User Tag List

Page 94 of 114 FirstFirst ... 448491929394959697104 ... LastLast
Results 1,396 to 1,410 of 1708

Thread: Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

  1. #1396
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,244
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 3,626 Times in 2,198 Posts

    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147743
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings View Post
    These aren't fully functional legs. Nobody but yourself had said as much.
    Saying it doesn't make it so, Greg.

    The thing walks and steps over obstacles. In what way are they less than fully functioning as legs?

    You are projecting what you want onto as admitted best-guess animation.
    I'm projecting nothing. No one, and I mean not one single scientist on this planet disputes the science behind that animation.

    As they said, this is the only way WE can understand what's going on in our cells. That doesn't mean it actually happens exactly that way. Quantum level is simply too small
    This is just wishful thinking on your part. The fact is that it does actually happen that way or very nearly so. That's what makes the animation so remarkable. He didn't just make it up. This isn't some example of a fancy cartoon based on pure theory. They know very precisely just how these proteins fold and unfold, what shape they are and why they are that shape and how they accomplish the tasked they are used for. It is chemistry. And, as I said earlier, Quantum Mechanics, has nothing to do with it. Quantum Mechanics operates almost entirely on the subatomic level, not the molecular level. These molecular machines are several orders of magnitude bigger than things that are governed by Quantum Mechanics. It's chemistry, well established, well understood chemistry not theoretical sub-atomic physics.

    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2018),Tambora (February 15th, 2018)

  3. #1397
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,593
    Thanks
    375
    Thanked 391 Times in 304 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    241740
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Saying it doesn't make it so, Greg.

    The thing walks and steps over obstacles. In what way are they less than fully functioning as legs?


    I'm projecting nothing. No one, and I mean not one single scientist on this planet disputes the science behind that animation.


    This is just wishful thinking on your part. The fact is that it does actually happen that way or very nearly so. That's what makes the animation so remarkable. He didn't just make it up. This isn't some example of a fancy cartoon based on pure theory. They know very precisely just how these proteins fold and unfold, what shape they are and why they are that shape and how they accomplish the tasked they are used for. It is chemistry. And, as I said earlier, Quantum Mechanics, has nothing to do with it. Quantum Mechanics operates almost entirely on the subatomic level, not the molecular level. These molecular machines are several orders of magnitude bigger than things that are governed by Quantum Mechanics. It's chemistry, well established, well understood chemistry not theoretical sub-atomic physics.

    Clete
    Well Mr. Clete it appears we are reaching an impasse that cannot be bridge between us. No scientist would agree that molecular legs are real legs

  4. #1398
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,244
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 3,626 Times in 2,198 Posts

    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147743
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings View Post
    Well Mr. Clete it appears we are reaching an impasse that cannot be bridge between us. No scientist would agree that molecular legs are real legs
    Liar.

    The translation of your post is... "I got nothin'!"

    If you had any cojent response to the argument at all, it would take an act of God Himself to keep you from shouting from the roof tops.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 13th, 2018),patrick jane (February 15th, 2018),Tambora (February 15th, 2018)

  6. #1399
    Over 4000 post club JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    4,561
    Thanks
    13,228
    Thanked 3,763 Times in 2,406 Posts

    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1598869
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings View Post
    Because intracellular machinery often operates on a quantum scale.

    Do you understand how that differs from normal, everyday life?
    Explaining complexity with even greater complexity. Funny how that works...

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    patrick jane (February 15th, 2018),Tambora (February 15th, 2018)

  8. #1400
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,578
    Thanks
    992
    Thanked 3,374 Times in 2,045 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1318576
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly
    So if you have no problem with the possibility of non-functional sequences, why is the notion of neutral mutations such an issue for you?
    Haha... ask yourself and Greg why it's such a big deal. Why are you trying so hard to prove neutral mutations exist when it's impossible to prove. When geneticists graph all mutations on the negative side of zero, why do you want some mutations to be totally neutral?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days
    You started your discussion on microsats trying to prove neutral mutations exist. You seem to have come full circle and now argue that mutations even on' junk' can be detrimental to our genome.
    One thing you need to understand about biology is that things are rarely black/white, all-or-none.

    Some mutations to non-functional sequences will be neutral, some will be negative, and some will be beneficial.
    Then, that is what you should have answered instead of trying to be cute with the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly

    I mean...the paper you linked to described all that. Didn't you read it?
    The papers I cited refuted your argument of no function. You obviously had not read them.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 14th, 2018),patrick jane (February 15th, 2018),Tambora (February 15th, 2018)

  10. #1401
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,593
    Thanks
    375
    Thanked 391 Times in 304 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    241740
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Liar.

