It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:56 pm

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 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:24 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
miss_bun wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
miss_bun wrote:
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.


A good documentary to watch is Expelled, no intelligence allowed. It shows the bias against anything that is not evolutionary theory. People get blacklisted if they so much as mention it. One person derides it and makes a mockery of creationism and gets fired because they mentioned it in a peer reviewed paper.


To me, this is like saying math classes are biased against anything that isn't correct math. Evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for how we got here. To teach students opposing views that are either unfalsifiable, or even verifiably wrong, is bad. Researchers are welcome to experiment and study and come to whatever conclusions they can support, but the reason anything that isn't evolutionary theory isn't being taught in schools is that every alternative is based on faith and/or unsound or invalid reasoning. I've literally never heard anyone say "I don't think evolutionary theory is right, but neither are any of those other crackpot ideas. We still need more data. The conclusions we have drawn from the data we have is premature." But no one who disagrees with evolutionary theory ever argues with the theory. They try to argue with the actual, verifiable data. Your statement of "we have never been able to witness new traits occurring" is provably false, and has been disproven in this thread multiple times.


No its much worse than that. If you even mention something other than evolution you get black listed. Journals don't accept papers that prove evolution wrong regardless of how scientific and rigorous they are. Here is an example, though it only deals with intelligent design scientists..

It would be like someone writing an article about the earth not being flat and proving it with the pendulum test and being black listed from jobs and journals. Oh wait that did happen...

Actually if you read my posts in this thread every instance where a claim is made of a new trait being found, it turns out it was a loss of genetic data or cross breeding in the case of the lizards (as I explained 10 lizards is not enough genetic diversity to sustain a population you would need around 44 lizards minimum and even then you would have to selective breed for the first few generations).

Also I'm not advocating they teach something else, just stop teaching false hoods and claiming the theory of evolution holds up under scientific scrutiny.

One of the problems I have is people get all upset and say something can't come from nothing, then go on later to show support for the big bang theory where the entire universe just exploded into existence from nothing or even worse support the idea that matter and non-matter are opposites and caused each other to exist (hint anti-matter is the opposite of matter, not the lack of matter).

When they actually try to argue with data, I show it to be misunderstood or false. I'm still waiting for an actual factual scientific explanation of how new genetic data is added to a species.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 3084
The articles have not been debunked. The article you referenced (Bozorgmehr, Joseph Esfandiar Hannon. 22 December 2010. Is Gene Duplication a Viable Explanation for the Origination of Biological Information and Complexity? Complexity, published online, DOI 10.1002/cplx.20365, pp. 1-14), does nothing to debunk the theory of gene duplication. In fact, just reading the Abstract for it on http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract shows that this article is in SUPPORT of it! Here's the quote:

Quote:
The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.


The only thing it states is that, while it's good enough for EVOLUTION, it is not good enough for origin of the genome.

Your facts are wrong Lokiare.

_________________
Quote:
"If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors." — Galef, Dakka Dakka Forums


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:50 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 313
Lilan wrote:
I often hear stories about scientists in earlier eras promoting their work and people trying to take their head for it.
Sure. Religious authorities had problems with it and they were highly powerful organizations with motives apposed to the science. Your comparison fails.
Quote:
More recently there was the story about professor who's work promoted racial profiling, and he had to teach his classes via video, because there were so many people threatening him. I imagine that even if your idea isn't so out there that people react violently, you would still have to overcome a rather large bias to have your ideas taken seriously.
Now you're comparing something I've got no idea what you're talking about to my statement about objective facts.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in evolution, my only point is that if you're someone who seriously wants to oppose evolution and feels that the science supports it, you're going to have a hard time doing so, regardless of the actual content of your case.
...No, you're going to have a hard time doing so because the content of your case is stupid. Of course, I may be wrong. Care to cite an example of something like that happening in modern times?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:14 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
Lokiare wrote:
Not really. I've never argued against the loss of genetic data as being against survival of the fittest and adaptation to environment.

You can read the details here, where they explain:

"The SLC45A2 gene makes a protein of the same name, which consists of 560 amino acids. A single mutation in the gene—a change in just one DNA letter—switches one of those 560 amino acids from an alanine to a valine. This distorts the protein’s shape, and potentially prevents it from taking part in the creation of red-yellow melanin. Every white tiger has two copies of this mutated gene, and can only make the distorted protein. That’s all it takes to change their coats from orange to white."

In other words the proteins that cause normal coloring stop functioning due to a negative mutation that prevents them from working. Like I've said, people pull articles and studies like this out all the time, but fail to actually read the details.


