SUBSIM Radio Room Forums


SUBSIM: The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > General Topics
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2018, 05:30 PM   #16
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 26,940
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Just for the record, the often used phrasing that "man evolves from apes", is wrong. Once there was a pre-ape population in which sub-populations formed up, the one being the earliest "forefathers" of man, the other being the early ancestors of apes. Man and ape are related. Man did not "evolve from ape".

Evolutionary strains of different eras do not always necessarily follow in a linear fashion one after the other, but species from different eras can and do coexist at the same time. Some species have not chnaged since incredibly long times, other have moved back to earlier phases of their evolutionary forming-up.

It is a wild misunderstanding that evolution always works linear. It does not. Also, it is no "driving force" of anythging. It is just an observation of for exmaple a species and its alteration over time. This then is called its evolution, its coming-about. Gravity is an external variable, a force that causally causes the apple I let slip off my hand falling to the ground. The idea of evolution has not this causing, causal quality. Its in principle just an abstract construction used by theoretists. It is no force in itself, like gravity.

Our use of the term makes it easy and more comfortable to talk about the idea behind evolution, but the language we use on it bear the risk to fundamentally misunderstand what really is meant by it.

Last edited by Skybird; 07-14-2018 at 05:39 PM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 07:54 PM   #17
Rockstar
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
Posts: 4,721
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve View Post
I said they study how it changes, i.e. the process itself. Evolution does not involve how life came to be in the first place. That's another field of study altogether.

Actually you are. No, individuals don't change, not even into other individuals. That said, every child we have is different, as different genes take precedence. Every child inherits traits from both parents, which is why my dad had perfect eyesight but I inherited my mom's nearsightedness. With each child there is a chance of mutations, some of which can kill the individual, and some can be beneficial, with most doing nothing at all.
Yes, I know I inherit physical and quite possibly some say personality traits from my parents. Some good, some bad, some beneficial and not so beneficial but its within a group called homo sapien. Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved?

Quote:
That's exactly what they do study, in the field and in the lab, every day. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying that every scientist who uses evolution to create new medicines to fight the new strains of bacteria and viruses that have evolved do so solely by reading Darwin's books?
Evolutionary medicine? From what I've read about evolutionary medicine its not as wide spread school of thought or practice as one may be lead to believe. Oh sure there are many trying to promote it. But "Most medical schools have geneticists who understand evolution, but few have even one evolutionary biologist to suggest other possible applications." Hmmm wonder why? There are a tremendous amount of success stories that owe more to pediatrics, microbiology and genetics physiology, zoology, botany and absolutley nothing whatsoever to evolutionary theory. All of which got along quite well before and after without it.

Quote:
They didn't just "jump to the conclusion". The study has been conducted by large numbers of scientists over a great many years. Neanderthals were a separate species who coexisted with early modern humans until they died out around 40,000 years ago. Around 400 Neanderthal skeletons have been found, enough to verify that they were more than just a handful of individuals who happened to look like that. There is ongoing discussion within scientific circles, with some arguing that these were just a subspecies and that the two could interbreed, and others arguing for a completely different species having pretty much nothing to do with modern humans. Either way, there is sufficient evidence to believe that these were a separate line of development.
Its called hybridization and if there is evidence I'll ask again that you produce it. And yes, its been a great many a years alright. From the days of Socrates the ideas sprouted we came from apes. And after over two thousand five hundred years or so it has produced absolutely no evidence of any species ever evolving from one form into another. Yes there are similarities between certain species in the fossil record but so far no evidence of how a hard shelled arthropod morphed into a fish a fish into a rodent a rodent into an ape an ape into a man. It has become such a convoluted mess, much like these arguments.


