RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 2:17:10 PM)

quote:

One of the first things I said after you started down the creation/prediction etc. bunny trail was this:

See, even now you’re calling it a “bunny trail”. It’s what Betta and I were debating for around 10 pages, and it was specifically related to one of the points he was making about this topic. Why does my own answer to Betta’s arguments count as a “rabbit trail”, but your own desire to discuss what the feathers in amber are doesn’t? You seem to draw this distinction based on nothing but which topics you feel like talking about.

quote:

What ‘new argument’ did I bring up here? All I did was try to answer your OP, which apparently you had no real interest in after all.

Here, I’ll quote it:

quote:

I mean, here we have a rather lengthy examination of the science behind the structure and activity of microorganisms and how they actually work, which in my mind is incredibly fascinating whatever it says about evolution and intelligent design.

And so papers are cited and discussed, explanations are offered, and the actual process of science, which is supposed to be about exploration and understanding, is enabled.

And what do you want out of it all? Apparently to score some points.

Anytime we subvert our thinking to certain presumptions that prevent the adoption of new paradigms that actually provide explanations for phenomena, we fail to think scientifically; it is ultimately anti-intellectual.

So to summarize, the new argument you were using here was that I was just trying to “score points” by bringing up a second example of mutations leading to a new function after you rejected my first example (even if you had a good reason for doing so), and that my way of thinking about this is anti-intellectual. If you want to discuss whether “scoring points” is all I’m after, and whether I’m being anti-intellectual by having this attitude, then we can discuss that. But it certainly doesn’t address any of the points I was trying to make in my OP, or any of my subsequent posts before the one I quoted from you. I was talking about new functions that arise as a result of mutations, and which (if any) of them can be considered a falsification of Behe’s claims about this topic, which has nothing to do with your new argument that I quoted.

And so I answered your new argument, and you claimed that by discussing the new point you had brought up, I was failing to stay on topic. What do you want me to do the next time you bring up a tangential point like this? Do you want me to just ignore it?



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 2:40:04 PM)

quote:

See, even now you’re calling it a “bunny trail”. It’s what Betta and I were debating for around 10 pages, and it was specifically related to one of the points he was making about this topic. Why does my own answer to Betta’s arguments count as a “rabbit trail”, but your own desire to discuss what the feathers in amber are doesn’t? You seem to draw this distinction based on nothing but which topics you feel like talking about.


Well, I don’t know, but it would seem to me feathers would have something to do with the topic of birds. Perhaps I could be wrong here.

quote:

So to summarize, the new argument you were using here was that I was just trying to “score points” by bringing up a second example of mutations leading to a new function after you rejected my first example (even if you had a good reason for doing so), and that my way of thinking about this is anti-intellectual. If you want to discuss whether “scoring points” is all I’m after, and whether I’m being anti-intellectual by having this attitude, then we can discuss that. But it certainly doesn’t address any of the points I was trying to make in my OP, or any of my subsequent posts before the one I quoted from you. I was talking about new functions that arise as a result of mutations, and which (if any) of them can be considered a falsification of Behe’s claims about this topic, which has nothing to do with your new argument that I quoted.


Actually, I thought the second example of mutations was perfectly legitimate, which was why I discussed it at length. What concerned me was the fact that after discussing it at length, and asking a relevant question about it, you demurred because you aren’t “particularly familiar with” genetics.

I then wondered why, if this were true, you brought up a point that was completely contingent on understanding genetics. At which point you accused me of ‘moving the goalpost’ and not properly reacting to what you posted (which you admitted you didn’t understand yourself) and generally blathered on in attempt to mask your lack of knowledge here.

To which I responded explaining patiently why what was posted was not sufficient to meet the criteria we had discussed, at which point rather than answer the original question (which was, by way of reminder “how do the mutations reduce its susceptibility to the drug DMP 266? “ ) you went off about evading the point, admitting I’m wrong, etc, etc, despite the fact you had already admitted not understanding the discussion and never having answered my question.

