TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Bob Enyart Live > Bob Enyart Live
Reload this Page Real Science Friday: Stars in Galaxy Bulges "Look Too Perfect"
Bob Enyart Live Greetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#16) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
April 10th, 2012, 04:47 PM

Quote:
The evolutionist uses darwinian theory to say asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases. The reverse might be true instead. Asexual reproduction might mean greater resistance to parasites and disease.
Irish potato famine put the latter theory to rest. Monocultures, which are the results of asexual reproduction, are more vulnerable to parasites and disease.

It's not controversial. Even educated creationists admit the fact.





God bless us, every one.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#17) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
April 11th, 2012, 01:02 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
...asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases.
You assumption is that asexual reproduction was selected for by darwinian methods - that organisms are asexual because they are not susceptible to disease. The reverse might be true instead. Organisms are not susceptible to disease because they are asexual.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#18) Old
Yazichestvo Yazichestvo is offline
Over 500 post club
 Yazichestvo's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Yazichestvo is making a name for themselvesYazichestvo is making a name for themselvesYazichestvo is making a name for themselvesYazichestvo is making a name for themselvesYazichestvo is making a name for themselvesYazichestvo is making a name for themselvesYazichestvo is making a name for themselvesYazichestvo is making a name for themselves
April 11th, 2012, 01:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
You assumption is that asexual reproduction was selected for by darwinian methods - that organisms are asexual because they are not susceptible to disease. The reverse might be true instead. Organisms are not susceptible to disease because they are asexual.
Anything *might* be true. Doesn't make it an argument. So far, only Barbarian has given an example to support his case.

I'm very puzzled by your assertion as well, because it's hard for me to imagine sexual reproduction being created by anything other than evolution. The random shuffling and intermixing of alleles from two different specimens seems to serve little purpose, if not to take full advantage of the genetic diversity within a species. What other purpose could it serve?



   
Reply With Quote
  (#19) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
April 11th, 2012, 02:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yazichestvo View Post
Anything *might* be true. Doesn't make it an argument. So far, only Barbarian has given an example to support his case.
I read incorrectly the facts Barbarian presented. I don't disagree with them in any case.

What I do disagree with is the assumption of evolution. Barbarian presents the facts with the assumption that evolution produced what we see. It is then inherently irrational to use this explanation as evidence for evolution.

Quote:
I'm very puzzled by your assertion as well, because it's hard for me to imagine sexual reproduction being created by anything other than evolution.
And it's hard for me to imagine evolution doing it.

Quote:
The random shuffling and intermixing of alleles from two different specimens seems to serve little purpose, if not to take full advantage of the genetic diversity within a species. What other purpose could it serve?
Probably to take full advantage of the genetic diversity within a kind.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#20) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
April 11th, 2012, 05:42 AM

Quote:
What I do disagree with is the assumption of evolution. Barbarian presents the facts with the assumption that evolution produced what we see.
I look at piles of rocks at the bottom of cliffs with the assumption of gravity, too. For the same reasons.

Quote:
It is then inherently irrational to use this explanation as evidence for evolution.
Only a creationist could consider relying on evidence to be "irrational."





God bless us, every one.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#21) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
April 11th, 2012, 07:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
I look at piles of rocks at the bottom of cliffs with the assumption of gravity, too. For the same reasons.
When you find someone prepared to argue that gravity does not explain what we see, let us know.

Quote:
Only a creationist could consider relying on evidence to be "irrational."
You do not rely upon evidence, you rely upon your explanation and use it as if it were evidence.

The evidence is that asexually reproducing organisms are more likely to be badly affected by disease. Your explanation is that evolution selected those organisms to survive by reproducing this way that are not susceptible to disease. The reverse might well be the correct explanation instead. The reverse is organisms are not susceptible to disease because they are asexual.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#22) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
April 11th, 2012, 08:40 AM

Barbarian chuckles:
I look at piles of rocks at the bottom of cliffs with the assumption of gravity, too. For the same reasons.

Quote:
When you find someone prepared to argue that gravity does not explain what we see, let us know.
Seeing as no one here is peddling a new religion that is incompatible with gravity, that seems unlikely, doesn't it?

Barbarian observes:
Only a creationist could consider relying on evidence to be "irrational."