The phrase "in other words" is used to mean "another way of saying the same thing." But what you've said here is somthing different. Per the article you cite, there is a mutation in the the gene—a change in just one DNA letter that changes one of the amino acids. The change in the phenotype, the lack of red-yellow melanin, could be missunderstood as a loss of data. But it isn't. It is a change, as evidenced by the italicized quote above (please note the word "change" as well.) This is new data. You can say it is a change that doesn't matter, or that it is a negative change, but whatever else you have to say, it is a change in the data and not a loss of data. This is explicit from what you quoted. This isn't my data.

Quote:
See above. That isn't what happened. A loss of a protein caused the loss of the red and yellow melanin production.


You need to "see above" yourself. There was no loss of a protein. There was a change in the protein that affected a change in the tiger. This is exactly what you keep missing. You tell people to read their own citations. You need to do the same. This isn't just a part of the citation you missed, this is the part that you yourself quoted.

Lokiare wrote:
miss_bun wrote:
Lokiare wrote:

A good documentary to watch is Expelled, no intelligence allowed. It shows the bias against anything that is not evolutionary theory. People get blacklisted if they so much as mention it. One person derides it and makes a mockery of creationism and gets fired because they mentioned it in a peer reviewed paper.


To me, this is like saying math classes are biased against anything that isn't correct math. Evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for how we got here. To teach students opposing views that are either unfalsifiable, or even verifiably wrong, is bad. Researchers are welcome to experiment and study and come to whatever conclusions they can support, but the reason anything that isn't evolutionary theory isn't being taught in schools is that every alternative is based on faith and/or unsound or invalid reasoning. I've literally never heard anyone say "I don't think evolutionary theory is right, but neither are any of those other crackpot ideas. We still need more data. The conclusions we have drawn from the data we have is premature." But no one who disagrees with evolutionary theory ever argues with the theory. They try to argue with the actual, verifiable data. Your statement of "we have never been able to witness new traits occurring" is provably false, and has been disproven in this thread multiple times.


No its much worse than that. If you even mention something other than evolution you get black listed. Journals don't accept papers that prove evolution wrong regardless of how scientific and rigorous they are. Here is an example, though it only deals with intelligent design scientists..


Since you missed the most important part of my post, I'll say it again:
Quote:
Your statement of "we have never been able to witness new traits occurring" is provably false, and has been disproven in this thread multiple times.


Quote:
Actually if you read my posts in this thread every instance where a claim is made of a new trait being found, it turns out it was a loss of genetic data or cross breeding in the case of the lizards (as I explained 10 lizards is not enough genetic diversity to sustain a population you would need around 44 lizards minimum and even then you would have to selective breed for the first few generations).


No, read your cited article on white tigers, above. Not a loss of genetic data. A change. And for a second time I'll ask you to explain how 10 lizards is not enough but "around 44" is. You haven't explained how you arrived at these numbers, or provided any evidence that there were more than 10 beyond saying "it isn't enough."

Quote:
Also I'm not advocating they teach something else, just stop teaching false hoods and claiming the theory of evolution holds up under scientific scrutiny.


The reason they are taught is that they do hold up. You've not only failed to debunk anything, but you can't support your own claims, and when people point this out, you ignore them.

Quote:
When they actually try to argue with data, I show it to be misunderstood or false. I'm still waiting for an actual factual scientific explanation of how new genetic data is added to a species.


Please show me my false data or why anything I've asserted above is invalid or unsound. In the example of the tiger above, you've provided the data yourself. You can't argue with the source, because it is a reputable publication, as well as your own citation. The language is simple and clear, and there is no misunderstanding it.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in evolution, my only point is that if you're someone who seriously wants to oppose evolution and feels that the science supports it, you're going to have a hard time doing so, regardless of the actual content of your case.


Hahahahahahaha wait, what? What? You literally just blew my mind. My brain has just exploded out of my head, and is probably flying somewhere over Mexico right now.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:20 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 301
Identity: Prismatic
Preferred Pronoun Set: Jerk
this thread isn't about pokemon

_________________
"Only your real friends tell you when your face is dirty."
- Sicilian proverb


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:23 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 7706
shadyphoenix wrote:
this thread isn't about pokemon
I really wanted it to be.

_________________
magicpablo666 wrote:
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in an thread with GM_Champion" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against AzureShade when card design is on the line!"


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:24 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 3058
Identity: Female


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:27 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 7706
Lilan wrote:
http://www.cephasministry.com/save_our_children_pokemon_booklet.html
What's wrong with a little digital Satanic cock-fighting?

EDIT: Peta showed me how it's done!

_________________
magicpablo666 wrote:
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in an thread with GM_Champion" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against AzureShade when card design is on the line!"