Which brings us to our current discussion, way off topic.

quote:

And so I answered your new argument, and you claimed that by discussing the new point you had brought up, I was failing to stay on topic. What do you want me to do the next time you bring up a tangential point like this? Do you want me to just ignore it?


So are you going to answer my question now about the example you brought up, or keep flailing?



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 3:26:09 PM)

quote:

Well, I don’t know, but it would seem to me feathers would have something to do with the topic of birds. Perhaps I could be wrong here.

Yes, and so does the fact that the existence of certain feathered animals was predicted before they were found, while creationism and ID have yet to predict anything like this. So why is the first topic relevant, by your definition, but the second isn’t?

quote:

Actually, I thought the second example of mutations was perfectly legitimate, which was why I discussed it at length. What concerned me was the fact that after discussing it at length, and asking a relevant question about it, you demurred because you aren’t “particularly familiar with” genetics.

I then wondered why, if this were true, you brought up a point that was completely contingent on understanding genetics. At which point you accused me of ‘moving the goalpost’ and not properly reacting to what you posted (which you admitted you didn’t understand yourself) and generally blathered on in attempt to mask your lack of knowledge here.

Since you brought up your new argument about my trying to “score points” before I had a chance to explain what I meant by you “moving goalposts”, I’ll explain it now.

As you probably remember, your original explanation of what you would find a convincing falsification of Behe’s claims was based on your comment that you would have considered the “flying penguins” adequate if those had actually existed. According to the definition you gave in this thread of what would constitute a “novel function”, flight in penguins would not be a novel function, since it’s an ability their ancestors had which penguins appear to have lost secondarily. Penguins probably still have all of the genetic code that’s necessary for flight; all that would be necessary for them to regain this ability is for the right regulatory mutations to reactivate the genes for it, and deactivate the genes for whatever traits they currently have that would make flight impossible. While it isn’t completely certain that for penguins to re-evolve flight would only depend on regulatory mutations, it’s at least as certain as it is the case of the examples I brought up in this thread.

I’m sure you were aware of this when you saw that video, but you still used the penguins as an example of the type of thing you would find convincing. Clearly, when you gave me your original explanation of what you would consider a falsification of Behe’s claims, these sorts of changes which are most likely the results of regulatory mutations would have qualified. It was only when I actually provided an example of such a change that you altered your conditions for what you would consider a falsification of Behe—even though by your current standard for this, the flying penguins wouldn’t qualify either!

quote:

To which I responded explaining patiently why what was posted was not sufficient to meet the criteria we had discussed, at which point rather than answer the original question (which was, by way of reminder “how do the mutations reduce its susceptibility to the drug DMP 266? “ ) you went off about evading the point, admitting I’m wrong, etc, etc, despite the fact you had already admitted not understanding the discussion and never having answered my question.

I was hoping that after I answered your off-topic challenge about my motives, we would be able to return to the mutation topic. And yet here we are, with you continuing to make a big deal about the fact that I answered your question, without explaining why. I can’t describe how utterly bizarre this is. Here you are, continuing to complain about the fact that I’m answering your posts about a topic that you brought up, and that you seem to want to discuss more than any other topic!

I’ve found the full text of the article about drug resistance in HIV; it’s at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3213943 . You have to pay to access the article, although you might be able to get it for free through an educational institution. I’ll be happy to discuss the details described there about how exactly these mutations affect the viruses that have them, but not before you at least attempt to address my point about you having a problem with me answering arguments that you bring up yourself.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 4:22:24 PM)

quote:

Yes, and so does the fact that the existence of certain feathered animals was predicted before they were found, while creationism and ID have yet to predict anything like this. So why is the first topic relevant, by your definition, but the second isn’t?


I think I just explained why the predictions wouldn’t be comparable…

quote:

Since you brought up your new argument about my trying to “score points” before I had a chance to explain what I meant by you “moving goalposts”, I’ll explain it now.