Quote:
You do not rely upon evidence, you rely upon your explanation and use it as if it were evidence.
That's a testable assertion. Go back and see what I do, when I disagree. If I usually make an unsupported assertion, you're right. If I usually cite evidence, you're wrong.

Barbarian observes:
The evidence is that asexually reproducing organisms are more likely to be badly affected by disease.

Quote:
Your explanation is that evolution selected those organisms to survive by reproducing this way that are not susceptible to disease.
No. Natural selection tends to favor sexually-reproducing organisms where parasitism and disease organisms are common. Quite a different thing.

Quote:
The reverse might well be the correct explanation instead. The reverse is organisms are not susceptible to disease because they are asexual.
The problem for you is, as usual, the evidence. We find that asexually-reproducing populations tend to be more vulnerable to disease.





God bless us, every one.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#23) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
April 11th, 2012, 09:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
That's a testable assertion. Go back and see what I do, when I disagree.
Typical. This is not about you disagreeing with anything. This is about you presenting your explanation as if it is evidence.

Perhaps you're just not capable of understanding that facts need to be presented within a rationally constructed argument in order to use them as evidence.

Quote:
We find that asexually-reproducing populations tend to be more vulnerable to disease.
In fact.

But it's how you explain the origins of this fact that is what makes your discourse irrational.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#24) Old
Bob Enyart Bob Enyart is online now
Gold level Subscriber
 Bob Enyart's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Bob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peers
April 21st, 2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:
(One small example: Most animals reproduce sexually, yet Darwinism would never predict sexual reproduction.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarian
In fact, Darwinian theory can accurately predict which sorts of organisms will reproduce asexually.
Turns out, asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases. For the rest of us, sexual reproduction works better to spread new resistance strategies and to keep old ones handy for future use.
Barbarian, the point was that evolution theory would not predict the existence of asexual reproduction. Creationists concur that there are benefits to sexual and asexual reproduction, and that there are good reasons for both. Since pointing out good reasons for sexual reproduction is something that both sides of the debate do equally, it is arbitrary for you to use that as fulfillment of an alleged prediction (postdiction ??) of evolution. So I think the point stands. The theory of evolution would NEVER predict that sexual reproduction would arise, especially considering all the wild complexity involved.

-Bob Enyart





The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#25) Old
Bob Enyart Bob Enyart is online now
Gold level Subscriber
 Bob Enyart's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Bob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peersBob Enyart is well respected by his peers
April 21st, 2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inzl Kett View Post
My husband is now hooked on this show. He went to kgov.com yesterday and listened to this show.
IK, please give him my regards. And I told Fred that we have a new listener! (Hey, we celebrate these things... one friend at a time

-Bob Enyart
Real Science Friday.com





The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#26) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
April 21st, 2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:
Barbarian, the point was that evolution theory would not predict the existence of asexual reproduction.
More precisely, it predicts which sorts of organisms should have one or the other. And it does a pretty good job of that.

Quote:
Creationists concur that there are benefits to sexual and asexual reproduction, and that there are good reasons for both. Since pointing out good reasons for sexual reproduction is something that both sides of the debate do equally, it is arbitrary for you to use that as fulfillment of an alleged prediction (postdiction ??) of evolution.
The difference, of course, is that evolutionary theory can explain why some organisms are asexual and others not. Where rapid reproduction in relatively constant environments is needed, asexual reproduction has an advantage. Where there is much change, and rapid reproduction is not needed, then sexual reproduction is better.

One odd case, that didn't make sense, was whiptail lizards, which should not be asexual, even though at least one species is. Then the reason became clear:

The new research by Baumann and his team reveal that these lizards maintain genetic richness by starting the reproductive process with twice the number of chromosomes as their sexually reproducing cousins. These celibate species resulted from the hybridization of different sexual species, a process that instills the parthenogenetic lizards with a great amount of genetic diversity at the outset. And the researchers found that these species could maintain the diversity by never pairing their homologous chromosomes (as sexual species do by taking one set of chromosomes from each parent) but rather by combining their sister chromosomes instead. "Recombination between pairs of sister chromosomes maintains heterozygosity" throughout the chromosome, noted the authors of the study, which was led by Aracely Lutes, a postdoctoral researcher in Baumann's lab.

This discovery, which had until now been unconfirmed in the reptile world, means that "these lizards have a way of distinguishing sister from homologous chromosomes," Baumann says. How do they do it? That's something the group is now investigating.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sexual-lizards

Quote:
So I think the point stands. The theory of evolution would NEVER predict that sexual reproduction would arise, especially considering all the wild complexity involved.
Probably wouldn't have predicted giraffes, either. But then physics wouldn't have predicted superconductivity until related phenomena were discovered. The important thing is that science can look at the evidence, come up with explanations, test them, and then use them to understand other things in nature.

It's not magic. It's just a way of understanding the world. And it works better for that, than anything else we can do.





God bless us, every one.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#27) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
April 21st, 2012, 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
More precisely, it predicts which sorts of organisms should have one or the other. And it does a pretty good job of that.
More precisely, the reproductive differences define what sort of features the population will have. As usual, the evolutionists will assert a causal relationship and use it as evidence for their evolution when the story is their explanation.

Quote:
The difference, of course, is that evolutionary theory can explain why some organisms are asexual and others not. Where rapid reproduction in relatively constant environments is needed, asexual reproduction has an advantage. Where there is much change, and rapid reproduction is not needed, then sexual reproduction is better.
Or else populations asexual populations tend to reproduce rapidly and sexual less so. And certain kinds might respond to a change in environment and switch between the two methods of reproduction.

Quote:
Probably wouldn't have predicted giraffes, either. But then physics wouldn't have predicted superconductivity until related phenomena were discovered. The important thing is that science can look at the evidence, come up with explanations, test them, and then use them to understand other things in nature.
Suddenly, when it suits him, Barbarian thinks science can do things.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#28) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
April 21st, 2012, 10:20 PM

Quote:
Typical. This is not about you disagreeing with anything. This is about you presenting your explanation as if it is evidence.
But the evidence does show this to be true:

Genetic diversity and disease control in rice
Nature 406, 718-722
Youyong Zhu, Hairu Chen, Jinghua Fan1, Yunyue Wang1, Yan Li1, Jianbing Chen1, JinXiang Fan2, Shisheng Yang3, Lingping Hu4, Hei Leung5, Tom W. Mew5, Paul S. Teng5, Zonghua Wang5 & Christopher C. Mundt5,6
Crop heterogeneity is a possible solution to the vulnerability of monocultured crops to disease1, 2, 3. Both theory4 and observation2, 3 indicate that genetic heterogeneity provides greater disease suppression when used over large areas, though experimental data are lacking. Here we report a unique cooperation among farmers, researchers and extension personnel in Yunnan Province, China—genetically diversified rice crops were planted in all the rice fields in five townships in 1998 and ten townships in 1999. Control plots of monocultured crops allowed us to calculate the effect of diversity on the severity of rice blast, the major disease of rice5. Disease-susceptible rice varieties planted in mixtures with resistant varieties had 89% greater yield and blast was 94% less severe than when they were grown in monoculture. The experiment was so successful that fungicidal sprays were no longer applied by the end of the two-year programme. Our results support the view that intraspecific crop diversification provides an ecological approach to disease control that can be highly effective over a large area and contribute to the sustainability of crop production.


Quote:
Perhaps you're just not capable of understanding that facts need to be presented within a rationally constructed argument in order to use them as evidence.
Surprise. Did you really think I couldn't back it up? C'mon, this has been known for well over a hundred years.

Barbarian observes:
We find that asexually-reproducing populations tend to be more vulnerable to disease.

Quote:
But it's how you explain the origins of this fact that is what makes your discourse irrational.
At least one species of whiptail lizards, for example, recently became asexual. Which was a challenge for scientists, because that should have made them vulnerable to disease, because of the loss of variation.

And then it was discovered that they were quadraploid, and by not sorting the chromosomes, were maintaining a high level of genetic diversity. And the theory was again confirmed.

Are you beginning to suspect that not knowing what you're talking about, is causing you problems, Stipe?

Probably not.





God bless us, every one.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#29) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
April 21st, 2012, 10:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
But the evidence does show this to be true:
Typical evolutionist. Use the general term "this" to import your own idea instead of responding to what I said.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
stripe non-science


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.