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:45 pm 
Offline
Retired Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sep 19, 2013
Posts: 1028
:ontopic: and if you can't add anything to that topic then please do not post in the thread and every PLAY NICE

_________________
Dark Lord of All

The Code Of Conduct


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:48 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
miss_bun wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
No, its a good example of naturally selecting for an advantageous gene that already exists which does nothing to hold up the idea that new genetic data was introduced somewhere. Huge difference. In other words it neither supports the evolutionary theory nor disproves it.


You're pulling the assumption that the gene already exists out of nowhere. You are asserting that the gene already existed based on the assumption that new traits can't evolve, and using the that assertion (that the genes already existed recessively rather than evolving) as evidence that new traits can't evolve.


No sorry. If we are talking about the moths, its widely known that the different colors are recessive and dominant traits.

If we are talking about the lizards, I've already talked about how the gene pool wouldn't have been big enough to support them let alone for them to magically grow an organ in just a few generations (hint: not even serious evolutionists will claim creating a new organ in just 30 generations).

Quote:
Quote:
I've already seen his work debunked, but if you haven't you may want to check out http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/fraud-in-my-sons-textbook-my-part-of-a-conversation-with-a-professor-at-a-local-college/ You'll have to forgive that it is on a religious website, the actual article is fact filled and very scientific.


This "article" by PapaGiorgio is not peer reviewed, and unscientific. I read the entire thing, and it is nothing but a bunch of questions asked by someone who is clearly biased, asks questions that serve only as evidence of his lack of understanding and relevant education, and in addition to not being peer reviewed or even published by a legitimate publication at all, he doesn't actually even make any assertions as far as I can tell, never mind any that actually debunk the study. This article contains no facts that I can see, beyond those quoted in the original study. It has about as much weight and scientific merit as a comment on someone's youtube video.


That article simply pokes holes in the validity of the research process used. It doesn't need to be a scientist pointing out the flaws like the assumption of birds eating the moths or the fact that he only observed a few hundred and that is not enough to do a reliable statistical analysis. However later on down the article he quotes scientist authored books on the subject. Here are some samples:

" I recommend the chapter that explains the actual parameters to Kettlewells experiment (chpt 6), it is fascinating, and would mute any further discussion. Just two “unnatural” examples can also be found in the popular press:

“The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).” Calgary Herald, p. D3, 21 March 1999.

“University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for the famous NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs’.” J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36. & The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999."

"The Nitty Gritty – Sargent’s Work (from Of Moths and Men)
In a series of experiments between 1965 and 1969, Sargent tried to replicate Kettlewell’s background-preference work. He got contradictory results, and concluded that the moths’ resting places were genetically predetermined, not selected, as Kettlewell believed, by individual moths noting whether their “circumocular tufts” matched the background. Sargent has also found that the plants eaten by the larvae may induce or repress the expression of such “melanism” in adult moths (see Sargent T.R. et al. in M.K. Hecht et al, Evolutionary Biology 30:299–322, Plenum Press, New York, 1998)."

So it is a valid article because it talks about and quotes peer reviewed studies in books.

Quote:
Quote:
First it shows that his experiments were flawed and not statistically sound, then it shows he like many others made many assumptions and ignored important data like the fact that the coloration can be altered by the larvae being eaten before they are colored, the natural resting place is in fact under branches and leaves and not on the trunk of the tree, and other facts. At best the author is misinformed, at worst he's intentionally perpetrating these false hoods.


Again, I read this article. Please cite examples from the text. I couldn't find any.


See above. I quoted a few. There is a very long one toward the middle that proves the original experiments were very poor and contradict later findings. In fact to avoid confusing I'll just quote it here:

"The following point is important to the understanding of how these moths change color and how this may have also impacted the population change in coloration:

[Sargent] noticed that the caterpillars eating the new-growth pine were growing more slowly that the ones in the other container, and they pupated and eclosed later. In both groups all the male moths were melanics, and among females overall there was a fifty-fifty ratio of typicals and melanics. This meant that, assuming the melanism was controlled by a sex-linked dominant allele, the melanic female had mated with a heterozygous melanic male. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups. More than two-thirds of new-growth-fed female moths were melanic, while two-thirds of the group fed on old-growth needles were typical. A second experiment on 8 July yielded similar results. Sargent believed he had hit paydirt. “Something in the new-growth needles was favouring the expression of adult melanism,” Sargent explains….