As you probably remember, your original explanation of what you would find a convincing falsification of Behe’s claims was based on your comment that you would have considered the “flying penguins” adequate if those had actually existed. According to the definition you gave in this thread of what would constitute a “novel function”, flight in penguins would not be a novel function, since it’s an ability their ancestors had which penguins appear to have lost secondarily. Penguins probably still have all of the genetic code that’s necessary for flight; all that would be necessary for them to regain this ability is for the right regulatory mutations to reactivate the genes for it, and deactivate the genes for whatever traits they currently have that would make flight impossible. While it isn’t completely certain that for penguins to re-evolve flight would only depend on regulatory mutations, it’s at least as certain as it is the case of the examples I brought up in this thread.

I’m sure you were aware of this when you saw that video, but you still used the penguins as an example of the type of thing you would find convincing. Clearly, when you gave me your original explanation of what you would consider a falsification of Behe’s claims, these sorts of changes which are most likely the results of regulatory mutations would have qualified. It was only when I actually provided an example of such a change that you altered your conditions for what you would consider a falsification of Behe—even though by your current standard for this, the flying penguins wouldn’t qualify either!


Well, apart from the fact that the penguins were an Aprils fools joke, you are partially right; if it could be shown that multiple regulatory genes acting on extant genetic capabilities ‘re-enabled’ flight in penguins, then penguin flight wouldn’t meet my “separate yet interdependent mutations (which aren’t simply changes to genetic regulation)” criteria.

In fact, that may be one of the difficulties of a concept like front loading; if the info is all there to begin with, and variable, then the limits of change are really only dependent on what already exists in the genome in terms of coding and regulatory genes.

But this doesn’t help evolution, it hurts it, because it pushes genetic complexity even farther back in time, and makes it independent of selection factors.

But the Douc Langur example doesn’t even rise to that; unlike flying penguins, which as you have noted would require multiple specific modifications to genes controlling their morphology and behavior, the Douc Langurs are an example of a single enhancement to an extant organ. Langurs in general already eat leaves, and they already can digest them – Douc Langurs just do it more efficiently.

And as I pointed out, the example doesn’t require the gain of a function at all – it could represent the loss of a function, in that the Douc represent more closley the original ancestor of langurs than do the others.

But none of this suggests I ‘moved the goal posts’; which is another term incidentally that tells me you are simply looking to score points rather than engage in a scientific discussion.

quote:

I was hoping that after I answered your off-topic challenge about my motives, we would be able to return to the mutation topic. And yet here we are, with you continuing to make a big deal about the fact that I answered your question, without explaining why. I can’t describe how utterly bizarre this is. Here you are, continuing to complain about the fact that I’m answering your posts about a topic that you brought up, and that you seem to want to discuss more than any other topic!

I’ve found the full text of the article about drug resistance in HIV; it’s at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3213943 . You have to pay to access the article, although you might be able to get it for free through an educational institution. I’ll be happy to discuss the details described there about how exactly these mutations affect the viruses that have them, but not before you at least attempt to address my point about you having a problem with me answering arguments that you bring up yourself.


Hey, I was perfectly happy waiting for you to get the required information; I wasn’t questioning your ‘motives’ I was just curious why, if you aren’t so hip on genetics, you keep posting about them – that was all I asked – the rest was your little presumptive diatribe.

And I’m not paying for the article; if there is a relevant portion, feel free to copy and paste the necessary portion.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 9:58:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
And I’m not paying for the article; if there is a relevant portion, feel free to copy and paste the necessary portion.