Quote:
Oh, let's start with whales and dolphins. A great many skeletons exist that are recognizably whales, but with the nostrils at the end of the snout, just like pretty much all land mammals. there are whale skeletons found in higher layers with nostrils halfway up the snout, and of course there are later whales with the current blowhole on top of the head. It's pretty obvious that there are older whale-like skeletons found with legs. The front flippers of whales and dolphins, unlike fish, actually still have five finger bones.
You are observing similarities that does not prove the whale came from the one with legs or vice versa. All it tells me is that another animal with similar features lived on this planet. Try thinking along the lines of cars. A clunky piece of junk like the British made Jaguar. Oh wait the Brits dont make them anymore. How about a Bentley, umm nope they dont make them either. Mini Cooper maybe? Yes, and The All American made muscle car the Ford GT500 Mustang. They share many features four wheels, all wheel ABS, wipers, headlights, internal combustion engines. That doesn’t mean the Mustang evolved from the Jaguar. All that means is designers reuse design features proven to work for specific engineering needs.

Quote:
I've heard apologists argue for their ideas on what the Bible says using scientific terms like "best explanatory value" while ignoring that phrase when it concerns evolution. The simple fact is that evolution offers the best explanation for what we find in nature, which is why scientists almost universally accept it. It's not "belief", it's simply that nothing with better explanatory value has come along. It's possible that something might, but until then nothing else explains what we've found anywhere near as well.
Contrary to what you just said bible or no bible unless you have proof. 'best explanations can still be qualified as nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.

Quote:
First, Darwin never heard of DNA, so saying "Darwinism" predicted something about it is a diversion. Second, where in any scientific literature does anything like what you described occur? Yes, I've read the Answers In Genesis articles too. It's interesting that while scientists who actually work in that field change their positions from time to time (scientists are in the business of discovery, so they necessarily do that a lot), and yet the "Design" people, who don't contribute to the science at all, use that course of discovery to claim that since scientists don't always agree and since they change their minds with new discoveries, then "Design" must be true.
I;ve never read Answers in Genisis. But I do know even in Darwin's times and before animal breeders knew there was a means to pass on information from one generation to another. They didn’t need evolutionary theory to predict it. Yet Darwinist love to claim credit for it.

"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."

Anyway, here are some in the I.D. science fields, read about there work. Michael Behe, Ralph Seekl, Scott Minnich, Wolf-Ekkerd Lonnig, Gilermo Gonzalas

Quote:
That's because it isn't science. Proponents of ID contribute nothing to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Their "hypothesis" is based not on scientific study of any kind but in trying to justify their belief in ancient religious texts that say nothing about the subject at hand. You used "petitio principii" where the simple English "begging the question" would have sufficed. ID proponents (who used to call themselves "Creationists" until that received so much ridicule they had to change the name and pretend it was something else) start from the premise that there is a Designer and work backwards from there. That is a classic textbook example of "petitio principii". As if that wasn't enough, they seem to have the mindset that if they can prove one thing about Evolution to be flawed then their "hypothesis" must be right. "I don't understand, therefore God." (Another classic fallacy, the "Argument from Ignorance.") ID "science" isn't about "seeking truth and evidence", it's about trying to prove that their Religious beliefs are real and nothing more. They don't care about science at all.
Why bring wikipedia and religion into the argument? I didn't, I simply suggest intelligent design you immediately equate it too god and bibles.

As for the term creationists nothing wrong with that term really. I remember a day when a scientist could have lost tenure or been the butt of many jokes had he said the universe was created Ex Nihilo. It was within our lifetime that science just knew the universe was eternal. Looking at the WMAP it seems NASA agrees with what those desert sheep herders wrote in a book several thousand years ago. Quantum theory seems to be walking closely too with the idea what many religions have purported. Rather than random selection we are the product of a design and something greater than us. But that is my opinion and my opinion only.

I.D. scientists take a different approach than what you have been lead to believe to their methods "One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed," said Douglas H. Erwin, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian Institution. "That's a fundamental presumption of what we do." That does not mean that scientists do not believe in God. Many do. But they see science as an effort to find out how the material world works, with nothing to say about why we are here or how we should live.


https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/u...ers-clash.html
__________________


“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” - Rockstar

Last edited by Rockstar; 07-14-2018 at 09:09 PM.
Rockstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 10:04 PM   #18
Sailor Steve
Jammin' Again
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 49,779
Downloads: 605
Uploads: 249


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar View Post
Yes, I know I inherit physical and quite possibly some say personality traits from my parents. Some good, some bad, some beneficial and not so beneficial but its within a group called homo sapien. Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved?
Nylon-eating flavobacterim. Bacteria can't ingest artificial substances. Then in 1975 one was discovered that could. It seems a group of flavobacteria living in ponds near a nylon-manufacturing plant had developed an enzyme that could dissolve nylon, allowing the bacteria to eat something that was thought to be impossible. In other words, they evolved to survive their environment.

