It is currently Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:08 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
religion is the cause of everything bad in the world just think of the crusades


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:13 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
I think in some ways creationism is dying out, but the response to that in some communities has been homeschooling, and further insulating and isolating their kids. In some ways, it is more insidious than bombing a science lab. In texas, for instance, where most american textbooks are made, there is a lot of support for things that could be considered very antiscientific, and there is a lot of revisionist history going on as well. Some states are passing laws requiring or at least allowing creationism and/or intelligent design being taught in schools, and this definitely isn't a good thing as far as the future of science and education are concerned.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:43 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 29, 2013
Posts: 1035
Well, I do see your point - but ultimately I actually think parents should have a great deal of say in what their children are taught. I'm a tad conflicted on the issue, but is a government any more valid regarding the canon that children are taught? I know most people don't really agree with me here, but I'm actually someone who thinks education should be fully privatized which would nullify such issues. But that's getting a wee bit off topic.

_________________
Existential Hero: Train Without Rails


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:51 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 515
I was hoping to avoid contentious debates, but I cannot in good conscience let such faux-scientific rubbish stand without challenge.
Lokiare wrote:
Adaptation of the species to its environment is accomplished by losing traits that are a disadvantage to living in an environment.

No. It's gaining traits that are advantageous. In many cases, this is a purely semantic difference; however, this form of the hypothesis allows for actual development to take place, a crucial component of evolution. (Your version also subtly poisons the well by presenting a purely negative statement, but that's less important to the debate.)

Quote:
For instance say a lizard has two pigment genes or traits, one of them is blue and the other is yellow. Which makes them green. Now say this lizard species migrated to the desert and started living there. Now one day a group of them lose the trait to produce blue pigments in their skin and scales and the other group loses the yellow pigments. Which would survive better? You guessed it, the yellow ones would survive better because of the color of the desert more closely matches the color of the yellow scales and skin.

Yes, this is basically what happened with peppered moths in England in the 19th century.

Quote:
Some try to argue that new traits get added but that has never been observed anywhere at any time (despite repeated claims to the contrary, they are always proven wrong when the gene or DNA is sequenced). Which brings us to the second one, which has been proven wrong on so many levels that its laughable that anyone still believes it, I guess there will always be Flat Earthers though.

A small group of lizards was introduced to an island, forming a bottlenecked population. Forty years later, they had developed cecal valves, allowing a shift from a primarily insectivorous diet to an herbivorous one. Dismissively call me a Flat-Earther if you like, but that sounds a lot like adding a new trait to me.

Also: what do you mean by "the second one"? I can't find the corresponding antecedent.

Quote:
Statistical perspective:
"Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids that join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices!

I'd like to take a concrete example for this, so there are actual factual numbers to talk about rather than vague suppositions. Let's pick hemoglobin.

Hemoglobin is a protein consisting of a chain of 141 amino acids; it fulfills the vital role of carrying oxygen around the body. Using math analogous to yours, the chance of it occurring randomly from a blob of amino acids is 20-141, or approximately 10-183. Yikes! It's a wonder we're alive at all.

Except that that number is the result of an laughably naïve, unrealistic computation. We're assessing this probability after the fact: we know what hemoglobin looks like, and we're trying to figure out the probability of creating exactly what we see now without considering all possible alternative configurations. Just look at the differences between the hemoglobin found in humans and that in other species -- there's a difference of a single amino acid between humans' and chimpanzees', 25 between humans' and rabbits', and up to 100 between humans' and that of some fish. (Observation: these correspond nicely to the phylogenetic trees suggested by -- you guessed it -- evolution.) And that's not even getting into the differences just among humans... In fact, research has suggested that only 25 of the 141 amino acids in hemoglobin are actually necessary for it to effectively perform its oxygen-carrying function. This would give odds of 20-25, or about 10-33. It's obviously still not a certain thing, but given the timescale and volume involved it is not at all surprising that such a thing could occur. Moreover, even this vastly increased probability assumes, incorrectly, that all amino acid chains are equally likely to be produced, which is straight-up false.

And I feel it's important to note: biologists do not completely understand how proteins originated. These probabilities, and any you may give in response, are premature and bound to be inconclusive, but it is the best we can do for now.

Furthermore: evolution and biogenesis are fundamentally different questions. So there's an argument that this entire thread of discussion is technically off-topic. But anyways...

