jump to last post 1-27 of 27 discussions (215 posts)

Darwinian evolution is falsified

  1. 0
    toobsuckerposted 5 years ago

    Darwinian evolution (atheistic evolution) requires 100% of all biological systems to be subject to the mechanisms proposed for evolutionary change, yet the conserved elements are not subject to any of the evolutionary mechanisms.

    A theory that predicts 100% system change must demonstrate 100% of biological systems are subject to the mechanisms proposed for evolutionary change. The functional elements/DNA sequence that are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms and exist in all spices, falsifies the theory that predicts 100% system change

    Darwinian evolution is falsified

    1. melpor profile image90
      melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Toobsucker, the science of evolution has been proven many times over. There are hundred of data that support the process of evolution in life and because of this evolution is no longer a theory. New data is practically generated daily in labs all over the world. People simply are not reading the proper resources to see all this data that supports evolution.

      Darwin called it a theory back then because he was just proposing this idea to the scientific community.  All scientific investigation of phenomena or process starts as theory to explain it until scientists gather all the facts to prove it or confirm the explanation of the process or phenomena.

      He knew this process was occurring in all organisms with some of the evidence he had at the time. He just didn't have the technology we now have to generate the critical data such DNA analysis, molecular genetics, etc.,  to support it back then.

      1. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes "evolution" is observable, however all the evolution observed is the selection of information already on file or gene switching.  Copying errors & selection have nothing to do with it.

        Darwinian evolution requires the observation of new functional protein folds for morphology to be verified. This is not observable.

        1. melpor profile image90
          melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Copying errors and selection errors have a lot to do with evolution. That is one of the underlying reasons why organisms change gradually through the process of evolution. These copying errors occur due to pressure from the environment. This is why there is a gradual change in species from one generation to the next.

          Protein folding is what is responsible for the process of DNA replication. If a protein does not folds properly it will not be able to perform the biological process it is require to do. Many genetic diseases are caused by a protein not folding properly and over time that error is past from one generation to the next. But all incorrectly folded proteins are not disastrous for the organism sometimes they just produce a new genetic expression in the organism that may be beneficial to them as well.

          1. 0
            toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The Altenberg 16 have a different opinion of copying errors & selection.

            Do you understand the very concept of the selection of the luckiest randomness is not only logically ridiculous, its not observable in any other application.

            Address my question. How does a theory that requires 100% of the system to change produce elements that are not subject to change?

            Until you address the UNABLE to evolve elements , there is no valid theory of evolution

            1. Paul Wingert profile image80
              Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And what pro-creationist website, with no credibility did you get this fabulous information from?

              1. paradigmsearch profile image92
                paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                To what purpose is your inquiry?

              2. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this
              3. 0
                toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Why don't you research it before you speculate.

                The Altenberg 16 are 16 Darwinian evolutionists that agree selection of the luckiest randomness are not the mechanism involved

                1. paradigmsearch profile image92
                  paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  OK, Hello?

                  1. 0
                    toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You don't see the problem. Selection of the luckiest randomness is all atheistic (Darwinian) evolution has as a mechanism. All observable mechanisms consist of swapping of existing information or gene switching. The single cell has no genetic variability to swap.

                2. paradigmsearch profile image92
                  paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  As they should be!

          2. 0
            toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            melpor wrote: "If a protein does not folds properly it will not be able to perform the biological process it is require to do. Many genetic diseases are caused by a protein not folding properly and over time that error is past from one generation to the next"

            That is correct, the very thing needed to validate Darwinian evolution (changing protein folds) causes less fit organisms. How ironic

            Can you explain to me why over the many hundreds of millions of generational years of mutational effects with fruit  flies, no novel functional proteins are ever produced?

            The only way Darwinian evolution has any cloak of believability, it must start with fully developed highly complex species with a variety of variations already written.

            The theory would never stand if it started at the single cell level producing new functional protein folds by selection

      2. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "He just didn't have the technology we now have to generate the critical data such DNA analysis, molecular genetics, etc.,  to support it back then'

        How is it your a scientist yet do not know every prediction Darwinian evolution has made, has been repeatedly falsified?

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Because that's utter nonsense. lol...  I love it when theists think they know something about how evolution works.

          The Darwinian model has evolved to the current model. Why don't you try to falsify it instead of a model that isn't used anymore?

          Are you attacking straw men of your own making perhaps? wink

          1. 0
            toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The theory has been repeatedly falsified. The simple evolving into the complex falsified at Cambrian, Gradualism was falsified so P.E. was needed to keep the egg off the faces of evolutionary science. The phenotypes & genotypes do not match at all.

            Craig Venter had to school Dawkins at an origins of life symposiums in Feb 2011 and told him the tree of life is a myth, and all life did not share the same DNA code.

            If atheism's high priest did not even know the facts as recently as Feb 2011, it does not surprise me his followers are also clueless

            ========

            "Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78, 1979 p.574

            ========

            And lastly evolution has absolutely no explanation for functional conserved (unable to evolve) elements all throughout the genome that exists in all species.

            =====
            http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arc … erved.html

            Ultraconserved Elements in the Genome: Are They Indispensable

            "There is plenty of evidence that highly conserved sequences do perform vital functions," says Ahituv. "Indeed, locating noncoding sequences that have been unchanged by evolution is one of the main tools scientists use to find important functional elements in a genome."

            "While it's conceivable that conserved sequences are somehow immune to mutations for reasons that have nothing to do with evolutionary pressures, the mechanism of such "sequence armoring" is hard to imagine. The 731-base pair sequence, uc467, should normally have accumulated some 334 nucleotide changes in the more than 80 million years that mice, rats, and humans have been evolving along separate paths"

            =======

            "These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Professor David Haussler
            =====

            Within 10 years Darwinian evolution will be publicly falsified, Godless science will be forced to believe ALIENSDIDIT.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              All of what you have said is so full of nonsense it is hard to know where to begin. Like most fundamentalists and their devil. lol... they mix some fact with their fiction and so eventually it's the three Bs: Bullshit baffles brains.

              I am not going to take anyone seriously who quotes me from the Journal of Theoretical Biology. You have got to be kidding. wink

              As for the rest, fundamentalists do to evolution what they accuse atheists of doing with the bible. They take things out of context and jump to conclusions because they know only half the story.

              I'm not going to clean all this nonsense up for you. It would take too much of my time and it wouldn't go you any good. You wouldn't believe it anyway. Why don't you actually learn about evolution instead of listening to nut jobs and reading religious journals? Then get back to me when you have a real knowledge of your subject.

              Perhaps I will do a hub on this in a little while, for those who actually want to learn something.

              1. 0
                toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Nice cop out. You really have no idea the phylogenetic tress do not match the predictions do you?

                You can go here

                http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/t … ney-altman

                And watch Sidney Altman annihilate RNA world by stating of the 25+ enzymatic functions possible with synthetic RNA. Natural RNA can do none of them. All RNA found in nature can only cut its self

                You can also watch Craig Venter school clueless Dawkins (in Feb 2011) on the tree of life being a myth, and also tell both clueless Dawkins & Davies all life does not share the same DNA code. So it does not surprise me you are also clueless to the facts

                Why don't you just tackle my main question, tell me by what mechanisms did the functional conserved elements get arranged, and by what mechanisms did the UCE become frozen.?

                If your theory is valid, it must demonstrate the mechanisms behind changing UCE and then freezing UCE after they become functional. You have no such mechanisms to demonstrate, therefore you do not have a "theory of evolution" you have an "unsubstantiated speculation of evolution"

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What did you not understand about what I said about the theory of evolution evolving? I've seen all your examples and the lectures and not one of them tell us that evolution is proven false. They all tell us we have new information and we are revising the way we understand the mechanics of evolution.

                  Darwin came up with a basic concept that has proven true. But the he was wrong about a lot of the mechanics. So Darwinism, if there ever really was such a thing, is proven false. But not evolution.

                  Bill Gates said we would never need more than 64k memory for our computers. Boy was he wrong. But did that mistake kill windows? Not on your life.

                  You are attacking Darwinism. It's a straw man. Evolution does not depend on the words of Darwin. Does Ford still make model Ts?

                  When someone comes up with a concept or a realization, others build on it if it has merit.

                  We used to think evolution was just a slow process. Dr Ager told us it could also come from catastrophe, and wen on to prove it. Does that kill evolution? No. It adds to the theory.

                  So telling me people have found new evidence and some of the mechanics of Darwinian evolution are proven false, isn't telling me anything I didn't know. It is also not falsifying evolution.

                  I mean have you actually seen the videos you suggested to me?

                  Now I hate to break this to you, but even if tomorrow you proved evolution itself false, you would gain zero credibility for a god dun it theory. Disproving one does not prove the other. You will have to find some other way to prove your  god exists.

                  1. 0
                    toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I never said evolution is false, I said Darwinian evolution has been proven false. The selection of environmentally induced pre-written information is observable. Creating novel information by mutating genes is not observable.

                    The selection of pre-written functional information is not Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution requires evidence of new functional genes & new functional proteins being created from the selection of randomness.

                    ======



                    The mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution (no intelligent designer needed) must come from the selection of the luckiest randomness, this is why Dawkins can never accept (and he has stated so) a calculating directed evolution, because atheists must then explain the origins of those mechanisms, the selection of random changes needed no explanation of origins. Cells with computational & adaptation abilities need a naturalistic explanation of origins.

                    =======



                    Correct, falsifying naturalistic evolution does not verify God exists, it does however verify intelligent design. If I.D. is validated, God can not be eliminated as a candidate.

                    Do you understand there can be only two hypotheses for the origins of life & species, either naturally by unintelligent agents, or by an intelligent designer 

                    No third hypothesis can exist. If naturalistic origins of life & species is discounted, the cell must have been intelligently designed

    2. paradigmsearch profile image92
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Although I am reasonably certain that I disagree with you, anyone who names themselves "toobsucker" can't be all bad. big_smile

      1. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        toobsucker was brought over here from youtube

    3. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where did you get this rant? Off a cereal packet?
      Explains a lot about religious belief if nothing else. lol

      1. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You seem to be unaware most of the genome is not subject to evolutionary mechanisms.