Quote:
Evolutionary medicine? From what I've read about evolutionary medicine its not as wide spread school of thought or practice as one may be lead to believe. Oh sure there are many trying to promote it. But "Most medical schools have geneticists who understand evolution, but few have even one evolutionary biologist to suggest other possible applications." Hmmm wonder why? There are a tremendous amount of success stories that owe more to pediatrics, microbiology and genetics physiology, zoology, botany and absolutley nothing whatsoever to evolutionary theory. All of which got along quite well before and after without it.
And yet new strains of infectious evolve every day, and understanding that is what propels the means to fight them.

Its called hybridization and if there is evidence I'll ask again that you produce it. And yes, its been a great many a years alright. From the days of Socrates the ideas sprouted we came from apes. And after over two thousand five hundred years or so it has produced absolutely no evidence of any species ever evolving from one form into another. Yes there are similarities between certain species in the fossil record but so far no evidence of how a hard shelled arthropod morphed into a fish a fish into a rodent a rodent into an ape an ape into a man. It has become such a convoluted mess.[/quote]
Neanderthal wasn't a hybrid. It was its own species. And now it's gone, along with 99% of every species that's ever lived on this planet. The ancient Greeks, if any of them actually said we come from apes, probably noticed the similarities in structure, group conduct and problem-solving abilities. The connection isn't hard to make. And we didn't come from apes...we still are apes. Just because we're aware of our existence and able to realize we're going to die and worry about that doesn't really make us special.

Quote:
You are observing similarities that does not prove the whale came from the one with legs or vice versa. All it tells me is that another animal with similar features lived on this planet.
No, it doesn't prove it, but the evidence does point in that direction.

Quote:
Try thinking along the lines of cars.
Let's not. That kind of analogy never fails to fail.

Quote:
Contrary to what you just said bible or no bible unless you have proof. 'best explanations can still be qualified as nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.
And any scientist worth his salt is aware that he might be wrong. I said as much earlier. In the world of discovery "the best explanation" is often the only thing we have. As flawed as you may think it is, it still has more substance to it than saying "It was Designed". There's no evidence for that claim at all.

Quote:
I;ve never read Answers in Genisis. But I do know even in Darwin's times and before animal breeders knew there was a means to pass on information from one generation to another. They didn’t need evolutionary theory to predict it. Yet Darwinist love to claim credit for it.
You've never read the biggest ID-proponent website there is? Or maybe there's a bigger one I've forgotten about. It doesn't matter. You parrot word-for-word the stock Creationist arguments, so you didn't come up with these objections on your own.

"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."[/quote]
Scientists sometimes get it wrong. It's one of the pitfalls of exploration and discovery. And who sorted it out? The ID people? No, but they love to claim credit for it. Just as with the fossil hoaxes, it was scientists who pointed it out.

Quote:
Anyway, here are some in the I.D. science fields, read about there work. Michael Behe,
Whose own biology department published a paper disavowing his ideas concerning ID. Also shown to be foolish in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Says that there is no ID without the Christian God.

Quote:
Ralph Seekl,
Can't find any such person online. Please show.

Quote:
Scott Minnich,
Cohort of Michael Behe. Also testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover. He has done good work, mostly for The Discovery Institute, which is the prime force behind the ID movement. He's better than most of them, but you can hardly call him unbiased.

Quote:
Wolf-Ekkerd Lonnig,
Also a big ID proponent. Also not a good example of an average scientist.

Quote:
Gilermo Gonzalas
Another member of the Discovery Institute. I don't say these people aren't legitimate, but they do all have an agenda. In that they are no different than what you claim of "Evolutionists".