…. Although Sargent would undoubtedly be described by nine out of ten eyewitnesses as “quiet and unassuming” – a mild, grandfatherly figure frequently overlooked by waiters in restaurants – he is a dangerous iconoclast in the eyes of the industrial melanism establishment. He finally published, with two co-authors, a devastating analysis of the classic industrial melanism story in 1998 (see below), concluding that “there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations and experiments, to support [the classical] explanation at the present time.” Although it enraged the community of his peers – Bruce Grant called it a “dreadful review” and a “hatchet job” – Sargent’s article was not the decisive confrontation of the peppered moth wars. That erupted in the 5 November 1998 issue of Nature, in a review written by Jerry A. Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, of a new book by Michael E.N. Majerus. The book, called Melanism: Evolution in Action, was a watershed event. Methodologically and incisively analyzing every flaw in Kettlewell’s experiments and in the industrial melanism paradigm, Majerus’s book left no doubt that the classic story was wrong in almost every detail. [I separated it here for ease]:

a. Peppered moths, if left to their own devices, do not rest on tree trunks;
b. bird vision is nothing like human vision [referring to Kettlewell's vision scale that were part of his original thesis];
c. Kettlewell was wrong about how peppered moths choose their resting sites;
d. the high densities of moths he used may have skewed the results;
e. the method of release was faulty, and on and on.

The various predation have not replicated his results particularly well, and other “factors” kept having to be invoked to squeeze the data into the standard industrial melanism model. “The findings of [scientists since Kettlewell],” Majerus concluded, “show that the précised description of the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the component parts.”

The reader who makes his way through Majerus’s mountains of evidence is rather stunned to arrive at his verdict: that the basic story, while “undoubtedly more complex and fascinating than most biology textbooks have space to relate”, is perfectly fine. “My view of the rise and fall of the melanic peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors.”

Jerry Coyne (who reviewed Majerus’s book), however, was “horrified.” The sheer magnitude of the problems itemized in the book filled him with dismay and something like shame. After all, he too had been teaching the “standard Biston story” for years. When he dug out Kettlewell’s original papers he found that things were even worse than he thought. How was it that the experiment that Coyne called the “prize horse in our stable of examples” had been accepted unquestionably all this time? …(continued below)"

That was a quote from a peer reviewed scientist's book.

Quote:
Quote:
Ok, first off, this is easily proven nonviable. In order for there to be enough genetic data to prevent inbreeding mutations, there would have to more than 10 lizards.


First of all, please cite proof of this specific number, and second realize that inbreeding mutations are new traits evolving that did not exist before. Something like 70% of inbreeding mutations are harmful, and most of the rest are either weakly expressed or completely neutral, but that does not change the fact that these are changes in the gene structure and not preexisting but recessive traits being expressed, and that some are even beneficial. You just cited evidence that debunks your entire stance.


No, sorry I did not cite evidence that debunks my stance. Inbreeding mutations are not new traits. They are recessive traits that are not desirable for survival. Not new genetic data.

Quote:
Quote:
I highly doubt an entire organ suddenly popped into existence over 30 generations.


"I highly doubt" is not evidence, and isn't worth mentioning if you are trying to convince anyone of anything.


Let me make it clearer then. That is impossible by any means, even if we assume new neutral or positive genetic mutations are added during each of the 30 generations.

After looking around for a bit, it turns out that these lizards do have the organ that was supposedly evolved. They just have it at a younger stage of life.

They also note that the changes occurred with a change in population density. As everyone knows when cricket and grasshopper population density swells they undergo physiological changes and become locusts.

So what we have here is zero evidence for evolution until someone sequences the DNA to tell if it was a genetic loss or a new gene that caused the cecal valves to remain to adulthood. In short "Not enough information".

Quote:
Quote:
As I said, there wasn't enough genetic data in 10 lizards to produce a viable population of lizards for more than a few generations without extreme birth defects and infertility which would have wiped them out.


Cite evidence please.


Citation:
"The "50/500" rule of thumb initially advanced by Franklin (1980) and Soule (1980) comes the closest of any to attaining "magic number" status (Wilcox 1986). This rule prescribes a short-term effective population size (Ne) of 50 to prevent an unacceptable rate of inbreeding, and a long-term Ne of 500 to maintain overall genetic variability. The Ne=50 prescription (termed "the basic rule" by Soule 1980) corresponds to an inbreeding rate of 1% per generation, approximately half the maximum rate tolerated by domestic animal breeders (Franklin 1980). The Ne=500 prescription is an attempt to balance the rate of gain in genetic variation due to mutation with the rate of loss due to drift, and is based on a genetic study of bristles in Drosophila (Franklin 1980)."

You need way more than 10 lizards. 10 lizards 5 being male and 5 being female would equal an inbreeding rate of way over 1%.

Quote:
Quote:
That link is forbidden to me for some reason. Most of the examples given though I bet are easily disproved as recessive genes or a loss of data allowing some already existing mechanism to work. I've gone over dozens of these kinds of articles and they always claim to have proven evolution as fact, but upon closer inspection they always fail to show anything other than recessive genes or loss of genetic traits.