I would not want to pay money to any journal that is dedicated to promoting evolution while censoring all opposing publications unless I had really good reason to. It's the principle of the matter. I hope you're not paying money to them either. Don't they have libraries where you can view these journals for free?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 10:01:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
Yes, and so does the fact that the existence of certain feathered animals was predicted before they were found


I already refuted this, some evolutionists predicted they would have feathers, others predicted they won't. Only the ones that turn out to be right get remembered, the ones that turn out to be wrong don't. It's not that evolution predicts anything.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 11:18:45 PM)

quote:

I think I just explained why the predictions wouldn’t be comparable…

You explained why Intelligent Design isn’t able to make predictions like these. It’s good you acknowledged that it isn’t able to, but I don’t think you can argue with the fact that if evolution can do this and ID can’t, this is a weakness in ID. One of the most basic measurements of a theory’s accuracy is its ability to predict future results. If you want some other examples of areas in which evolution has done this, I can provide them, but I won’t post them yet in case you’d consider that “off-topic” here.

Now, tell me more specifically: why is it off-topic for me to bring up confirmed predictions made by the theory that birds and dinosaurs are related, in response to Betta is challenging me to provide evidence for this, but it’s not off-topic for you to bring up whether the feathers in amber are “proto-feathers” or not?

quote:

Well, apart from the fact that the penguins were an Aprils fools joke, you are partially right; if it could be shown that multiple regulatory genes acting on extant genetic capabilities ‘re-enabled’ flight in penguins, then penguin flight wouldn’t meet my “separate yet interdependent mutations (which aren’t simply changes to genetic regulation)” criteria.

The point is that for the little while that you thought the flying penguins were real, you found them convincing—or at least you claimed to. It seemed to be your way of showing what type of biological change could theoretically convince you of evolution, if it were to actually exist. So you’re agreeing now that if the penguins actually existed, they probably wouldn’t meet your criteria, but you originally said that they would. In other words, your criteria changed. How is that not “moving the goalposts”?

quote:

Hey, I was perfectly happy waiting for you to get the required information; I wasn’t questioning your ‘motives’ I was just curious why, if you aren’t so hip on genetics, you keep posting about them – that was all I asked – the rest was your little presumptive diatribe.

And I’m not paying for the article; if there is a relevant portion, feel free to copy and paste the necessary portion.

And I tried to answer your question. To put it in a nutshell, while I don’t consider myself anything close to an expert on genetics, you’ve made it pretty clear that most of the time it’s the only aspect of evolution vs. ID that you’re interested in talking about. So if I’m going to debate with you about this at all (which I want to do, for reasons I explained), it’ll apparently have to be on the topic of genetics.

So basically, it sounds like you’re saying that I went into an excessive amount of detail answering your question about whether I was just interested in “scoring points”, etc. Is that right? If it is, let me know, so that next time we debate something I don’t have to put up with you complaining about my going “off-topic” when I answer something you’ve brought up like this.

Incidentally, I’m going to try to get this article, but I’ve just realized that at the website I linked to I wouldn’t be paying to read it online—I’d be paying for it to be mailed to where I live (in the USA) from Europe. I think I might be able to get it more quickly if I ask my girlfriend to try and find it through her college, since she’s currently considered a biology major there and might have access to it. Even that probably won’t be possible until early next week, though. So if I don’t post anything from the article before then, it’s not because I’m trying to avoid this topic; it’s because of the difficulty involved in obtaining the article.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 11:44:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
You explained why Intelligent Design isn’t able to make predictions like these. It’s good you acknowledged that it isn’t able to, but I don’t think you can argue with the fact that if evolution can do this and ID can’t, this is a weakness in ID.