        Study the UCE

    4. 0
      Chasukposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Two points: First, Darwinian evolution does not equal atheistic evolution. Hundreds of millions of Christians believe in Darwinian evolution. Second, why do you believe that  Darwinian evolution "requires 100% of all biological systems to be subject to the mechanisms proposed for evolutionary change?" Substantiate that, and you have an argument.

      1. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Darwin started his theory with "the few or one" So the theory starts at the single cell. Unless the cell can be accounted for by natural means, it was intelligently designed.

        The single cell must produce new functional protein folds by selection as the species morphs. And this evolution of protein folds must be a continuous process.

        "From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences,"  Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley

        Also why would any rationally thinking theist believe selection of the luckiest randomness would do a better job at creating complex cells and codes rather than Gods mind?

        Would you opt for randomness & selection creating a better PC program if their is a PC programer around?. Theists that believe in Darwinian evolution are not rational thinkers to begin with

    5. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where on earth are you getting the notion that evolution requires 100% system change?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        From the 16 theists the proclaim themselves as evolutionary scientists to give credence to their irrational and misleading statements.

        1. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ah.

          Nice answer re: the buildings argument, by the way. smile

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks.  It's not very good - building's don't reproduce very often! - but if you're going to use man made objects it isn't too bad, either.

      2. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where do you think the "unable to evolve" elements (DNA sequences & proteins)came from?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          DNA sequences are fragile and subject to easy change; in no way are they "unable to evolve".  If it couldn't, we would never find a child with attributes unavailable in either parent, but it happens all the time.

          What in the world makes you think that DNA can't ever change?

          1. 0
            toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ultra conserved elements make me think this. Look them up

            "Large numbers of sequence elements have been identified to be highly conserved among vertebrate genomes. These highly conserved elements (HCEs) are often located in or around genes that are involved in transcription regulation and early development....Through the comparison of human and rodent genomes, more than 5,000 ultraconserved elements (UCEs) with 100 percent identity were found [1]. Hundreds of highly conserved non-coding elements (CNEs, UCRs) were also reported through long distance searching in the human and pufferfish genomes"

            "There are millions of highly conserved sequences presumably under selection for biological function" (Dermitzakis et al. 2002; Boffelli et al. 2003; Margulies et al. 2003; Siepel et al. 2005)

            "481 ultraconserved elements (UCEs) that are identical between human, mouse, and rat over 200 bp were described" (Bejerano et al. 2004)

            "These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Professor David Haussler

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ah.  That would be those short sequences that result in still birth or other mutations too virulent to survive.  It's not surprising that there are such things; at one time they may have viable in a different form, or sequence, but evolution over time has caused them to be necessary as they are to be viable.

              As an example (an example only for description purposes) it might be that a creature once had no umbilical cord and did fine.  Now, however, evolution has gone to the point that the mother can't support the infant without a well developed cord that correlates to her anatomy.  It is no longer viable without that cord.

              I might point out that David Hausslers professed ignorance of knowledge of the intimate details of each of these elements evolution does not in any way indicate they didn't evolve.  We don't know the intimate details of the big bang, either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Shoot, we don't even understand the causes of gravity and IT surely exists!

              1. 0
                toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Incorrect. Why don't you study the UCE before you make assumptions. UCE are essential for the species survival. UCE are like a programs source code, if they are changed the program crashes

                "These parts of the genome are far more conserved than we would have imagined. We think these segments evolved in the past, then froze into place and were inherited unchanged from then on," Bejerano said.

                "The only other part of the genome having a level of conservation approaching that of these ultra-conserved elements is the DNA that codes for ribosomes and their actions in the cells. Ribosomes are complex molecular machines made of RNA and proteins. They translate the genetic code to carry out protein synthesis in all cells. According to Bejerano, ribosomal sequences are highly conserved because they are essential to all forms of life"

                =========

                The DNA sequences for the ribosomes alone are perfectly conserved in all species.

                The "primitive" ribosomes only exist in your imagination

                "Ribosomes are crucial. If anything goes wrong with them, the organism will not survive," he said.

                "The DNA sequences that code for ribosomal RNA contain long stretches of bases that are perfectly conserved throughout evolution. Unlike the ultra-conserved elements uncovered in this study, though, ribosomal RNA is ancient and is common to all species"

                "These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Haussler said.

                ==========

                Do you understand what a theory is?

                A valid theory must explain the mechanisms, Darwinian evolution has no mechanism to change the UCE, therefore its not even a theory but an unsubstantiated speculation

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You just repeated what I said, that UCE change results in a non-viable organism, but then go on to say that they are essential to all forms of life.  There is no way of knowing this, and if Bejerano is willing to say that life of 2 million years ago had the same UCE without having any material to test I feel sorry for him.  What is the oldest DNA to ever be tested - that wooly mammoth frozen in the ice?  I don't think that qualifies as "early" life on earth.

                  F=G(m1*m2)/R^2 - the theory of gravity.  It works; it is true.  Nevertheless we have absolutely no idea of why.  We don't know the mechanism, but that doesn't make it an unsubstantiated speculation.  To insist that the theory of evolution follow different rules because you think Goddunit isn't realistic.  A perfectly valid theory never explains ALL the details; we may never know everything there is to know about how the universe works.

                  That you claim it is impossible is, however, unsubstantiated speculation.  Neither you nor anyone else has DNA samples from creatures from our distant past.  You don't know what it was and you don't have any idea if the UCE's you find in current organisms was the same in the far distant past.  You only know that it cannot be changed in modern creatures and still produce anything alive.

                  1. 0
                    toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Your not understanding, because the fossil record is half of the evidence for Darwinian evolution , and we know the protein coding sequences determine a species morphology, if a 500myo living fossil is found (and it has) that looks near identical to modern ones, this must mean the protein coding sequences that determine shape have not changed. And the theory predicts nonfunctional sequences will be eliminated by selection, thus if the non-coding elements in distantly related species were identical, they must be functionally important if they have persisted. This is how they conclude the sequences could not have been different.

                    And we do have 250myo DNA

                    "Halobacteria: the evidence for longevity" Grant WD, Gemmell RT, McGenity TJ.

                    ====

                    Your gravity analogy does not work because no creationist or I.D.er rejects "evolution". We reject Darwinian evolution. In this analogy Darwinian evolutionists have gravity doing things its never observed to do, so creationists do not say gravity (evolution) does not exist, we say its not doing what your theory is predicting it can do, that's all. The problem is the only other hypothesis is I.D. and Godless science knows this. This is why every time a prediction of Darwinian evolution is falsified, science just quickly modifies the theory so falsification is impossible. But yet they will use falsification to prohibit God thus I.D.

                    "Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78, 1979 p.574

                    This is why I.D. and biblical creationism must be synonymous to the atheist in science (even though they are not), because accepting I.D. in science opens the door for the designers identity to be God, and the "super natural" (which does not actually exist) can never be apart of science. Its quite a clever move by the Godless in science. They have gotten Judges to support this atheistic bias in schools and government without even realizing its biased in favor of atheism.

    6. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Your argument is incorrect. DNA has evolved over time.

      So have ribosomes, and just about everything else.

      If you're interested (and NOT just trying to stir up arguments) then feel free to read the book "Genesis" by Hazen.

      http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Scientifi … amp;sr=1-1

      It explains how simple experiments have shed a large amount of light on creating life from scratch.

      Once again, your claim that DNA has not evolved is incorrect. If I'm not mistaken, there is still debate if RNA was actually a separate 'animal' at some point.

      1. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Incorrect. You are not even close to the actual data

        Google

        An accuracy center in the ribosome conserved over 2 billion years.

        "We have introduced into S28 of yeast the same amino acid substitutions that led to the original streptomycin-resistant mutations in E. coli. We find that they have a profound effect on the accuracy of translation and interact with SUP44 and SUP46, just as predicted from the E. coli model. Thus, the interplay of these three proteins to provide the optimal level of accuracy of translation has been conserved during the 2 billion years of evolution that separate E. coli from S. cerevisiae"

        =====
        http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/05-10/genome.html

        "Ribosomes are complex molecular machines made of RNA and proteins. They translate the genetic code to carry out protein synthesis in all cells. According to Bejerano, ribosomal sequences are highly conserved because they are essential to all forms of life."

        "Ribosomes are crucial. If anything goes wrong with them, the organism will not survive," Bejerano

        The DNA sequences that code for ribosomal RNA contain long stretches of bases that are perfectly conserved throughout evolution. Unlike the ultra-conserved elements uncovered in this study, though, ribosomal RNA is ancient and is common to all species"

        "These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Haussler

        "There are millions of highly conserved sequences presumably under selection for biological function" (Dermitzakis et al. 2002; Boffelli et al. 2003; Margulies et al. 2003; Siepel et al. 2005)

        I suggest you study the conserved elements before you debate the issue. Why do you think they are called "conserved" ?, because they do not evolve.

        ==========

        Google

        Conserved machinery of the bacterial flagellar motor

        "Antibodies against two S. typhimurium proteins, FliG and FliM, known to be involved in motor function and part of the cytoplasmic module in this species cross-reacted with flagella-enriched fractions from both W. succinogenes and B. firmus. In addition, flagellar cytoplasmic structure could be isolated from B. firmus. The basal disk may anchor the flagellar motor to the cell wall in some polar bacteria, but this does not seem to be a unique strategy. In contrast, the data indicate that the cytoplasmic module is conserved."