You bet?


Yes, I can't be 100% sure because I can't read the article. However every single article I've been able to access with a little bit of research turns out to be a recessive gene or a loss of genetic traits.

Quote:
Quote:
Except you can't make a mathematical model based on a lack of knowledge or information. Its those unknown unknowns that get you. The probabilities you talk about ignore an entire section of variables in favor of a 'lets just assume this for now' which totally goes against science.


What section of variables is ignored? Science is about using the best explanation for what we see. A bunch of stuff isn't getting made up to support these explanations, we've seen these mutations. At a macro level, and at a bacterial level, which we DO have DNA sequencing for:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ktv9VOcF8E


Yep, that one has been debunked for awhile. The article erroneously claims that this bacteria can't metabolize citrate, when in fact they have the ability to metabolize citrate in an non-oxidized environment.

Here is a better article that explains it more fully, though with the same 'evolution' slant.

Here is the Wikipedia article on the subject, and here is a quote that shows that it wasn't new genetic data but simply a gene duplication:

"In 2012, a team of researchers working under Lenski reported the results of a genomic analysis of the Cit+ trait that shed light on the genetic basis and evolutionary history of the trait.[5] The researchers had sequenced the entire genomes of twenty-nine clones isolated from various time points in the Ara-3 population's history. They used these sequences to reconstruct the phylogenetic history of the population, which showed that the population had diversified into three clades by 20,000 generations. The Cit+ variants had evolved in one of these, which they called Clade 3. Clones that had been found to be potentiated in earlier research were distributed among all three clades, but were over-represented in Clade 3. This led the researchers to conclude that there had been at least two potentiating mutations involved in Cit+ evolution. The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones sequenced had in their genomes a duplication mutation of 2933 base pairs that involved the gene for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth on citrate, citT. The duplication is tandem, resulting in two copies that are head-to-tail with respect to each other. This duplication immediately conferred the Cit+ trait by creating a new regulatory module in which the normally silent citT gene is placed under the control of a promoter for an adjacent gene called rnk. The new promoter activates expression of the citrate transporter when oxygen is present, and thereby enabling aerobic growth on citrate. Movement of this new regulatory module (called the rnk-citT module) into the genome of a potentiated Cit- clone was shown to be sufficient to produce a Cit+ phenotype. However, the initial Cit+ phenotype conferred by the duplication was very weak, and only granted a ~1% fitness benefit. The researchers found that the number of copies of the rnk-citT module had to be increased to strengthen the Cit+ trait sufficiently to permit the bacteria to grow well on the citrate, and that further mutations after the Cit+ bacteria became dominant in the population continued to accumulate that refined and improved growth on citrate. The researchers conclude that the evolution of the Cit+ trait suggests that new traits evolve through three stages: potentiation, in which mutations accumulate over a lineage's history that make a trait accessible; actualization, in which one or more mutations render a new trait manifest; and refinement, in which the trait is improved by further mutations."

In other words an already existing process was duplicated which allowed the bacteria to better process citrate while in an oxidated environment.

Quote:
Quote:
Your confusion might be that the homunculus regressed middle man changes in each iteration. That is still the right fallacy. For instance they start with new genetic data is created, we ask how that happens, they say mutation, we point out how absurd that is and they say of mutation is caused by X (where X is another regressed middle man) and the cycle continues as each new theory has holes poked into it.


Just because you aren't aware of it or don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Random gene recombination happens all of the time. We see this happen at a genetic level in labs. here is no "caused by X" happening. We are talking about extrapolating ideas from things that are verifiable, that there is evidence for, and every time someone shows you evidence, you say that it has been debunked, and cite something that doesn't debunk it at all, or you ignore it.


Unfortunately no one has as yet shown in the lab that this has happened. You are talking about imagining unverified speculation based on what you know. Its important to note that you can extrapolate incorrectly just as well as you can correctly.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm talking about a positive change. It only takes one base pair change to become destructive. It takes 25%-50% of base pairs that create a protein to make it into the next closest protein that actual is not negative (that's not even counting positive).


I've already answered this above, and others have any other times as well, but you're still citing the mechanism that makes evolution work, and saying it proves that it doesn't. Just because most of some types of mutations such as inbreeding produce negative results doesn't mean that the mechanism doesn't exist. In the same works you've cited, it is outlined that positive change does happen, and has been documented in lab settings, as well as in nature. At a macro and micro scale.


You and others don't seem to grasp what I'm saying. Not only does it require hundreds of mutations, they have to be specific mutations and if they aren't they end up making the protein harmful to the organism. Scientists have admitted that they can't find a path of one protein evolving into another because during that path the mutations would kill the organism or render it unsuitable for its environment.