I already explained why evolution doesn't make your alleged predictions either. One can speculate more than one evolutionary pathway by which life arrived to the state it is now. For example, in your example, some evolutionists speculated feathers and others speculated the opposite. Whoever turns out to be right gets remembered and evolutionists point to them and say, "see, this is what evolution predicts" when in fact evolution predicts nothing because had the opposite been true, evolutionists would have pointed to the person that predicted the opposite and said the same thing. You have all these different evolutionists making different and often opposing predictions (and the person who turns out to be right gets remembered) and when they cover the entire pool of possible predictions (ie: by predicting everything and its opposite) this further demonstrates that evolution can accommodate any combination of evidence and hence predicts nothing.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/19/2008 12:10:00 AM)

quote:

I already explained why evolution doesn't make your alleged predictions either. One can speculate more than one evolutionary pathway by which life arrived to the state it is now. For example, in your example, some evolutionists speculated feathers and others speculated the opposite. Whoever turns out to be right gets remembered and evolutionists point to them and say, "see, this is what evolution predicts" when in fact evolution predicts nothing because had the opposite been true, evolutionists would have pointed to the person that predicted the opposite and said the same thing. You have all these different evolutionists making different and often opposing predictions (and the person who turns out to be right gets remembered) and when they cover the entire pool of possible predictions (ie: by predicting everything and its opposite) this further demonstrates that evolution can accommodate any combination of evidence and hence predicts nothing.

If Jhud actually believes what you’re saying, I’ll post some examples of situations where evolution made only one prediction, and UCD would have been falsified if it had turned out to be wrong. But I have a feeling that he’s aware of some of these already, and I also have a feeling that he’ll consider discussing this to be off-topic here. (Not that he ever complains when off-topic stuff is brought up by creationists…)



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/19/2008 10:50:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
If Jhud actually believes what you’re saying, I’ll post some examples of situations where evolution made only one prediction, and UCD would have been falsified if it had turned out to be wrong.


UCD would probably not have been falsified because Darwin made plenty of wrong predictions and it didn't falsify UCD. You are just alleging it would have falsified UCD, there is no reason to believe this.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/19/2008 11:54:55 PM)

All right, at the risk of Jhud considering this off-topic, I’ll give an example of one thing that would falsify UCD: A high-level chimera existing in nature. For example, UCD predicts that the wings of birds and mammalian traits evolved in two separate lineages, so if someone were to discover an animal like a Pegasus that has both of them, that would falsify it.

And don’t bring up the platypus as an example of a chimera; the “bill” of a platypus isn’t the same structure as a duck’s bill. It isn’t even made of the same material.

Whether any of Darwin’s predictions were wrong isn’t relevant, because the aspects of evolution that Darwin was wrong about (such as the mechanism of inheritance) have already been abandoned. But none of them were essential to the idea of UCD, the way the example I mentioned is.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/20/2008 12:09:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

All right, at the risk of Jhud considering this off-topic, I’ll give an example of one thing that would falsify UCD: A high-level chimera existing in nature. For example, UCD predicts that the wings of birds and mammalian traits evolved in two separate lineages, so if someone were to discover an animal like a Pegasus that has both of them, that would falsify it.

And don’t bring up the platypus as an example of a chimera; the “bill” of a platypus isn’t the same structure as a duck’s bill. It isn’t even made of the same material.

Whether any of Darwin’s predictions were wrong isn’t relevant, because the aspects of evolution that Darwin was wrong about (such as the mechanism of inheritance) have already been abandoned. But none of them were essential to the idea of UCD, the way the example I mentioned is.


We have entire threads discussing why something like this would not falsify UCD. Here you go.

http://forums.christianity.com/m_2387149/mpage_1/tm.htm
http://forums.christianity.com/m_2209111/mpage_1/tm.htm



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/20/2008 2:38:47 AM)

I can’t believe I got tricked into replying to you again. The other posters in both of those threads refuted your posts on their first page, and what did you do? You continued making the same points, while not even attempting to address what they were saying, and now you’re repeating the exact same claim here. It looks like you abandoned the first thread for several days until someone challenged you about this, at which point you pulled up your old “argument from endurance”—replying to each of the other person’s posts a once-sentence quip like “No it wouldn't be”, which is basically just a demand for the other person to restate everything in an even simpler manner than they’ve done already.