Quote:
In other words the chance of a mutation of any kind appearing in any given DNA replication is 10-10 which means 10 divided by itself 10 times which means 0.000000001. Now that's just one mutation occurring in one DNA replication after being checked by the cell. What does it take to convert one protein into another? Well a protein has around 100 to 1000 bases to form. Lets go with the easiest one 100. Now it can have a 25 percent difference between the next nearest protein, meaning 25 DNA changes need to occur for it to happen. Now using the lizard with blue and yellow pigment genes above it would take (10-10)25 for it to evolve one protein into the next nearest protein. Go ahead, count the zeros I'll wait. That's all while not creating negative effects that will cause the creature to die off in the first place. Its also not counting in things like protein folding which further lowers the chance of it happening or all the other factors like protein networks of interactions with other parts of the cell which could cause it to simply die. Then all of this has to take place in the reproductive cells in order to be passed on which further narrows it down making it a much much higher chance of not happening.

The actual number, considering all error guards, has been measured at slightly less than 1 error per 109 nucleotides; 10-10 is an acceptable estimate. The real fault in this argument that your assumption that you need to transform, say, 25% of a DNA strand to effect a nontrivial change. For example, the genetic defect responsible for sickle-cell anemia consists of a change in a single nucleotide (in the gene that codes for hemoglobin).

On a side note, I am not sure why you're talking about proteins here -- you introduced this section with "we will look at the chance of DNA changing". The relevant unit in DNA transcription is nucleotide bases; that for proteins would be amino acids.


Quote:
Nope sorry, no energy is added to the process of DNA replication. Its a complete closed entropy system. Light is added to the earth. Plants convert that light into sugars with the help of other chemicals and processes and that produces the parts that is used in the DNA replication system, but no actual energy is transferred. Its like a factory that makes computers. The factory makes the computers but doesn't supply the power to turn them on.

This is nonsense. Of course there is energy being transferred between the systems in question -- in this case, it takes the form of the chemical energy binding the molecules together. In particular, the energy used in replicating DNA comes from the hydrolysis of bonds between phosphate groups on the base being incorporated to the new DNA strand.

Quote:
Quote:
IIRC, it's been demonstrated with fruit flies that populations with the same origin kept in significantly different conditions can be rendered unable to breed with each other. That was a while ago that I heard that, though, so I don't know if it's been taken farther.


Speciation is actually more complicated than just "can't interbreed" and is still, after centuries, a matter of debate. But it's a reasonable, simple statement, so let's go with it.

The Drosophila experiments I've found have largely been about inducing reproductive isolation through environmental preference -- researchers exposed populations of flies to different conditions for a number of generations, then recombined them. They found, in general, that the populations remained reproductively separate.

Another example is the domestic sheep, which speciated through animal husbandry and can no longer procreate with the mouflon, their direct ancestors.

Fruit flies and other fast-developing creatures notwithstanding, a problem with observing speciation is that it takes a lot for reproductive isolation, and therefore a lot of time. Given how recent the entire concept of "science" is (in geological terms), we simply have not had time to actively observe speciation on a large scale. We can see non-breeding populations of creatures that share massive proportions of DNA and extrapolate a speciation event[1] occurred, but direct observation is simply not possible.

[1] "Event" is not the right word, in my opinion, as it implies a sudden change rather than a gradual shift apart. But it's fairly standard and will serve.

Quote:
This is a process where the reproductive DNA gets degraded between groups to the point that they don't match up enough to breed. I could go into way more detail, but I won't unless someone asks me to. Warning: its very technical and unless you are a geneticist or a really smart person that has delved into it, it will probably sound like gibberish...

I'd be interested.

_________________
ego-sig


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:57 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
I cannot imagine why you thought making an intelligent post in this thread was worth it

you are a stronger person than I


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:07 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
Only through reasoned debate can you truly win! You win by convincing, not chasing people off. :teach:


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:09 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
miss_bun wrote:
Only through reasoned debate can you truly win! You win by convincing, not chasing people off. :teach:


have you actually ever convinced anyone of anything signifigant over the internet


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:10 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 29, 2013
Posts: 1035
Glasir, I want to have your babies.

_________________
Existential Hero: Train Without Rails


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:12 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1095
Ko wrote:
miss_bun wrote:
Only through reasoned debate can you truly win! You win by convincing, not chasing people off. :teach:

have you actually ever convinced anyone of anything signifigant over the internet

Debates are for the audience. Participants in arguments are less likely to convince each other, though it occasionally happens.