Quote:
Quote:
Yet it still represents a loss of genetic data and not an addition. As I said before adaptation to an environment due to the loss of genetic data is a proven phenomenon. It does not prove in any way shape or form that things grow new genetic data and that amoebas gave rise to chimps.


Okay first, how does it represent a loss of genetic data? There is no "loss of data," there is only change. All of our dna is four nucleobases combined in different ways. But secondly, there were no chimps 500 million years ago. So by your logic, everything that is a chimp already existed as a recessive gene in the first amoebas.


Loss of functionality. It turns a useful protein into a harmful or non-useful protein. Thus its a loss.

Your second sentence is pure nonsense and isn't what I was saying. Straw Man.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You seem to be going far, far beyond what the second law of thermodynamics implies. The system of DNA transcription is an thermodynamically open system because energy is being transferred in, in the form of chemical bonds.


That's the production of the DNA and RNA chemical bonds, that system is open. The copying of the DNA over to the RNA and the causation of mutations is a closed system no new genetic data is inserted.


What. That you can acknowledge one and not the other blows my mind. Especially since it appears to be a distinction based on pure whim, as far as I can tell.


They are two different system. Its as simple as that. A factory that produces a specific set of gears is an open system. As soon as you go to put those gears together it is a closed system because the only thing that is happening is the placing of the gears together. You aren't adding new gears or modifying old gears by adding paint or whatever.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:49 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
door (dooooooooooor) wrote:
genuine question for Lokiare, why do you have such strong opinions about things you clearly don't understand very well

like I don't really know much about evolutionary biology so, aside from general things, I just defer my opinion to people who are experts in the field instead of trying to come up with my own homebrew theories


I understand it perfectly fine. Where has anyone shown that I don't?

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:51 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Lilan wrote:
it is controversial in the sense that there is stigma attached to opposing it academically. (that is just a guess though i do not actually know anything about academic communities)


I posted it in an earlier post, but people get fired and/or blacklisted for mentioning the opposition. So its a very real phenomenon.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:52 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Cyclone_Joker wrote:
PlaneShaper wrote:
There shouldn't be stigma. There should be an analysis of the presented evidence.
There should be a stigma over repeated assertions of laughably false claims. Period, the end. That person is shown to either be irrational, morally bankrupt, or stupid and has no business being taken seriously.
Quote:
Where there is stigma is in presenting an opposition as fact, without supporting evidence, and using misdirection and exaggeration to ask fake-skeptical questions.
That's kinda where I what I was saying. I just expect people to have critical reading skills at the level where I don't have to explicitly spell everything out.


I agree. Good thing none of that is going on in this thread. Well except for the repeated claims by the evolutionists for things that have been proven wrong over and over and over...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:57 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Yarium wrote:
Except, Lokaire, that would be Moving the Goalposts, another logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts. Scientifically, I have no problem with you asking what the proof on how new DNA sequences or proteins develop (despite me offering a list of sources), but if all you're going to do is continue to ask for the next post to be passed each time, then you are constructing a logically unsound standpoint. You are free to believe what you will, but requesting further and deeper proof each time is not a sound way to debate. It IS a good way to do science, but you will inevitably hit a wall of lack of understanding.

It's like when a child just keeps asking "why?". It doesn't matter how much you explain it, another "why?" is always around the corner. It will be impossible for there not to be. That said, you cannot throw out all the science that leads up to that last why just because you don't understand the last one or are unable/unwilling to do the work yourself.

Gene Duplication is a recognized means of adding new information to the genetic code. You may not agree with that and may question the studies, but it answers your question. I cannot answer questions about those studies for you, and so you declaring the studies frivilous, or falsely claiming that you simply know better than them, is ludicrous. That would be a Straw Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy


My goal posts haven't moved a bit. Go back and read my early posts. I'll summarize here:

The theory of evolution is a mishmash of provable theories and speculative hypothesis that are either unprovable, non proven, or proven false. The main one I have a problem with is the introduction of new genetic data through mutation. As I've shown its not only impossible, its been proven impossible.

I've gone through and actually shown in linked articles where those studies have been debunked. If you didn't read them that's on you not me...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:58 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
GrifterMage wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
so far no one has refuted my points on how new genetic data is not added to the DNA of creatures. Until someone can do this the theory of evolution as a whole is unworkable.
...How so?

Let's assume for a moment that you're absolutely right that no new genetic data can be added to DNA through mutation. How does that, for even a moment, disprove the theory of evolution as a whole? Evolution does not require the addition of DNA--it's just as applicable to cases where already-existing DNA is suppressed or formerly-recessive traits become dominant, as you yourself have argued happens, and that doesn't require any new genetic data being added. It also does not require any particular method of DNA alteration.

