM at all anymore in the circuit. It's simple feedback control from CONFIDENCE into GUESS that qualifies as per David Heiserman "Alpha-Class machine" and I would say random protointelligence but in a way it's not yet intelligent from having RAM to turn all the guesses into knowledge of its environment that it needs to intelligently get around. What forms in RAM can get quite complex with map of environment coded as actions to get from place to place, but it's not something easy to see like photograph data of all its different experiences like taken from a camera. More like our fingers knowing where the keys are mapped out, in actions, with visual sensory addressing the circuit along with it to know which keys to automatically press to write a sentence (but reduced down to a PC level Intelligence Design Lab critter that still works the same).

Gary:

If you have no brain mechanism to take a "guess", then you cannot make any form of guess at all.

Great so please indicate where the "brain mechanism" is in molecules, and in cells.

 

 

 

=====