_________________
PbP Characters
Umiki800080SDSS
Navu'ai008000KotS
ParkunFFD700Ixen

PbP Games
—DDN—The Mines of MadnessCurrent Map

RPG Personality


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:13 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
ok, you have convinced me


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:18 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1095
:thumbsup:

_________________
PbP Characters
Umiki800080SDSS
Navu'ai008000KotS
ParkunFFD700Ixen

PbP Games
—DDN—The Mines of MadnessCurrent Map

RPG Personality


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:24 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
door (dooooooooooor) wrote:
i honestly don't think creationism is a big issue, like it is stupid and shouldn't happen, but like what are the consequences of people believing it

it isn't like creationism somehow oppresses or impoverishes people. i am more concerned with textbooks' whitewashing of american history and anti-communist anti-socialist bent


Surely one follows the other.

"I don't see how people having a silly belief is a problem. I am concerned with people's silly beliefs being a problem." :teach: :confused:


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:25 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
Ko wrote:
miss_bun wrote:
Only through reasoned debate can you truly win! You win by convincing, not chasing people off. :teach:


have you actually ever convinced anyone of anything signifigant over the internet


I hope so. People have convinced me.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:32 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
I don't think I can say the same


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:40 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 515
But then a parent who believes in homeopathy or places complete trust in the healing power of God has a sick child, and treats them as best they know...
(this has happened, it's depressing and sad and terrible)

A more common danger is indoctrination of others, particularly children. See: Texas Board of Education.

_________________
ego-sig


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:28 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1331
parents teach what they believe and rarely anything else.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:33 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
I went to college about half on scholarships, but I still have friends who had less student loan debt who are now further behind. I have friends with masters in important, marketable fields who make less than half what I do. Heck, I have friends who make more than I do who are in debt, even with very similar paths, and I'm not exactly great with money.

I think I'm a pretty smart cookie, but the foundation I have, I mostly got from my parents. Every illogical, wasteful, unfounded, or just completely factually wrong belief or habit someone has instilled in them by their parents is just one more thing keeping them down. I think it is the state's responsibility to give everyone a good education for this reason. It is up to the people to ensure that this information is good, and that the government doesn't abuse their power of dispensing education, but giving everyone an equal playing field is one of the most important jobs the government has, imo. As a society, or as an individual parent, it is up to us to make sure the government teaches kids well, to smooth out the inconsistencies and gaps in the education our children would otherwise receive.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:41 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
tony3 wrote:
parents teach what they believe and rarely anything else.


listen, tony

baby

normally I am all over your posts like a fat kid on a smartie

but I'm not 100% on this one


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:27 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 313
Ko wrote:
religion is the cause of everything bad in the world just think of the crusades
Nope. Religion led to the scientific theory, most of modern astronomy, and lenses. Or rather, science did in an unquestionably religious context.
MagicPablo666 wrote:
Well, I do see your point - but ultimately I actually think parents should have a great deal of say in what their children are taught.
So you want children to be ignorant, indoctrinated people incapable of reason?
Quote:
I'm a tad conflicted on the issue, but is a government any more valid regarding the canon that children are taught?
Yes. A secular government prevents many forms of indoctrination in education. Not all, of course, and the system doesn't work in a place with systemic problems with idiocy like Texas, but hey, it's a start. A secular education system generally cares for fact over belief, reason over dogma.
Quote:
I know most people don't really agree with me here, but I'm actually someone who thinks education should be fully privatized which would nullify such issues.
Can we say "Conflict of interest?" Or how about "Unaffordable education?" Or how about "Massively stupid population?"

The "free market" is not some magical benevolent force. I'd have thought we'd have learned that over eighty years ago.
miss_bun wrote:
Only through reasoned debate can you truly win! You win by convincing, not chasing people off. :teach:
Nonsense! This is the internet! Arguments are won only through yelling loudly.
door (dooooooooooor) wrote:
i honestly don't think creationism is a big issue, like it is stupid and shouldn't happen, but like what are the consequences of people believing it
Indoctrination? Idiocy? Systemic rejection of facts for dogma?
Quote:
it isn't like creationism somehow oppresses or impoverishes people.
Yes it does.
Quote:
i am more concerned with textbooks' whitewashing of american history and anti-communist anti-socialist bent
Those two are not entirely unconnected.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:44 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 3058
Identity: Female
The idea that one system is reliable and trying to push that system on as many people as possible could create problems, even if the system in question works pretty well. I think that there's some value in people being taught in different ways.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group