The only thing that that assumption would mean is that either A) somehow all genetic data is preexisting (which is perfectly allowable within evolutionary theory) or B) there exists some other method of genetic data being added to DNA (which, again, is perfectly allowable within evolutionary theory).


The theory of evolution as a whole is made up of sub theories one of which is new traits added to cause change. Without that one foundational piece, the whole thing falls apart. Organisms could not have evolved from each other in the way they speculate.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:02 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Yarium wrote:
The articles have not been debunked. The article you referenced (Bozorgmehr, Joseph Esfandiar Hannon. 22 December 2010. Is Gene Duplication a Viable Explanation for the Origination of Biological Information and Complexity? Complexity, published online, DOI 10.1002/cplx.20365, pp. 1-14), does nothing to debunk the theory of gene duplication. In fact, just reading the Abstract for it on http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract shows that this article is in SUPPORT of it! Here's the quote:

Quote:
The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.


The only thing it states is that, while it's good enough for EVOLUTION, it is not good enough for origin of the genome.

Your facts are wrong Lokiare.


Let me highlight the part that you missed. when you read those you realize that this vague statement actually indicates that the author can mean that there is not proof that gene duplication adds new genetic data (as well as several other possible meanings) you are simply reading your personal viewpoint into the summary.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:12 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
miss_bun wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
Not really. I've never argued against the loss of genetic data as being against survival of the fittest and adaptation to environment.

You can read the details here, where they explain:

"The SLC45A2 gene makes a protein of the same name, which consists of 560 amino acids. A single mutation in the gene—a change in just one DNA letter—switches one of those 560 amino acids from an alanine to a valine. This distorts the protein’s shape, and potentially prevents it from taking part in the creation of red-yellow melanin. Every white tiger has two copies of this mutated gene, and can only make the distorted protein. That’s all it takes to change their coats from orange to white."

In other words the proteins that cause normal coloring stop functioning due to a negative mutation that prevents them from working. Like I've said, people pull articles and studies like this out all the time, but fail to actually read the details.


The phrase "in other words" is used to mean "another way of saying the same thing." But what you've said here is somthing different. Per the article you cite, there is a mutation in the the gene—a change in just one DNA letter that changes one of the amino acids. The change in the phenotype, the lack of red-yellow melanin, could be missunderstood as a loss of data. But it isn't. It is a change, as evidenced by the italicized quote above (please note the word "change" as well.) This is new data. You can say it is a change that doesn't matter, or that it is a negative change, but whatever else you have to say, it is a change in the data and not a loss of data. This is explicit from what you quoted. This isn't my data.


I bow to your superior semantic skills and cede that I didn't explain it as well as I should have.

Quote:
Quote:
See above. That isn't what happened. A loss of a protein caused the loss of the red and yellow melanin production.


You need to "see above" yourself. There was no loss of a protein. There was a change in the protein that affected a change in the tiger. This is exactly what you keep missing. You tell people to read their own citations. You need to do the same. This isn't just a part of the citation you missed, this is the part that you yourself quoted.


Again your semantics are superior to mine. The loss of the 'function' of the protein did happen though.

Quote:
Lokiare wrote:
miss_bun wrote:

To me, this is like saying math classes are biased against anything that isn't correct math. Evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for how we got here. To teach students opposing views that are either unfalsifiable, or even verifiably wrong, is bad. Researchers are welcome to experiment and study and come to whatever conclusions they can support, but the reason anything that isn't evolutionary theory isn't being taught in schools is that every alternative is based on faith and/or unsound or invalid reasoning. I've literally never heard anyone say "I don't think evolutionary theory is right, but neither are any of those other crackpot ideas. We still need more data. The conclusions we have drawn from the data we have is premature." But no one who disagrees with evolutionary theory ever argues with the theory. They try to argue with the actual, verifiable data. Your statement of "we have never been able to witness new traits occurring" is provably false, and has been disproven in this thread multiple times.


No its much worse than that. If you even mention something other than evolution you get black listed. Journals don't accept papers that prove evolution wrong regardless of how scientific and rigorous they are. Here is an example, though it only deals with intelligent design scientists..


Since you missed the most important part of my post, I'll say it again:
Quote:
Your statement of "we have never been able to witness new traits occurring" is provably false, and has been disproven in this thread multiple times.


Quote:
Actually if you read my posts in this thread every instance where a claim is made of a new trait being found, it turns out it was a loss of genetic data or cross breeding in the case of the lizards (as I explained 10 lizards is not enough genetic diversity to sustain a population you would need around 44 lizards minimum and even then you would have to selective breed for the first few generations).