Quote:
Why bring religion into the argument? I didn't, I simply suggest intelligent design you equate it too god and bibles.
Yes, you did, the moment you suggested Intelligent Design you also suggested an Intelligent Designer. Were you talking about some amorphous plasma that had a brain, or were you talking about a God? The entire ID movement is centered around the Christian faith.

Quote:
As for the term creationists nothing wrong with that term really.
Nothing wrong with it, except that it was coined by the original Creation Science movement and refers specifically to someone who adheres to the Biblical six-days Creation. That's why God and Bibles come into it. Without Christianity there is no Creationism, no ID. The real reason they fight Evolution so hard is that it means the Earth is more - a lot more - than Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC start date.

Quote:
I remember a day when a scientist could have lost tenure or been the butt of many jokes had he said the universe was created Ex Nihilo. It was within our lifetime that science just knew the universe was eternal.
I've already addressed the fact that scientists can be wrong, and often are. It's part of the process of discovery.

Quote:
Looking at the WMAP it seems NASA agrees with what those desert sheep herders wrote in a book several thousand years ago.
How so? I've just done some quick research and saw nothing that would support that claim.

Quote:
But that is my opinion and my opinion only.
That's more than most Creationists would admit. Their usual arguing point is that they're right, period.

So if not God, who is this Designer? It seems to me there's no reason to believe in one unless you really want to "believe" in one. The Deists seem to come closer to what is described than any other God I've heard of. Made the universe and then left, leaving us with a brain so we could explore it for ourselves. The only problem with that scenario is that there is absolutely no reason to believe it. No evidence at all.

Understand one thing though: Despite this line of argument, I'm not a supporter of Evolution. I consider myself a true skeptic, not believing in anything and not accepting anything without proof. Evolution? The experts in the field are mostly agreed that that's the way it happened. Who am I to argue? More importantly, it doesn't affect my life at all. It doesn't command me to believe anything, or threaten me with punishment if I don't. I don't really care about it, except when people make a big fuss about its problems without offering any real explanations of their own.

Design? Well, looking at the human body, given the complications of everything from nearsightedness to wisdom teeth that don't fit our mouths to diabetes to cancer, I have to say it looks to me like a pretty poor design. Any competent engineer could have done better.
__________________
“Integrity is doing the right thing when you don't have to – when no one else is looking or will ever know – when there will be no congratulations or recognition for having done so.”
—Charles Marshall, Shattering The Glass Slipper



Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 10:39 PM   #19
Rockstar
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
Posts: 4,721
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0


Default

[QUOTE=Skybird;2561257] Man and ape are related. Man did not "evolve from ape".[QUOTE]




According to this guy we're just little fish.



Prosanta Chakrabarty is an ichthyologist at Louisiana State University, and says of himself that he teaches “one of the largest evolutionary biology classes in the U.S.” God help us all!



__________________


“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” - Rockstar
Rockstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 12:03 AM   #20
Rockstar
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
Posts: 4,721
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve View Post
Nylon-eating flavobacterim. Bacteria can't ingest artificial substances. Then in 1975 one was discovered that could. It seems a group of flavobacteria living in ponds near a nylon-manufacturing plant had developed an enzyme that could dissolve nylon, allowing the bacteria to eat something that was thought to be impossible. In other words, they evolved to survive their environment.

Three nylon eating genes NylA, NylB, NylC were discovered on the Flavobacteria plasmid pOAD2 from 1977-1992, but the researchers concede none of the three have significant sequence homology. Worse, in papers published in 2007, they reported other bacteria contain those same genes in their chromosomes. Unless the researchers have access to pre-1935 bacteria sitting in lab refrigerators, the claim that the genes actually evolved new proteins via mutation is dubious since we have no pre-1935 bacterial samples to actually do a comparison with, especially in the case of NylC. The claim that NylB’s nylon eating ability evolved by gene duplication from a non-functional NylB-prime gene could just as well be interpreted that a functionless NylB-prime gene is a defective copy of a functioning NylB gene!


What’s the proof new nylon eating genes actually evolved after 1940, or is it just speculation? Slam dunk proof would entail having strains of pre-1935 bacteria and then comparing it with the strains after 1935 that supposedly evolved new genes. Is that the case? No. Just speculation which began in 1977 but got less defensible over the next 40 years as more bacteria and non-sequence-homologous genes were discovered to have nylon eating capability.