        Google

        Novel Conserved Assembly Factor of the Bacterial Flagellum

        "The motility of most bacterial species depends on the proper function of the flagellar apparatus. At least 50 proteins are required for its assembly and function"

        In summary, (i) TP0658/CJ1075 mutants have a motility defect (Fig. 3) (10), (ii) TP0658/yviF are located in flagellar operons, (iii) TP0658/yviF/CJ1075/HP1154/HP13­77 bind to flagellin (18; R. Finley, unpublished data), (iv) both TP0658 and FliS bind to the C-terminal part of flagellin which is implicated in polymerization, and (v) TP0658/yviF stabilizes flagellin. TP0658 and its function thus seems to be widely conserved in bacteria"

        =========

        And you presuppositions of RNA world are also incorrect

        Google "The Great Debate What is Life" and watch Sidney Altman

        Sidney Altman annihilates RNA world by stating of the 25+ enzymatic functions possible with synthetic RNA. Natural RNA can do none of them. All RNA found in nature can only cut its self

        Some other points of interest. Chris McKay said space seeding the first cells is becoming more acceptable. This would be the result of abiogenesis becoming less acceptable

        And Dawkins & Davies get schooled by Venter when he informs them the tree of life is a myth, and all life does not share the same DNA code.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You seem to be claiming that because long portions of DNA is necessary for life as we know it (which I would probably agree with) that the rest of the string cannot be changed to produce new, different, species.

          Is that correct or am I misinterpreting something?

          1. 0
            toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Conserved elements exist in DNA and proteins.

            "Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective"

            "A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order"

            "Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins' behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random, and demonstrating that the observed result is precisely that predicted by the equations of control theory. By operating only at extremes, referred to in control theory as "bang-bang extremization," the proteins were exhibiting behavior consistent with a system managing itself optimally under evolution... evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows"

            "From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences,"  Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley

            ========

            However my main point is, if parts of the genome are unable to evolve, this falsifies methodological naturalism (atheistic evolution) because methodological naturalism requires 100% of the system to be subject to change.

            Atheistic evolution starts with chemical reactions and the entire system must be subject to evolutionary change. The most primitive cells have UCE that are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I take it that means that you think because some of the DNA cannot change and still produce a viable organism that none of it can.

              This is simply not true.  You continue to state that "methodological naturalism requires 100% of the system to be subject to change. " but that doesn't make it so now, and it doesn't make it so 2 billion years ago.  The most primitive cells we have available to us today may indeed have the UCE you so decry, but that does not mean they did in the past.

              1. 0
                toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Of course it does, did all species suddenly cease to evolve?. Cyanobacteria (the oldest living fossil) is found in the fossil record at 3.5byo and is morphologically identical to modern day bacteria. This means the protein coding sequences must be identical, so we know at least the 2% of DNA that codes for proteins has not changed at all in 3.5by in these bacteria. And most of the UCE are located in the 98% of the non-protein coding sequences that can not be observed by the fossil record. What does that tell you?

                We do have 250 million year old DNA that has not evolved.

                "Halobacteria: the evidence for longevity". Grant WD

                ===

                        On a side note. The only reason why science believes these long stretches of non-coding (formerly JUNK) DNA are Ultra Conserved Elements is because of evolutionary presuppositions of common decent. Distantly related and morphologically different species have identically sequenced "junk DNA", and because the theory predicts the less fit (those with nonfunctional sequences) will be eliminated by N.S., identical sequences separated by "hundreds of millions of years of evolution" must mean these particular sequences are essential to the species survival if selection has not eliminated them. Thus from the assumption of common decent, they assume they are UCE

                ===

                But the fact remains the same, proteins are also highly conserved. the proteins in all of the molecular machines are highly conserved. These machines must be precise within an unimaginably small range or problems arise. There are incessant error correction mechanisms that prevent any slight changes (Darwinian evolution) to most of the genome. Darwinian evolution requires constantly changing protein folds as the species morphs. Protein mis-folding (Darwinian evolution) causes sickness and disease (or less fit organisms), how ironic. 

                http://www.nature.com/nature/i­nsights/6968.html

                "Quality Control in the Protein Factory: A recent review article in Nature, "protein misfolding," notes that the dogma that "transcription turns DNA into RNA, and translation of RNA gives you protein" is incomplete, for proteins must still be folded into their proper form. Studies of protein folding, "are revealing a tightly regulated assembly line, where multiple factors guide nascent proteins to select the correct shape from an almost infinite array of possibilities." In addition to folding, there is "stringent quality-control," which ensure that, "the misfolded products are targeted for degradation before they cause harm." Indeed many diseases, including, "prion diseases, diabetes and cancer" may be caused by the failure to identify misfolded proteins"


                Certainly there are parts of the genome that are subject to evolution. but these are precisely designed adaptation mechanisms with Pre-written slight variations that can be selected for as the environment changes. This is the only evidence ever observed by molecular biology, and its the only evidence observed in the fossil record. P.E. saved a glaringly falsified theory from falsification. Although we both know the falsification of Darwinian evolution is strictly prohibited so rampant stasis would not falsify it.

                We have living fossils all through Cambrian, as well of the rest of the record. Species don't change like Darwin predicted.

                ===

                "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289

                "The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982) The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, p. 45-46

                "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it". Gould, Stephen Jay

                =======

                In every chemical evolution experiment (abiogenesis) science must start with unable to evolve elements already established and are stable enough to reproduce the system. Stable accurate repetition/reproduction (essential to Darwinian evolution) can never take place unless elements that, can not be moved (evolve), are firmly established. This is why all of the molecular machines are highly conserved, because Darwinian evolution (evolving protein folds) will destroy their functions and kill the species.

                And speculating without evidence of primitive proteins evolving but never being observed in the fossil record is of no use to a valid scientific theory. That amounts to FAITH.

      2. 0
        Chasukposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Toobsucker is correct; the sequence conservation that he describes exists. Why he thinks it repudiates evolution, I have no idea.

        1. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It repudiates Darwinian evolution or methodological naturalism.

          Evolution without an intelligent designer can not start with functional unable to change elements already established.

          That is cheating just a bit in the theory

    7. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thread failure. lol

      1. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Are you not aware of the dogmatic stance in evolutionary science that states "intelligent design is not science", therefore science must adhere to naturalistic theories at all costs.

        Methodological naturalism is atheistic evolution

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really? And, here all along I thought it had more to do with the fact that intelligent design has yet to adhere to the same rigor as any other scientific theory.



          lol Sorry, but that already failed.

      2. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You need to study before you debate this issue.



        The "few forms or into one" equates the few single cells or the one single cell. And according to Darwin, from the one/few lucky cell(s) all other species arise without the aid of an intelligence. Atheistic evolution is evolution without the aid of an intelligent designer

        Darwin also had an atheistic hypothesis for the origins of life



        ===========





        I will not belabor you at this point with pages of information from molecular biology that dismantles Darwin's predictions. I will send them to you if you continue to debate this issue. And then you can address them one by one.

        The fossil record falsifies the few simple life forms evolving into the many complex, and molecular biology has falsified the phylogenetic trees. Similar looking species do not have similar genetics. You have no idea the theory is falling apart because the problems in the theory are never taught

        =========



        Intelligent design (using an intelligence to arrange DNA sequences to achieve specific results) is practiced by science every day. Craig Venter said in Feb 2011 science will soon intelligently design a cell.

        Intelligent design of the cell is at your door step and natural origins of the cell is becoming more and more laughably ridiculous

        1. 0
          Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          toobsucker, the fossil record does not falsify anything!!! How can it?

          As a person who subscribes to ID, I would have thought you above most others would claim there are too many missing links in the fossil record for there to be any concrete evidence FOR evolution. So how do you explain the fossil record gives concrete evidence AGAINST evolution???

          In order to dismiss the fossil record when it comes to evidence for evolution, you first need to falsify carbon dating, radioactive isotopes, and other forms of dating. Not only do you need to falsify areas of biology, but also chemistry, geology, physics, archaeology, and others!

          Either you are deluding yourself, or someone is doing a very good job of doing it for you.

          1. 0
            toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Carbon dating does not prove new functional proteins are capable of arising.

            I am not a young earth creationist that believes the earth is only 6000 years old. So dating fossils older than 6000 years are not a problem, that said there are serous problems with the dating methods.

            =======

            http://www.physorg.com/news140266859.html

            Scientists uncover miscalculation in geological undersea record

            "This study is a major step in terms of rethinking how geologists interpret variations in the 13C/12C ratio throughout Earth's history. If the approach does not work over the past 10 million years, then why would it work during older time periods?" said Swart. "As a consequence of our findings, changes in 13C/12C records need to be reevaluated, conclusions regarding changes in the reservoirs of carbon will have to be reassessed, and some of the widely-held ideas regarding the elevation of CO2 during specific periods of the Earth's geological history will have to be adjusted"

            ========

            The dating methods are admittedly circular

            D. B. KITTS, Univ. of Oklahoma, "But the danger of circularity is still present.... The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation....for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.", Evolution Vol. 28, p.466

            DAVID M. RAUP, U. of Chicago; Field Museum of N.H., "The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity...Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found.", FMONH Bulletin, Vol. 54, Mar. 1983, p.21

            NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ. "And this poses something of a problem,: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" TIME FRAMES, 1985, p.52

            TOM KEMP, Oxford, "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67

            J. E. O'ROURKE, "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.", American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51

            ======

            And the fossil record is nothing but sudden appearance & stasis. Sudden appearance of fully developed species is the hallmark of I.D.

            There is no evidence of wings or limbs slowly evolving, they all appear fully developed in the fossil record

            1. 0
              Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That link is about carbon-13 (an environmental isotope). It doesn't have anything to do with carbon dating, which studies the ration of carbon-14 (which is radioactive) to carbon-12 (non-radioactive).

              Have you been quote-mining? Naughty!!!

              1. 0
                toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Given the fact that C-14 is not accurate passed 50,000 years and the link I was referring to said 13C/12C is not accurate passed 10,000,000 years, your point is moot.

                And you missed my point completely, which was many of the dating methods are admittedly not accurate gauges

                1. 0
                  Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wrong. All isotopes decay at an exact speed. C-14 decays very fast, which is why using C-14 carbon dating is inaccurate over millions of years. For dating anything that is more than 100,000 years old, other isotopes come into play.
                  Carbon dating is not the only form of dating. Just because it lacks accuracy over millions of years doesn't mean we can't bring other factors into play. Rubidium-87 has a half life span of 49,000,000,000 years!
                  Irrespective of all this, why do we not find any mammal fossils in Cambrian earth? It doesn't matter how inaccurate carbon dating is, the chronological order remains the same. We don't even need carbon dating to prove evolution anyway.