No, read your cited article on white tigers, above. Not a loss of genetic data. A change. And for a second time I'll ask you to explain how 10 lizards is not enough but "around 44" is. You haven't explained how you arrived at these numbers, or provided any evidence that there were more than 10 beyond saying "it isn't enough."

Quote:
Also I'm not advocating they teach something else, just stop teaching false hoods and claiming the theory of evolution holds up under scientific scrutiny.


The reason they are taught is that they do hold up. You've not only failed to debunk anything, but you can't support your own claims, and when people point this out, you ignore them.


Actually, they don't and if you have any questions on specific articles or studies I'd be glad to run down the scientific proof that they aren't what they appear.

Quote:
Quote:
When they actually try to argue with data, I show it to be misunderstood or false. I'm still waiting for an actual factual scientific explanation of how new genetic data is added to a species.


Please show me my false data or why anything I've asserted above is invalid or unsound. In the example of the tiger above, you've provided the data yourself. You can't argue with the source, because it is a reputable publication, as well as your own citation. The language is simple and clear, and there is no misunderstanding it.


I'm not talking about your data. The misleading or false data of the scientists and article writers that people are quoting.

Quote:
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in evolution, my only point is that if you're someone who seriously wants to oppose evolution and feels that the science supports it, you're going to have a hard time doing so, regardless of the actual content of your case.


Hahahahahahaha wait, what? What? You literally just blew my mind. My brain has just exploded out of my head, and is probably flying somewhere over Mexico right now.


Hopefully you don't think that was a quote from me. If not and you still feel that way: Many scientists are black listed from journals and jobs if they so much as mention opposition or question some of these studies. I posted a link in an earlier post with a bunch of examples...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
door (dooooooooooor) wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
door (dooooooooooor) wrote:
genuine question for Lokiare, why do you have such strong opinions about things you clearly don't understand very well

like I don't really know much about evolutionary biology so, aside from general things, I just defer my opinion to people who are experts in the field instead of trying to come up with my own homebrew theories


I understand it perfectly fine. Where has anyone shown that I don't?
Do you have a graduate degree in biology?

If not, I suggest reading this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_evidence

and at least a few standard textbooks on evolutionary biology before having an opinion.

I'm not going to refute your argument, because I am not an expert in biology. I understand, however, that your belief is very, very fringe, and I don't think you have the credentials to validate having such a strong opinion on the subject and writing about it at length. You seem to be quoting a few studies without the expertise to understand their context or significance.


By looking at each study and seeing other scientists that have shown how they don't prove evolution even lay people like us can form an opinion. Its even easier when the pro-evolution crowd throw in logical fallacies left and right so we can disqualify their arguments without having to know a bit of science...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:18 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 301
Identity: Prismatic
Preferred Pronoun Set: Jerk
You should write a book.

_________________
"Only your real friends tell you when your face is dirty."
- Sicilian proverb


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:25 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1095
Cyclone_Joker wrote:
Lilan wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in evolution, my only point is that if you're someone who seriously wants to oppose evolution and feels that the science supports it, you're going to have a hard time doing so, regardless of the actual content of your case.
...No, you're going to have a hard time doing so because the content of your case is stupid. Of course, I may be wrong. Care to cite an example of something like that happening in modern times?

Everyone has a hard time bringing up evidence to support a theory that goes against the grain of established scientific opinion, even if that theory later turns out accurate. If you can't admit that the scientific community, as a group of people, is weighed down by its own established biases, you should really consider whether you belong in the same community.

It's clear in your own response to Lilan, who posed a hypothetical situation of someone opposing evolution with or without quality evidence. You do realize you passed a judgment of "stupid" on a non-existent set of hypothetical evidence, right? There was not even evidence presented and you're prejudiced against it. Caveating that you are willing to accept yourself as incorrect doesn't diminish the barrier of your own bias -- what would it take for you to even get so far as such an admission? Read the Psychology of Intelligence Analysis for serious discussion of instilled bias.

In any case, I'm fine observing the discussing, and I think Lokiare is at least being slightly more respectful than he was with Glasir, which is too bad, because Glasir is a great person. I only piped up because "entropy" was being used very incorrectly, which would indeed be a red herring to Lokiare's primary assertion (but I wasn't arguing against his primary assertion, which is something I think he missed). I personally don't have the authority to discuss the theory of evolutionary biology in any seriously intellectual fashion, (unlike physics and biases).

_________________
PbP Characters
Umiki800080SDSS
Navu'ai008000KotS
ParkunFFD700Ixen

PbP Games
—DDN—The Mines of MadnessCurrent Map

RPG Personality


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 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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