Why does Jhud always make a big deal when I bring up something that he considers off-topic in one of my debates with him, but he just ignores it when you bring up this sort of tripe? If I reply to you again, it will be to point this out whenever there’s another example of it.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/20/2008 2:25:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
The other posters in both of those threads refuted your posts on their first page


No, they didn't.

quote:


Why does Jhud always make a big deal when I bring up something that he considers off-topic in one of my debates with him, but he just ignores it when you bring up this sort of tripe? If I reply to you again, it will be to point this out whenever there’s another example of it.


I was merely responding to your off topic posts. You're the one that started going off topic. I've been yelled at by Jhud and other ID advocates / creationists for responding to off topic posts many times in the past, but I'm not the one who initiated the off topic posts here, I merely responded to your off topic posts. My posts were in response to your posts. Unless you don't like anyone responding to your posts.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/20/2008 3:03:55 PM)

quote:

No, they didn't.

Was that intentional irony? I have a hard time believing it wasn’t. Seriously, read my post that you’re replying to, and then look at your response. Am I actually supposed to believe this was something other than a joke?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/20/2008 3:20:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
Was that intentional irony? I have a hard time believing it wasn’t. Seriously, read my post that you’re replying to, and then look at your response. Am I actually supposed to believe this was something other than a joke?


I did read your post and they didn't refute it and I went into reasons as to why they weren't refuted. You said

quote:


replying to each of the other person’s posts a once-sentence quip like “No it wouldn't be”,


and I explained why it wouldn't be and gave examples of violations that were found in past trees that were simply reconciled by pushing the divergence point back. The only problem is that it doesn't get exposed to students in tax funded classrooms. They should be exposed to both sides of the issue and be allowed to decide for themselves which side to take, no one should be allowed to decide that criticisms of evolution should be censored from students because people like you may not be satisfied with them. The only reason why these criticisms are censored is because some committed naturalists know they are valid so they don't want students to be exposed to them. Otherwise, they would have no problem exposing them to students and refuting them, but the problem is that they can't refute them so they have a problem introducing them to students.



DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/20/2008 3:40:11 PM)

I'm very interested, what conclusions can we draw from the conversation of this thread? It seems we've pretty much discussed everything that can be discussed about the OP, what can we conclude?



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/21/2008 4:34:07 AM)

quote:

I'm very interested, what conclusions can we draw from the conversation of this thread? It seems we've pretty much discussed everything that can be discussed about the OP, what can we conclude?

Well, the one thing that Jhud and I seem able to agree on about this is that multiple mutations acting together can cause some pretty major changes in bacteria, although for the examples mentioned in my OP, these might have been regulatory mutations that changed the expression of existing code rather than creating new code. My second example involving drug resistance in HIV looks like it’s an example of the same thing resulting from multiple coding mutations, but I haven’t obtained the full text of that article yet, and I’m not sure I’m going to keep trying to get it now that Jhud has abandoned this thread. You sound like you’re in college, though (you mentioned something about your biology professor in another thread), so you might be able to access it yourself.

You seem like a rather interesting fellow—even though it sounds like you’re a creationist, it also sounds like your devotion to that belief doesn’t extend further than what can be consistent with physical evidence. These sorts of creationists are kind of rare; the only other one I’ve encountered at this forum who’s definitely the same way is Raptorman. I used to think Jhud was an example if this also, but after the way he suddenly changed his criteria for what could convince him the way I pointed out a few posts ago, I’m not so sure about it in his case.

Are there any other specific lines of evidence for evolution or creationism that you’d like to know more about? Even though there are some that I’m a lot less knowledgeable about then others (such as genetics), I don’t think there are any that I’m completely unfamiliar with.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/21/2008 1:04:12 PM)

quote:

You explained why Intelligent Design isn’t able to make predictions like these. It’s good you acknowledged that it isn’t able to, but I don’t think you can argue with the fact that if evolution can do this and ID can’t, this is a weakness in ID. One of the most basic measurements of a theory’s accuracy is its ability to predict future results. If you want some other examples of areas in which evolution has done this, I can provide them, but I won’t post them yet in case you’d consider that “off-topic” here.