                  1. 0
                    toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    First of all I told you I'M an old earth creationist that believes the earth is much older than 6000 years. Secondly my point was the dating methods as far as evolution is concerned are known to be inaccurate, I'M not trying to prove YEC.

                    Third  Just Google "excess argon in volcanic rocks"

                    ===========

                    "New Zealand's newest and most active volcano, Mt Ngauruhoe in the Taupo Volcanic Zone, produced andesite flows in 1949 and 1954, and avalanche deposits in 1975. Potassium-argon "dating" of five of these flows and deposits yielded K-Ar model "ages" from <0.27 Ma to 3.5 - 0.2 Ma"

                        Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
                        Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
                        Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
                        Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
                        Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma; 0.25±0.15 Ma

                    "Far from being rare, there are numerous reported examples of excess 40Ar* in recent or young volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":3

                        Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3±7.2 Ma
                        Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma
                        Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma
                        Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma
                        Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
                        Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6±4.5 Ma
                        Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma
                        Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma
                        Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Ma) 95 Ma
                        Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land,
                        Antarctica (<0.3 Ma) 18.0±0.7 Ma
                        Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus,
                        Antarctica (1984) 0.64±0.03 Ma
                        Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma
                        Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma
                        East Pacific Rise basalt (<1 Ma) 690±7 Ma
                        Seamount basalt, near East Pacific Rise (<2.5 Ma) 580±10 Ma; 700±150 Ma
                        East Pacific Rise basalt (<0.6 Ma) 24.2±1.0 Ma

                    =============



                    Try using some objective reasoning. We know rapid sedimentation causes fossilization, and we know flood waters are the main cause of this rapid burial by sedimentation. Therefore we can conclude most fossils were caused by rapid burial caused by floods.

                    The only thing that could cause marine life (that already live in the ocean to begin with) to be rapidly buried is a flood of biblical proportions by carrying sedimentation into the oceans.

                    And we know what would happen if a massive flood were to occur today, ALL marine life would be buried in the lower levels because that is where they reside. And all land animals would seek the higher grounds to the best of their abilities. This is why human fossils are rare.

                    Also most people are unaware the body fossils and footprints of many species are found in different strata layers proving the layers are not separated by the amounts of time you believe they are.

                    =======

                    http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm

                    "STRATIGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF VERTEBRATE FOSSIL FOOTPRINTS COMPARED WITH BODY FOSSILS" Leonard Brand and James Florence

                    "If most of he skeleton is available, the general structure and appearance of the animal can be reconstructed with reasonable accuracy. From the characteristics of the teeth we can deduce something about the food habits of the animal. Bones and teeth can even provide much information beyond that, but can we be sure that the animal lived and died at the place where we found its fossil bones? In many cases the answer is no"

                    "If the geologic column represents sediments that have accumulated over many millions of years, and the fossils from each geologic period are the remains of animals living in successive time periods, it would be reasonable to expect that the stratigraphic patterns of footprint diversity should roughly parallel the patterns of equivalent body fossil diversity — the periods with the most kinds of dinosaur bones should have the most kinds of dinosaur tracks, for example. The bird and mammal fossil record fits that expectation quite well, but the reptile and amphibian record definitely does not."

                    ======

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

                    Polystrate trees also prove strata layers are not necessarily separated by millions of years.

                    And we do have evidence of this massive flood

                    ========

                    "Digging Dinosaurs" Paleontologist John R. Horner


                    "There was no question anymore. We had one huge bed of maiasaur bones--and nothing but maiasaur bones--stretching a mile and a quarter east to west and a quarter-mile north to south. Judging from the concentration of bones in various pits, there were up to 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs. . .

                       What could such a deposit represent? None of the bones we found had been chewed by predators. But most of the bones were in poor condition. They were either broken or damaged some other way, some broken in half, some apparently sheared lengthwise. They were all oriented from east to west, which was the long dimension of the deposit. Smaller bones, like hand and toe bones, skull elements, small ribs and neural arches of vertebrae, were rare in most of the deposit. At the easternmost edge of the deposit, however, these bones were the most common elements. All the bones were from individuals ranging from 9 feet long to 23 feet long. There wasn't one baby in the whole deposit. The bone bed was, without question, an extraordinary puzzle. First there was the terrible condition of the bones. As early as the first Brandvold site, we thought that a mud flow might have done this. However, on reflection, the condition of the bones argued for something other than animals just being buried alive, even in a vicious mud flow from a breached lake. As I mentioned before, it didn't make sense that even the most powerful flow of mud could break bones lengthwise when they were still padded in flesh and tied together by ligaments. Nor did it make sense that a herd of living animals buried in mud would end up with all their skeletons disarticulated, their bones almost all pointing in one direction and most of the small bones at one edge of the deposit. It seemed that there had to be a twofold event, the dinosaurs dying in one incident and the bones being swept away in another. . .

                        Over time, of course, the stench disappeared and the killing field turned into a boneyard. Perhaps beetles were there to clean the bones. The bones lay in the ash and dirt. Some fossilization occurred, as well as some acid destruction of the bones. . .

                        "Then there was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area, but a catastrophic inundation. Perhaps, as John Lorenz thought, a lake was breached, turning the field of death--now covered with partially fossilized, partially dissolved skeletons, unconnected by ligaments, flesh and skin--into a huge slurry as the water floated the bones, mud and volcanic ash into churning fossil soup. The bones of the maiasaurs would have been carried to a new location and left there as the floodwaters or mud settled. Had this occurred, the bones would have acquired their uniform orientation, and the smallest pieces, weighing the least, would have been carried the farthest. Finally the ash, being light, would have risen to the top in this slurry, as it settled, just as the bones sank to the bottom. And over this vast collection of buried, fossilized dinosaur bones would have been left what we now find--a thin but unmistakable layer of volcanic ash. That's our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment." DIGGING DINOSAURS, 1988, p.131

                    ========

                    You need to get your head out of the fossil record and into molecular biology because that is the only area of science that can verify the theory of new proteins arising

    8. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course Darwinism is "falsified." The Bible provides a scientifically valid description of the origin of the human and other species.

      1. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I suspect that response is sarcastic.

        Of course the bible explains nothing about the creation process other than God did it. Attempting to explain DNA, RNA & information systems would have been incoherent and pointless to 99% of people who have ever read the bible

        Darwinian evolution is not falsified by the bible, but by evolutionary science its self. Any functional element in the genome that is not subject to evolutionary change falsifies the hypothesis of methodological naturalism

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    No it doesn't. For example if the environment does not change and the animal is well-adapted it will stop changing.

    If it did not, that would not be required.

    And neither point has any bearing on data being faked.
    Which, given the scope and amount of the data, would be impossible.

    1. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Atheistic evolution can not start with functional unable to evolve elements already established.

      That is cheating in the theory that requires 100% system evolution

    2. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How do you think you can get away with starting methodological naturalism with highly complex species with conserved (unable to evolve) elements already established ?

  3. recommend1 profile image71
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Melpor, you are discussing evolution with a cuckoo that has escaped its clock big_smile

    1. melpor profile image90
      melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Recommend1, I understand the science of evolution very well. As I said before, many people do not understand evolution because they are not fully educated in it. They are reading misinformation from the wrong sources. Being a scientist, I read and obtained a good portion of my scientific knowledge from the scientific journals and publications where the data are published for anyone to read.

      1. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        if you are "educated" in science, you should understand what a theory is and what its purpose is.

        The theory (if valid) must show by what mechanisms UCE and be changed. your theory can not demonstrate evidence of these mechanisms, thus your theory is not a theory but an unsubstantiated speculation

      2. recommend1 profile image71
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I know you do, perhaps I did not make myself clear, the cuckoo I was referring to is the creationist.

        A good friend of mine recently disclosed that she is a strong believer in creationism and intelligent design.  She is a lovely and intelligent woman but is unable to grasp complexity and struggles to imagine future events to the point where she confuses the tenses, and she is an English teacher.

        I have come to the conclusion that 'they' are like chess players unable to think several moves ahead and who can only play at all if they follow a set-piece plan.  Maybe they are a dead end of evolution in humans.

        1. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That is quite funny. How does your superior foresight prove constantly changing chemical reactions can create elements (including multiple overlapping codes)  that can not evolve.?

          You have yet to address my question, How does a theory that starts with no conserved elements produce elements that can not be changed?

          1. recommend1 profile image71
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is not possible to discuss scientific matters with someone who has rejected all scientific methods any more than it is possible to play chess with someone who insists on replacing the pieces with tiddlywinks.

            1. 0
              toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I agree.

              Liberal philosophers do not understand critical thinking. Science is filled with liberal philosophers and not intellectuals

              Address my question, how does a theory that requires 100% change, produce elements that can not change?

              1. paradigmsearch profile image92
                paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well, now. Give me a minute.

                1. paradigmsearch profile image92
                  paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I need another minute....

              2. recommend1 profile image71
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It is critical thinking that has opened the door to the future that creationists are afraid to pass through, and so you are trying to double back flip with your  nonsense.  A return to dark ages filled with babble and superstition is not in the evolutionary interests of mankind.

                1. 0
                  toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Craig Venter & George Church (among others) practice intelligent design every day

                  I.D. is simply using intelligent foresight to arrange DNA sequences to achieve a specific goal

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The thing is, animals are not intelligently designed.  Junk DNA, vestigial features, congenital disorders, random mutations.  These things are not intelligent.  The are evidence for a blind, non-intelligent system of evolution with no predetermined goal in (no) mind.

            2. 0
              toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't answer the question. Do you also not understand what a valid theory consists of?

        2. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Which, I'm certain, is fine with them!
          Since the world IS scheduled to end before 2012, there's no need for further evolution of this particular species, is there?
          smile

      3. thisisoli profile image65
        thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I might have to read some scientific journals where data 'are' published myself.

