That which cannot be seen (detected) is not evidence of anything.
Factually Incorrect. Can you "SEE" Software/Information? If you need me to POST IT (You already seen it ) let me know. Can you "SEE": TRUTH, Knowledge, Logic....do they exist?
Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.
False Equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency:
The following statements are examples of false equivalence:
"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
"We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Which Fallacy is in play here?
Non-sequitur (fallacy). None of these things mentioned are evidence.
Au Contraire, I beg to differ....
INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....
It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.
"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....
Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....
See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......
The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.
Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?
You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise. CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.
To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.
I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.
Oh btw....
"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999
Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF's...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif. And Yes, it gets better....
Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, eh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means? The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...
Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."
What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle his mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress,
"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".
Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.
"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.
Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:
Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."
In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?
Love, this is Non-Sequitur as Hydrogen is Non-Sequitur to Water.
Enoch, thanks for continuing this discussion. Just a few comments and clarifications:
[color=red]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
1. He did not. I did read it....hence, I quoted some parts of "it" including the continued Waffling..."So the answer to the question "Is Darwinism a religion?" is varied, interesting and insightful."---Ruse (2011)
Whether Ruse was "waffling" is irrelevant. In the part I quoted (and emphasized in bold), he clearly states that acceptance of evolution, in and of itself, doesn't commit anyone to religious belief, but that one could expand on evolutionary findings to search for morality and meaning, and that this could become quasi-religious. I'm not sure what else you want from Ruse or me here . . . when understood in proper context, he clearly wasn't saying the theory of evolution is religious.
[color=darkred]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:2. KaBoom! Ya see, to support your frivolous Charge of "Quote Mining" you first have to know what "Quote Mining" is.
Enoch, this is a civil and kind debating site, and using phrases like "KaBoom!" aren't civil or kind. Please try to avoid tactics like this in the future.
With that said, quote mining is the repeated use of contextless quotes designed to make a pre-determined point that wasn't intended by the original authors. You've quote-mined repeatedly in your last post. You could have posted the articles where the quotes came from, but you didn't (because those articles don't say what you want them to say. This is a typical YEC tactic.
[color=olive]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
"In the Beginning". Ya see, "Implications" means DOWNSTREAM from.... "After Affects", NOT..."in the beginning".
Ruse was saying that evolution had societal implications since the beginning, and I would agree with him (just look at the work of Herbert Spencer and Auguste Comte, who cited Darwin's work as an inspiration for their social theories). Still, that doesn't change the fact that evolution is simply the change in allele frequencies in successive generations in populations over time. That isn't a religion or an ideology.
[color=green]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
lol...what in the world?
Ruse's use of the word "religion"' was a rhetorical device. He was essentially calling any form of ideology or group-bonding (including Freemasons, universities, and so on) religions.
[color=darkorange]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Well didn't he first propose this Nonsense? evolution hasn't made or assisted in any advancements whatsoever, in fact it's hindered "Actual" Science....
That's actually completely false. Evolution has contributed to a wide variety of practical scientific advancements. In fact, were it not for knowledge of evolution, there's a good chance that both of us would have died from diseases that are easily stopped by vaccines or antibiotics developed thanks to evolutionary theory.
There are no such thing as "evolutionists." There are only scientists, essentially all of whom accept the theory of evolution.
[color=brown]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:The failure to recognize the full implications of [non-protein"coding DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.'
Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W.W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289(5):26"33, November 2003.
This is a perfect example of quote mining. One sentence, devoid of any context. I will check all of your references in their entirety over the next few days--being in graduate school doesn't give me much time to post here.
Scientific American, by the way, isn't an academic journal, but a popular website by laypersons.
[color=green]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
What on Earth is this? Is this like the "Philosophy" of Chemistry? Who is the father of evolution? Who is the father of the Philosophy of Biology? See "The Connection"?
Yes, believe it or not, there is a philosophy of chemistry. Philosophy of science is one of the largest fields in the discipline of philosophy.
[color=violet]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Define a Scientific Hypothesis (CITE SOURCE) and Provide an Example.....?
[color=red]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
So let me get this straight...you're placing "Sociology" or near the Universal Vicinity of the Empirical Sciences: Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry/Biology as your justification?? What's next, Economics?
Both the social sciences (sociology, economics, psychology) and the natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry) follow the scientific method, so they are all "sciences."
[color=blue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
evolution predictions? What evolution? You're putting the Cart before the Horse...
From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin
First, a prediction in science is any hypothesis that has be verified using scientific evidence. It doesn't matter if it concerns the future or not.
Also, these quote mines have nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. You're talking about abiogenesis, which isn't part of evolutionary theory and has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life.
[color=darkblue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Where'd you get DNA?
Did they "Predict" that all life will have DNA? Astonishing!! I "predict" Next years Super Bowl combined score will be between 1 and 200. Mark it down, you heard it here FIRST!!!
This arrogant dismissal completely misses the point I was trying to make.
First of all, scientists do have hypotheses about the evolution of DNA (these models vary, but all start with RNA as a building block): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
Second of all, endogenous retroviruses are viruses that insert at specific points on DNA chains of a living thing, and these viruses are inherited by that lifeform's descendants. These viruses remain even after speciation events occur, and one way of determining common ancestry is to see if retroviruses are shared at the same points on DNA chains between different species. Such shared retroviruses have been found at the same DNA points in humans and the other great apes, indicating that we share a common ancestor.
[color=brown]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:Please CITE The Prediction: Author/ Specific Prediction/Date and Time Stamp.
ERV's? lol. Is this "junk" DNA? Please Please Post this PRE-diction. (SEE: Mattick/Biggest mistakes/ in History/ Molecular Biology, above). This falls in the Catastrophic Failure Department of POST-dictions...there's quite a few others; Speaking of which...
[color=olive]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
The Good News: Tiktaalik is dated 379 million years old "Allegedly". The Bad News...there are tracks of four legged animals dated 397 Million years old discovered in Poland (18 Million years older than Tiktaalik). Which led to these statements....
"They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."
Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M. and Ahlberg, P., Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463(7227):43"48, 2010;
No one is claiming that Tiktaalik is the ancestor of modern tetrapods, only that it represents a basal form of tetrapods located close to fish.
[color=darkblue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Evolutionist review of (H. Gee) In Search of Deep Time...
"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." {Emphasis Mine}
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Gee is correct here. We can't say with 100% certainty how any specific evolution events occurred, but we can know with a high degree of confidence how these events occurred. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but in degrees of certainty.
I'd give this mined quote in its full context, but it's not online and I'll have to track it down through my university's library. How convenient that all of your quote mines come from before 2005, when things weren't posted online.
Haven
“Reserve your right to think.†- Hypatia “A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence†- David Hume
Haven wrote:
Enoch, thanks for continuing this discussion. Just a few comments and clarifications:
[color=red]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
1. He did not. I did read it....hence, I quoted some parts of "it" including the continued Waffling..."So the answer to the question "Is Darwinism a religion?" is varied, interesting and insightful."---Ruse (2011)
Whether Ruse was "waffling" is irrelevant. In the part I quoted (and emphasized in bold), he clearly states that acceptance of evolution, in and of itself, doesn't commit anyone to religious belief, but that one could expand on evolutionary findings to search for morality and meaning, and that this could become quasi-religious. I'm not sure what else you want from Ruse or me here . . . when understood in proper context, he clearly wasn't saying the theory of evolution is religious.
[color=darkred]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:2. KaBoom! Ya see, to support your frivolous Charge of "Quote Mining" you first have to know what "Quote Mining" is.
Enoch, this is a civil and kind debating site, and using phrases like "KaBoom!" aren't civil or kind. Please try to avoid tactics like this in the future.
With that said, quote mining is the repeated use of contextless quotes designed to make a pre-determined point that wasn't intended by the original authors. You've quote-mined repeatedly in your last post. You could have posted the articles where the quotes came from, but you didn't (because those articles don't say what you want them to say. This is a typical YEC tactic.
[color=olive]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
"In the Beginning". Ya see, "Implications" means DOWNSTREAM from.... "After Affects", NOT..."in the beginning".
Ruse was saying that evolution had societal implications since the beginning, and I would agree with him (just look at the work of Herbert Spencer and Auguste Comte, who cited Darwin's work as an inspiration for their social theories). Still, that doesn't change the fact that evolution is simply the change in allele frequencies in successive generations in populations over time. That isn't a religion or an ideology.
[color=green]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
lol...what in the world?
Ruse's use of the word "religion"' was a rhetorical device. He was essentially calling any form of ideology or group-bonding (including Freemasons, universities, and so on) religions.
[color=darkorange]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Well didn't he first propose this Nonsense? evolution hasn't made or assisted in any advancements whatsoever, in fact it's hindered "Actual" Science....
That's actually completely false. Evolution has contributed to a wide variety of practical scientific advancements. In fact, were it not for knowledge of evolution, there's a good chance that both of us would have died from diseases that are easily stopped by vaccines or antibiotics developed thanks to evolutionary theory.
There are no such thing as "evolutionists." There are only scientists, essentially all of whom accept the theory of evolution.
[color=brown]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:The failure to recognize the full implications of [non-protein"coding DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.'
Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W.W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289(5):26"33, November 2003.
This is a perfect example of quote mining. One sentence, devoid of any context. I will check all of your references in their entirety over the next few days--being in graduate school doesn't give me much time to post here.
Scientific American, by the way, isn't an academic journal, but a popular website by laypersons.
[color=green]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
What on Earth is this? Is this like the "Philosophy" of Chemistry? Who is the father of evolution? Who is the father of the Philosophy of Biology? See "The Connection"?
Yes, believe it or not, there is a philosophy of chemistry. Philosophy of science is one of the largest fields in the discipline of philosophy.
[color=violet]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Define a Scientific Hypothesis (CITE SOURCE) and Provide an Example.....?
[color=red]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
So let me get this straight...you're placing "Sociology" or near the Universal Vicinity of the Empirical Sciences: Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry/Biology as your justification?? What's next, Economics?