    The translation of your post is... "I got nothin'!"

    If you had any cojent response to the argument at all, it would take an act of God Himself to keep you from shouting from the roof tops.
    Then find me a scientist who agrees with you. Put up or shut up time

  11. #1402
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,593
    Thanks
    375
    Thanked 391 Times in 304 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    241740
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Explaining complexity with even greater complexity. Funny how that works...
    Yep. Science, particularly at the microscopic scale, defies physics as we are used to them.

    For example: some small molecules can sometimes go straight through a solid barrier. Other times they act normally. It's a vast and largely incomprehensible world even still

  12. #1403
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,244
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 3,626 Times in 2,198 Posts

    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147743
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings View Post
    Then find me a scientist who agrees with you. Put up or shut up time
    The scientist who made that video.

    Done.

    Good bye.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (February 15th, 2018)

  14. #1404
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,335
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 1,576 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275865
    Well Mr. Clete it appears we are reaching an impasse that cannot be bridge between us. No scientist would agree that molecular legs are real legs
    Even if they are, the evidence is that transport kinesins evolved from simpler motor kinesins.

    Exp Cell Res. 2015 May 15; 334(1): 6169.
    Mitosis, Microtubule Dynamics and the Evolution of Kinesins
    Juan Jesus Vicente and Linda Wordeman
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433793/
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  15. #1405
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,026
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 568 Times in 406 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183367
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Haha... ask yourself and Greg why it's such a big deal. Why are you trying so hard to prove neutral mutations exist when it's impossible to prove.
    Funny....after all this time you still don't understand the basics of science.

    When geneticists graph all mutations on the negative side of zero, why do you want some mutations to be totally neutral?
    ?????? Who said I want anything to be any certain way? It's quite simple...if we both agree that non-functional sequences can exist, then obviously a mutation to those sequences that doesn't cause them to start functioning will be a neutral mutation. But apparently you didn't think that through.

    The papers I cited refuted your argument of no function. You obviously had not read them.
    Um....what? I recommend you actually read the paper.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  16. #1406
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,335
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 1,576 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275865

    Patterns of kinesin evolution reveal a complex ancestral eukaryote with a multifunctional cytoskeleton

    Bill WicksteadEmail author, Keith Gull and Thomas A Richards

    BMC Evolutionary Biology 201010:110
    Abstract
    Background

    The genesis of the eukaryotes was a pivotal event in evolution and was accompanied by the acquisition of numerous new cellular features including compartmentalization by cytoplasmic organelles, mitosis and meiosis, and ciliary motility. Essential for the development of these features was the tubulin cytoskeleton and associated motors. It is therefore possible to map ancient cell evolution by reconstructing the evolutionary history of motor proteins. Here, we have used the kinesin motor repertoire of 45 extant eukaryotes to infer the ancestral state of this superfamily in the last common eukaryotic ancestor (LCEA).
    Results

    We bioinformatically identified 1624 putative kinesin proteins, determined their protein domain architectures and calculated a comprehensive Bayesian phylogeny for the kinesin superfamily with statistical support. These data enabled us to define 51 anciently-derived kinesin paralogs (including three new kinesin families) and 105 domain architectures. We then mapped these characters across eukaryotes, accounting for secondary loss within established eukaryotic groupings, and alternative tree topologies.
    Conclusions

    We show that a minimum of 11 kinesin families and 3 protein domain architectures were present in the LCEA. This demonstrates that the microtubule-based cytoskeleton of the LCEA was surprisingly highly developed in terms of kinesin motor types, but that domain architectures have been extensively modified during the diversification of the eukaryotes. Our analysis provides molecular evidence for the existence of several key cellular functions in the LCEA, and shows that a large proportion of motor family diversity and cellular complexity had already arisen in this ancient cell.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Jose Fly (February 14th, 2018)

  18. #1407
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,026
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 568 Times in 406 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183367
    Well there ya' go... @Clete claimed that scientists have no idea how those "molecular legs" evolved, yet as we see above, they do.

    In the normal world that would settle things. But then, here we are.....
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  19. #1408
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,335
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 1,576 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275865
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Haha... ask yourself and Greg why it's such a big deal. Why are you trying so hard to prove neutral mutations exist when it's impossible to prove. When geneticists graph all mutations on the negative side of zero,
    Why lie about something so easy to refute?

    Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 14;6:32700. doi: 10.1038/srep32700.
    An APOC3 3'UTR variant associated with plasma triglycerides levels and coronary heart disease by creating a functional miR-4271 binding site.
    Hu SL1, Cui GL1, Huang J1, Jiang JG1, Wang DW1.

    Abstract

    Apolipoprotein C-III (APOC3) is a key regulator of plasma triglycerides levels. Increasing evidence has shown that loss-of-function mutations in APOC3 is associated with reduction in plasma triglycerides levels and will confer a benefit in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease. However, these favorable mutations were extremely distribution discrepant among different ethnics.


    why do you want some mutations to be totally neutral?
    "Harmful", "neutral", and "favorable" only have meaning in terms of environment. So the mutation that allows Tibetans to survive at very high altitudes will be favorable on the Tibetan plateau, but will be neutral or possibly even slightly harmful at lower altitudes. "Neutral" mutations are then neutral only with regard to the environment in which they happen to exist.

    If I balance a long stick on a narrow board, it is never perfectly balanced. It almost certainly has more mass on one side than the other. But not enough so as to make a difference. Suppose we say a tip to the right would be favorable. Since it won't tip, we call it neutral, but it's not exactly so. It could have a bit more on the right (very slightly favorable) or a bit more on the left (very slightly unfavorable)

    As the paper above demonstrates, your claim is false. You know it's false. Please try to argue honestly in the future.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  20. #1409
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,335
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 1,576 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275865
    I think we actually got somewhere this time. Maybe we can talk about the way molecular biology has evolved.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  21. #1410
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,244
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 3,626 Times in 2,198 Posts

    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147743
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Even if they are, the evidence is that transport kinesins evolved from simpler motor kinesins.

    Exp Cell Res. 2015 May 15; 334(1): 61–69.
    Mitosis, Microtubule Dynamics and the Evolution of Kinesins
    Juan Jesus Vicente and Linda Wordeman
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433793/
    If anyone wonders why I don't regularly debate evolution, the above post is an excellent example of why.

    It really is as if evolutionists just do not understand the point. What point, you ask? ANY point! It doesn't seem to matter what argument is presented, they just do not get it!
    I used to think it was an act, that they did get the point of whatever argument had been presented and that responses like the one above was some sort of tactic designed to obfuscate and confuse the audience and/or their opponent. I don't think that any more. I think that, if The Barbarian is reading this, that up until I explain it, he won't have a clue what the hell I'm talking about. As he reads this sentence, he'll be confused and almost dumbfounded at what I've said up to this point and unless I spell it out, he won't have any idea what I'm getting at.

    But don't think I'm intending to pick on him specifically. It's something wrong with the way evolutionists think, because they all seem to do it. Seemingly every debate I've ever seen about evolution has some point in it where the evolutionists does this sort of thing where they respond to something as if the debate is about some specific detail when its really about something much bigger and more general and where they think that if they move the discussion to even the slightest different detail, that they've avoided being damaged by the argument against them. And I mean that precisely. They think that they can avoid being crushed to powder if all they do is take the focus off of one detail and move it to another. It's gotta be some sort of mental disorder (not really - it just feels that way).


    Barbarian, the argument isn't about any specific motor protein nor is it really about motor proteins at all.

    Just watch the video! I know you already have, but watch it again and then go find similar ones on YouTube and watch those. I know that its not really possible for you to do this but try to watch them from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in evolution and try to keep track of how many things someone from that perspective could use in an argument identical to the one made by me in this thread. I didn't have to pick legs. I didn't have to focus on motor proteins. I could have picked any of a dozen or more different molecular machines and organizational structures in just that short 9 minute video.

    I picked legs to focus on for two reasons. First of all, because legs are an easy to understand idea. I don't have to explain to anyone what legs are or what they're for. Secondly, it was an item near the end of the video and I wanted to make sure that people saw most if not all of the video. It wasn't because legs are super complex and require precision, clock work like intricacies to work. Quite the contrary, in fact. And yet here you show up with the equivalent of "legs evolved from simpler legs"! Can you not see how that doesn't address the issue at all? Do you think that the gears and springs in a watch evolved from simpler gears and springs?

    I mean, first of all, even the most complex kinesin molecule isn't that complex to begin with but even if it were, it doesn't matter! Take the simplest form of motor protien (Kinesin or otherwise) that you want to look at and it does exactly the same amount of damage to the theory of evolution as the ones depicted in the video I presented. Your worldview is still blown to bits. All you're doing is rejecting dynamite in favor of TNT with which to do the demolition. And if you don't like TNT then pick C4, which in this context might be the microtubuals inside the cell or the little proteins that the DNA molecule is wrapped around to make a chromosome or the chromosome itself or maybe that little machine that takes apart and then copies DNA or any number of a thousand different things in every single cell that must not only exist but function properly and contribute to the replication of itself or else the whole organism dies.

    Clete
    Last edited by Clete; February 15th, 2018 at 08:15 AM.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 15th, 2018),patrick jane (February 15th, 2018),Tambora (February 15th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us