Usually one requires a scientific theory to predict phenomena that it claims to address. For example, germ theory makes no predictions about the kinds of microorganisms we will find other than that we will find none that spontaneously generate. So it is not ‘weak’ because it make no such predictions.

ID doesn’t predict what sort of organisms we will find in terms of specific types because ID originated organisms aren’t dependent on the ordinary limits of nature in terms of organization and complexity.

And so that forms one prediction of ID; that if life is the product of intelligence, we should see change (In terms of complexity, rapidity, and specificity) that exceeds that which can be accounted for by unguided mechanisms.

And indeed we find such organisms; the first cells, the various explosions of life that have occurred a number of time in our history, the early complexity of the first living organisms – these all fulfill the prediction that if life is intelligently originated, it will not depend on gradualism or incidental modification.

Other predictions include the integral fidelity of the genome, the ubiquity of functionality throughout the genome, and the selective independent nature of information in the genome.

As well, when we consider corollaries to ID like front loading, we would expect to see significant antiquity to the complexity and functionality of the genome.

And I would add one more aspect, not often discussed, but in my mind much more important in terms of actual research is that as the cell is seen not as an incidental product of chance processes but instead the product of sophisticated and superior design, then we can begin to adopt the technologies found therein to create better technology of our own.

quote:

The point is that for the little while that you thought the flying penguins were real, you found them convincing—or at least you claimed to. It seemed to be your way of showing what type of biological change could theoretically convince you of evolution, if it were to actually exist. So you’re agreeing now that if the penguins actually existed, they probably wouldn’t meet your criteria, but you originally said that they would. In other words, your criteria changed. How is that not “moving the goalposts”?


I think you are putting a bit to much stock in what was an April fools joke both by BBC and myself. If the penguins could fly as depicted in the video, they not only would revise my understanding of how life changes, but also our primary understanding of physics.

quote:

And I tried to answer your question. To put it in a nutshell, while I don’t consider myself anything close to an expert on genetics, you’ve made it pretty clear that most of the time it’s the only aspect of evolution vs. ID that you’re interested in talking about. So if I’m going to debate with you about this at all (which I want to do, for reasons I explained), it’ll apparently have to be on the topic of genetics.


Well, not just me, but as genetics is at the heart of biological change, you should be fairly familiar with it (or at least confident of your own knowledge) before you go about debating the subject at all.

quote:

Incidentally, I’m going to try to get this article, but I’ve just realized that at the website I linked to I wouldn’t be paying to read it online—I’d be paying for it to be mailed to where I live (in the USA) from Europe. I think I might be able to get it more quickly if I ask my girlfriend to try and find it through her college, since she’s currently considered a biology major there and might have access to it. Even that probably won’t be possible until early next week, though. So if I don’t post anything from the article before then, it’s not because I’m trying to avoid this topic; it’s because of the difficulty involved in obtaining the article.


Like I said, I am perfectly willing to wait for more information; going off the cuff on these things really doesn’t advance understanding.



drmark -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/21/2008 1:04:20 PM)

quote:

Well, the one thing that Jhud and I seem able to agree on about this is that multiple mutations acting together can cause some pretty major changes in bacteria
But not enough to change them into different kinds of organisms, even after thousands of generations. E coli remain E coli, Pseudomonas remain Pseudomonas, retrovirus remain retrovirus. This is merely natural adaptation to artificially-induced environmental pressure with absolutely no evidence of progression to any more complex systems, organs, or lifefoms. IT AIN"T EVOLUTION!

quote:

Are there any other specific lines of evidence for evolution or creationism that you’d like to know more about?
Since evolution has never occurred, is not occurring now, and has essentially zero probability of occuring in the future, what possible "specific lines of evidence" do you have for us, Agahnim?!