Quote:
And yet new strains of infectious evolve every day, and understanding that is what propels the means to fight them.
Yep and like I said very seldom if ever does evolutionary theory ever play a role in those discoveries.




Quote:
Neanderthal wasn't a hybrid. It was its own species. And now it's gone, along with 99% of every species that's ever lived on this planet. The ancient Greeks, if any of them actually said we come from apes, probably noticed the similarities in structure, group conduct and problem-solving abilities. The connection isn't hard to make. And we didn't come from apes...we still are apes. Just because we're aware of our existence and able to realize we're going to die and worry about that doesn't really make us special.


I thought you were talking about Neanderthal and homo sapiens bumping uglies



Quote:
And any scientist worth his salt is aware that he might be wrong. I said as much earlier. In the world of discovery "the best explanation" is often the only thing we have. As flawed as you may think it is, it still has more substance to it than saying "It was Designed". There's no evidence for that claim at all.

And so far as noted above no evidence for nylon eating bacteria either


Quote:
You've never read the biggest ID-proponent website there is? Or maybe there's a bigger one I've forgotten about. It doesn't matter. You parrot word-for-word the stock Creationist arguments, so you didn't come up with these objections on your own.
Believe it or not its true. I am aware of the website but tend to stay away from religious sources when it comes to scientific opinion. I have my own theological opinions

Quote:
"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."




Scientists sometimes get it wrong. It's one of the pitfalls of exploration and discovery. And who sorted it out? The ID people? No, but they love to claim credit for it. Just as with the fossil hoaxes, it was scientists who pointed it out.

I dont think I.D. scientists assume rights to the discovery. Darwinists however got wrong when they said the majority of DNA was non-functional. A paper by geneticists comes out saying it is mostly all functional. Evolutionists still wont accept it and say throw it out and write their own paper.


Quote:
Whose own biology department published a paper disavowing his ideas concerning ID. Also shown to be foolish in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Says that there is no ID without the Christian God.
BEHES TESIMONY


Q: So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
Behe: No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q: Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
Behe: That is right.
Q: Has science answered that question?
Behe: No, science has not done so.
Q: And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
Behe: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
Behe: No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
(Michael Behe, October 17 Testimony, AM Session.)




Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. It does not.
[…]
Q. Does intelligent design require the action of a supernatural creator acting outside the laws of nature?
A. No.
(Scott Minnich, Nov. 3 PM Testimony, pp. 45-46, 135.)


Above is the testimony of the two witnesses you refer too. It is my opinion that evolutionists and I.D. scientistist can and do have a religious affiliatation. But like Strozyk Im sure personal beliefs never affect their investigation.



Quote:
Yes, you did, the moment you suggested Intelligent Design you also suggested an Intelligent Designer. Were you talking about some amorphous plasma that had a brain, or were you talking about a God? The entire ID movement is centered around the Christian faith.

I also said my identification of the designer is of my own religious opinion which is a far cry from scientific opinion. Also Im not Christian, nor is Christianity the only religion which claims divine inspiration and design.


Quote:
Nothing wrong with it, except that it was coined by the original Creation Science movement and refers specifically to someone who adheres to the Biblical six-days Creation. That's why God and Bibles come into it. Without Christianity there is no Creationism, no ID. The real reason they fight Evolution so hard is that it means the Earth is more - a lot more - than Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC start date.

Thats some crazy stuff there what books are you reading?


Quote:
So if not God, who is this Designer? It seems to me there's no reason to believe in one unless you really want to "believe" in one. The Deists seem to come closer to what is described than any other God I've heard of. Made the universe and then left, leaving us with a brain so we could explore it for ourselves. The only problem with that scenario is that there is absolutely no reason to believe it. No evidence at all.

I think Einstein maybe said something to that effect as well.