Both the social sciences (sociology, economics, psychology) and the natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry) follow the scientific method, so they are all "sciences."
[color=blue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
evolution predictions? What evolution? You're putting the Cart before the Horse...
From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin
First, a prediction in science is any hypothesis that has be verified using scientific evidence. It doesn't matter if it concerns the future or not.
Also, these quote mines have nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. You're talking about abiogenesis, which isn't part of evolutionary theory and has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life.
[color=darkblue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Where'd you get DNA?
Did they "Predict" that all life will have DNA? Astonishing!! I "predict" Next years Super Bowl combined score will be between 1 and 200. Mark it down, you heard it here FIRST!!!
This arrogant dismissal completely misses the point I was trying to make.
First of all, scientists do have hypotheses about the evolution of DNA (these models vary, but all start with RNA as a building block): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
Second of all, endogenous retroviruses are viruses that insert at specific points on DNA chains of a living thing, and these viruses are inherited by that lifeform's descendants. These viruses remain even after speciation events occur, and one way of determining common ancestry is to see if retroviruses are shared at the same points on DNA chains between different species. Such shared retroviruses have been found at the same DNA points in humans and the other great apes, indicating that we share a common ancestor.
[color=brown]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:Please CITE The Prediction: Author/ Specific Prediction/Date and Time Stamp.
ERV's? lol. Is this "junk" DNA? Please Please Post this PRE-diction. (SEE: Mattick/Biggest mistakes/ in History/ Molecular Biology, above). This falls in the Catastrophic Failure Department of POST-dictions...there's quite a few others; Speaking of which...
[color=olive]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
The Good News: Tiktaalik is dated 379 million years old "Allegedly". The Bad News...there are tracks of four legged animals dated 397 Million years old discovered in Poland (18 Million years older than Tiktaalik). Which led to these statements....
"They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."
Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M. and Ahlberg, P., Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463(7227):43"48, 2010;
No one is claiming that Tiktaalik is the ancestor of modern tetrapods, only that it represents a basal form of tetrapods located close to fish.
[color=darkblue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Evolutionist review of (H. Gee) In Search of Deep Time...
"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." {Emphasis Mine}
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Gee is correct here. We can't say with 100% certainty how any specific evolution events occurred, but we can know with a high degree of confidence how these events occurred. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but in degrees of certainty.
I'd give this mined quote in its full context, but it's not online and I'll have to track it down through my university's library. How convenient that all of your quote mines come from before 2005, when things weren't posted online.
(Caveat: do you see the contradiction? "Knowledge" is Immaterial. So they're attempting to acquire IMMATERIAL (Knowledge) via MATERIAL (Physical and Natural World) to explain away IMMATERIAL as Plausible. KaBooM! Logically, it's tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent Athlete's Foot, but I digress:
A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis
It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).
A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine} http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
So we can say: Science is in the business of ascertaining CAUSATION of OBSERVED PHENOMENA through Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.
Whether Ruse was "waffling" is irrelevant.
He was waffling and you failed to touch on let alone refute my 2 points....
1. How can it be "NO Religion" Whatsoever.... and the same time, the question be: "Varied", Interesting", and "Insightful" ?? Define Contradictory...?
2. The "Context" is in the ORIGINAL PIECE....not the Re-Eval 11 Years Later!! ...Which is Ipso Facto Inherently: "Out of CONTEXT". Ergo....your Quote Mine assertion is a Baseless "Bare" Assertion (Fallacy).
Enoch, this is a civil and kind debating site, and using phrases like "KaBoom!"
Sorry, I didn't know you were "KaBooM" sensitive, I will curtail.
You've quote-mined repeatedly in your last post
I did not and you have failed to support your charges; Ergo...another Baseless "bare" Assertion (Fallacy)
You could have posted the articles where the quotes came from, but you didn't (because those articles don't say what you want them to say...
ahhh, Why would I post the Whole Article? It's a variation of Parenthetical Citation. (Heard of it? It's practiced everyday from 5th Grade to the Supreme Court and is used EXTENSIVELY in Scientific Literature in SUPPORT of Claims). I don't want to have my posts longer than War and Peace, so I post "Quotes" with the appropriate CITATION attached minus a Works Cited or Bibliography. I'm kinda shocked, as a Graduate Student, you wouldn't already know this as Prima Facie SOP. Do your Professors frown on not posting ENTIRE ARTICLES in your papers in support?
So you think it's "Quote Mining" when people don't post the ENTIRE ARTICLE?
Still, that doesn't change the fact that evolution is simply the change in allele frequencies in successive generations in populations over time.
Change in Allele Frequency is Basic Genetic Variation.
This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!
"The allele-frequency definition, if adequate, would leave us unsatisfied that evolution really had been explained. Geneticists have observed in small scale a general resistance of the molecular components of the genome to change from the "norm" or "wild type". For this reason, if any biologist were to be anti-evolutionist, it would typically be one who works at the molecular level, such as a molecular geneticist or biochemist." {Emphasis Mine} http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution
"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades " evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations " is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading." {Emphasis Mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.
Evolution is...
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
And your charge of the never ending "Quote Mine" here is quite ridiculous and Unsupported; Ergo....another Baseless "bare" Assertion (Fallacy)
That's actually completely false. Evolution has contributed to a wide variety of practical scientific advancements. In fact, were it not for knowledge of evolution, there's a good chance that both of us would have died from diseases that are easily stopped by vaccines or antibiotics developed thanks to evolutionary theory.
"The Modal Number of Professors in a Medical School who are evolutionary Biologists is ZERO". {Emphasis Mine}
Professor Randolf Nesse M.D. (Arizona State University), evolutionary biologist.
Time 27:40
So pray tell....How on Earth does Medicine use evolution, telekinesis?
So, looks like Professor Skell was right on point...
Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) and "the father of carbene chemistry"...
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005
There are no such thing as "evolutionists." There are only scientists, essentially all of whom accept the theory of evolution.
Consensus doesn't equal TRUTH. Perhaps a Political "science" thread would more suited to ply your wares?
The failure to recognize the full implications of [non-protein"coding DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.'
Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W.W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289(5):26"33, November 2003.
This is a perfect example of quote mining.
THANKS!! This shows beyond a shadow of a doubt you haven't the first clue what "Quote Mining" is. To SUPPORT your Baseless "bare" Assertion Fallacy...you MUST show where SPECIFICALLY it is taken "out of CONTEXT" in the SAME ARTICLE!! Best Wishes. The Context is "Junk DNA" the result is....the biggest mistake in the history of Molecular Biology.
Scientific American, by the way, isn't an academic journal, but a popular website by laypersons.
Besides the TEXTBOOK Genetic Fallacy, would you care to elaborate on what your point is....?
Genetic Fallacy --- is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... llacy.html
And please SUPPORT where Scientific American is JUST a website with laypersons please....?
Both the social sciences (sociology, economics, psychology) and the natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry) follow the scientific method, so they are all "sciences."
this point, you could call Badminton "science"; However, when you wheel these disheveled "Just So" Stories out in defense of a Postulate...I'm "Goin GUNZ" :2gun:
Define a Scientific Hypothesis (CITE SOURCE) and Provide an Example.....?
So you post a Random Abstract? Can you please point out where it defines a Scientific Hypothesis "Specifically" and a real live Hypothesis....?
Oh btw, just posting a "link" (or a wholesale 3rd pasty cut and paste) without speaking to the issue, is best Intellectually Lazy and will get you Banned on actual "Science" forums...just fyi.
First of all, scientists do have hypotheses about the evolution of DNA (these models vary, but all start with RNA as a building block):
You're 20-25 years behind the power curve...
"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a particular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 10^54 RNAs and weighing 10^34 grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth." {Emphasis Mine}
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 11. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993 https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/mon ... /3786/3003
"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993. https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/mon ... /3786/3003
This is just the HARDWARE! Before we even discuss...."How Did Stupid Atoms Create Their Own Software."
You can't even show a 30- mer Functional RNA spontaneously form "Naturally" from Ribose, Nucleo-Bases, and Activated Phosphates. Do you know why? Cause it's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE!
First, a prediction in science is any hypothesis that has be verified using scientific evidence
That has been VALIDATED by EXPERIMENTS/TESTS and it's future; hence the term "Prediction".
endogenous retroviruses are viruses that insert at specific points on DNA chains of a living thing, and these viruses are inherited by that lifeform's descendants. These viruses remain even after speciation events occur, and one way of determining common ancestry is to see if retroviruses are shared at the same points on DNA chains between different species. Such shared retroviruses have been found at the same DNA points in humans and the other great apes, indicating that we share a common ancestor.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
Or
If Common Decent is true, we will observe similarities (ERV's /"junk DNA this time...Vestigial Redux)
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries? I can with equal Scientific Vigor say "Common Designer".
1. So please provide the Experiments that VALIDATE these are ERV's...?
2. Then show the Experiments that Validate "ERV's" have Inserted Themselves throughout Genomes....?
3. Show how these ERV's ("junk" DNA) could possibly have CRITICAL FUNCTIONS eg., Embryo Development.
4. Where'd you get Genes?
"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Gee is correct here.
This isn't H. Gee; this is Peter Bowler (Historian of Biology) conducting a Book Review.
We can't say with 100% certainty how any specific evolution events occurred, but we can know with a high degree of confidence how these events occurred.
Well Gee said that they were basically "Conjured Imaginations" (aka: Fairytales) so I really don't know what you're talking about. You know with a high degree of confidence via Imaginations?
Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but in degrees of certainty
This isn't "Science". Did you read this....
Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story"amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. (Emphasis Mine}
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time"Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117
He's saying it's not Scientific because you can't get past the First Step of the Scientific Method (OBSERVE a Phenomenon) with Fossils; Ergo can't form a VALID Hypothesis with NOUNS...from the Past. What's your Independent Variable of your TEST/Experiment....the Angle of your shovel, your Eyelids, or Imagination <----Gee sides with this one.