        Tell me, what is your scientific discipline, and what scientific journals do you love to read, and why?

    2. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cuckoo?, it is you that believes chemical reactions can create over 300 perfectly conserved molecular  machines and multiple overlapping codes.

      That is not even in the same realm as rational thought

  4. EmpressFelicity profile image85
    EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago

    The forum thread title I'd really like to see is "Creationism is falsified".

    But I won't hold my breath because, uh... creationism can't be falsified. Which is why creationism isn't science.

    1. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do not concern yourself with creationism, concern yourself with intelligent design because within 10 years it will be at your door step.

      Once I.D. is established, then you can speculate on the designers identity

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
        EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I was talking about ID, which is merely creationism with a top-dressing of scientific jargon.

        Since you appear to be a fan of the irreducible complexity "argument", you might be interested in the video in this link:

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punct … 1/jan/10/2

        "This well-done video animation addresses anti-evolution anti-science "irreducible complexity" arguments by showing how complexity can arise through gradual evolution -- thereby debunking anti-evolution arguments. This video specifically focuses on debunking the so-called "irreducible complexity" of the favourite examples used by creationists; the eye, the bombardier beetle, the venus flytrap and bacterial flagella. The narrator also goes on to discuss the logical flaws in several man-made examples that are favourites of creationists, drystone arches (which are irreducibly complex), and mousetraps.

        The argument presented here, encapsulated:

        1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;
        2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;
        3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually."

        1. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Incorrect. Creationism is the Jews, Christians & Muslims version of I.D...Hindus are not creationists

          Your interpretation is very easily proven wrong, If creationism and I.D are synonymous , this would mean everyone that believes in I.D. are creationists. Simply not true, the atheist Raelians believe in I.D. via aliens

          And your I.C. argument is not valid. You have over 300 molecular machines that are all totally conserved, the ribosomes alone can not evolve

          And your going about proving evolution in a backwards fashion, evolution requires evidence of forward evolving protein folds, not I.C.

      2. Paul Wingert profile image80
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Intelligent design is a fancy word for Biblical creation. More myth than fact.

        1. paradigmsearch profile image92
          paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          OK, Hello?

        2. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How can I.D. be a myth when science practices it all the time?

          All creationists believe in I.D. true. Not all I.D.ers believe in creationism. Creationism is strictly the Jews, Christians & Muslims interpretation of I.D.

          You can believe in I.D. and not believe the bible or even in God

    2. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly, but most creationists haven't understood falsification and are still ranting on about lack of 'proof' of scientific theories. Scientific 'objective knowledge' is the consequence set of those theories that have been postulated in a falsifiable format and have not (yet) been falsified by repeatable observation. And as you say, creationism is not presented in falsifiable format and is simply non-science. Best to just let them wallow in it smile

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
        EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Given the post immediately before yours, I think you give very good advice, grasshopper!

      2. 0
        toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Falsification is logically ridiculous and when I first heard it knew it must have been invented  by a liberal mind

        falsification dictates that which is incapable of being proven false, is then assumed to be false

        Using the investigator analogy (with science being the investigators and methodological naturalism and I.D. being the suspects). If an investigator at a crime scene ruled out a potential suspect on the grounds the suspect could not be ruled out, he would be fired on the spot

        1. davenmidtown profile image86
          davenmidtownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          is it not possible that evolution and God might actually work together???? It may require faith but that is kinda what God is about anyways... faith!

          1. 0
            toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I never said evolution is falsified, I said Darwinian evolution is falsified.

            Science is now well aware selection of the luckiest randomness has nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution consists of the environment acting on pre existing information for adaptation purposes. The changes observed are minor and do not radically change the species

            This is evident in the fossil record with stasis and living fossils throughout its entirety

        2. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm afraid you don't understand the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science.

          1. 0
            toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I fully understand it. I disagree falsification is a valid method. So does atheist physicist Leonard Susskind. Falsification by its nature can never verify anything, its method is concentrating efforts to look for reasons why something is not what it appears to be, instead concentrating efforts for verification. All of quantum physics would have been unfalsifiable to science 150 years ago. Because of falsification no scientist 150 years ago would have been allowed to hypothesis on quantum mechanics or string theory

            1. Paraglider profile image89
              Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Falsification isn't intended to verify anything. It recognises that a theory, if true, would have a consequence set and that an observation that contradicts one of these consequences proves that the theory cannot be completely true. So we look for better theories.
              It's a paradigm that has been extremely successful, not least because it works.

              1. 0
                toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Falsification places limits on valid theories based on our own inabilities .

                The Limitations of Falsificationism

                http://www.flint.umich.edu/~simoncu/311 … &8.htm

                "If scientists had been true falsificationists, then all the great scientific movements would have been rejected before they got off the ground (and therefore many great discoveries that relied on applications of those theories would never have happened). Examples (pp. 91-2): Newtons gravitational theory, Bohrs theory of the atom, kinetic theory. Thus, not only are real scientists not falsificationists, its a damn good thing that they aren't."

                Falsification was invented by a illogical liberal atheist (Popper) for the purpose of restricting God (hence I.D.)from a hypothesis.

                Falsification is broken at will when its needed. The multiverse and string theory are both unfalsifiable and yet accepted by science because the unfalsifiable is needed when our testing is limited.

                =======

                And falsifications biggest problem is, it rejects a theory based on the grounds its unable to be rejected (falsified). Its illogical by its very nature. Why do you think physicists break the rule?

                1. Paraglider profile image89
                  Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  As I said before, you really don't understand the criterion of demarcation. Have you read Popper? He didn't 'invent' falsification. He pointed out that the Bacon myth of induction as method was false (agreeing with Hume) but also unnecessary, as science had been proceeding by hypothesis and falsification for centuries. He merely codified it as a principle. And by the way, he was a Social Democrat.

  5. davenmidtown profile image86
    davenmidtownposted 5 years ago

    Earnestshub... are you stalking me?   lol

  6. davenmidtown profile image86
    davenmidtownposted 5 years ago

    exactly so... but this admission does not make my question unjustified.... please continue.

    1. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is a huge difference between methodological naturalism and an adaptive intelligent design

  7. davenmidtown profile image86
    davenmidtownposted 5 years ago

    To our understanding perhaps... bridge the gap... the process should cover both aspects nicely.

  8. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    About ten years ago (and restated in 2004) Dawkins wrote “there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, “tandem repeats”, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. (p. 56)



    http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinis … earlessly/

    1. paradigmsearch profile image92
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Your post is too intelligent for this thread. However, we may continue to try.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I need a minute. smile

        These threads are all the same, goddunnit comes in many guises. smile

        1. paradigmsearch profile image92
          paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I may have errored as well. Where is Brenda? I seem to have lost track of her and hi and whatever as well.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi and whatever to you as well. smile Brenda will be around soon. She will be setting us all right with a resounding GODDUNNIT, although as an old hand at the forum thing she MAY NOT SHOUT IT. smile

            1. paradigmsearch profile image92
              paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I shall decline.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ya can't go declining a goddunnit! Brenda will be cross and set the god dogs on ya!

                1. paradigmsearch profile image92
                  paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Curious, we shall see. I think not. Or I am an idiot. Actually, who cares?

                  1. recommend1 profile image71
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I care.

    2. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is such a vast amount of information refuting Junk DNA.

      Have you Googled Junk DNA lately ?

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes I have, but I like real data that is peer reviewed and from decent sources.
        Did you read the link?

        1. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Here is a few for you

          http://www.pnas.org/content/101/30/11117.full

          ERVs prove to be beneficial to the organism

          "A possible biological role hypothesized for ERVs is to help the host resist infections of pathogenic exogenous retroviruses, affording a selective advantage to the host bearing them. For instance, some avian and murine ERVs can block infection of related exogenous retroviruses at entry by receptor interference; mouse Fv-1 blocks infection at a preintegration step, also can be viewed as an ERV.

          ======

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781489/

          Unrelated ERVs perform identical beneficial functions in unrelated species

          "We demonstrate that both the human and rodent neuronal apoptosis inhibitory protein (NAIP) genes, involved in preventing cell death, use different ERV sequences to drive gene expression. Moreover, in each of the primate and rodent lineages, two separate ERVs contribute to NAIP gene expression. This repeated ERV recruitment by NAIP genes throughout evolution is very unlikely to have occurred by chance. We offer a number of potential explanations, including the intriguing possibility that it may be advantageous for anti-cell death genes like NAIP to use ERVs to control their expression. These results support the view that not all retroviral remnants in our genome are simply junk DNA."

          ========

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/re­leases/ … 2059.ht­m

          'Not 'Junk DNA' After All: Tiny RNAs Play Big Role Controlling Genes

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/re­leases/ … 0408.ht­m

          'Junk' DNA Has Important Role, Researchers Find

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/re­leases/ … 0928.ht­m

          "Junk' DNA Proves Functional; Helps Explain Human Differences From Other Species" ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2008)

  9. davenmidtown profile image86
    davenmidtownposted 5 years ago

    That we know of.... isn't the the point of creatures who evolve... perhaps we just do not understand and rather then claim it is not possible... I prefer to believe that we have just not reached that level of sophistication in terms of our limited intelligence.   The fact that you seem adamant does not make your argument correct.  Think outside of your limitations and then try to answer the question.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Us having an opinion is a limitation, but you having one is wisdom?

  10. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I mean, really? Who needs the additional stress and aggravation? Who needs someone attacking me when I will be homeless in the next 3 months (projected), real deal?

  11. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    No way out.

  12. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    God did do it.

    lol


    paradigmsearch, I tried to catch up with you on the "dogs go to heaven" thread..

    what do ya mean you might be homeless in 3 months?

    1. paradigmsearch profile image92
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Seriously?  You're not joking?

        1. paradigmsearch profile image92
          paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No.

  13. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    Did you get my e-mail?

    1. paradigmsearch profile image92
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I shall do so now.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image92
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        None?

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          About 20 minutes ago.

    2. paradigmsearch profile image92
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Still no. I am now feeling ambiguous.

  14. trecords0 profile image59
    trecords0posted 5 years ago

    Either this argument is totally bunk and a drunken rant, or it is over my head.  I observe evolution within myself, therefore, I understand it through myself by extrapolation.  Who cares about Darwinian theory?  It is the reality of the subject which is important to me - evolution is real just as progressions are real.  This is like arguing that Bach did not invent the twelve tone system.  Who cares.  It exists.  Toobsucker - I would suggest that if you want to go off on people in forums that you change your name; at least to something that sounds like you have some authority.  I would also suggest that you not do it to begin with, as some of us are honestly trying to understand your point from your view of it.  Chill out.

    1. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ask a PC programmer what would happen to his program if his source code made slight random alterations, then selection of the luckiest alteration. His program would crash.

      Ask any engineer what would happen if slight random alteration were made to a building he designed. His building would collapse.

      What keeps those systems stable are elements that are prevented from moving (evolving). All intelligently designed systems have fixed parameters that can not be changed, and the genome is filled with conserved (unable to evolve) elements. Study the UCE

      The "evolution" observed are slight modifications via turning currently existing genes off & on. This is not Darwinian evolution

      Its no coincidence the universe also has conserved elements with the 34 constants.

      1. trecords0 profile image59
        trecords0posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Comparing programs and buildings to living organisms is no comparison.  A static system to a living system?  Come on man, you're smarter than that.  I don't believe in coincidence nor randomness.  These are just systems which have enormous amounts of data, more than we can quantify and qualify, so we regulate them to the category of randomness and coincidence which equals superstition in my book.  The universe is organized, has reason, and is a logical system whether or not we recognize that.  We are limited to a finite spectrum of observational tools, within us and without us.

        1. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You don't seem to be aware of the many similarities between biological systems and engineered systems. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1993 to 2005 said In an article titled "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists"

          Biology must incorporate design engineering principles to get to the "next level" of understanding. He said "These are true factories"

          You also must acknowledge the fact all biological systems have fixed (unable to evolve) functional (both hardware and software) elements. If Darwinian evolution is valid, these unable to evolve functional elements must have at one time not existed. This means that had to be subject to evolutionary mechanisms at one time but now (as luck would have it) they just happen to be precisely evolutionary frozen in a functional position.

          Naturalism can not start its theory, that requires entire system movement and change, with "enormous amounts of data, more than we can quantify and qualify" (that are both frozen and functional) already established.

          What do you think would happen if the theory stood or fell on experimentation with the single cell and selection of the luckiest randomness?. We already know the answer, bacteria does not evolve, we have 3.5byo bacteria identical to modern bacteria. Bacteria is the oldest living fossil

          Why do you think stasis is the predominate feature in the fossil record?, because stasis is the predominate feature in DNA. Biological systems do not change as predicted, this is why Gould invented P.E., to explain away the lack of evidence of the transition

          http://www.tbiomed.com/content­­/7/1/3

          "A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: An examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA"

          "...This system is embodied in an autonomous operating system that inductively follows organizational structures, data hierarchy and executable operations that are well understood in the computer science industry" David J D'Onofrio

          http://www.princeton.edu/main/­­news/ … topstories

          Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

          ""A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order"..."evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows"

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMlde9akBk

          The cell resembles an engineered factory and has many conserved (unable to evolve) elements. All of the molecular machines are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms. This is a fatal dilemma for Darwinian evolution

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Bacteria don't evolve?  Do you think they put their little brains together and build a mechanical defense against antibiotics?  Or do you not understand what "evolve" means?

            Just what "elements" are fixed and functional?  Say in a frog, so that frog cannot evolve into a different species?  Its eyes?  Its large back legs?  Its sexual reproduction?  Is it the heart that cannot change?  Just one or two as examples, because I can think of absolutely nothing.

            1. 0
              toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Bacteria adapt, they do not evolve their protein folds. Darwinian evolution is morphology through new functional protein folds. The "evolution" in bacteria do not effect their morphological design. New functional protein folds are the only thing that can verify Darwinian evolution

              And the mechanisms behind bacterial antibiotic resistance are not copy errors as originally believed.

              ========

              http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 154945.htm

              How Some Bacteria Survive Antibiotics

              "ScienceDaily (May 2, 2008) — Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have discovered how some bacteria can survive antibiotic treatment by turning on resistance mechanisms when exposed to the drugs. The findings, published in the April 24 issue of the journal Molecular Cell, could lead to more effective antibiotics to treat a variety of infections"

              "When patients are treated with antibiotics some pathogenic microbes can turn on the genes that protect them from the action of the drug," said Alexander Mankin, professor and associate director of the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and lead investigator of the study. "We studied how bacteria can feel the presence of erythromycin and activate production of the resistance genes."

              "Erythromycin and newer macrolide antibiotics azithromycin and clarithromycin are often used to treat respiratory tract infections, as well as outbreaks of syphilis, acne and gonorrhea. The drugs can be used by patients allergic to penicillin"

              "Macrolide antibiotics act upon the ribosomes, the protein-synthesizing factories of the cell. A newly-made protein exits the ribosome through a tunnel that spans the ribosome body. Antibiotics can ward off an infection by attaching to the ribosome and preventing proteins the bacterium needs from moving through the tunnel"

              "Some bacteria have learned how to sense the presence of the antibiotic in the ribosomal tunnel, and in response, switch on genes that make them resistant to the drug, Mankin said. The phenomenon of inducible antibiotic expression was known decades ago, but the molecular mechanism was unknown"

              ===========

              "Do you think they put their little brains together and build a mechanical defense against antibiotics?  Or do you not understand what "evolve" means?"

              Yes that's exactly what bacteria do.

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053935

              Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology.

              "Forty years' experience as a bacterial geneticist has taught me that bacteria possess many cognitive, computational and evolutionary capabilities unimaginable in the first six decades of the twentieth century....Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilise sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication and even have the ability to commandeer the basic cell biology of 'higher' plants and animals to meet their own needs. This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognise that even the smallest cells are sentient beings"

              ==========

              Study quorum sensing

              Look up "Bonnie Bassler: The secret, social lives of bacteria" on youtube.

              Bacterial communication: Tiny teamwork. Nature 424, 134 (10 July 2003)

              "Until recently, bacteria were considered to be self-contained and self-sufficient individuals. These unicellular organisms were thought to lack the sophistication of plants and animals to organize into multicellular groups. We also assumed that they lacked the ability to communicate, a crucial function for organizing group activities. Our view has changed. Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate, and these abilities are important factors in the development of many diseases...AFTER A GRUDGING ACCEPTANCE of these examples, communication was viewed as a curiosity, unique to a few special bacteria. But we now know that many bacteria use cell-to-cell communication to control gene expression, a process that has become known as quorum sensing

              =======

              The protein folds in every species must be subject to change if morphology is  valid. Protein folds do not change, this is why the fossil record is nothing but stasis.

              And the conserved elements in DNA do not change (evolve), hence the term conserved

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Adaptation, requiring a physical change in the organism, IS evolution.

                Beyond that, you have lost me entirely with philosophical discussions of cellular intelligence.  Single cells, or animals without brains, are no more intelligent that a tree.  Like a tree, they can and do send signals but this does not indicate intelligence.  It indicates a chemical response to stimuli and nothing more.  Any chemical will respond to the right stimulus - it is just a matter of finding the right stimulus.

                1. 0
                  toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  How is it you know more than experts in the field?. Why don't you study this matter before asserting your dogmatic presupposition. Your reasoning fails, you are a intelligent being that is made from nothing but a conglomeration of single cells, how can you say single cells can not be intelligent?, it is the software that makes you intelligent

                  Evolutionist and Bacterial geneticists James A. Shapiro said

                  "Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilise sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication and even have the ability to commandeer the basic cell biology of 'higher' plants and animals to meet their own needs"

                  ========

                  http://www.physorg.com/news148­­­742058.html

                  "The primary cilium, the solitary, antenna-like structure that studs the outer surfaces of virtually all human cells, orient cells to move in the right direction and at the speed needed to heal wounds, much like a Global Positioning System helps ships navigate to their destinations"

                  "What we are dealing with is a physiological analogy to the GPS system with a coupled autopilot that coordinates air traffic or tankers on open sea," says Soren T. Christensen, describing his recent research findings on the primary cilium, the GPS-like cell structure, at the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) 48th Annual Meeting, Dec. 13-17, 2008 in San Francisco

                  =======

                  Bacterial communication: Tiny teamwork. Nature 424, 134 (10 July 2003)

                  "Until recently, bacteria were considered to be self-contained and self-sufficient individuals. These unicellular organisms were thought to lack the sophistication of plants and animals to organize into multicellular groups. We also assumed that they lacked the ability to communicate, a crucial function for organizing group activities. Our view has changed. Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate, and these abilities are important factors in the development of many diseases...AFTER A GRUDGING ACCEPTANCE of these examples, communication was viewed as a curiosity, unique to a few special bacteria. But we now know that many bacteria use cell-to-cell communication to control gene expression, a process that has become known as quorum sensing"

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        An engineered building is a poor comparison to life, but:

        Consider an engineer that has a contract to build 5 million identical buildings.  Building #27,000 received steel columns that were made incorrectly at the factory and were 2mm thicker.  Building #87,000 received columns that were 2 mm thinner that they should be. 

        An earthquake occurs; building 27,000 stands, building 87,000 falls and of the rest of the 5 million buildings 1 million fall.  Might it behoove the engineer (natural selection) to make buildings that have columns 2mm thicker? 

        It sounds as if you have only the vaguest notion of how evolution works.  Yes, the DNA of all organisms are subject to evolutionary forces; yes "luck" is involved as to which organism might get changed.  From that point natural selection takes over and environmental factors determine which organism will survive and reproduce.  It is very definitely a statistical thing, with the majority of both "good" and "bad" changes failing in the long run, but with numbers the size of an entire species population it is inevitable that the "good" changes will prevail if they can survive the first few generations.

        Like most debaters against evolution you do not seem to comprehend (or care) that single organisms mean next to nothing in the evolutionary scheme.  Neither are we likely to spot gross changes in a single lifetime.  It is a numbers game with very large numbers and the likelihood of any single change being beneficial is very small and the likelihood of us seeing that change in our lifetime even smaller except in organisms that reproduce very quickly such as bacteria.

        1. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Selection explains how the less fit are removed, not how the fit are created.

          wilderness said "Might it behoove the engineer (natural selection) to make buildings that have columns 2mm thicker? It sounds as if you have only the vaguest notion of how evolution works"

          Natural selection does not have the benefit of intelligent foresight as intelligent design does. Its not even rational to give these powers of creation to the blind mindless action of selection.

          N.S. is nothing more than the selection of the luckiest randomness. Evolutions information generator is total randomness, selection can only chose from the "luckiest" of this randomness.

  15. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    All emails void?

    Talk to me or not?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What do you mean?
      I sent it from this site.
      My pc's going crazy.  Something about an iex file or something, about which I'm totally illiterate.
      Trying again.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image92
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, send right when so right. smile

  16. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I shall check again.

    If emails received, we will have fun. I like you.

  17. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    We can still talk now?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes of course we can talk.   
      I just tried sending another mail, thought it would be neat to talk personally.
      But it's okay here too.  I like talking with almost anyone.  Well....except maybe Obama (if I had the chance to chat with him I'd probably NOT! haha)


        Why are you worried about being homeless?    I've heard it said that many many people are only a couple paychecks away from being homeless.  I'm pretty much that way.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image92
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I have done the math.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you have family or friends or other possible support system if you were to fall on hard times?

  18. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    Sorry to keep interrupting this thread, but I'm totally confused.   Can't seem to reach paradigmsearch via e-mail nor directly on here.

    recommend1, did you try also?

    1. recommend1 profile image71
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No - but she does tend to disappear and appear a lot.  has done for the past couple of weeks.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Okay.  Well I hope she gets back in touch soon...

  19. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    They evidence for gravity is also falsified.  I can tell because I float like a balloon.

    1. 0
      Home Girlposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly! In the morning I simply cannot get up from my bed - gravity just pulls me down and back to my bed. big_smile

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol  I think many of us have that problem!  In the morning it is just sooo much stronger.  Unless there is something exciting happening that day (Christmas morning?) - then it reverses and literally bounces children out of their beds.  Very selective, is gravity!

  20. recommend1 profile image71
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    The 'banging on' sounds more a like tapping on an empty skull the more it goes on and on and on.

    ID and creationism is an invention of a declining religion to justify all the inconsistencies and pure impossibilities of its doctrine.  The overall purpose is to create a voting base of dummies to follow the hollow drum - the aim is a return to dark ages.

    1. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How do you figure looking at the biological system as if it was designed by an intelligence is "a return to the dark ages"?

      The science of I.D. does not concern its self with the identity of the designer. That is a philosophical/theological problem not a scientific one.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A couple of minor corrections; there is no "science" of ID, and the people promoting it very much DO concern themselves with the identity of the designer.  The stated designer always seems to be the God believed in by the "scientist" promoting the concept.  As an indication of this, can you point to even one atheist "scientist" promoting ID?  Or is it always a theist of some kind?

        You are correct, though, that it is a theological problem.

        1. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Science is on the verge of intelligently designing a cell. Craig Venter said in 2011 (Google "The Great Debate What is Life" and watch the videos) this will happen soon. How can I.D. not be science, if science practices it?

          You are like most evolutionists, you parrot "I.D. is not science" over and over again without addressing the fact its being practiced by science.

          I.D. is simply using a mind to get the functional sequences precisely arranged rather than selection of the luckiest randomness.

          Selection of total randomness building extremely precise functional elements is not only logically absurd, it is never demonstrated in any other application.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry again - ID is the claim that an intelligence created the first life on earth.  To claim that scientists are on the verge of intelligently creating life now has absolutely nothing to do with it.

            Scientists follow certain guidelines and procedures to produce viable theories; ID proponents do not follow these procedures and by definition cannot be considered scientists.  To simply promote a hypothesis or idea does not make a scientist; I could that as well as anyone simply by claiming that I don't understand something and therefore I will make up a theory that explains it without any evidence it is correct.

            1. 0
              toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Too funny how all atheists deny what is right in front of their face. You admit "scientists are on the verge of intelligently creating life", then say this "has absolutely nothing to do with" intelligently designing life. The demonstrable mechanisms in both instances is an intelligence.

              How can you claim intellectual objectivity when you blatantly lie to yourself?. The process and mechanisms may not be the same as God or other designers would have used, but the fact remains the same an intelligence is proving to be the best mechanism in getting the cell built. The cell will be intelligently designed by science before natural unintelligent forces do it. This is a fact you will have to eventually deal with

              Science has no viable theory for the creation of the cell or multiple conserved overlapping coded languages in DNA & RNA. You deceive yourself if you believe otherwise

              What do you think would happen if the theory was tested by mutating and selecting DNA sequences in the single cell?, the cell would crash and science knows this. And this is why the tests for falsification are never practiced.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You really should try to get a little more comprehension into your reading ability.  The comment was that man's intelligence being able to design and build life has nothing to do with showing that an intelligence designed the first life on earth.  It really was pretty plain there.

                In fact, intelligence is probably not the best designer; natural selection coupled with millions or billions of years is.  Intelligence may do it faster, but not better without using existing blueprints from nature as a starting point.

                Yes, you can tell that the theory has never of mutating and selecting DNA sequences has never been used.  That's why there is no outcry or concern about "designer" grains with modified DNA - we all know they won't grow anyway.  (If you did not detect it, that was sarcasm).

                Did you know that man has modified bananas to the point that they can't grown without man's help?  But of course, we can't change the DNA sequences that would produce such a change; it must have been God that did it.

                1. 0
                  toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Science creating a cell does not necessarily prove the cell was intelligently designed. This is true. However it does prove the hypothesis (not theory)of I.D. to be valid. The natural cell evolution hypothesis is not even close to being verified, in fact its falsified at every step.

                  You understand we can simulate billions of years of randomness and selection with PCs evolution experiments. Why can't the theory prove its self in other applications.? Because selection of the luckiest randomness creating complex information systems and functional conserved elements is logically ridiculous.

                  If randomness & selection was the superior to intelligent foresight (that can predict precisely what changes will be needed),  PC programmers & engineers would use it. And I have never heard modified bananas do not grow unassisted. If this is true it proves changing the sequences too much does harm to the organism which does not help the case for evolution which is totally dependent on sequence changes producing more fit organisms

                  ============

                  You do not have billions of years for evolution

                  An analogy of The history of the world (100 yards long) can be given with a football field. Standing in one end zone (4.5 billion years ago) and looking towards the other end zone (Today), start walking towards the other end zone. Microorganisms (blue green algae-cyanobacterium) first show up at your 25YL (3.5bya). Cyanobacterium is the oldest living fossil and not effected by Darwinian evolution.

                  "The group [cyanobacterium] shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms" berkeley.edu

                  As you walk past the 50YL single celled organism (amoebas fungi etc..) show up at the 45YL. Keep walking and when you get to the 16YL (84 yards away from the start) Multi-cellular life (sea sponges) first show up. Take one more step at the 15YL is the Cambrian explosion. And the Cambrian explosion is 4" long.

                  ===========

                  "Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective"

                  "A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order"

                  "Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins' behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random, and demonstrating that the observed result is precisely that predicted by the equations of control theory. By operating only at extremes, referred to in control theory as "bang-bang extremization," the proteins were exhibiting behavior consistent with a system managing itself optimally under evolution... evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows"

                  =========

                  Proteins resist the very thing needed to validate Darwinian evolution

                  Why do you think Gould invented P.E.?  Stasis is all that's observed in the fossil record and DNA

      2. recommend1 profile image71
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is just plain lying for jesus - the whole crock of crud that is ID is wanting a jesus answer and then cobbling up a string of blarney to persuade gullible fools that it is scientific.

        Your whole god and jesus thing has had its day, nobody with half a brain supports ID and the real christians are quietly doing their good christian thing totally embarrassed by the fiasco.

        1. 0
          toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your hypothesis, "ID is wanting a jesus answer", can be tested.

          If what you say is valid, ALL I.D. proponents must be bible believing Christians who claim Jesus is messiah. Of course this hypothesis fails. Many I.D.ers do not believe in the bible, including the atheist Raelians that believe aliens designed the cell, and some agnostics.

          And you have failed to address evolutions most glaring problem. How does the theory explain functional conserved elements (UCE) that are not subject to any evolutionary mechanisms?. Unless the theory can address elements that can not evolve, its not scientifically valid.

          I.D. can explain them perfectly. and is the only hypothesis can can explain them.

          Remember this prediction. Within 10 years science will be forced to admit Darwinian evolution has been falsified, even though it has been falsified for many years already

          Are you not aware every prediction Darwinian evolution has made, has been repeatedly falsified?

          1. recommend1 profile image71
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Any hypothesis can explain perfectly - there are pink elephants that fly around my room every friday night - I see them. 

            Proving a hypothesis requires proof - and there is NONE for ID,  it is a cobbled up dogs-crotch of nonsense and its proponents that I have met are some of the most simple minded human beings.

            1. 0
              toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Your analogy is not even close to being valid. No one observes flying pink elephants, we do observe an intelligence arranging DNA sequences to achieve  specific results.

              Stop interpreting your liberal philosophical emotions as logic and reason

              1. recommend1 profile image71
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You DO NOT see intelligence arranging anything in nature, including DNA.  You see DNA naturally arranged and attribute an intelligence to it - this is not valid in any way.  You have to provide evidence of the intelligence not the design.

                And there is no evidence of intelligence in the design or in the supporters of this manufactured drivel.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If this guy has been observing God arranging our DNA I want to know what he's smoking and where he got it!

                  You are talking to one that interprets his theological emotions as logic and reason; you would better off talking to your wall.  At least what it says will make sense.