Veritas -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/21/2008 3:39:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Well, the one thing that Jhud and I seem able to agree on about this is that multiple mutations acting together can cause some pretty major changes in bacteria
But not enough to change them into different kinds of organisms, even after thousands of generations. E coli remain E coli, Pseudomonas remain Pseudomonas, retrovirus remain retrovirus. This is merely natural adaptation to artificially-induced environmental pressure with absolutely no evidence of progression to any more complex systems, organs, or lifefoms. IT AIN"T EVOLUTION!

Evolution is not the progression to more complex, systems, organs, or lifeforms. Evolution nothing more or less than adapting to the environment.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/21/2008 3:42:40 PM)

quote:

Evolution is not the progression to more complex, systems, organs, or lifeforms. Evolution nothing more or less than adapting to the environment.


Though it is held up as the cause of the progression of lifeforms from simple to complex.



drmark -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/21/2008 4:10:05 PM)

quote:

Though it is held up as the cause of the progression of lifeforms from simple to complex.
Not merely "held up", Jack, but revered and even worshipped by naturalists as the goddess of evolution. Of course, we shouldn't forget the twin goddess of undeterminable time!



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/21/2008 4:38:52 PM)

quote:

Not merely "held up", Jack, but revered and even worshipped by naturalists as the goddess of evolution. Of course, we shouldn't forget the twin goddess of undeterminable time!


Yes, as we know, infinite time not only makes all things possible, but inevitable.



DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/21/2008 6:46:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

quote:

I'm very interested, what conclusions can we draw from the conversation of this thread? It seems we've pretty much discussed everything that can be discussed about the OP, what can we conclude?

Well, the one thing that Jhud and I seem able to agree on about this is that multiple mutations acting together can cause some pretty major changes in bacteria, although for the examples mentioned in my OP, these might have been regulatory mutations that changed the expression of existing code rather than creating new code. My second example involving drug resistance in HIV looks like it’s an example of the same thing resulting from multiple coding mutations, but I haven’t obtained the full text of that article yet, and I’m not sure I’m going to keep trying to get it now that Jhud has abandoned this thread. You sound like you’re in college, though (you mentioned something about your biology professor in another thread), so you might be able to access it yourself.

I am, I'll try to get it through interlibrary loan if I have to.
quote:


You seem like a rather interesting fellow—even though it sounds like you’re a creationist, it also sounds like your devotion to that belief doesn’t extend further than what can be consistent with physical evidence. These sorts of creationists are kind of rare; the only other one I’ve encountered at this forum who’s definitely the same way is Raptorman. I used to think Jhud was an example if this also, but after the way he suddenly changed his criteria for what could convince him the way I pointed out a few posts ago, I’m not so sure about it in his case.

At the risk of refuting an accolade, I'll disambiguate what you've said. I am willing to be corrected on anything that I believe, and I won't be convinced that something is proven unless it is proven by scripture and common reason. I don't care if the earth is 6,000 years old or not, but because scripture implies that it is, it's something that I'm going to believe until someone comes up with a valid exegesis of scripture that would demonstrate otherwise. Anyway, I've come to find that there are a lot of things that I used to staunchly believe because I thought that if they weren't true, then the Bible would be false. I've come to find that I was stupid to hold so tightly to pseudoscience. If God's word is true, science will show it to be true. That being the case, I openly admit to things that I don't understand even if the implications seem to contradict my understanding of the Bible. I appreciate the compliment, but don't be so hard on Jhud, I'm sure you two just had a misunderstanding.
quote:


Are there any other specific lines of evidence for evolution or creationism that you’d like to know more about? Even though there are some that I’m a lot less knowledgeable about then others (such as genetics), I don’t think there are any that I’m completely unfamiliar with.

Yeah, how can angiosperms and gymnosperms both independently develop C4 photosynthesis?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI