PDA

View Full Version : Evolution Inhibits Science Progress



bob b
May 14th, 2004, 08:05 AM
Marshall, Fletcher, and Davies, “Hyperactive antifreeze protein in a fish,” Nature 429, 153 (13 May 2004); doi:10.1038/429153a.

Creationist commentary:
Another wonderful discovery, all the more interesting for the last line: “The evolutionary relationship between our 5a-like antifreeze protein and type I AFP, which also contains short tracts of alanine, remains to be solved.”
Here is an example of “junk DNA” proving to be functionally important. Based on Darwinian assumptions, scientists had dismissed the gene as a degenerating relic of a gene duplication event sometime in the fish’s prehistory. Such a mindset is proving to be a hindrance to the advance of science (see 05/10/2004 headline).

Nineveh
May 14th, 2004, 08:21 AM
I was just reading an article about "junk DNA" last night. All that time, effort, and money wasted to finally reach square 1 (it's there for a reason). How far might they be assuming it had a purpose to begin with?

Jukia
May 14th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Looks to me like science is now addressing the issue so what is your problem? Oh, I see, further investigation is a hinderance. Now I get it.

Dimo
May 14th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Jukia posted:

Looks to me like science is now addressing the issue so what is your problem? Oh, I see, further investigation is a hinderance. Now I get it.

Dimo:

Yes Jukia. Bob and the authors of this see anything that does not support their view as a hindrance to science.

Stratnerd
May 14th, 2004, 07:00 PM
Here is an example of “junk DNA” proving to be functionally important. So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function? Probably not. So if it was evolutionary biologists that discovered the function how did their evolutionary presuppositions come into play here? Creationist logic is lacking... again.

Dimo
May 14th, 2004, 09:43 PM
What Bob is missing is that the term "junk" DNA is a simplification. In some cases no function has been found. In others the function is not apparent at first. In others the functionality is regressive. In others cases the functionality is only a potential for the future.

At any rate if one truly understands the nature of genetics they also understand that using the term "junk" is an oversimplification.

bob b
May 15th, 2004, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function? Probably not. So if it was evolutionary biologists that discovered the function how did their evolutionary presuppositions come into play here? Creationist logic is lacking... again.

Since you asked nicely I will answer.

Evolutionists have been saying for years that non-coding (for proteins) DNA is "junk", leftovers that have accumulated from random mutations during millions of years of evolution from a primitive protocell.

Creationists on the other hand have been saying for years that the so-called "junk" DNA undoubtedly has a function that simply has not been discovered as yet, and that it would be a good idea to stop calling it "junk" and get to work finding out what its function is.

Most evolutionists have ignored this advice, but fortunately a few less dogmatic individuals have not, and lo and behold, functions are now rapidly being discovered as the "logjam" in thinking has been weakened.

Of course, the same thing happened in the case of antibiotic resistence which originally had been thought to have been due to random mutation, but which is now known to be anything but random.

Let us hope less dogmatic young researchers take these lessons to heart and stop following the siren song of "random mutations", and so get to work in earnest finding out how the marvellous features of lifeforms really operate.

Stratnerd
May 15th, 2004, 10:56 AM
I asked "So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function?"

I'll take it from your answer that you meant to that creationist had nothing to do with the discovery. Do you have evidence otherwise? You made it sound as if the researchers heard the call of creationists - do you have any evidence of this?

Or do you think that the evidence itself (e.g., the constancy of sequences amongst taxa) begged the question? And as good scientists would do, they tried to answer?

Instead of making accusations please provide some shred of evidence.

YawgmothsAvatar
May 16th, 2004, 07:59 PM
You know what hinders science even more? Religion.

Take Galileo. He thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Church disagreed and threatened to kill him.

If literal intrepretists of the Bible had gotten their way, then we would still think the universe was centered on Earth.

Turbo
May 16th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

You know what hinders science even more? Religion.

Take Galileo. He thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Church disagreed and threatened to kill him.
Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian.


If literal intrepretists of the Bible had gotten their way, then we would still think the universe was centered on Earth.
The Bible doesn't state that any more than your weatherman does.

YawgmothsAvatar
May 17th, 2004, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian.


The Bible doesn't state that any more than your weatherman does.
He may have said he was, but when you are being threatened with torture and execution, you will say anything.

Josh 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,

Psalms 93:1
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

I'll call my weatherman just to check.

Dimo
May 17th, 2004, 11:21 AM
Bob B posted:

Evolutionists have been saying for years that non-coding (for proteins) DNA is "junk", leftovers that have accumulated from random mutations during millions of years of evolution from a primitive protocell.

Dimo:

That is not entirely correct. It is not "junk". That is an oversimplification. DNA effects enzyme production. Slight modifications to DNA can create large changes in these enzymes. Large modifications in DNA may produce little or no enzyme changes. The overall effect of all this is much too intricate and complex to explain here. However, the concept of "junk" DNA is a word that the laymen has grasped onto, because some genotype changes lead to little or no changes in the phenotype. This communication problem is created by the knowledge gap between genetics experts and the laymen. And YECs like yourself like to hold this out and say "Look evolutionists have been wrong all along".

Bob B posted:

Creationists on the other hand have been saying for years that the so-called "junk" DNA undoubtedly has a function that simply has not been discovered as yet, and that it would be a good idea to stop calling it "junk" and get to work finding out what its function is.

Dimo:

Is that so? Which creationists have said this?

Bob B posted:

Most evolutionists have ignored this advice, but fortunately a few less dogmatic individuals have not, and lo and behold, functions are now rapidly being discovered as the "logjam" in thinking has been weakened.

Dimo:

I would like to see some evidence for this claim. Like a testimony from those who freed up the "logjam", that this freedom of thinking is because of the YEC influence on science.

Bob B posted:

Of course, the same thing happened in the case of antibiotic resistence which originally had been thought to have been due to random mutation, but which is now known to be anything but random.

Dimo:

In this case it turns out that this is due to a type of Lamarckian mechanism. Newer research is showing evidence that Lamarkian concepts make a great deal of sense when it comes to simpler organisms, or organs and organelles found in more complex organisms.

Do you have evidence that this is actually due to pressures placed on research by YECs?

Bob B posted:

Let us hope less dogmatic young researchers take these lessons to heart and stop following the siren song of "random mutations", and so get to work in earnest finding out how the marvellous features of lifeforms really operate.

Dimo:

And they will have a much greater chance of this if they steer clear of the YEC mentality; "That some questions in the material sciences just cannot be answered , because they are the result of the supernatural."

Free-Agent Smith
May 17th, 2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Galileo was a Bible-believing Christian.

I do believe it was the Pope who threatened Galileo

YawgmothsAvatar
May 17th, 2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

I do believe it was the Pope who threatened Galileo
Alexander VII, I believe. He ended up house arresting Galileo even after he renounced heliocentricity.

Stratnerd
May 17th, 2004, 08:28 PM
> was just reading an article about "junk DNA" last night.

it was because of evolutionary we thought there was a function!

Free-Agent Smith
May 17th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

Alexander VII, I believe. He ended up house arresting Galileo even after he renounced heliocentricity.

A web search revealed that it was Pope Paul IV issued him a warning in the name of the Church and that Pope Urban VIII seemingly persecuted him.
It was part of the Inquisition so it couldn't have been anything nice.





Galileo's persecution (http://www.crs4.it/Ars/arshtml/galileo3.html)

YawgmothsAvatar
May 18th, 2004, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Agent Smith

A web search revealed that it was Pope Paul IV issued him a warning in the name of the Church and that Pope Urban VIII seemingly persecuted him.
It was part of the Inquisition so it couldn't have been anything nice.





Galileo's persecution (http://www.crs4.it/Ars/arshtml/galileo3.html)
My bad. Alexander VII banned all books on heliocentricity, which was a precursor to that. I guess I just saw it from my source (http://www.crs4.it/Ars/arshtml/galileo3.html) and thought it was different.

bob b
May 18th, 2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

I asked "So it was a bunch of creationists that discovered the function?"

I'll take it from your answer that you meant to that creationist had nothing to do with the discovery. Do you have evidence otherwise? You made it sound as if the researchers heard the call of creationists - do you have any evidence of this?

Or do you think that the evidence itself (e.g., the constancy of sequences amongst taxa) begged the question? And as good scientists would do, they tried to answer?

Instead of making accusations please provide some shred of evidence.

You are in deep denial.

"One hypothesis about the junk is that these chromosomal regions are trash heaps of defunct genes, sometimes known as pseudogenes, which have been cast aside and fragmented during evolution. Evidence for a related hypothesis suggests that the junk represents the accumulated DNA of failed viruses. Yet another hypothesis is that the junk DNA provides a reservoire of sequence from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge. "

Dimo
May 18th, 2004, 04:24 PM
Bob B posted:

"One hypothesis about the junk is that these chromosomal regions are trash heaps of defunct genes, sometimes known as pseudogenes, which have been cast aside and fragmented during evolution. Evidence for a related hypothesis suggests that the junk represents the accumulated DNA of failed viruses. Yet another hypothesis is that the junk DNA provides a reservoire of sequence from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge. "

Dimo:

Bob, please provide the author of this qoute.

If each one of these hypotheses were partially true, would that make "junk" DNA actually junk?

Come on Bob think about this logically. I mean really now does it have to only one of these that is true? Can you just put your black or white thinking down for a little and consider that these are actually different parts of one hypotheses regarding DNA that is apparently useless under current conditions.

Again I disagree with your methodology of discerning what is accurate.

Or has your level of competence fallen that low?

Turbo
May 19th, 2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

He may have said he was, but when you are being threatened with torture and execution, you will say anything.

Oddly, he didn't recant his belief that the earth revolved around the sun. :rolleyes:

Galileo's Christian beliefs are well documented. Do you have any evidence that that suggests that he was not a Christian?


Originally written by Galileo

"I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."

"[Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood."

"And in St. Augustine we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"

Church vs. Galileo (http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2001/jan05.html)
What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html)




Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar
Josh 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,
This was a miraculous event, but it's most likely that the sun and moon were still relative to the observer.

Psalms 93:1
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.Do you think that verse mean that even God cannot move the world?


Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

I'll call my weatherman just to check.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 is precisely the verse I was alluding to when I mentioned your weatherman. Do you scoff when your weatherman mentions what time sunrise and sunset were for the day?

Jukia
May 20th, 2004, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by Turbo



This was a miraculous event, but it's most likely that the sun and moon were still relative to the observer.


Want to explain that? The sun and the moon were "still relative to the observer"? Does it not mean that either the earth stopped rotating or that all of a sudden for a time, the moon and the sun started moving relative to the earth such that their relative postions compared to the earth were static?
Either way seems to violate a number of the laws of physics.

Turbo
May 20th, 2004, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Want to explain that? The sun and the moon were "still relative to the observer"? Does it not mean that either the earth stopped rotating or that all of a sudden for a time, the moon and the sun started moving relative to the earth such that their relative postions compared to the earth were static?I have no way of knowing for sure.

Either way seems to violate a number of the laws of physics. That's why it's called a miracle (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=miracle). :doh:

An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

God is supernatural. He is not bound by the laws of nature.

Jukia
May 20th, 2004, 05:24 AM
Silly me to look for a logical explanation. Guess that is the difference between us, huh? If it is in the Bible you say "Gotta be", I say "Maybe, lets look a little closer".

Turbo
May 20th, 2004, 05:27 AM
Yes, because I have been persuaded by the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is true. It wasn't so long ago I was an agnostic evolutionist.

Are you this skeptical about Christ's resurrection, too? Or the other miracles performed by Jesus?

Jukia
May 20th, 2004, 05:37 AM
Not skeptical re the resurrection, not sure about the other miracles although I really like the water to wine at Cana.

YawgmothsAvatar
May 20th, 2004, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Oddly, he didn't recant his belief that the earth revolved around the sun. :rolleyes:

Galileo's Christian beliefs are well documented. Do you have any evidence that that suggests that he was not a Christian?



Church vs. Galileo (http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2001/jan05.html)
What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html)




This was a miraculous event, but it's most likely that the sun and moon were still relative to the observer.
Do you think that verse mean that even God cannot move the world?


Ecclesiastes 1:5 is precisely the verse I was alluding to when I mentioned your weatherman. Do you scoff when your weatherman mentions what time sunrise and sunset were for the day?



[Galileo] was pronounced to be vehemently suspect of heresy and was condemned to life imprisonment and was made to abjure formally.

"Galileo." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2004. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
20 May 2004 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=108035>.

a. It is not unreasonable to conclude that if one was threatened with tortune and death by one's religious institution, then one might lose faith in it.
b. The Church nevertheless indefinatly imprisoned him. Whether he was Christian or not doesn't change this.

All those responses you made were not LITERAL intrepretations of the passages.

bob b
May 20th, 2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

"Galileo." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2004. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
20 May 2004 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=108035>.

a. It is not unreasonable to conclude that if one was threatened with tortune and death by one's religious institution, then one might lose faith in it.
b. The Church nevertheless indefinatly imprisoned him. Whether he was Christian or not doesn't change this.

All those responses you made were not LITERAL intrepretations of the passages.

Serious historical accounts of the Galileo Affair give a different picture of the situation.

I researched this once using a number of serious history books dedicated to covering the "affair", and they all agreed that the fame of Galileo and the power of his supporters protected him from the usual treatment given lesser personages by the Inquisition.

His "house arrest" was in a castle of a friend and supporter of his and he continued to see visiters and to add to his many works, even though by this time he was an old man in poor health.

BTW, the pope at that time was an earlier friend of his, although his continual defiance of papal orders caused the former warm friendship to cool.

Here is some information from my previous research.


Many authors agree that the Inquisition was brought to bear against Galileo primarily due to the atmosphere in that time period of challenge to the authority of the church. A more adept politician might have avoided such a conflict, but Galileo overestimated the power of his fame and friendships ( even with the pope) and underestimated the power of his enemies, particularly the Jesuits. Galileo also made the mistake of attempting to show that scripture did not refute his teachings, thus directly challenging the authority of the church to interpret scripture. In addition, the simpleton character in Galileo's newly published Dialogue was widely understood to represent the pope, causing his former friend to become his enemy and setting the stage for his later interrogation, forced confession and recantation. The bible verses shown below were used by his opponents to argue that the scriptures teach that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around it.
A. Psalm 93:7 - The Lord reineth. He is clothed with majesty and strength. The world also is established that it cannot be moved. 4

B. Joshua 10:12-13 - ..."Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon". And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. 2

C. Psalm 19:4-6 - In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun. Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber. Rejoicing as a giant in running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven. And his circuit unto the ends of it. And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. 4

D. Ecclesiastes 1:5 - The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place. 4



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources
1. Ronan, Colin A., Galileo, 1974, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York
2. Brodrick, James S.J., Galileo, The Man, His Work, His Misfortunes, 1964, Harper & Row
3. De Santillana, Giorgio, The Crime of Galileo, 1955, University of Chicago Press
4. Reston, James Jr., Galileo, A Life, 1994, Harper Collins

Turbo
May 20th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

Not skeptical re the resurrection,Why not?

Also, do you believe that the Gospel writers accurately quoted and/or paraphrased Jesus? In other words, did Jesus actually say the things in the Gospels which are commonly printed in "red letters"?

Turbo
May 20th, 2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by YawgmothsAvatar

All those responses you made were not LITERAL intrepretations of the passages. Not all verses are meant to be interpretted in a woodenly literal manner. The Bible is full of figures of speech, as is our everyday speech.

Do you agree that weather reporters commonly use the expressions "sunrise" and "sunset" even though they know better?

Do you ever refer to "sunrise" or "sunset" when you communicate with others?

Dimo
May 20th, 2004, 05:00 PM
Turbo posted this definition of miracle, with which I agree.

"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God."

Dimo:

Turbo, did you notice the two words "appears inexplicable"?

There are two reasons why an event might "appear inexplicable by the laws of nature".

1.) It is supernatural, and can never be explained by the laws of
nature.

2.) It is beyond our current understanding of the laws of nature, and
will eventually fall under our understanding of the laws of
nature.

The track record for option number 2 is much better than the track record for option number 1.

Turbo
May 20th, 2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by bob b

In addition, the simpleton character in Galileo's newly published Dialogue was widely understood to represent the pope, causing his former friend to become his enemy and setting the stage for his later interrogation, forced confession and recantation. I've heard that many people thought that "Simpleton" represented the pope, but I've also heard that the character actually represented Aristotle. That makes a lot of sense, but I can't remember if Galileo actually stated that anywhere. Do you know, bob b?

Dimo
May 20th, 2004, 05:06 PM
Turbo posted:

Not all verses are meant to be interpretted in a woodenly literal manner. The Bible is full of figures of speech, as is our everyday speech.

Dimo:

I agree. That is what makes it such a valuable text to use as a referrence for hope, justice, and morality.

Turbo posted:

Do you agree that weather reporters commonly use the expressions "sunrise" and "sunset" even though they know better?

Dimo:

Yes. So it is possible that when Jesus referred to the six days of creation he could have been using it metaphorically.

Turbo posted:

Do you ever refer to "sunrise" or "sunset" when you communicate with others?

Dimo:

Yes. Just like I often referr to the six days of creation and don't specify that it is metaphorical, when referring to truths about the origins of our human consciousness.

YawgmothsAvatar
May 20th, 2004, 07:57 PM
I was under the impression that Encyclopedia Brittanica was a reliable source. Apparently I was gravely mistaken. :rolleyes:



Not all verses are meant to be interpretted in a woodenly literal manner. The Bible is full of figures of speech, as is our everyday speech.

Do you agree that weather reporters commonly use the expressions "sunrise" and "sunset" even though they know better?

Do you ever refer to "sunrise" or "sunset" when you communicate with others?

Well, since I am not a literal intrepritist of the Bible, my opinion on that doesn't really apply to this question, does it?

YawgmothsAvatar
May 20th, 2004, 07:58 PM
Sorry, double post.

bob b
May 21st, 2004, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

I've heard that many people thought that "Simpleton" represented the pope, but I've also heard that the character actually represented Aristotle. That makes a lot of sense, but I can't remember if Galileo actually stated that anywhere. Do you know, bob b?

As far as I know Galileo never stated that anywhere, but recognizing the life long distain he had for Aristotle's scientific ideas (including geocentrism) I would agree that Aristotle was probably what Galileo had in mind. Of course his enemies would have pushed the Pope identification as a way of driving a further wedge between the two former friends, the initial wedge being Galileo's goof in writing a letter to his friend the Pope "instructing" him like a schoolboy on the "proper" interpretation of the verses of scripture some church officials had used to "prove" geocentrism.

Skeptic
August 24th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by bob b

Such a mindset is proving to be a hindrance to the advance of science If anything is a hindrance to the advance of science it is the unfounded absurd creationist notion than the universe and life forms supernaturally poofed into existence fully formed.

Science does not have all of the answers. It is terribly naive to think humans ever will posses all of the answers. Yet, it hardly makes any sense to believe that a old book of fairy tales and superstitions, that was written by relatively ignorant religious folks centuries ago, has all of the answers, or any of the answers for that matter.

Jukia
August 24th, 2004, 02:12 PM
Skeptic:
You are wasting your breath (or your key strokes). Fundamentalists are happy in their position. They need investigate no further.

Skeptic
August 24th, 2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

Skeptic:
You are wasting your breath (or your key strokes). Fundamentalists are happy in their position. They need investigate no further. I'm a hopeless optimist. I still believe that reason has the power to knock some sense into people - even those who have made up their minds.

jjjg
August 24th, 2004, 04:01 PM
That is why I wanted to discuss Galileo under the heading in philosophy. I will argue that Galileo had little in terms of advancing astronomy and the problems he had with the church were caused by several factors.

docpotato
August 24th, 2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I was just reading an article about "junk DNA" last night. All that time, effort, and money wasted to finally reach square 1 (it's there for a reason). How far might they be assuming it had a purpose to begin with?

Hey Nineveh!

I just found a long stick with a point at one end. What do you assume it is?

We are not at square 1! We know that some of it is not Junk which means we know more than we did before. It also means that we KNOW THIS and are not just ASSUMING IT!