Quote:
Understand one thing though: Despite this line of argument, I'm not a supporter of Evolution. I consider myself a true skeptic, not believing in anything and not accepting anything without proof. Evolution? The experts in the field are mostly agreed that that's the way it happened. Who am I to argue? More importantly, it doesn't affect my life at all. It doesn't command me to believe anything, or threaten me with punishment if I don't. I don't really care about it, except when people make a big fuss about its problems without offering any real explanations of their own.

Design? Well, looking at the human body, given the complications of everything from nearsightedness to wisdom teeth that don't fit our mouths to diabetes to cancer, I have to say it looks to me like a pretty poor design. Any competent engineer could have done better.

Nice thing about my religion you dont have to believe. You are just expected to do i.e. love your neighbor and the stranger, cloth the naked, feed the hungry, etc etc etc, you get the picture be good to one another.

Someone said God does not play dice with the universe. But maybe he allows the universe to play dice. As I wrote in another topic how we live it now through all the joy and sorrow plays a part in the evolution of humanity as we move from a lower to a higher form of life. Opps did I just say evolution?



All of us get to find out one day what the truth is.
__________________


“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” - Rockstar
Rockstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 05:59 AM   #21
Sailor Steve
Jammin' Again
 
Sailor Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: High in the mountains of Utah
Posts: 49,779
Downloads: 605
Uploads: 249


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar View Post
What’s the proof new nylon eating genes actually evolved after 1940, or is it just speculation? Slam dunk proof would entail having strains of pre-1935 bacteria and then comparing it with the strains after 1935 that supposedly evolved new genes. Is that the case? No. Just speculation which began in 1977 but got less defensible over the next 40 years as more bacteria and non-sequence-homologous genes were discovered to have nylon eating capability.
Even if they had older bacteria, there would likely be a pointing out that that wasn't proof either. That's the problem with missing links. Whenever a new fossil is discovered that apparently fills a gap the reaction is the question of the missing link between that one and the previous and later ones.

The sad fact is that there is no "slam dunk" proof of anything, anywhere. Nothing is ever final in any science and every answer just raises more questions. Even something as simple as electricity. We use it, we know how it works, but there is no real understanding of why. There is even speculation that the basic particles aren't particles at all, and that we really are made up of nothing. You're never going to get a definitive final answer, and neither am I.

Quote:
Yep and like I said very seldom if ever does evolutionary theory ever play a role in those discoveries.
But evolutionary fact is the basis for everything they do.

Quote:
I thought you were talking about Neanderthal and homo sapiens bumping uglies
That, I've just found out, is a topic of much discussion. Some believe Neanderthalis and Sapiens couldn't interbreed. Now some are saying they did exactly that, and rather than kill them off we actually absorbed their population into our own, and we have a certain amount of Neanderthal DNA. Me, I don't pretend to know anything for certain.

Quote:
And so far as noted above no evidence for nylon eating bacteria either
I think there's plenty of evidence that they exist. Did they evolve or were they there all along? Good question.

Quote:
Believe it or not its true. I am aware of the website but tend to stay away from religious sources when it comes to scientific opinion. I have my own theological opinions
Fair enough.

Quote:
I dont think I.D. scientists assume rights to the discovery.
Perhaps not, but a lot of people make hay out of pointing out that the hoaxes are "proof" that Evolution is false.

Quote:
Darwinists however got wrong when they said the majority of DNA was non-functional. A paper by geneticists comes out saying it is mostly all functional. Evolutionists still wont accept it and say throw it out and write their own paper.
And yet Ewan Birney, the leader of those 400 geneticists, is himself what you derisively call an "Evolutionist". There are scientists on both sides of the ENCODE debate, and because some of them disagree doesn't mean they have an agenda.




Quote:
BEHES TESIMONY
Talk about cherry picking. You left out all the good parts. It's far too long to quote here, but I'll link it. I especially like the part where Behe admits that by his standards Astrology is a scientific theory.
Anyway, if anyone here has the stomach to read it, this is just the beginning of the cross-examination. If you really like to torture yourself, read the entire trial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Or watch the abridged video:


Scott Minnich's testimony isn't really any better.

Quote:
Above is the testimony of the two witnesses you refer too. It is my opinion that evolutionists and I.D. scientistist can and do have a religious affiliatation. But like Strozyk Im sure personal beliefs never affect their investigation.
I'm not sure if the smiley means to say that you actually think their beliefs do affect their work. If not, I would remind you that Behe was called as a witness because a book he had a hand in writing was part of the conflict at the school, and in that book he talks about ID.

Quote:
Also Im not Christian, nor is Christianity the only religion which claims divine inspiration and design.
No, it's not, but Christians do claim to be the dominant force in this country, and ID's main support comes from them. Other religions do, as you say, believe in a very specific designer, though not always the same one. That supports, rather than denies, the concept that ID is basically a religious concept.

Quote:
Thats some crazy stuff there what books are you reading?
Of course people have believed in some God or other creating the universe since ancient times. "Creation" as a term goes back a long way as well. That said, "Creation Science" and the resultant "Young-Earth Creationism" are products of the 1960s. The movement was an attempt by Fundamentalist Christians to use science to "prove" the late date for the Earth's origin and the Biblical Flood.

While "Intelligent Design" was used as a term in religious circles for quite some time, it's introduction into common usage came with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People, which just happened to be the main subject of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. So yes, ID is an offshoot of the earlier "Creation Science" movement, and had its origins in a purely religious context.

Quote:
Nice thing about my religion you dont have to believe. You are just expected to do i.e. love your neighbor and the stranger, cloth the naked, feed the hungry, etc etc etc, you get the picture be good to one another.
A great many Atheists would agree with that concept.

Oh, and I'm not an Atheist, in case you were wondering. I'm just a poor sod who doesn't believe in anything, including myself. I jumped into this not because I disagree, but because you started off not with an attempt at discussion, but with a tirade so virulent it really did sound just like a Fundamentalist attack. Using derogatory terms like "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" seem more designed to provoke a fight rather that promote a discussion.

I don't know if there's a God or not, and I don't know if evolution really happens the way its proponents say it does. What I do accept is that their investigations and their arguments seem to have some justification, whereas I see no more evidence for Design than Michael Behe's admission that the best evidence he can give is "It looks designed to me." If the theory of evolution is somehow proved completely wrong tomorrow the vast majority of scientists will likely be shocked for a very short time, and then start working hard to try to be the one who figures out what really happened. And if proof comes out tomorrow that the Universe was not designed in any way, shape or form and there is no God of any kind, I suspect the vast majority of believers in those things will likely say that it's not really proof, and go on as if nothing had happened.

Me, I'm curious, but that's about it.
__________________
“Integrity is doing the right thing when you don't have to – when no one else is looking or will ever know – when there will be no congratulations or recognition for having done so.”
—Charles Marshall, Shattering The Glass Slipper



Sailor Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2018, 02:42 AM   #22
Dowly
.
 
Dowly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 23,719
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar
Believe it or not its true. I am aware of the website but tend to stay away from religious sources when it comes to scientific opinion.
Instead, you use blogs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar View Post
Three nylon eating genes NylA, NylB, NylC were discovered on the Flavobacteria plasmid pOAD2 from 1977-1992, but the researchers concede none of the three have significant sequence homology. Worse, in papers published in 2007, they reported other bacteria contain those same genes in their chromosomes. Unless the researchers have access to pre-1935 bacteria sitting in lab refrigerators, the claim that the genes actually evolved new proteins via mutation is dubious since we have no pre-1935 bacterial samples to actually do a comparison with, especially in the case of NylC. The claim that NylB’s nylon eating ability evolved by gene duplication from a non-functional NylB-prime gene could just as well be interpreted that a functionless NylB-prime gene is a defective copy of a functioning NylB gene!


What’s the proof new nylon eating genes actually evolved after 1940, or is it just speculation? Slam dunk proof would entail having strains of pre-1935 bacteria and then comparing it with the strains after 1935 that supposedly evolved new genes. Is that the case? No. Just speculation which began in 1977 but got less defensible over the next 40 years as more bacteria and non-sequence-homologous genes were discovered to have nylon eating capability.

The above is a word for word copy&paste from here:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/when-...-to-eat-nylon/


Do you actually know what any of that means?
Dowly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2018 Subsim