I'd give this mined quote in its full context, but it's not online and I'll have to track it down through my university's library.
geez, just can't separate yourself from the mind numbing Baseless "Bare" Assertions (Fallacy).
So are you saying I Quote Mined Professor Bowler lol who in turn "Mined" Henry Gee?
How convenient that all of your quote mines come from before 2005, when things weren't posted online.
Yes, I hatched the plan in October 1989 and I just got around to implementing it...Ya caught me.
I have this in my email notification of your post but I can't find it anywhere in your actual post....
Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story"amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. (Emphasis Mine}
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time"Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117
He's saying it's not Scientific because you can't get past the First Step of the Scientific Method (OBSERVE a Phenomenon) with Fossils; Ergo can't form a VALID Hypothesis with NOUNS...from the Past. What's your Independent Variable of your TEST/Experiment....the Angle of your shovel, your Eyelids, or Imagination <----Gee sides with this one.
No. That is not what he is saying. You've made another overly long, confused jumble of a post, with many examples of quote mining. For now, let's just take this one, your quote of Henry Gee, from a source you refuse [or are unable] to cite to for fuller context for your mined quote.
Like the view, the palaeontologists of the future will also have changed. If they are our descendants, they might not look like us at all. Alternatively, these future palaeontologists could have had some completely different heritage, closer to rats, whales, or cockroaches than to humans. Much can happen in 30 million years. Mammal species are thought to last, on average, only a few million years before they become extinct or evolve into something else. So even if the palaeontologists of the future are the descendants of humanity, the human species as we know it will almost certainly have become extinct by then: as extinct as, say, Paranthropus aethiopicus is today. If we are lucky, our own remains will be excavated with expert care, and put on display in museums to be admired by visitors of unguessable countenance.
[emphasis applied] http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/g/gee-time.html
This excerpt, from the first chapter of Deep Time, demonstrates how you consistently take small quotes out of context to use them for the opposite of what the author meant. Perhaps this works when you are preaching to the YEC choir, but it does not work here.
Contrary to your implication, Gee believes the Earth is old, hence his ref. to 30 million years.
Here is my challenge: Find one single quote from an expert on evolution, paleontology, geology or other scientific source that you think supports the 6000 year old Earth theory, and post it along with a reference to the entire source [book or article] so we can view it in context. Until you do that, your efforts will likely be dismissed for what they have been proved to be EVERY TIME: misrepresented quotes taken out of context to try to prove the opposite of what the author is writing.
I don't think we're on the same page. Dictionary definitions are often insufficient for deep discussions about science. They're written at a "kindergarten" level and don't really address the nuances covered by any academic discussion of the issue.
The best way to define terms like "science" and "knowledge" is to look at academic websites--such as Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy--and see how they define them. Often there is some debate on how terms should be defined, and that's certainly true of science.
The most general definition I can give is that science is a process of inquiry that uses the scientific method. This can be study into current, past, or future events.
[color=red]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:(Caveat: do you see the contradiction? "Knowledge" is Immaterial. So they're attempting to acquire IMMATERIAL (Knowledge) via MATERIAL (Physical and Natural World) to explain away IMMATERIAL as Plausible. KaBooM! Logically, it's tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent Athlete's Foot, but I digress:
No, knowledge is not "immaterial." What we call "knowledge" is actually the nexus between memory (a biological process in the brain), evidence (present in the natural world), and social interaction (communication between people about memories and evidence). In addition, knowledge must be "true," that is, it must accurately represent reality.
None of this is non-physical or material, but it relies entirely on material factors.
[color=deeppink]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).
More or less correct. Technically, a null hypothesis (H0) is a statement of what we would expect to find if our independent variable had no effect on the dependent variable, and the alternative hypothesis (H1 or Ha) is what we'd expect if the independent variable had the effect that we anticipate it to have on the dependent variable. This must be confirmed statistically (through looking at probability values).
[color=orange]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/
Yes, that's correct . Evolution, by the way, certainly meets this definition: it's been verified through repeated testing.
[color=brown]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine} http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
You have a very narrow definition of "experiment," which I addressed a few posts back. Really, a scientific theory must be tested, but this can be done through either experimental (in the lab, fully controlled conditions) or quasi-experimental (usually in the field, compared but not fully controlled conditions) methods. Obviously, experimental methods are preferable, but they aren't always possible (again, consider the example of the field biologist studying tree frog mating habits). Because of this, quasi-experimental methods are often used, especially in paleontology and paleobiology.
[color=green]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:So we can say: Science is in the business of ascertaining CAUSATION of OBSERVED PHENOMENA through Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.
Yes.
[color=olive]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
1. How can it be "NO Religion" Whatsoever.... and the same time, the question be: "Varied", Interesting", and "Insightful" ?? Define Contradictory...?
As I said in my last post, Ruse uses an unusual definition of religion. By that word, he doesn't mean "dogmatic belief in the supernatural," he means "organized belief based on some tenet." Ruse classed non-religious things like universities and social groups as religious or quasi-religious. Science itself would be quasi-religious under that definition.
Playing word games isn't useful here. Using the ordinary sense of the word "religion," evolutionary theory absolutely does not qualify. Please stop playing with words to try to call attention to something that isn't there.
Also, even if evolution were "religious," why would that matter? The central point here is whether or not evolution is true (corresponding to reality). Regardless of what evolutionary theory is, the debate should center on whether or not it's correct.
[color=teal]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Sorry, I didn't know you were "KaBooM" sensitive, I will curtail.
I prefer civil, adult debate. Part of that is showing respect to opponents and their positions. Using phrases like "KaBooM" and "Going Gunz" adds an air of emotional arrogance that detracts from rational and respectful discussion about the arguments at hand. I've respected you and your beliefs so far through this discussion, so I only ask that you kindly respect mine.
[color=blue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
I did not and you have failed to support your charges; Ergo...another Baseless "bare" Assertion (Fallacy)
It's not bare assertion. Both Danmark and I have pointed out how you took quotes from Ruse and Gee out of context, and I've also pointed out that many of the quotes from academic articles that you've cited don't at all support the point you're trying to make when understood in context. You have quote mined.
[color=darkblue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
ahhh, Why would I post the Whole Article? It's a variation of Parenthetical Citation. (Heard of it? It's practiced everyday from 5th Grade to the Supreme Court and is used EXTENSIVELY in Scientific Literature in SUPPORT of Claims). I don't want to have my posts longer than War and Peace, so I post "Quotes" with the appropriate CITATION attached minus a Works Cited or Bibliography. I'm kinda shocked, as a Graduate Student, you wouldn't already know this as Prima Facie SOP. Do your Professors frown on not posting ENTIRE ARTICLES in your papers in support?
I wasn't asking you to post the whole article, but to provide a link to the article so that I (and other debaters) could check your sources. I can still find the articles, but it's a lot more difficult and time-consuming than it would be had you simply provided a link.
Plus, many of your references are from the pre-Internet age, meaning that the only way to check your sources is to go to a physical library that would have the relevant journal (typically universities are the only places to have these journals) and find the articles by hand. While this is acceptable in academia, it's preferable to use sources available online when debating on the Internet (especially since a lot of people don't have access to university libraries). Also, citing more recent sources is always helpful to your argument.
[color=indigo]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Change in Allele Frequency is Basic Genetic Variation.
This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!
First, change in allele frequency is alteration in specific gene abundance in populations over successive generations, not simple genetic variation in a population.
That's a common creationist canard. Of course they're still dogs and humans, and evolution would never say otherwise (it's not about "dogs giving birth to humans" or other nonsense like that). A dog giving birth to a human would actually destroy evolution, because it would falsify the idea of common descent and genetic variation.
Both dogs and humans, however, are mammals, and all mammals share a common ancestor. Mammals are not amphibians, but both mammals and amphibians are tetrapods, and all tetrapods share a common ancestor. Tetrapods are not invertebrates, but both tetrapods and invertebrates are animals, and all animals share a common ancestor.
Unlike creationist pseudoscience, evolution doesn't deal in "kinds" (a childlike classification of living things based on how they look), but bases classifications on common descent. Sharks and dolphins look superficially similar, but they don't share any close ancestry (dolphins are much more closely related to cattle than sharks).
Life changes based on genetic variation, genetic drift, natural selection, and sexual selection.
[color=violet]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:"The allele-frequency definition, if adequate, would leave us unsatisfied that evolution really had been explained. Geneticists have observed in small scale a general resistance of the molecular components of the genome to change from the "norm" or "wild type". For this reason, if any biologist were to be anti-evolutionist, it would typically be one who works at the molecular level, such as a molecular geneticist or biochemist." {Emphasis Mine} http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution
"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades " evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations " is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading." {Emphasis Mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.
The "allele frequency . . . " definition is meant to be a simplified explanation of the evolutionary process. One could go into much more detail, of course, but for the sake of clarity (this discussion already covers so many topics) I thought the simple definition was adequate.
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
I disagree with that 1960 article--evolution doesn't posit that all life "came from an inorganic form." That's abiogenesis. Evolution only concerns the diversity of life, not the origin.
[color=darkred]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
"The Modal Number of Professors in a Medical School who are evolutionary Biologists is ZERO". {Emphasis Mine}
Professor Randolf Nesse M.D. (Arizona State University), evolutionary biologist.
Time 27:40
What's more, you don't even have to accept evolution to use evolutionary biology in practical application. A person could be a medical doctor and a creationist, but she will still use the findings of evolutionary biology when deciding which antibiotic to prescribe to her patients.
[color=red]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:So, looks like Professor Skell was right on point...
Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) and "the father of carbene chemistry"...
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005
He's being disingenuous. Of course he (a shill for the creationist and Christian-right propaganda mill Discovery Institute) looked at the evolution of disease-causing bacteria when designing his antibiotic interventions, he just denies this for ideological/religious reasons. He examined DNA, which can only be understood through evolution. Also, he obviously considered the ways that bacteria change genetically, and that is the very definition of evolution. His statement was just disingenuous propaganda.