                  1. trecords0 profile image59
                    trecords0posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with you wilderness, that's why i walked away from this conversation.  It seems that toobsucker is just here to get off on argument rather than have a decent little sit down.

                2. 0
                  toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Incorrect we do observe scientists (an intelligence) specifically changing sequences.

                  And I find it amusing I need evidence that the intelligent designer exists, but you need no evidence of the chemical evolution process.

                  And to say there is no evidence of "intelligence" in biological systems, proves you do not understand biological systems. There are multiple coded languages and engineering principles in biological systems. Information systems only arise by an intelligence.

                  Bruce Alberts president of the NAS till 2005 said biology must incorporate design engineering principles into the biology curriculum to get to the next level of understanding. Biological systems appear as if designed, many biologists (including Dawkins) have stated this.

                  Atheist biologist Crick said "we must constantly keep in mind what see is not designed but evolved"

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    From your earlier post:

                    "What do you think would happen if the theory was tested by mutating and selecting DNA sequences in the single cell?, the cell would crash and science knows this. "

                    Now you say "we do observe scientists (an intelligence) specifically changing sequences"

                    Which one is correct? Or do you imply that every change made by scientists results in a dead cell?

                  2. 0
                    Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Can I join in?
                    toobsucker, I'm no expert on evolution but even I know that DNA is not 'coded' in the common sense of the word. You can't talk about 'programming' and 'coding' when it comes to DNA because that isn't how it works.
                    You also let yourself down by admitting you subscribe to I.D. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, it is creationism in disguise. Why can't you entertain the possibility that organic life came into existence through a non-intentional cause? By accident perhaps?

  21. 60
    JustinSloneposted 5 years ago

    It's a completely separate topic from evolution, though. Of course, you need life to be there in the first place for evolution to happen, but how that life comes about isn't relevant to the theory.

    <snipped-promotional link>

  22. recommend1 profile image71
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Oscar Wilde - 

    "Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with his experience."

    1. trecords0 profile image59
      trecords0posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Beautiful!

  23. 0
    RookerySpoonerposted 5 years ago

    I don't know why you have described Darwinian evolution as atheistic evolution.  True, many who accept the fact of evolution are atheists.  However, there are far more Christians in the world who accept evolution than there are atheists.  The Roman Catholic Church, which accounts for the largest Christian denomination in the world officially accepts evolution, as does the Anglican Church.  And as there are far more Roman Catholics and Anglicans than there are atheists, who only make up 2.5% of the world's population, it is incorrect to describe everyone who accepts the real evidence for evolution as atheists.

    1. 0
      Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The word 'atheist' is used as a generalisation by people who deem it a derogatory term. I recently had a debate with a Christian apologist who used the term 'Atheist Communists'. He/she was actually talking about Communists in general. Communism has nothing to do with atheism.
      Funny how these people give their stupid game away as soon as they open their mouths.

  24. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Goddunnit.

  25. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Um, no.  There are plenty of examples of intermediate forms, especially of limbs and wings.

    1. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is meaningless unless you provide sources.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

      The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

      "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal."

      ===========

      And there are pages and pages of "sudden appearance and stasis" quotes from paleontology that I will not post here.

      Why do you think P.E. was invented?, because gradualism is not observable in the fossil record.

  26. maven101 profile image77
    maven101posted 5 years ago

    ID presupposes that an intelligent designer, with god-like attributes, places genetic material all over the universe with the intent of developing life...this anthropomorphic definition indicates behaviour, which impinges on my understanding of behaviour in that all rational behaviour is caused or motivated...rational behaviour does not suddenly appear out of the blue...

    My question, and source of doubt re ID, would be what is the cause or motivation for such to occur..?

    1. 0
      toobsuckerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually I.D. does not name the designer, creationism does. All creationists believe in intelligent design, not all intelligent design proponents believe in creationism.

      Creationism is the biblically based (Jews, Christians and Muslims) version of I.D., The atheists Raelians believe in I.D. via aliens, and some agnostics (undecided) believe in I.D. based on the teleological evidence. And IM sure Hindus believe in some sort of I.D. but its not creationism

      And the creationists are divided into the ,young earth creationists and the old earth creationists. And I am an OEC

  27. JGoul profile image59
    JGoulposted 5 years ago

    I disagree. You don't have to prove a designer exists to discuss it as a possible explanation; it is perfectly valid to look at the world and ask whether the evidence you see is more consistent with the actions of a designer or a natural process. Personally, I think a natural process makes more sense, but I reached that conclusion after considering creation as a possible explanation.

    And the "ID is just Christianity disguised" argument is misguided; it makes a nice soundbite, but it's not good logic. As a matter of empirical description of the majority of those who support ID, I'm sure you're right. But in terms logic and analysis, "the shape of the world around us necessarily implies the existence of a designer" and "the god described in the Christian Bible exists and is who the Bible claims he is" are two very different arguments. Many ID supporters would likely move on to that as the next phase of the argument, but the arguments presented and the evidence marshaled would be very different.

    So as a statement about their motivations, you're right. As an analysis of the content of the argument, absolutely wrong.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      By the same token then it is perfectly reasonable to speculate about anything as long as you fully realize it is speculation and don't represent it as fact.

      That's the problem with Id. It is speculation. Just as valid as the christian god is invisible pink squirrels.

      It is not evident in any way that ad designer had to be involved at this point of our investigation into the subject. So it is illogical to postulate one.

      If science comes to a point where it sees that only a designer could have done this or that and not a natural process then you can argue a designer must be responsible. Right now those who have faith that this is so are trying to tell us that science has come to that point with every point they try and fail to make.

      If they are interested in reality they should be willing to wait and see like everyone else. But they are not. They are only interested in their agenda and having this nonsense taught in schools along side evolution or preferably in place of it.

      if they come up with real science and real evidence they will gain some credibility.

      1. JGoul profile image59
        JGoulposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're missing the point. I'm not saying we should speculate, or let's assume that there must be a god and reason from that point. I'm pointing out that the argument that ID supporters are making is that if you look at the world, at the way its put together and and the way it functions, it is more consistent with the existence of a creator than with the world being the result of a natural process.

        You're assuming the heart of the argument - that the shape of the world doesn't imply the existence of a creator. I agree. But you can't accuse them of speculating about the existence of god based on the assumption that their argument is wrong. Of course any position is ridiculous once you assume that its basic premises are flawed. If that's your position, you're not really accusing them of speculating. You're accusing them of stupidly taking a position based on a poor analysis of the evidence. Which is fine; I might even agree. But it's misleading when you don't characterize your argument that way.

        And I completely reject the idea that ID supporters have to wait until science has tracked down every possible explanation and rejected it before they can propose design as an alternative. It is perfectly valid to say, based on the information we have NOW, which explanation is most consistent? The outcome of that could conceivably be to believe one thing at one point, then modify your position as science advances, but that . As the evidence changes, your assessment of it should change as well.

        I do agree that evolution is the most consistent explanation, and I CERTAINLY think that ID supporters have more than their share of illogical positions. But you can't say that their hypothesis cannot be considered until every possible iteration of your hypothesis has been definitively proven wrong.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are very reasonable. But science looks at how things work, not who did it. ID is saying someone did it because they can't fathom how it works without a designer.

          Science has to wait and see if it comes to a designer or not. it can't assume one and it has no reason to.

          So ID is not science. Yet it tries to attack science by trying to falsify evolution. Not the best way to go about things. No one knows it all yet. So processes we do not understand are still being revealed.

          Everyone has to wait and see, not just them.

          1. JGoul profile image59
            JGoulposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            For a definitive answer, yes. For a provisional, best guess answer, based on the information currently available, no. There is nothing intrinsically wrong (although as I stated, I believe that in the case it is empirically wrong) with saying that you believe it is unlikely that there is a purely physical explanation, and as a result, you will have as your tentative position that you believe it is more likely that the world is the result of design. Which leaves us, at the end of the day, where we started. The battle has to be fought over the minutiae of the scientific evidence; there is no sweeping, fundamental flaw in their approach, their position just doesn't survive close analysis of the biological evidence.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Lets look at it this way. The Catholic Church sees no problem with evolution.
              Many scientists have obviously been believers as well. If that's how god did it then that's how god did it. Who cares?

              So science and religion are not incompatible because science does not care whether there is a god or not. Who did it is irrelevant. How it works is what we we want to know.

              ID pits itself against evolution in an attempt to prove a god dun it. They don't have to. It's irrelevant. 

              The only reason ID exists is the fundamentalist response to the idea that we are a species of ape.  It has no other reason for being. Science is science and religion is religion.

              1. JGoul profile image59
                JGoulposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A. Again, you're conflating a (probably accurate) characterization of their motives with the content of their argument. They may want to prove their point so that they can use it as a stepping stone to demonstrate the existence of the Christian god, but that has no bearing on the quality of the evidence and arguments they produce.

                B. I totally reject the idea that there can be no interplay between science and religion. Some forms of religious faith, i.e., those that are couched in terms of a purely personal, private experience of the individual adherents, perhaps. But many (most?) major religions claim to be objectively true - for practitioners of those faiths, where a scientific claim about the nature of the world contradicts a claim made by their faith's doctrine, the conflict between the two is real, and the devout practitioner actually is forced to choose between them.

                C. Some components of the Catholic church may say that evolution is compatible with Christianity, and perhaps some religious scientists say that as well; I wouldn't really know. But that says only that some Christians hold that view. It doesn't mean that all do, all should, or that it is the correct view. I've studied Christian doctrine and texts relatively extensively, and I can say that it is AT LEAST a reasonable interpretation of the Bible to conclude that Darwinian evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree on most of your points. The issue is firstly that heir evidence has no scientific merit what so ever and they are saying it is a science.

                  They can certainly believe what they like and no matter what anyone believes it won't change the facts. But the point is it is religion, not science.

                  That is what I object to. I object to their political agenda.  Their motive is really all that concerns me outside of passing speculation off as fact.

                  At the same time I am forced to confront their opinions and correct their lack of science knowledge as well as their  thinking.

                  It is their agenda that  has created the militant atheist. lol...

 
working