"Darwinism," by the way, is a creationist propaganda term. There's no such thing.
[color=blue]Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian propaganda mill[/color] wrote:We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Again, this is creationist propaganda.
First, the question they asked doesn't even address evolution directly, only "ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."
There are some scientists who accept evolution who agree that the current theory needs expansion/revision (such as the introduction of epigenetic factors or sexual selection), but that doesn't mean they're willing to throw out the theory to accept the childly simplistic myths peddled by creationists (for example, Michael Behe, a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, signed the statement even though he accepts the theory of evolution [but not abiogenesis).
In addition, many of the scientists who signed that statement are in fields totally unrelated to evolution (such as engineering) and so may not know much about the theory.
Also, Project Steve is an effort showing that there are more scientists named Steve who accept evolutionary theory than scientists who signed Discovery's statement.
By the way, I agree entirely with that statement (evolution isn't entirely driven by mutation and natural selection), but I definitely accept the modern evolutionary synthesis.
I'll address the rest of your post later, I have to get going. Please don't respond until I post the second part.
Haven
“Reserve your right to think.†- Hypatia “A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence†- David Hume
Mentioning scientific consensus isn't an appeal to popularity, which is a claim that something is true because it's popular. To be clear, I'm claiming that experts--people with deep knowledge in the field--seem to all agree with evolution. I'm not claiming that evolution is true because of this.
[color=red]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:The failure to recognize the full implications of [non-protein"coding DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.'
Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W.W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289(5):26"33, November 2003.
What does non-coding DNA have to do with discarding evolution?
As scientists gain new knowledge, they revise their hypotheses and tweak their theories. That's what so beautiful about it: what we "know" can be revised on new information and evidence. It's not like religious or ideological dogma, which can't change even with overwhelming evidence. Science's changeability is a strength, not a weakness.
[color=deeppink]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
And please SUPPORT where Scientific American is JUST a website with laypersons please....?
I think you misunderstood my point there. I wasn't saying SA was just a website with laypersons, I said it was aimed at a non-academic ("lay") audience.
[color=brown]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
I'm sorry, [the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] isn't an Academic Journal.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ispeer-reviewed, making it an academic source.
[color=orange]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
this point, you could call Badminton "science"; However, when you wheel these disheveled "Just So" Stories out in defense of a Postulate...I'm "Goin GUNZ" :2gun:
Again, any discipline which uses the scientific method is properly called a science; this includes social sciences like economics, sociology, and political science.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with our discussion on evolution, so I think we should drop this.
[color=green]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
Oh btw, just posting a "link" (or a wholesale 3rd pasty cut and paste) without speaking to the issue, is best Intellectually Lazy and will get you Banned on actual "Science" forums...just fyi.
You asked me to provide an example of a scientific study that didn't use experimental methods, and I obliged. What more do you want here? That article--if you bothered to read it--contains hypotheses and hypothesis tests, and it uses quasi-experimental methods.
[color=olive]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
You're 20-25 years behind the power curve...
"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a particular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 10^54 RNAs and weighing 10^34 grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth." {Emphasis Mine}
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 11. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993 https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/mon ... /3786/3003
I read this article in it's entirety. Your quote is entirely twisted and taken out of context, a classic example of quote mining. The relevant section in its entirety says:
[color=teal]Joyce & Orgel, 1993, emphases mine[/color] wrote:
The introduction.
The general idea that, in the development of life on the earth, evolution based on RNA replication preceded the appearance of protein synthesis was first proposed more than 20 years ago (Woese 1967; Crick 1968; Orgel 1968). It was suggested that catalysts made entirely of RNA are likely to have been important at this early stage in the origins of life, but the possibility that RNA catalysts might still be present in contemporary organisms was overlooked. The unanticipated discovery of ribozymes (Kruger et al. 1982; Guerrier-Takada et al. 1983) initiated extensive discussion of the role of RNA in the origins of life (Pace and Marsh 1985; Sharp 1985; Lewin 1986) and led to the coining of the phrase "the RNA world" (Gilbert 1986). The RNA world means different things to different authors, so it would be futile to attempt a restrictive definition. All RNA world hypotheses include three basic assumptions: (1) At some time in the evolution of life, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA; (2) Watson-Crick base-pairing was the key to replication; (3) genetically encoded proteins were not involved as catalysts. RNA world hypotheses differ in what they assume about life that may have preceded the RNA world, about the metabolic complexity of the RNA world, and about the role of low-molecular-weight cofactors, possibly including polypeptides, in the chemistry of the RNA world. It should be emphasized that the existence of an RNA world as a precursor of our DNA/protein world is a hypothesis.We find it an attractive hypothesis and believe that it derives some support from the results of experiments that it has inspired.The demonstration that the peptide-bond-forming step of protein synthesis is catalyzed by largely protein-free ribosomal RNA is particularly striking (Noller et al. 1992). We recognize, however, that not everyone will find the available evidence persuasive.
_________________________ Pages 11-12, where Enoch's quote comes from
Suppose there is some 50-mer that enjoys a superiority (om) of 200 and replicates with 90% fidelity. This should be regarded as a highly op- timistic but still reasonable view of what is possible for a minimum replicase ribozyme. Would such a molecule be expected to occur within a population of random RNAs? A complete library consisting of one copy each of all 1 0 3 0 possible 50-mers would weigh 1 0 1 0 grams, roughly 10- 9 the weight of the present biosphere. However, there may be many such 50-mers, encompassing both distinct structural motifs and, more importantly, a large number of equivalent representations of each motif. As a result, even a small fraction of the total library, consisting of per- haps 1 0 2 4 sequences and weighing 104 grams, might be expected to con- tain at least one self-replicating RNA with the requisite properties. On the other hand, it is not sufficient that there be just one copy of a self- replicating RNA. Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a par- ticular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 105 4 RNAs and weighing 103 4 grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth.
It should be recognized that concerns about the Eigen error threshold apply not to the problem of finding a self-replicating RNA within a pool of random RNAs, but to the need for stable propagation of the genetic in- formation contained within a self-replicating species. If the error threshold is exceeded, the genetic information soon becomes delocalized and the population degenerates into a collection of random-sequence RNAs.
The Eigen error threshold would be eased somewhat if the require- ment for high fidelity did not apply uniformly throughout the sequence of the replicase ribozyme. There may, for example, be positions within single-stranded regions of the replicase that can be occupied by any of the four nucleotides without any decrease in the molecule's ability to function as a replicase. There may also be places in base-paired regions where any of the four standard base pairs will do, or where a G"U wob- ble can substitute for a G*C Watson-Crick pair.
If insensitivity to base substitution is to result in significant relaxation of the error threshold, two requirements must be met. First, the un- constrained positions must be able to vary independently of one another; that is, if there are j unconstrained positions, the vast majority of the 4i possible sequence variants resulting from base substitution at these posi- tions must have comparable replicase activity. Second, each of the neutral variants must be surrounded by a comparable distribution of error copies. The latter requirement is more difficult to satisfy, particularly as the functionally significant positions in the molecule undergo evolutionary change over time.
I encourage everyone to read the article. Reading it will show how flamboyantly obvious it was that the original excerpt was a case of quote mining. That segment was embedded in a very technical discussion about different hypotheses, and is impossible to understand without biological training and knowledge of the article's context. Simply quoting that section with the intent to say "look, scientists have debunked the RNA world hypothesis!" is, plain and simple, deceit. Last time I checked, Jesus frowned on deception.
[color=blue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:This is just the HARDWARE! Before we even discuss...."How Did Stupid Atoms Create Their Own Software."
Hardware? Software? I thought we were talking about biological evolution, not computer science. Please kindly explain what you mean by these terms.
[color=darkblue]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:You can't even show a 30- mer Functional RNA spontaneously form "Naturally" from Ribose, Nucleo-Bases, and Activated Phosphates. Do you know why? Cause it's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE!
Read the article. It explains this.
[color=indigo]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
That has been VALIDATED by EXPERIMENTS/TESTS and it's future; hence the term "Prediction".
Yes. What you don't seem to be understanding is that scientists can also make predictions about historical events. For example, scientists predicted, on the basis of evolutionary theory, predict that fossils with features of both fish and tetrapods will be found. Sure enough, fossils matching this description were found. That's a valid prediction.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
This is a rational, friendly discussion, not a fight, so I don't know why the gloves are coming off.
With that said, my points about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) don't assume that evolution is true. Let's be clear, no assumptions about the truth or falsity of common descent are necessary to see how ERVs support evolution. The argument I was making is that since ERVs exist in DNA in a way that seems to strongly suggest common descent, that it's reasonable to infer (from the evidence) that common descent occurred. That's not affirming the consequent.
[color=darkred]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
1. So please provide the Experiments that VALIDATE these are ERV's...?
[color=orange]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:3. Show how these ERV's ("junk" DNA) could possibly have CRITICAL FUNCTIONS eg., Embryo Development.
Who says ERVs have critical functions? They usually don't . . . they're viruses that have become part of the genome, not part of coding DNA. Still, sometimes they are important in DNA coding:
[color=deeppink]Enoch2021[/color] wrote:
4. Where'd you get Genes?
See the above article about RNA chain hypotheses and this article on the evolution of DNA.
[color=brown]Enoch2021's quote of Bowler's review of Gee[/color] wrote:"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Again, your quote of an article is deceptive. Here is the relevant quote in its full context:
[color=green]Bowler, P.J. on Gee, 2000 -- emphases mine[/color] wrote:Gee explains this by appealing to the notion of "deep time," the vast extent of geological time that dwarfs our normal human perception of historical relationships. The fossil record is often so sparse that we have no idea when a group first appeared, because there are plenty of cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years without leaving a single fossil. (The coelacanth is the classic example: This fish was once thought to be extinct because it had disappeared from the fossil record, then contemporary specimens were taken from the Indian Ocean). The first known fossil is thus no reliable guide to the date or the structure of the first member of its group. Nor, Gee insists, does the record tell us anything about the adaptations of the species we study. Apart from the difficulty of reconstructing the ancient ecologies, and the impossibility of knowing the effect of, for instance, ancient parasites, there are many cases where it has become plain that a structure for which there is now a clearly defined adaptive purpose was first evolved in forms that could not have used the structure in the modern way"so how can we possibly tell what they did use it for?
The consequence of all this, the cladists insist, is that all the old paraphernalia of evolutionary explanations must be dismissed as unscientific speculation. All we can do is assess degrees of relationship. We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination driven by prejudices and preconceptions. They reflect our modern ideas about the purposes of adaptive structures and about the progressive trend we think we see in the history of life up to humankind. They cannot be part of science because they cannot be tested against the fossil record. This is not an anti-evolution diatribe because cladism depends on the notion of common ancestry, and Gee admits that Darwin's theory can be applied in the modern world where we can actually see ecological relationships at work. But cladism places severe restrictions on what kind of questions can be asked about the distant past, in the cause of raising paleontology to the ranks of a hard science.
The two great strengths of Gee's account are its iconoclastic destruction of many popular evolutionary scenarios and the author's intimate knowledge of the personalities and events surrounding the revolution. We learn how new fossils, and cladistic interpretations of existing fossils, have exploded the old myths about the great steps in evolution. Limbs evolved in fish that could clearly never have used them to venture onto dry land. The whole complex of bird-like characters, feathers and all, evolved in dinosaurs that could not fly or even glide. We are also introduced to the paleontologists who pioneered the revolution, including the "Gang of Four" in the fossil fish department at the Natural History Museum in London, led by Colin Patterson, with whom Gee himself studied. The outraged complaints of old-fashioned paleontologists such as the late Bev Halstead"who tried to dismiss cladism as a Marxist plot"are described with relish. At this level, Gee's book works really well, giving the reader both an introduction to the new lines of evidence and a real sense of the excitement generated by scientists promoting a new approach to their discipline.
Gee is surely right to claim that many of the old evolutionary scenarios were based on prejudice and outdated thinking, although his account misses some significant points. He criticizes the American paleontologist A. S. Romer for telling a "fairy story" about how the earliest fish developed armor to protect themselves from the "dragons" of the time, the eurypterids, or sea scorpions. How, he asks, do we know that the eurypterids were responsible? He does not mention that it was Romer who first questioned the popular myth of the amphibians developing limbs to conquer the dry land"he suggested they used the limbs to crawl to the next pool in times of drought.
Gee also attacks the modern assumption that humans evolved through a sequence defined by fossil species. (There were howls of anguish when this point of view was included in a display at the Natural History Museum.) Again, he fails to mention that it was commonplace in the early 20th century to sideline the known fossils from human ancestry. This was because paleontologists then thought that many lines of evolution would independently develop human characters, exactly the opposite of the cladists' position.
Gee's assault on the old stories is effective, if selective, but we need to think carefully about the cladists' insistence that all such historical narratives must be banned from science. It is surely contradictory to dismiss them as untestable and then provide good evidence to disprove several of them. Unless I am missing something, a hypothesis that has been falsified must have been falsifiable"so what does Gee mean when he says that all such narratives are untestable? He certainly does not mean that they are unverifiable, because his own philosophy of science insists that all hypotheses are tentative and open to falsification. Perhaps he means that, having destroyed the old narratives, it will be difficult to come up with new ones that can be similarly tested. But this is a practical claim, not one based on a methodological principle.
Honestly, I think I can stop here. Enoch, your posts contain numerous scientifically inaccurate creationist canards, flagrant examples of deceitful quote-mining, and ostentatious displays of intellectual hubris and bravado. I can only ask that you stop quote-mining academic articles and actually read them. Please carefully consider the points I've made in my last two posts, and realize that science is a complex method for understanding the world that must consider all relevant details.
Best to you,
Haven
Haven
“Reserve your right to think.†- Hypatia “A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence†- David Hume
I don't think we're on the same page. Dictionary definitions are often insufficient for deep discussions about science. They're written at a "kindergarten" level and don't really address the nuances covered by any academic discussion of the issue.
The best way to define terms like "science" and "knowledge" is to look at academic websites--such as Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy--and see how they define them. Often there is some debate on how terms should be defined, and that's certainly true of science.
The most general definition I can give is that science is a process of inquiry that uses the scientific method. This can be study into current, past, or future events.
The merr-webs definition of science is just fine and echoes 30 other definitions of it including your link. But then you say "it's kindergarten" then post "the most General Definition" you can give, eh? Excellent Source though (I use constantly), it will be your undoing shortly.
This can be study into current, past, or future events.
You haven't the first clue what "science" or the Scientific Method is with this statement. How in the World can you study a "PAST" or "FUTURE" ("Crystal Ball"?, 1.21 Jigawatts?) event without a Time Machine?? And that "Current Event" better be a REPEATING ONE so you can apply your INDEPENDENT VARIABLE or it's Sayonara.
A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis
It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).
"Forming Testable Hypotheses:
"The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables."
"Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer. If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis."
Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.
The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment. Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the if portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the then portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment. An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."
Source for above: http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/ ... thesis.htm
How in the WORLD can you have a Valid TESTABLE Scientific Hypothesis of an UnObserved Past Non-Repeating Event without a Time Machine, Pray Tell? What's your Independent Variable(s) without that Time Machine.....your Imagination?
No, knowledge is not "immaterial." What we call "knowledge" is actually the nexus between memory (a biological process in the brain), evidence (present in the natural world), and social interaction (communication between people about memories and evidence). In addition, knowledge must be "true," that is, it must accurately represent reality.
Baseless "erroneous" Assertion. So if knowledge is not "Immaterial" then Ipso Facto it must be Material, eh? Please put some Knowledge in a Jar and Paint it Red to SUPPORT this please....? Best Wishes
You also have quite the Paradox here, Haven. As a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist, can you please explain the existence of, and Immaterial coming from Material...? (TRUTH, Knowledge, Ideas, Thoughts, Logic, Reasoning. et al) are all Immaterial.
For example, You're reduced to saying TRUTH is a result of Chemical Reactions. So Shake up a can of Pepsi and Sprite (Chemical Reaction) which one is TRUE? or are they both False?
Yes, that's correct . Evolution, by the way, certainly meets this definition: it's been verified through repeated testing.
You have a very narrow definition of "experiment," which I addressed a few posts back.
You mean "Stumbled" through; An Experiment contains: Dependent Variable, Independent Variable, and Control Variables and dovetails "shockingly" with a VALID SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS (as I've repeatedly shown you)....
"Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results."
"Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the if portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the then portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment.An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion." {Emphasis Mine} http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/ ... thesis.htm
If you don't have the "IF" (Independent Variable)....then, you don't have a TEST!! Ergo, The Hypothesis is INVALID...because it's UNTESTABLE. Follow?
Really, a scientific theory must be tested, but this can be done through either experimental (in the lab, fully controlled conditions) or quasi-experimental
Still trying to stubbornly shoehorn Fairytale "Just So" Stories into science, eh?
Ergo, "QUASI"-experiments -- Seemingly; Apparently, but not really.
Synonyms: PSEUDO, supposedly, superficially.
Thank You for allowing me to illustrate.
It's not bare assertion. Both Danmark and I have pointed out how you took quotes from Ruse and Gee out of context, and I've also pointed out that many of the quotes from academic articles that you've cited don't at all support the point you're trying to make when understood in context. You have quote mined.
It's Multiple Baseless "Bare" Assertion Fallacies that you have yet to Validate a single one...it's tiring and mind-numbing. And I'd be careful "Hitching your Wagon" to Danmark, since his "Quote Mining" Baseless Assertion Fallacies which number in the hundreds have been Exposed (Like Yours), here's the poster child... http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 905#705905
I wasn't asking you to post the whole article, but to provide a link to the article.
Yes, you were.... by the implications of your response but now you're back peddling. If there's a "Link" I will provide it, if not... I won't. I provide the Author's Name, Book/Periodical, Date which is acceptable in Academia.
Please stop Quibbling (Fallacy) over "Acceptable" CITATIONS, you have no argument. Of which you even admitted to..."While this is acceptable in academia...."
Change in Allele Frequency is Basic Genetic Variation.
This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!
First, change in allele frequency is alteration in specific gene abundance in populations over successive generations, not simple genetic variation in a population.
Change in Allele frequency is Genetic Variation just as I described.
That's a common creationist canard. Of course they're still dogs and humans, and evolution would never say otherwise (it's not about "dogs giving birth to humans" or other nonsense like that). A dog giving birth to a human would actually destroy evolution, because it would falsify the idea of common descent and genetic variation.
Straw Man (Fallacy)...I never said or implied anything in the remote vicinity of "dogs giving birth to humans"! My argument was to simply show change in Allele Frequency ='s Genetic Variation. Please try and refute my actual arguments not the one's you conjure. Also Stereotype (Fallacy) "common creationist".
and all mammals share a common ancestor..... and all tetrapods share a common ancestor.....and all animals share a common ancestor.
Baseless "Bare" Assertion (Fallacy) x 3. Please support your Imaginations with ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS "VALIDATING" your Postulates here. And don't just post a link, SPEAK TO and Discuss the Experiments (Post the Independent Variables along with the SPECIFIC Formal Hypotheses) and discuss results.
If you continue NOT SUPPORTING what you say, I will end the discussion...which is more than fair and part of the rules here.
Unlike creationist pseudoscience,
Stereotype (Fallacy) and a No True Scotsman (Fallacy).
Also, didn't you say this..."I prefer civil, adult debate. Part of that is showing respect to opponents and their positions. Using phrases like "KaBooM" and "Going Gunz" adds an air of emotional arrogance that detracts from rational and respectful discussion about the arguments at hand. I've respected you and your beliefs so far through this discussion, so I only ask that you kindly respect mine. "
Well you know I'm a Creationist.... do you think your statement above was respectful? This is but one of many self-contradictory statements you have made....a few within the same or very next sentence.
evolution doesn't deal in "kinds" (a childlike classification of living things based on how they look), but bases classifications on common descent. Sharks and dolphins look superficially similar, but they don't share any close ancestry (dolphins are muchmore closely related to cattle than sharks).
evolution has nothing to do with it. The modern Taxonomic Classification System that's used today was birthed by Carolus Linnaeus who is known as the Father of Biological Taxonomy and was a "CREATIONIST". The Classification System is a Man-Made construct which is just a mere Convention and Arbitrary.
I'll "Conjure" one:
All organisms that have Yellow Hair = Yellowians
All that do not = A -Yellowians.
Voila
Moreover.....Similarities, Correlations, Patterns et al do not speak to CAUSATION, they are Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) to it. Science is in the business of ascertaining and explaining CAUSATION via rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.
Life changes based on genetic variation, genetic drift, natural selection, and sexual selection.
So the theory of evolution is "Change", eh? Define a Valid Scientific Hypothesis....?
UC Berkeley, eh? My oh My the times this has been brought up to me.
Please have them VALIDATE evolution...
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
and as we know...
A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine} http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
Ergo, SHOW the Validated Hypotheses that SUPPORT/Confirm the "theory".....?
"The allele-frequency definition, if adequate, would leave us unsatisfied that evolution really had been explained. Geneticists have observed in small scale a general resistance of the molecular components of the genome to change from the "norm" or "wild type". For this reason, if any biologist were to be anti-evolutionist, it would typically be one who works at the molecular level, such as a molecular geneticist or biochemist." {Emphasis Mine} http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution
"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades " evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations " is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading." {Emphasis Mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.
The "allele frequency . . . " definition is meant to be a simplified explanation of the evolutionary process. One could go into much more detail, of course, but for the sake of clarity (this discussion already covers so many topics) I thought the simple definition was adequate.
Baloney! Professor Mayr arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century, (Ernst Mayr, the worlds greatest living evolutionary biologist---Stephen Jay Gould)... said that your definition was " not only not explanatory, but is in fact MISLEADING" so you're up a creek, AGAIN.
And You said this (Verbatim)...."Still, that doesn't change the fact that evolution is simply the change in allele frequencies in successive generations in populations over time."
Go into detail....start with Defining the Theory of Evolution..... you can be the first! Why is it so difficult to define what is supposed to be a VIABLE theory? I mean, what other Scientific Theory isn't specifically defined cogently/concisely in less than a Planck Time??
Evolution is...
General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
I disagree with that 1960 article--evolution doesn't posit that all life "came from an inorganic form." That's abiogenesis. Evolution only concerns the diversity of life, not the origin.
Can I ask you what do you think you're doing? You disagree? Do you think this is some kind of a Political "science" or cake decorating thread where you get to Agree/Disagree? Nice Hand-Wave dismissal Documented THEORY? Another Legend in the field (Theodosius G Dobzhansky ) echoed Professor Kerkut's Statement here...
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
SEE above where I asked you to VALIDATE. You may commence anytime you're ready.
And the DATE(s) is a Compelling Factor in the Matter!! You just "unwittingly" impaled yourself and the joke of a "theory". Ya see, we're not on the cutting edge trying to discover the Optimal Dosages for B12 and Cancer Prevention. We're talking about a "Purported" well established "Scientific Theory".
These are Plainly Obvious and Documented regarding the "theory". By the mere fact that you and everybody's sister feebly tries a laugher attempt to distance themselves from it (Conveniently after it was found to be a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher) reveals the ad hoc (Fallacy)--- Pseudo Scientific Characteristic never ending Rescue Hypotheses nature of the mind numbing theory (PE/Convergent/ "junk" DNA, come to mind).... that contorts itself around, like an incoherent fog, to any and all Falsifications, (aka: Pseudo-Science): evolution is the Poster Child.
Moreover, The Laws of Thermodynamics were codified in the late 1800's. Does that mean we should toss them out as Old Hat?
Thanks for allowing me to Illustrate.
"The Modal Number of Professors in a Medical School who are evolutionary Biologists is ZERO". {Emphasis Mine}
Professor Randolf Nesse M.D. (Arizona State University), evolutionary biologist.
That's a red herring (a logical fallacy). Whether or not medical school profs are evolutionary biologists, they still use findings from evolutionary biology in the course of their studies (just try looking at genetic disorders without understanding evolution!).http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... edicine_05
Well lets see of it's an actual Red Herring.... Just posting a link again, eh? Didn't I already touch on the Prima Facie concept of just posting "links" in lieu of speaking to the issue and VALIDATING/Supporting what you say? I don't know what's more egregious, your continued Baseless "bare" Assertion (Fallacies) of the never ending "Quote Mine"...or this Charade.
This is also a Straw Man (Fallacy). My point was that there are no "evolutionary Biologists" teaching in Medical Schools NOT that there was an issue with Medical School Professionals that ARE/ARE NOT evolutionary Biologists. Wouldn't you figure that if your were attending a Professional School who's expertise is Critical to the Profession that there would be "actual" Professionals from that discipline TEACHING IT!!!!
What's more, you don't even have to accept evolution to use evolutionary biology in practical application. A person could be a medical doctor and a creationist, but she will still use the findings of evolutionary biology when deciding which antibiotic to prescribe to her patients.
This is anecdotal but speaks volumes. My son was very sick in the ICU due to a serious bacterial infection and my PC Doc stopped in took over the care. Since he knows my background, we started getting into the specific mechanisms going on when I said...."well that's evolution for ya" in which then he Doubled over in Laughter!!...Red Face, Tears, the Whole Nine Yards.
So, looks like Professor Skell was right on point...
Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) and "the father of carbene chemistry"...
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005
He's being disingenuous. Of course he (a shill for the creationist and Christian-right propaganda mill Discovery Institute) looked at the evolution of disease-causing bacteria when designing his antibiotic interventions, he just denies this for ideological/religious reasons. He examined DNA, which can only be understood through evolution. Also, he obviously considered the ways that bacteria change genetically, and that is the very definition of evolution. His statement was just disingenuous propaganda.
"Of course he ........ looked at the evolution of disease-causing bacteria when designing his antibiotic interventions".
Professor Skell: "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution.
Ahhh, What in the World? Please reconcile the 2 conflicting statements....?
So you can "divine" people's intents, eh? Do you have Special Mind Powers I'm unaware of? Let's TEST your "guessing" acumen...what's my favorite color?
Stereotype (Fallacy) and an implied Genetic Fallacy: "shill for Creationist...."
Those are some Pretty BOLD slanderous charges against a NAS Member (Now Deceased). Care to SUPPORT those charges or just leave them as the usual Baseless "bare" Assertions Fallacy category in which they currently reside?
Antibiotic Resistance as some kind of a "proof" for evolution...didn't this go by the way side in the 70's? Please explain this...
"Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used."
Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990.
Go ahead...?
"Darwinism," by the way, is a creationist propaganda term. There's no such thing.
"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Question: Do you just make stuff up on the fly?
There are some scientists who accept evolution who agree that the current theory needs expansion/revision (such as the introduction of epigenetic factors or sexual selection), but that doesn't mean they're willing to throw out the theory to accept the childly simplistic myths peddled by creationists (for example, Michael Behe, a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, signed the statement even though he accepts the theory of evolution [but not abiogenesis).
I suppose that's another respectful statement of my beliefs?
I don't care what Professor Behe: says, thinks, wishes, believes, signs, colors, ect!! Only what he can PROVE/VALIDATE!
By the way, I agree entirely with that statement (evolution isn't entirely driven by mutation and natural selection), but I definitely accept the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evo ... _synthesis
So Natural Selection is the Mechanism, eh? Reification (Fallacy)....
Reification (Fallacy)--- When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... eification
Can you post the Chemical Structure of Natural Selection and the Location please.....?
Natural Selection is a "CONCEPT"...it's IMMATERIAL. Postulating an Inanimate object "Concept" is responsible is tantamount to:
The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.
Also...
Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)....
Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."
C. de Duve., Blueprint for a Cell: The Nature and Origin of Life (Burling-ton, N.C.: Neil Patterson, 1991), p. 187.
aka: Begging The Question(FALLACY)
"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)
So you got some BIG problems there.
and massive ones here...
William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
Haven wrote:
OK. Picking up where I left off (again, I'm only addressing the central points for the sake of brevity):
Mentioning scientific consensus isn't an appeal to popularity, which is a claim that something is true because it's popular. To be clear, I'm claiming that experts--people with deep knowledge in the field--seem to all agree with evolution. I'm not claiming that evolution is true because of this.
It is. Consensus is the Antithesis of Science. Hypotheses are either Validated/In-Validated based on Experiment...there is no place for whether people Accept/Agree/Disagree. Science is Based on Objectivity, Empirical Evidence: Observable, TESTABLE, Repeatable, Falsifiable. It's tantamount to having a consensus that accepts "5 + 6 = 11"...nonsensical is an understatement.
Everyone "seemed" to all agree with Ptolemy.
As scientists gain new knowledge, they revise their hypotheses and tweak their theories. That's what so beautiful about it: what we "know" can be revised on new information and evidence. It's not like religious or ideological dogma, which can't change even with overwhelming evidence. Science's changeability is a strength, not a weakness.
Hypotheses are either Validated or Invalidated based on Experiment; those few that are Validated/Confirmed by Repeated Experiment reach the level of Scientific Theory. If a time/situation comes along where the Theory is REFUTED based on EXPERIMENTS then the Theory is File 13'ed and you start over with STEP 1 Of the Scientific Method (Observe a Phenomenon).
What should be Guarded Against are these shenanigans...
"Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects." {Emphasis Mine} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
evolution is the poster child....."Punctuated Equilibrium and Convergent" are Exhibit A and B.
I think you misunderstood my point there. I wasn't saying SA was just a website with laypersons, I said it was aimed at a non-academic ("lay") audience.
It's also getting old Re-typing and clarifying for "you".... what "YOU" wrote.
You asked me to provide an example of a scientific study that didn't use experimental methods, and I obliged. What more do you want here?
Straw Man (Fallacy), I did not. I specifically asked (Verbatim).... ENOCH: "Define a Scientific Hypothesis (CITE SOURCE) and Provide an Example.....?"
That article--if you bothered to read it--contains hypotheses and hypothesis tests, and it uses quasi-experimental methods.
You or "it" didn't answer the Query; AND, See Previous post for "QUASI" or "Pseudo" - Experiment discussion.
"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a particular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 10^54 RNAs and weighing 10^34 grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth." {Emphasis Mine}
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 11. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993 https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/mon ... /3786/3003[/color]
I read this article in it's entirety.
That's great, it's why I posted the Source and "link". By your subsequent comments here, you surely didn't understand it.
So you provided this....
[color=teal]Joyce & Orgel, 1993, emphases mine[/color] wrote:
The introduction.
The general idea that, in the development of life on the earth, evolution based on RNA replication preceded the appearance of protein synthesis was first proposed more than 20 years ago (Woese 1967; Crick 1968; Orgel 1968). It was suggested that catalysts made entirely of RNA are likely to have been important at this early stage in the origins of life, but the possibility that RNA catalysts might still be present in contemporary organisms was overlooked. The unanticipated discovery of ribozymes (Kruger et al. 1982; Guerrier-Takada et al. 1983) initiated extensive discussion of the role of RNA in the origins of life (Pace and Marsh 1985; Sharp 1985; Lewin 1986) and led to the coining of the phrase "the RNA world" (Gilbert 1986). The RNA world means different things to different authors, so it would be futile to attempt a restrictive definition. All RNA world hypotheses include three basic assumptions: (1) At some time in the evolution of life, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA; (2) Watson-Crick base-pairing was the key to replication; (3) genetically encoded proteins were not involved as catalysts. RNA world hypotheses differ in what they assume about life that may have preceded the RNA world, about the metabolic complexity of the RNA world, and about the role of low-molecular-weight cofactors, possibly including polypeptides, in the chemistry of the RNA world. It should be emphasized that the existence of an RNA world as a precursor of our DNA/protein world is a hypothesis.We find it an attractive hypothesis and believe that it derives some support from the results of experiments that it has inspired.The demonstration that the peptide-bond-forming step of protein synthesis is catalyzed by largely protein-free ribosomal RNA is particularly striking (Noller et al. 1992). We recognize, however, that not everyone will find the available evidence persuasive.
_________________________ Pages 11-12, where Enoch's quote comes from
Suppose there is some 50-mer that enjoys a superiority (om) of 200 and replicates with 90% fidelity. This should be regarded as a highly op- timistic but still reasonable view of what is possible for a minimum replicase ribozyme. Would such a molecule be expected to occur within a population of random RNAs? A complete library consisting of one copy each of all 1 0 3 0 possible 50-mers would weigh 1 0 1 0 grams, roughly 10- 9 the weight of the present biosphere. However, there may be many such 50-mers, encompassing both distinct structural motifs and, more importantly, a large number of equivalent representations of each motif. As a result, even a small fraction of the total library, consisting of per- haps 1 0 2 4 sequences and weighing 104 grams, might be expected to con- tain at least one self-replicating RNA with the requisite properties. On the other hand, it is not sufficient that there be just one copy of a self- replicating RNA. Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a par- ticular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 105 4 RNAs and weighing 103 4 grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth.
It should be recognized that concerns about the Eigen error threshold apply not to the problem of finding a self-replicating RNA within a pool of random RNAs, but to the need for stable propagation of the genetic in- formation contained within a self-replicating species. If the error threshold is exceeded, the genetic information soon becomes delocalized and the population degenerates into a collection of random-sequence RNAs.
The Eigen error threshold would be eased somewhat if the require- ment for high fidelity did not apply uniformly throughout the sequence of the replicase ribozyme. There may, for example, be positions within single-stranded regions of the replicase that can be occupied by any of the four nucleotides without any decrease in the molecule's ability to function as a replicase. There may also be places in base-paired regions where any of the four standard base pairs will do, or where a G"U wob- ble can substitute for a G*C Watson-Crick pair.
If insensitivity to base substitution is to result in significant relaxation of the error threshold, two requirements must be met. First, the un- constrained positions must be able to vary independently of one another; that is, if there are j unconstrained positions, the vast majority of the 4i possible sequence variants resulting from base substitution at these posi- tions must have comparable replicase activity. Second, each of the neutral variants must be surrounded by a comparable distribution of error copies. The latter requirement is more difficult to satisfy, particularly as the functionally significant positions in the molecule undergo evolutionary change over time.
Your quote is entirely twisted and taken out of context, a classic example of quote mining.
Can you please HIGHLIGHT the part that VALIDATES your still Baseless "Bare" Assertion (Fallacy) because the parts you highlighted are all SPECULATIONS on the theme. ahhh, "your" Bolded parts support my case there Haven, fyi. Do you know what you're reading?
You forgot to post this one...
"Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a reasonable approximation to a racemic version of the molecular biologist's pool could have formed on the primitive earth and that further experiments with different activating groups and minerals will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem. The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view.)" {Emphasis Mine}
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 19. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993. https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/mon ... /3786/3003
Do you need me to explain who the Authors are and Their Position? ....for RNA wickering itself up: MIRACLE! (I'll explain why here in a moment).
And this.... "The demonstration that the peptide-bond-forming step of protein synthesis is catalyzed by largely protein-free ribosomal RNA is particularly striking(Noller et al. 1992)"
Is the most decietful or absolutely clueless statements I've heard in some time!!
Eukaryotic Ribosome contains 2 Subunits; 60S and 40S: (The 60S: { 28S rRNA --- 4,718 Nucleotides, 5.8S rRNA ---- 160 Nucleotides, 5S rRNA ---- 120 Nucleotides, and 49 Functional Proteins} The 40S: { 18S rRNA ----1874 Nucleotides "single stranded" and 33 Functional Proteins}) The rRNA's and FUNCTIONAL PROTEINS have to be in just the RIGHT SEQUENCE to conform/stabilize Secondary Structure to confer Functionality!! Total 80S Ribosome
Prokaryotic Ribosome: 50S and 30S: ( The 50S: { 23S rRNA ----2900 Nucleotides, 5S rRNA ---- 120 Nucleotides, and 34 Functional Proteins} The 30S: { 16S rRNA ---- 1540 Nucleotides "single stranded" and 21 Functional Proteins}). Total 70S Ribosome
The Ribozyme is found in Large 23S rRNA. Without the FUNCTIONAL PROTEINS that make up rRNA....there would be NO PROTEIN SYNTHESIS (Peptide Bond Formation), the Ribozyme would be a FOOTBALL BAT!!!! Absolutely Stupefying!
I encourage everyone to read the article. Reading it will show how flamboyantly obvious it was that the original excerpt was a case of quote mining. That segment was embedded in a very technical discussion about different hypotheses, and is impossible to understand without biological training and knowledge of the article's context. Simply quoting that section with the intent to say "look, scientists have debunked the RNA world hypothesis!" is, plain and simple, deceit. Last time I checked, Jesus frowned on deception.
I'm quite fed up with your conjured Baseless Charges (Fallacies) on a subject you clearly have no business speaking to. So what you do is conjure a Color Commentary: "flamboyantly obvious..." "Quote Mine"---shocker, right? Where was it so obvious there Haven? Can you be "a Tad" more specific....?
"Technical Discussion"...for who? You?
It is Physically and Chemically Impossible for Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins to form spontaneously "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively. For about 10 reasons but I'll scuttle the Entire Charade with 2....
1. The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is POSITIVE as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, Oxidation, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for ALL those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.
2. Stereoisomerization: Amino's ( for Proteins) and Sugars (Ribose for DNA/RNA) exist naturally as enantiomers: Right Handed and Left Handed "Mirror Images" and always a 50/50 mix (Racemic) "Naturally". The Problem is that life exclusively uses Left Handed Amino's and Right Handed Sugars (There are exceptions but are not Material here for our scope here). Not even speaking to Functional Sequence Complexity, when these are taken up to polymerize into Proteins/DNA/RNA respectively, they Compromise their respective Secondary Structures (Configurations that impart "Functionality"). That's why, in all of these "Origin of Life" experiments, you'll invariably find "PURIFICATION" to start with...because if they don't = Football Bat. There's Rooster's in the Hen House
"Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origin of Life on the Earth, Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.
ALL That's before the Gargantuan Elephant in the Room shows up...."INFORMATION"/Software!! Stay Tuned, next post.
Oh and btw, All this "Origin of Life" research is Pseudo-Science. Why? Well they skipped the First Step of the Scientific Method (OBSERVE a PHENOMENON). The First Step isn't "CONJURE a Phenomenon". Has anyone ever seen Life from Non-Life? Nope! How on Earth do you form a Valid Hypothesis?? There's even a Scientific Law (Law of BIO-GENESIS) that states: Life only comes for Life. The Scientific Inquiry is INVALID from Jump Street and is tantamount to:
1. Attempting to explain mechanistically the exothermic pathway of Phlogiston.
2. Attempting to explain the Tectonic Plate movements on the Planet Vulcan.
3. Attempting to describe the chemistry of Lead morphing into Gold (Alchemy).
4. Attempting to describe the mechanism of evolution.
5. Attempting to describe the cause of the Big Bang.
6. Attempting to describe the event horizon of Black Holes.
What do all these have in common?.... Phogiston, Vulcan, Alchemy, evolution, big bangs, black holes, Origin of Life? Neither has been OBSERVED and each has been "De-bunked" as "so-called" Theories. More importantly, how can you invalidate something that has never been Observed? It can't be falsified!! If it can't be falsified...it's meaningless Pseudo-Science!
You can't even show a 30- mer Functional RNA spontaneously form "Naturally" from Ribose, Nucleo-Bases, and Activated Phosphates. Do you know why? Cause it's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE!
Read the article. It explains this.
It doesn't even speak to it... ALL! Can you show where, "SPECIFICALLY".....? As I said it's IMPOSSIBLE. To refute you're gonna have to show, LITERALLY.
Yes. What you don't seem to be understanding is that scientists can also make predictions about historical events.
This is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) on Steroids injected with concentrated/purified Nuclear Caffeine!!
These are "Post Hoc" observations molded into a Historical Narrative. But go ahead provide an example...?
For example, scientists predicted, on the basis of evolutionary theory, predict that fossils with features of both fish and tetrapods will be found. Sure enough, fossils matching this description were found. That's a valid prediction.
You think this is a Prediction, eh? Post the Author/Date and Time Stamp of this "PRE-diction" with fossils...?
And your "link" (again without speaking to any of it) reveals the same....ZERO.
Read this slowly...
"Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the if portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the then portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment. An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion." http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/ ... thesis.htm
Then read this slowly...
Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
This scuttles your Entire Theses on "Predictions" of the Past and any "Predictions with evolution IN TOTO! You see how Professor Ward juxtaposes "prediction"/future with "PAST"? That means they're ANTITHETICAL to each other.
I'm Dumbfounded that I would even have to devote time to explain this.
The argument I was making is that since ERVs exist in DNA in a way that seems to strongly suggest common descent, that it's reasonable to infer (from the evidence) that common descent occurred. That's not affirming the consequent.
"ERV's exist in DNA" is Begging The Question (Fallacy). i.e., Validate ERV's First. I want to see the Formal Hypothesis and the TESTS Including (Independent Variables). "YOU" speak to it, not just a link.
So you're saying if Common Descent is True then we will observe similarities (ERV), right?
Yes this is Textbook Affirming the Consequent (Fallacy). The one I posted SPECIFICALLY that you left out of your response, here...
ENOCH: If Common Decent is true, we will observe similarities (ERV's /"junk DNA this time...Vestigial Redux)
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries? I can with equal Scientific Vigor say "Common Designer".
Whether you try to dodge the fact now by using "INFER" makes no difference. btw, Infer---"Inference" is synonymous with assumption, speculation, guess, conjecture. just fyi
1. So please provide the Experiments that VALIDATE these are ERV's...?[/color]
3. Show how these ERV's ("junk" DNA) could possibly have CRITICAL FUNCTIONS eg., Embryo Development.
Who says ERVs have critical functions? They usually don't . . . they're viruses that have become part of the genome, not part of coding DNA. Still, sometimes they are important in DNA coding:
See the above article about RNA chain hypotheses and this article on the evolution of DNA.
SEE: Discussion on just posting "LINKS" without speaking to the Subject Material. A 10 Year Old can type the subject headings into google then post links. It's Laughable, and as mentioned.....will get you Summarily "BANNED" on actual science forums.
From your link...
"We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
Ok, back to the shell game.... Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE!
I'm also done with your feebly contrived Knee-Jerk "Quote Mine" Baseless Assertions (Fallacy) that I've already shown with: Mattick "junk DNA" (Among Others), you don't even know what Quote Mining" is. It's a feeble attempt to BOG DOWN discussions quibbling over minutia to divert away from dealing with the subject
Honestly, I think I can stop here. Enoch, your posts contain numerous scientifically inaccurate creationist canards, flagrant examples of deceitful quote-mining, and ostentatious displays of intellectual hubris and bravado. I can only ask that you stop quote-mining academic articles and actually read them. Please carefully consider the points I've made in my last two posts, and realize that science is a complex method for understanding the world that must consider all relevant details.
Yes, this is Legitimate.
Honestly Haven, it's quite clear what's going on here. Your posts are filled to the brim with Contradictions and Logical Fallacies. The multiple occurrences of just posting "links" and not speaking to the specifics....even after I explained the spurious nature and how Best, revealed Intellectual Laziness..... apparently fell on Deaf Ears; As Evidenced By, continued and repeated postings afterwords ----- it Screams "Pretender"... and that you have no or little idea about the subject material...and only Parrot the company line or what you've been told to believe. Links and Sources are used to SUPPORT "your" Claims as an ADJUNCT not to flippantly toss around as the MAIN IDEA and link them WHOLESALE.
Uncanny disregard for the fundamental basics of science and the scientific method. The "predictions" issue was excruciatingly painful.
Your responses to DNA/RNA/Proteins in General and the Leslie Orgel/Joyce article specifically was Stupefying to say the least. A High School General Chemistry enthusiast could compromise you in less than 2 minutes.
The Never Ending "Quote Mine": Last/"Only" Port in the Storm scenario....is only trumped by your supporting evidence for the frivolous claims.
I believe a personal evaluation of one's LIMITATIONS is in order.
Haven wrote:
Hardware? Software? I thought we were talking about biological evolution, not computer science. Please kindly explain what you mean by these terms.
The "Hardware"...Physical Molecules is what we were discussing in the previous post. If that didn't abruptly end the fairytale, "INFORMATION"/Software will send it into Oblivion, NOW....
INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life. Ya see....
It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.
"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....
Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....
See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......
The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.
Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?
You're looking a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise. CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception!
To hold a Materialist/Methodological Naturalist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's...which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.
I'm just spit-balling here, but.....I think you may need a new "Just So" Story.
Oh btw....
"The Ribosome, together with it's accessories, is probably the most sophisticated MACHINE ever made. All of it's components are active and moving, and it is environmentally friendly, producing only GDP and phosphate". {Emphasis Mine}
Garrett, R., Mechanics of the ribosome, Nature 400(6747): 811-812, 1999
And guess what that Ribosome is made up of? rRNA and "Functional Proteins" and a boatload of them. Where'd you get them? Where'd you get "Functional" RNA?
Oh and btw, See those IF's/EF's/RF...they are "Functional Proteins". Where'd they come from if it takes the Entire Process above... to make them? Hmm, a little Chicken and Egg action...the "Space Shuttle building the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant" motif rotflol. And Yes, it gets better....
Let's say I remove one of the IF's (Initiation Factors) or an EF (Elongation Factors) from the milieu, what happens to DNA Translation...IN TOTO, huh? Yes, that's right.... it's a Football Bat/Pillow Hammer. Ya get ZERO Translation (No Functional Protein Synthesis)...guess what that means, besides "Vapor-Lock"; The Entire Process is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!!
And what did Charlie say...
Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."
What about a Complex "Process" in place of that "Organ", Charlie? lol. We have Plenty of Organs that scuttle this mind-numbing nonsense anyway. Get an A&P Glossary and start with "Abdomen" and end with "Zygote"...those and everything In-Between are his Huckleberry. But I digress.
"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".
Ladies and Gentleman, ink/paper/and glue molecules don't author books or technical instruction manuals for building robots. Pentose sugars, nucleo-bases, and activated phosphates don't create algorithms for the construction/maintenance/repair of literally thousands of "protein-robots" in each Cell; and that's just the mere TIP of the Iceberg.
"Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.
Testable hypotheses about FSC {Functional Sequence Complexity}:
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:
Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified."
In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?
How many times will you post this same cut and paste job without identifying its painfully transparent, non scientific, vanity press like origins in ID sites masquerading as science? This junk comes from http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ and the the grand sounding, "Gene Emergence Project" which has previously been exposed on this forum when you posted this same nonsense for the 4th or 5th time out of 12. Abel's " Gene Emergence Project" is his private residence. https://www.google.com/maps/39.008726, ... e0!6m1!1e1
Again you give us the same Venter quote out of context, leaving out the fact venter believes in evolution and a billions of years old Earth.
Then you throw in a single line from Edward Butts Lewis,again taken out of context. Lewis wrote: In the same article, Lewis discussed his good fortune in becoming an active geneticist at a revolutionary time in biology. After the war, the gene was still treated as an abstract entity because the techniques needed to ascertain its molecular nature were yet to be developed, he explained. "You could begin to try to see how a gene is constructed, even though DNA hadn't yet been determined to be the hereditary material. The laws of genetics had never depended upon knowing what the genes were chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese." - See more at: http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-nob ... ppOHN.dpuf.
Lewis did indeed win the Nobel Prize, for his work in the genetics of evolution:
His Nobel Prize"winning studies with Drosophila, (including the discovery[citation needed] of the Drosophila Bithorax complex and elucidation of its function), founded the field of developmental genetics and laid the groundwork for our current understanding of the universal, evolutionarily conserved strategies controlling animal development. He is credited with development of the complementation test. His key publications in the fields of genetics, developmental biology, radiation and cancer are presented in the book Genes, Development and Cancer, which was released in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_B._Lewis
Again we see the same pattern, lifting single quotes out of context, taken from creationist sites who also took them out of context.
I note that now refer to 'dumb' molecules instead of 'dumb atoms.'
I suppose that is an improvement
But oft repeated slogan is not a substitute for analysis.
Do you think that be continually reposting the same stuff, it will somehow gain authority by mere repetition?
Enoch2021 wrote:....
Ok, back to the shell game.... Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE!
I'm also done with your feebly contrived Knee-Jerk "Quote Mine" Baseless Assertions (Fallacy) that I've already shown with: Mattick "junk DNA" (Among Others), you don't even know what Quote Mining" is. It's a feeble attempt to BOG DOWN discussions quibbling over minutia to divert away from dealing with the subject
Moderator Warning
Address the content of the post, do not make negative and insulting comments directly about a poster.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
) let me know. Can you "SEE": TRUTH, Knowledge, Logic....do they exist?
Who is the father of evolution? Who is the father of the Philosophy of Biology? See "The Connection"?
